SECTOR ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK FORM
Organophosphate and carbamate use in home gardens
Introduction
In this assessment the EPA has documented its understanding of how organophosphate and
carbamate insecticides (the substances) are used in home gardens in New Zealand (your sector),
This assessment is based on publicly available information and feedback from your sector that the
EPA has received so far. When complete, this sector assessment will form part of the EPA’s formal
application for reassessment of the substances.
To help complete the assessment, we need your input.
This document contains:
 A profile of your sector
 Some information on your sector’s use of the substances, including information on alternatives that
home gardeners may use
 A preliminary assessment of the risks associated with using the substances
 Possible options for managing the risks of using the substances
We acknowledge this document is not complete. Where there are gaps in our data please
include information to help us fully understand the current situation. We have put some
specific questions in grey boxes throughout the document for you to answer.
We ask that you:
 Correct inaccuracies and provide us with additional information about your sector by editing this
document using “tracked changes” or printing the document out and writing onto it.
 Change or add information about major pests and insecticide use patterns, in the tables that we
have started to populate.
 Answer the questions about your research, pest management programmes, proposed controls,
and the impacts the loss of the substances would have on your sector.
 Suggest additional or alternative management options (controls) that would be practical and
effective.
May 2012
2
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Sector profile
Surveys conducted within the last decade show that gardening continues to be a significant activity for
many New Zealanders.
In 2007 43% of all New Zealand adults were reported to participate in gardening at least once a year
and showed that gardening has the second highest participation rate of any sport or recreation
activity1. The same study indicated that expenditure on gardening constituted 0.5% of weekly
household expenditure. Earlier studies placed a dollar value on annual gardening expenditure in New
Zealand and on the purchase of home pesticides (Table 1) 2.
Table 1 National Expenditure ($ millions/year )2
Year
2001
2004
Total household expenditure on gardening
$402.10
$465.92
$6.17
$7.98
Spend (in the above) Fungicides, Garden pesticides and oils
spend
Sector demographics
Gardening is a popular pastime and the type of garden and the intensity with which people garden
varies enormously. The Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand3 notes that “home gardening in the 21st
century is more varied, but less labour-intensive, than at any time before”. With regard to vegetable
gardening “In the early 2000s, those who grew vegetables generally did it as a choice, often based on
their desire for pesticide-free food, rather than out of economic necessity.” The last decade has seen
a trend towards low maintenance gardens, increased interest in vegetable gardening and a desire to
use less pesticides, especially in the edible garden.
While these are trends followed by the “average gardener” a significant number of enthusiasts
continue to join species specific societies such as Rose (33 throughout the country), Orchid, Daffodil,
Iris, Cactus and Succulent societies and numerous Garden circles. Plant societies allow enthusiasts
to learn more about the culture of their chosen plant and also engage in competitions to grow and
present the best plant or flower. While the “average gardener” is reputedly moving to fewer
conventional pesticides those gardeners intent on winning competitions access a wider range of
pesticides in their pursuit of perfect specimens.
One of the reasons for gardening’s continuing popularity may be due to the effect it has on many
people. Recent studies suggest gardening can improve mood, reduce stress, and even encourage a
more hopeful outlook on life4, 5 . In one study, researchers found that gardening can be therapeutic,
particularly among those suffering from depression4. Gardening is likely to remain a significant
activity for many New Zealanders even as property sizes decrease.
May 2012
3
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Approach to pest management
Pest management systems
It is important to understand how your sector manages the use of insecticides.
1. Describe the systems you have in place to regulate insecticide use. Comment on any
sector-wide programmes or private standards used by growers, and estimate what
percentage of your sector follows these practices. Please reference or attach your
sources.
Organophosphate and carbamate use
We are interested in the pests for which organophosphate and/or carbamate use is critical to your
sector. Table 2 lists the active ingredients we understand are used in your sector. Please indicate
which of these active ingredients you are and are not using, and add rows to include information for
other organophosphates and carbamates that are being used but are not captured in the table.
We also need you to tell us for which pests the use of organophosphates and carbamates is critical,
and which are able to be managed using alternatives.
Please highlight the pests that are of most concern to your sector.
Table 2: Organophosphates and carbamates used in the home garden6
1
Insect pests
Chemical
group
Active
ingredient
Ants
OP
Diazinon
Kiwicare lawngard
prills
Aphids
Op
Acephate
Mc Gregors rose and
shrub spray
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Diazinon
Mc Gregors general
purpose insect spray
Pirimiphos
methyl
Target1
Examples of products
In use (Y/N)
Critical
(Y/N)
Target contains two chemicals Pirimiphos-methyl & permethrin - an organophosphate and a synthetic
pyrethroid
May 2012
4
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Insect pests
Chemical
group
Active
ingredient
Examples of products
Maldison
Kiwicare Maldison
insect control
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
OP
Maldison
Kiwicare Maldison
insect control
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
OP
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Diazinon
Kiwicare lawngard
prills
Op
Maldison
Kiwicare Maldison
insect control
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
Carrot rust fly
OP
Diazinon
Yates Soil Insect Killer
Caterpillars
Op
Acephate
Mc Gregors rose and
shrub spray
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Pirimiphos
methyl
Yates Target
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
Op
Acephate
Mc Gregors rose and
shrub spray
Pirimiphos
methyl
Target
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
OP
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Diazinon
Yates Soil Insect Killer
Pirimiphos
methyl
Yates Target
OP
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
OP
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Army worm
Beetles
Bumble bees
and Black field
crickets
Codling Moth
Grass grubs
Greasy cut
worm
Leaf hopper
May 2012
In use (Y/N)
Critical
(Y/N)
5
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Chemical
group
Active
ingredient
Op
Pirimiphos
methyl
Target
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
Op
Pirimiphos
methyl
Yates Target
Diazinon
Mc Gregors general
purpose insect spray
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
Millipedes/
slaters/
centipedes
OP
Diazinon
Kiwicare lawngard
prills
Nematodes and
soil insects
OP
Diazinon
Yates soil insect killer
Pears slug
OP
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Porina
OP
Diazinon
Yates Soil Insect Killer
Pirimiphos
methyl
Yates target
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Diazinon
Mc Gregors general
purpose insect spray
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Maldison
Kiwicare Maldison
insect control
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
Scale
OP
Diazinon
Mc Gregors general
purpose insect spray
Shield bugs
OP
Maldison
Kiwicare Maldison
insect control
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
Spider mites
OP
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Thrips
OP
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Diazinon
Mc Gregors general
purpose insect spray
Maldison
Kiwicare Maldison
insect control
Pirimiphos
Target
Insect pests
Leaf Roller
Caterpillar
Mealy bug
Psyllids
May 2012
OP
Examples of products
In use (Y/N)
Critical
(Y/N)
6
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Insect pests
Chemical
group
Active
ingredient
Examples of products
Critical
In use (Y/N)
(Y/N)
methyl
Whitefly
Carbamate
carbaryl
Kiwicare Carbaryl
insect control
Op
Chlorpyrifos
Super Spectrum
Pirimiphos
methyl
Yates Target
Maldison
Kiwicare Maldison
insect control
OP
Non organophosphate and carbamate use
Table 3 lists the non-organophosphate/carbamate insecticides used in the home garden against the
same pests as the organophosphates and carbamates listed in Table 2. These substances are
considered to be possible alternatives. Please indicate which active ingredients you are and are not
using, and add information for those that are being used but are not captured in the table.
Table 3: Non-organophosphates/carbamates used in the home garden against identified pests6
Insect pests
Chemical
group
Aphids
Active ingredient
Examples of products
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Tau-fluvalinate
Mavrik, Yates Mavrik
Insect & Mite Spray, Yates
Supershield Rose Spray
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Nature’s Way Pyrethrum
Boric acid
Kiwicare No ants gel bait or
Boric acid
&sodium borate
Kiwicare No ants liquid bait
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Permethrin
Kiwicare no ants
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Deltamethrin
Kiwicare no bugs super
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Bifenthrin
Kiwicare ant sand
Sodium borate &
boric acid
Yates Neverong,
McGregors bye bye ants
Deltamethrin
Kiwicare no bugs super
Ants
Beetles
May 2012
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Active being
used (Y/N)
7
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Insect pests
Chemical
group
Active ingredient
Examples of products
Pyrethrins
Nature’s Way Pyrethrum
Permethrin.
Kiwicare no borer spray,
Kiwicare no borer solvent
based
Macrocyclic
lactone
Spinosad
Yates Success Naturalyte
Insect Control
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Tau-fluvalinate
Yates Mavrik Insect & Mite
Spray
Biological
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Nature’s Way Pyrethrum
Biological
Rotenone
Nature’s way Derris Dust
Biological
Bacillus
thuringienis
Organic catepillar bio
control
Macrocyclic
lactone
spinosad
Yates Success Naturalyte
Insect Control
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Tau-fluvalinate
Yates Mavrik Insect & Mite
Spray
Biological
Rotenone
Nature’s way Derris Dust
Corn ear worm
Biological
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Nature’s Way Pyrethrum
Cut worms
Biological
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Yates Insect Gun Ready
To Use
Flies and insects
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Alphacypermethrin
McGregors bye byebugs
Green vegetable
bug
Macrocyclic
lactone
Spinosad
Yates Tomato Dust
Biological
Rotenone
Nature’s way Derris Dust
Pyrethrins
Yates Insect Gun Ready
To Use, Nature's Way Fruit
& Vegie Gun, Natures Way
Pyrethrum
Tau-fluvalinate
Yates Mavrik Insect & Mite
Spray
Borers
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Cabbage white
butterfly and
catepiller
Catepillars
Leaf hopper
Biological
pyrethroid
Synthetic
pyrethroid
May 2012
Active being
used (Y/N)
8
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Insect pests
Chemical
group
Active ingredient
Examples of products
Tau-fluvalinate
Yates Supershield Rose
Spray, Yates Mavrik Insect
& Mite Spray
Macrocyclic
lactone
Spinosad
Yates Success Naturalyte
Insect Control
Chloronicotinyl
Imidacloprid
Yates Confidor Garden
Insecticide
Biological
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Nature’s Way Pyrethrum
Chloronicotinyl
Imidacloprid
Yates Confidor Insecticide
Millipedes/
slaters/
centipedes
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Deltamethrin
Kiwicare no bugs super
Mites
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Tau-fluvalinate
Mavrik
Sulphur
Tui mite and mildew control
Fatty acids
Yates Mite Killer
Tau-fluvalinate
Yates Mavrik Insect & Mite
Spray, Yates Supershield
Rose Spray
250g/litre fatty
acids
Yates nature’s way insect
and mite spray
Spinosad
Yates Tomato dust
Dazomet
Yates Basamid
Chloronicotinyl
Imidacloprid
Yates Confidor Insecticide
Macrocyclic
lactone
Spinosad
Yates Success Naturalyte
Insect Control
Biological
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Nature's Way Insect Gun,
Natures Way Pyrethrum
Oil
Petroleum oil
Yates Bug Oil Conqueror
Oil Insect Spray Ready To
Use
Chloronicotinyl
Imidacloprid
Yates Confidor Insecticide
Leaf Roller
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Mealy bug
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Macrocyclic
lactone
Nematodes and
other soil insects
Pear and cherry
slug
Scale
May 2012
Active being
used (Y/N)
9
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Insect pests
Chemical
group
Active ingredient
Examples of products
Thrips
Oil
Petroleum oil
Yates Bug Oil Conqueror
Oil Insect
Biological
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Nature's Way Fruit & Vegie
Gun, Nature’s Way
Pyrethrum
Chloronicotinyl
Imidacloprid
Yates Confidor Insecticide
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Alphacypermethrin
Mc Gregors Bye Bye Bugs
Synthetic
pyrethroid
Tau-fluvalinate
Mavrik
Chloronicotinyl
Imidacloprid
Yates Confidor Garden
Insecticide (Sachets)
Biological
pyrethroid
Pyrethrins
Nature’s Way Pyrethrum,
Nature's Way Fruit & Vegie
Gun
Whitefly
Active being
used (Y/N)
In addition to these chemicals a number of “organic” insecticides and cultural methods are suggested
by garden writers . Examples8 include

“Hand picking. Use gloves and remove all visible offending pests.

Smearing oil on a yellow plastic lid can be effective against smaller insects. They are
attracted to the bright yellow colour, then get stuck in the oil.

Pheromone traps are a great way to control pests such as codling moth. The trick is timing;
the traps need to be put out to coincide with breeding patterns, so do some research first.

Tobacco water: Place a large handful of tobacco into 4 litres of warm water. Let stand for 24
hours. Apply with a spray bottle.

Hot peppers: Blend 2 or 3 very hot peppers, 1/2 onion and 1 clove garlic in 4 litres of water,
boil, steep for two days and strain.

Garlic: Mix 4 litres of water, 2 Tbsp (30 ml) garlic juice (do not use garlic powder as it will burn
the plants), 1 and 1/5 ounces (30 grams) of diatomaceous earth (see below), and 1 tsp (5 ml)
rubbing alcohol

Soap: Use only pure soap, as detergents will damage your plants. Liquid soaps: 2 Tbsp (30
ml) per litre of water. Dry soaps: 1/5 oz (5 grams) per litre of water. “
Efficacy of organic alternatives relies on removal of the target insect or preventing its establishment
on the target plant. Most organic approaches require high levels of commitment and persistence to be
effective. These methods are often difficult for time poor home gardeners to maintain at the required
level.
May 2012
10
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
2. What is the basis of your choice of active ingredients to manage your critical pests? Be
specific about the efficacy and cost differences between options.
The majority of pests listed have non organophosphates and carbamates available that will control them.
Notable exceptions include porina, grass grub, carrot rust fly and codling moth. Failure to control these
pests in the garden will lead to lawn damage (porina and grass grub), ornamental leaf damage (grass
grub), restriction of rust free carrots to the South Island (carrot rust fly) and result in damaged apples
(codling moth).
3. Tell us about pest control research undertaken by your sector, and any trials
underway or completed that would reduce your reliance on organophosphates and
carbamates. This could include a description of cultural or chemical control methods
that have been tried in the past and met with mixed success, or that are being
investigated currently. If you have identified alternatives please give us a timeline for
when they will be available for use (reference or attach sources).
4. List pests that are likely to pose a future threat to your sector, and comment on what is being
used to combat them elsewhere. This could include existing and potential pests.
May 2012
11
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Modelling risks on current use
Table 4 summarises our understanding of your sector’s use patterns for organophosphates and
carbamates. These use patterns are the basis for our preliminary risk assessment. Use patterns were
drawn from label statements as well as from industry feedback.
The EPA has only assessed the risks for the use patterns it has information about. Uses will
be restricted to those described in Table 4 unless we receive further information from your
sector.
If your use patterns are different to those shown in Table 4, please amend the table. Please indicate
which rows are incorrect or not relevant to your sector. If rows in Table 4 are incomplete, please
complete them. If you have use patterns not covered by any of the rows in the table, please add extra
rows to describe the additional use pattern.
May 2012
12
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Table 4: Organophosphate and carbamate use data in home gardens
In the final column please indicate whether the scenario is relevant in your sector.
Key: Indicate Relevant , Not relevant X, Relevant as modified ().
You may modify a scenario using tracked changes so that we can see how it differs from the original, or add a row into the table.
Use
scenario
number
Application
rate
(g/ha)
Application
frequency
Liquid
100
1
0.01
Industry data
Liquid
100
1
0.01
Knapsack
Industry data
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Industry data
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
scale
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Industry data
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
6
crawlers
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Industry data
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
7
mealy bug
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Industry data
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
8
leaf roller
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Industry data
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
9
caterpillars
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Industry data
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
10
Aphids
Acephate
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
46.56
2
14
0.01
11
Aphids
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
125
1
12
Aphids
Diazinon
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
480
4
Pest
Active
ingredient
Application
method
1
Caterpillars
Acephate
Knapsack
Industry data
2
Aphids
Acephate
Knapsack
3
Aphids
Pirimiphosmethyl
4
Psyllids
5
May 2012
Source of use
information
Formulation
type
Application
interval
(d)
Application
area (ha/day)
0.01
7
0.01
Critic
al
use?
Y/N
13
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Use
scenario
number
Application
rate
(g/ha)
Application
frequency
Application
interval
(d)
Application
area (ha/day)
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
Maldison
Knapsack
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
Beetles
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
125
1
18
Bumble bees
Maldison
Knapsack
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
19
Black field
crickets
Maldison
Knapsack
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
20
Bumble bees
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
21
Black field
crickets
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
22
Caterpillars
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
23
Caterpillars
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
24
Codling moth
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
475
4
5
0.01
25
Codling moth
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
26
Grass grub
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
27
Grass grub
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
475
4
28
Greasy cut
worm
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
29
Greasy cut
worm
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
30
leaf hopper
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
31
leaf roller
caterpillar
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
475
4
Pest
Active
ingredient
Application
method
13
Aphids
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Label
14
Aphids
Maldison
Knapsack
15
Aphids
Carbaryl
16
Army worm
17
May 2012
Source of use
information
Formulation
type
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
0.01
0.01
7
0.01
0.01
5
0.01
Critic
al
use?
Y/N
14
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Use
scenario
number
Application
rate
(g/ha)
Application
frequency
Application
interval
(d)
Application
area (ha/day)
2400
4
7
0.01
Liquid
50
6
7
0.01
Label
liquid
480
4
7
0.01
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
Porina
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Label
Liquid
50
6
38
Porina
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
0.01
39
Psyllids
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
0.01
40
Spider mites
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
0.01
41
Thrips
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
0.01
42
Whitefly
Chlorpyrifos
Knapsack
Label
Granule
125
1
0.01
43
Porina
Diazinon
Knapsack
Label
liquid
480
4
7
0.01
44
Scale
Diazinon
Knapsack
Label
liquid
480
4
7
0.01
45
Thrips
Diazinon
Knapsack
Label
liquid
480
4
7
0.01
46
Psyllids
Maldison
Knapsack
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
47
Shield bugs
Maldison
Knapsack
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
48
Thrips
Maldison
Knapsack
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
49
Whitefly
Maldison
Knapsack
Label
powder
1500
4
7
0.01
50
psyllids
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
51
Shield bugs
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
2400
4
7
0.01
Pest
Active
ingredient
Application
method
32
leaf roller
caterpillar
Carbaryl
Knapsack
Label
powder
33
Mealy bugs
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Label
34
Mealy bugs
Diazinon
Knapsack
35
Mealy bugs
Carbaryl
36
Pear slug
37
May 2012
Source of use
information
Formulation
type
0.01
7
0.01
Critic
al
use?
Y/N
15
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Use
scenario
number
Application
rate
(g/ha)
Application
frequency
Application
interval
(d)
Application
area (ha/day)
Liquid
50
6
7
0.01
Label
Liquid
50
6
7
0.01
Handheld
granule
application
Plant and Food
Report
Granule
5000
1
0.01
Carbaryl
Handheld
granule
application
Plant and Food
Report
Granule
Unknown
1
0.01
Range of pests
Chlorpyrifos
Handheld
granule
application
Industry data
Granule
1100
1
0.01
57
Chewing and
sucking pests
Maldison
Handheld
granule
application
Industry data
Granule
Unknown
1
0.01
58
Ants
Diazinon
Handheld
granule
application
Industry data
Granule
5000
1
0.01
59
Beetles
Diazinon
Handheld
granule
application
Industry data
Granule
5000
1
0.01
60
Millipedes
Diazinon
Handheld
granule
application
Industry data
Granule
5000
1
0.01
61
Slaters
Diazinon
Handheld
granule
application
Industry data
Granule
5000
1
0.01
62
Centipedes
Diazinon
Handheld
granule
application
Label
Granule
5000
1
0.01
63
Nematodes and
soil insects
Diazinon
Handheld
granule
application
Industry data
Granule
5000
1
0.01
Pest
Active
ingredient
Application
method
52
Thrips
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
Label
53
Whitefly
Pirimiphosmethyl
Knapsack
54
Grass grub
Diazinon
55
Chewing and
sucking pests
56
May 2012
Source of use
information
Formulation
type
Critic
al
use?
Y/N
16
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Use
scenario
number
64
Pest
Active
ingredient
Application
method
Porina
Diazinon
Handheld
granule
application
May 2012
Source of use
information
Industry data
Formulation
type
Granule
Application
rate
(g/ha)
Application
frequency
5000
1
Application
interval
(d)
Application
area (ha/day)
0.01
Critic
al
use?
Y/N
17
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Risks
Overview
The EPA has evaluated the risks to human health of a range of people: from operators (assuming that
operators are knowledgeable about the risks from pesticides) who are wearing different levels of
protective equipment through to toddlers playing in a treated area after application (bystanders).
Risks to the environment have also been assessed. We have assessed the risks to birds and bees.
Risks to the aquatic environment were not assessed as it was assumed that there would not be any
spraydrift from handheld applications of these insecticides. All risk assessment results in this
document should be considered preliminary as they may change with additional feedback. The final
risk assessment results will be presented in the reassessment application.
Results are described as risk quotients (RQs). RQs compare predicted exposure with maximum
concentrations that will not cause adverse effects. All risk quotients have been normalised so that
RQs above 1 are of concern, and require management.
Risk modelling
This section summarises our understanding of the risks of organophosphates and carbamates based
on modelling of the risks to human health and the environment.
Figures 1 and 2 show the maximum and minimum risk quotients for your sector’s use of each active
ingredient.
May 2012
18
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Figure 1: Maximum Risk Quotients (the black line indicates the level of concern)
10000
1000
100
10
Max of Operator (gloves)
1
Max of Bystander
0.1
Max of Birds
0.01
Max of Bees
0.001
Figure 2: Minimum Risk Quotients (the black line indicates the level of concern)
1000
100
10
1
Min of Operator (gloves)
Min of Bystander
0.1
0.01
0.001
May 2012
Min of Birds
Min of Bees
19
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Maximum RQ values across your sector’s range of use scenarios are shown in Figure 1. These are
worst-case scenarios generally indicating high application rates and frequency. If the maximum RQ is
less than one, no additional risk management is needed, but if the RQ is greater than one, risk
management will be needed for at least some uses.
The minimum RQs depicted in Figure 2 indicate the best-case scenarios across your sector’s use of
these substances i.e. the lowest rates and safest formulations. Substances for which the minimum
RQ is greater than one for one or more uses require risk management. Please note that irrespective
of RQ values estimated here the EPA recommends that users always read the product label and
follow all safety instructions to minimise exposures.
Information and assumptions used for modelling risks can be found in the accompanying Background
Document. For this sector assessment the EPA have assessed the risks to children entering a treated
area immediately after application. This was done using the same methodology as used for the
bystander exposure assessment (page 12-14 of the background document) however, excluding the
spraydrift fraction.
Incident reports
The EPA received data from the National Poisons Centre (NPC) about the number of calls that they
have received about human exposures to organophosphate and carbamates for the period 1 July
2002 – 18 October 2011.
In total the NPC received 371 calls related to OP and carbamate exposures in humans of which the
majority (72 % ) were regarding exposures at home. Of the calls to the poisons centre regarding
organophosphate and carbamate exposures in the home 74 calls (27 %) involved children under 10
years old while 150 calls (55 %) involved a referral to a medical professional. The outcome of these
medical referrals is unknown.
While it cannot be assumed that all of these calls related to OPs and carbamates used in the home
garden (for example, some could have been related to veterinary medicines or insect control in the
home), it does indicate that storing or using OP or carbamates at home can result in inadvertent
human exposures.
Overseas status of organophosphates and carbamates
The status in the USA, Canada, the European Union (EU) and Australia of the organophosphates and
carbamates used in New Zealand is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Overseas status of organophosphates and carbamates registered for home garden use in New Zealand
May 2012
20
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Australia
US
Canada
EU
Acephate
No
Yes (in very
limited
circumstances)
No
No
Carbaryl
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Chlorpyrifos
Yes
No
Yes (in very limited
circumstances)
No
Maldison
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pirimiphos Methyl
Yes
No
No
No
Diazinon
Yes
No
No
No
May 2012
21
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Possible risk management options
Table 6 Controls table
Substance
Chemical class identification
Acephate (Liquid,
Knapsack)
Yes
Carbaryl (Handheld
granule application)
Yes
Carbaryl (powder,
Knapsack)
Yes
Chlorpyrifos
(Handheld granule
application)
Yes
Wear chemical resistant
gloves
100
Concerns still exist for:
Children re-entering treated
areas
Unknown application rate so
cannot assess risk
2400
1100
Chlorpyrifos
(Granule,
Knapsack)
Yes
Chlorpyrifos
(Liquid, Knapsack)
Yes
Diazinon (Handheld
granule application)
Yes
Yes
Diazinon (Liquid,
Yes
Yes
May 2012
Maximum application rates (g
a.i./ha)
Children re-entering treated
areas, bees
Children re-entering treated
areas
125
125
5000
Operators, Children re-entering
treated areas, birds
480
Children re-entering treated
22
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Substance
Chemical class identification
Wear chemical resistant
gloves
Maximum application rates (g
a.i./ha)
Knapsack)
areas, birds, bees
Maldison
(Handheld granule
application)
Yes
Maldison (powder,
Knapsack)
Yes
Pirimiphos-methyl
(Liquid, Knapsack)
Yes
May 2012
Concerns still exist for:
Unknown application rate so
cannot assess risk
1500
Children re-entering treated
areas, bees
475
Children re-entering treated
areas
23
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
All three organophosphates and the one carbamate used in home gardens and for which risk
modelling has been possible, have RQs that exceed levels of concern. For carbaryl and maldison
where information on application rates is missing, the EPA will assume risks greater than the level of
concern. In most sectors, additional controls can reduce risks, but suitable controls have not been
identified for the home garden. For example, operators commonly use additional personal protective
equipment (PPE) or equipment controls to reduce risk in commercial application situations; but use of
these cannot be relied upon in the home garden. This is recognised overseas, for example, the EPA
notes that in the United Kingdom approval cannot be given for any pesticide product used in the home
garden sector where the use of PPE is required to ensure the risk to users is within acceptable limits 9.
The above modelling indicates that the highest human health risks are to children re-entering a
treated area and the highest environmental risks are to birds. In an agricultural setting risks to
bystanders could be managed by excluding them from the application area or implementing buffer
zones, neither of which are considered practical in the home garden setting. However, information
about either Dislodgeable Foliar Residues (DFR) and foliar half-lives or appropriate information from
overseas assessments might enable the EPA to revise the risk assessment.
The EPA has identified no other controls that would reduce the risks to bystanders or birds other than
preventing access by removing the approvals of substances sold into the home garden market.
The foregoing assessment is based on risks modelled using our current understanding of home
garden use of organophosphate and carbamate substances. Data you provide on use patterns,
alternative risk information and additional controls will help us to re-evaluate this risk
assessment.
We know that many of these substances have significant benefits, and the final decision on their
future use will consider their risks, costs and benefits.
What is the impact?
We need your input about the impact of phase out of these substances. If you believe that phase out
is not warranted we need information on the benefits provided by these substances and we need
suggestions for practical controls that will reduce human and environmental exposure.
Be specific
In the questions below we are asking you to indicate what economic impact phase out of a substance
would have. Much of the feedback that we have received to date has included generalisations such
as, “without organophosphates our crop would be decimated”. This feedback is useful to give us an
idea of the nature and extent of the problem, but we need more information to help us understand the
effect of the changes on your sector.
5. How would the loss of any of the substances in Table 2 affect you? Please provide
May 2012
24
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
information separately for each substance.
6. Comment on how any impacts would change with time. Would the impact be short
term or long term, and would the effects increase or decrease over time?
Alternative options to manage risks
Unless the benefits of use are shown to outweigh the risks, we may propose phase-out to manage the
risks of organophosphate and carbamate use in home gardens. We are interested in any alternative
measures to manage these risks which may be more appropriate.
7. Please suggest other control measures to reduce the risks of using organophosphates and
carbamates. Provide us with specific details which will enable us to evaluate the impact of
your proposals. For example include details of reduced exposure that would be achieved by
lowering application rates to a specified amount, or reducing applications to an identified
number. Explain what mix of management techniques and/or alternative substances you
would prefer to use. Make sure that you explain which substances the controls would apply
to, and if they are stand-alone measures or implemented as a suite of controls.
Substance
Proposed risk management option
How this would reduce risks
8. How effective would your alternative management strategy be in terms of pest
May 2012
25
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
control?
9. How would your alternative options affect yield and costs? Please show your
workings and use average per annum figures.
10. Comment on how any impacts of your alternative risk management strategy would
change with time. Would the impact on yield and value of implementing your strategy
be short term or long term, and would the effects increase or decrease over time?
We welcome all feedback.
Please respond by 10 September 2012 either:
 Through your industry body, or
 Directly to the EPA by emailing reassessments@epa.govt.nz or
 faxing to OP Reassessment 04 914 0433
May 2012
26
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Sources
1 2007
Sport and Recreation New Zealand survey
2 2004
Household Economic Survey Statistics New Zealand
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/HouseholdEconomi
cSurvey_HOTPYeJun04.aspx
3
Encyclopaedia of New Zealand http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/gardens
4 Therapeutic
horticulture in clinical depression: a prospective study. Gonzalez, M.T., Hartig, T., Patill,
G.G., et al. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As, Norway. Research and Theory for Nursing
Practice 2009; 23(4):312-28.
5
Gardening promotes neuroendocrine and affective restoration from stress. Van Den Berg, A.E.,
Custers, M.H. Wageningen University and Research Center, The Netherlands. Journal of Health
Psychology 2011 Jan; 16(1); 3-11.
6 New
7
Zealand Novachem Agrichemical Manual website www.novachem.co.nz
Three New Zealand garden product web sites http://www.tuigarden.co.nz/tui-seed-potatoes ,
http://www.yates.co.nz/products , www.mcgregors.co.nz/
8
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/take-action/green-your-life/garden-pests/
9
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/Resources/CRD/Migrated-
Resources/Documents/A/Amateur20use20guidance202.pdf
May 2012
27
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Appendix B
Table 7: Risk quotients from modelling risks of using organophosphates and carbamates on home gardens
Use scenario
number
Operator (Normal
work wear)
Operator (Normal
work wear and
gloves)
Re-entry children
Birds Min RQ
Birds max RQ
Bees
1
0.88
0.16
10
0.014
0.56
1.7
2
0.88
0.16
10
0.014
0.56
1.7
3
0.022
0.015
3.1
0.52
20
26
4
0.022
0.015
3.1
0.52
20
26
5
0.022
0.015
3.1
0.52
20
26
6
0.022
0.015
3.1
0.52
20
26
7
0.022
0.015
3.1
0.52
20
26
8
0.022
0.015
3.1
0.52
20
26
9
0.022
0.015
3.1
0.52
20
26
10
0.41
0.073
6.5
0.026
0.16
0.78
11
0.005
0.0014
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
12
2.6
0.56
150
43
250
110
13
0.022
0.015
3.1
1.8
11
26
14
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
15
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
16
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
May 2012
28
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Use scenario
number
Operator (Normal
work wear)
Operator (Normal
work wear and
gloves)
Re-entry children
Birds Min RQ
Birds max RQ
Bees
17
0.005
0.0014
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
18
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
19
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
20
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
21
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
22
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
23
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
24
0.022
0.015
3.1
1.8
11
26
25
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
26
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
27
0.022
0.015
3.1
1.8
11
26
28
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
29
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
30
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
31
0.022
0.015
3.1
1.8
11
26
32
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
33
0.0023
0.0016
0.32
0.18
1.1
2.8
34
2.6
0.56
150
43
250
110
May 2012
29
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Use scenario
number
Operator (Normal
work wear)
Operator (Normal
work wear and
gloves)
Re-entry children
Birds Min RQ
Birds max RQ
Bees
35
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
36
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
37
0.0023
0.0016
0.32
0.18
1.1
2.8
38
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
39
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
40
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
41
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
42
0.0017
0.0013
0.25
0.69
4.3
42
43
2.6
0.56
150
43
250
110
44
2.6
0.56
150
43
250
110
45
2.6
0.56
150
43
250
110
46
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
47
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
48
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
49
0.1
0.052
7.7
0.56
3.6
150
50
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
51
0.35
0.18
27
0.048
2
340
52
0.0023
0.0016
0.32
0.18
1.1
2.8
May 2012
30
APP201045 Home Garden Sector Assessment
Use scenario
number
Operator (Normal
work wear)
Operator (Normal
work wear and
gloves)
Re-entry children
Birds Min RQ
Birds max RQ
Bees
53
0.0023
0.0016
0.32
0.18
1.1
2.8
54
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
55
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
56
Not calculated
Not calculated
2.2
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
57
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
58
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
59
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
60
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
61
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
62
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
63
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
64
Not calculated
Not calculated
680
9.8
3100
May 2012