Talk:Green pesticide

1. I do not like the term 'Ecologic' - not found in any dictionary around here - 'ecological' perhaps, but where is the evidence?

2. Pest management techniques should be evidence-based - with registrations, commercial products or peer-reviewed scientific papers - a useful reference is:

Copping L.G. (ed.) (2004). The Manual of Biocontrol Agents (formerly the Biopesticide Manual) 3rd Edition. British Crop Production Council (BCPC), Farnham, Surrey UK.

3. Microbial agents are substantially different from these materials - which can at best be descibed as 'plant extracts' - and products are rarely accompanied with any toxicological data.

Added species

Brassica oleracea and brassica oleracea gemmifera have high potential according to an article I read. Also, pinus canariensis can probably be used (has chemical sustance in its core wood). Add in article. Thanks; KVDP

Another term is 'natural biocide'; however natural pesticides contain more I think than just living creatures http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFP-4JXXR5T-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0950760d7bf9530f0a1deb0dd00641f0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.187.143 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC) wikipedia is the best way to have quick information whenever yo uwant t exept that it is easy to edit just like this :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.180.148 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rotenone

Link #2 under the reference section is broken (404 error)24.20.12.48 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, what link #2 is supposed to show (that Rotenone is no longer permitted as of 2005) is contradicted by link #1! Link #1, copyright 2010, states that it is permitted! Furthermore, this page refers to Rotenone as "controversial" and "dangerous," although link #1 clearly places it in the "Caution" category - the least dangerous category! What's the deal here?24.20.12.48 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed the dead link, so it's not #2 anymore, but if anyone cares, they can go into the history and see what I was talking about24.20.12.48 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is really apparent that someone with an axe to grind got their hands on this page. I have also found out that the reference to the California Organic Foods Act is being improperly cited here. Obviously, the more recent California Organic Food products act (of 2003) is going to be the relevant law here, and it states:

"46015. Materials acceptable in this state are those outlined in Sections 205.600 to 205.607, inclusive, of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations."

Here's a link: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/docs/COPA2003.pdf

And the sections referenced there do not in fact prohibit Rotenone!

Here they are: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6f623e1de5457587ccdfec12bc34ed1c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32&idno=7#7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354

So yea, I'm going to remove that too... Apparently someone who is against the use of Rotenone got their hands on this page and decided to spread some lies. I have no position on Rotenone, buts lets keep it all factual, shall we? 24.20.12.48 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. what you say above is right but you are missing the point. see here (emphasis added):

"The Agency made its reregistration eligibility determination (RED) for rotenone based on the required data, the current guidelines for conducting acceptable studies to generate such data, and published scientific literature. The Agency has found that currently registered piscicidal (fish-kill) uses of rotenone are eligible for reregistration provided the requirements for reregistration identified in the RED are implemented. In March and April 2006, registrants requested voluntarily cancellation of all livestock, residential and home owner uses, domestic pet uses, and all other uses except for piscicide uses. In July 2006, EPA issued its “Report of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED)” in which the Agency indicated its intent to revoke the three tolerance exemptions for rotenone (40 CFR 180.905)."

So Rotenone cannot be used as a pesticide in the US, in organic or in non-organic contexts. Just to kill fish. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you misunderstand this document, which talks about "recommendations" and "intent to...". This document is recommending that Rotenone be banned for non-pescacidal uses, but it doesn't happen until years later (if it has happened yet at all, which is confusing)24.20.12.48 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not clear to me - if that's the only accepted use, then why was the EPA suspending a registered use of it as an insecticide in 2010? And what became of that suspension? Was it ever lifted? Here's the link:http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1023-0001 Apparently, some company named "Stet Acquisition, INC" was marketing Rotenone as an insecticide as late as 2010, under the name "True Stop Insecticide". How were (/are?) they doing that?24.20.12.48 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stet Acquisitions, INC, holds the trademark "WISEARTH," and they do in fact sell a product called "True Stop Fire Ant Killer". Still researching, but it certainly appears that there is a company right this second selling Rotenone as an insecticide. Still researching to confirm that it has the same active ingredient as 2010...24.20.12.48 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this brochure, the formula does in fact contain Rotenone, I am trying to find out the age of the brochure...Wayback machine no help24.20.12.48 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as near as I can tell, which isn't near at all, Wisearth no longer sells the stuff, but it does seem like there is still inventory of it around, gardening supply places that still have stock of it leftover from 2011. 2011 is, of course, much later in time than 2006!24.20.12.48 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, the conspiratorial talk about other editors working in bad faith does not reflect well on you, nor is it helpful for much of anything. I recommend you forgo such comments going forward. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true, and I don't have enough expertise in reading regulations to be sure, then the link in the references to the Colorado State University paper must be false. It is from 2010, or at least last updated in 2010, and it is titled "Some Pesticides Permitted in Organic Gardening". Gardening. Is it possible that it has been re-introduced into gardening/farming since 2007? As for me claiming that some other user demonstrated bias, what's your explanation for why someone would alter the word "controversial" to "dangerous" with no citation? That's clear bias, I'm sure you will agree. But since there's nothing to do about it, I suppose it's irrelevant.24.20.12.48 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is good to work hard to make the content better; it does no good whatsoever to speculate on other editors' motives, and it usually does harm (to the speculator, the speculatee, and the project as a whole). more importantly, one of the five pillars of wikipedia is civility, and assuming good faith is a key part of that. If you don't understand why civility matters in Wikipedia and why assumptions of bad faith are corrosive to the project, you can check out the essay on my userpage if you like. but really - what is the benefit of assuming other editors have bad motives? (real question) How does that help improve the article? In any case, your questions about rotenone are great; I will dig into this more later today when i have time. Thanks for talking. (by the way if you go to the EPA website and enter "rotenone" in the search box you get here http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/rotenone/ lots of good information there)Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I think that someone likely did show bias, but as I said above, it's irrelevant. I wasn't calling out a specific person, just illustrating the reason for my edits, so it didn't strike me as particularly uncivil, but I also am not so worked up about it, so meh...no need to dwell on it.24.20.12.48 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all you need to justify an edit is that your edit follows policy and guidelines. i realize that your attributing bias was casual, and wanted to make sure you know that it is not received casually. wikipedia has a culture and every culture has taboos, sometimes arbitrary but sometimes for good reason. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and see here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5100175 Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and they actually did the recommendation: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101282

No, not yet they haven't - here's the giveaway: "The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following...". Right at the top.24.20.12.48 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

supported by Beyond Pesticides http://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/action/archives/documents/BPCommentsonrotenone.pdf and by Cornacopia: http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Cornucopia-Oct-2012-NOSB-Comment.pdf

NOTE this (the response of the National Organic Program (NOP) to the recommendation of National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) above) http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102942 dated Feb 2013 which says:

In its October 2012 recommendation, the NOSB noted that rotenone is a natural substance derived from plants, and was historically allowed in organic production. Rotenone is currently used by some foreign organic farmers and is allowed under the European organic standards, as well as the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods. There are currently no rotenone products registered in the United States for use on agricultural crops, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published cancellation orders stating that all existing stocks in the U.S. were exhausted as of August 11, 2012. However, the EPA has not revoked the tolerance exemption for rotenone, so some imported organic products may still be produced using this substance. The NOSB received comments from banana producers in other countries that rotenone is needed for pest control. In response to these comments, the NOSB recommended an extended phase-out period until January 1, 2016 to provide time for organic banana growers to develop alternatives for pest control.

The NOP intends to consult with EPA regarding the status of rotenone's tolerance exemption and any plans to revoke its exemption. The NOP also plans to gather additional information about rotenone's current use in organic production before moving forward on the NOSB recommendation."

I have not been able to find anything more recent than that. But rotenone appears to be very close to being banned in the US and there are no products you can buy today, labelled for use in your garden (you can buy rotenone labelled for fish killing) Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you buy them here: http://www.elawngarden.com/stet-acquisition-m-584.html?osCsid=58b668d6a05e8021de3fddda39f48d6e - But it's very possible that they are breaking the law without realizing it24.20.12.48 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! The EPA is in the process of going after Stet for that product: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1023-0001

yes, I linked to that above, also "going after" them is a pretty generous way of putting it. That document just suspends that particular product's registration, in a reversible way, no less.24.20.12.48 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all things considered, I think "On the verge of being banned, except for pescicidal use" or "In the process of being banned..." (although that might presume the outcome too much) is the most accurate way to put it, as of right now anyway.24.20.12.48 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this seems better: "There are currently no products containing Rotenone approved for non-pescicidal use, and it is on the verge of being banned for non-pescicidal use outright"24.20.12.48 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is true in the US only, and i would avoid jargon like "pescicidal" - nobody knows what it means and everyone will keep trying to correct the spelling to pesticidal.Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There are currently no products containing Rotenone approved for use in the US, except for its use as a pescicide (fish killing agent), and it is on the verge of being banned for non-pescicidal use outright in the US"24.20.12.48 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

made edit, used your link for ref, thanks for the help!24.20.12.48 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]