> Do the amount used records have any way of correlating how much was
> used on each acre of land and/or what crops were being grown?
i'm not sure if you mean: is there a record of what was applied to each
individual acre of land; if so, the answer is no . . . the record says
that on a certain date, a certain quantity of a specific pesticide was
applied to a certain acreage of a certain crop
> In California and New Jersey, do these requirements extend to the use
> of herbicides (which are in reality pesticides)? Or is it limited to
> insecticides only?
all kinds of pesticides -- insecticides, nematicides, antimicrobials,
rodenticides . . . the reporting requirement does exclude shotguns for
> How about the use of poison baits to control animal access? Are they
> also included in the record keeping requirements?
i believe that poison baits for animal pests are supposed to be
reported, but i'm not absolutely sure
> Do any states require records be kept of regarding pesticide spray
> drift or possible drift onto the property of others? Are such things
> as weather conditions at the time the material was applied noted in
> these records?
i'm not aware that any state requires that a record be kept of drift or
possible drift . . . it is possible that some states require a record of
wind direction and velocity at time of application
> . . . different states have different requirements for access to
> these records (e.g., California requires that all records be submitted
> on a regular basis, new jersey requires submission every third year)
> Sounds like it could get difficult to track down a causal
> relationship between a pesticide spraying and an illness or death if
> the farmers only report annually, or worse, every three years.
> --Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--
much of the hazard of pesticides is chronic and cumulative, so the
records would be of most use there for an illness or condition involving
the applicator . . . suppose that a drift occured and a neighboring
person was acutely affected; i assume that if the person or the person's
estate or the person's heirs wanted to sue the applicator, a court might
require the applicator to produce the record what had been applied in
the adjoining field on the fateful day . . . and presumably medical
tests or autopsy could show that residues of the applied chemical (or
its metabolites) were in the neighbor's blood/tissues/urine . . . but
this gets far beyond my area of expertise
> craig k harris
> department of sociology
> michigan state university
> 429b berkey hall
> east lansing michigan 48824-1111
> tel: 517-355-5048
> fax: 517-432-2856
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command