Advisory Committee on Pesticides Annual Report 2001

<strong>Advisory</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> on Pesticides Annual Report 2001
for incomplete oral absorption) were applied to the NOAEL of 4.89 mg/kg
bw/day. This resulted in a systemic short-term AOEL of 0.02 mg/kg bw/day.
The information submitted on operator exposure was considered sufficient to
support approval of ‘Conserve’ for use on ornamental crops. No further data
were required. However, use of protective gloves and coveralls when handling
the product and during application when applying by hand-held equipment or
handling contaminated surfaces was recommended. Modelling of operator
exposure with this level of personal protective equipment (PPE) predicted
exposures at or below the AOEL.
The evaluation indicated that recommended uses of ‘Conserve’ might result in
exposure of bystanders, but this was acceptable, as the extent of exposure
was likely to be significantly less than the AOEL. With respect to worker
exposure, the estimated systemic exposure from the use of ‘Conserve’ under
cover (glass or plastic) was less than the AOEL. Therefore, worker exposure
was also judged acceptable, with no requirement for PPE or a re-entry interval.
26
Given the proposed use, it was considered that environmental contamination
(i.e. to soil, surface water and groundwater) by the active substance and its
metabolites from direct use was likely to be limited. The incorporation of
spinosad-contaminated compost (as waste from ornamental plant production)
into field soils was considered to pose a low risk with respect to terrestrial
organisms, rotational field crops and contamination of surface and ground water.
The proposed use on protected ornamentals would result in limited exposure
of wildlife. Spinosad is highly toxic to bees and certain non-target arthropod
species. Neither of these groups of organisms would be directly exposed at
the time of application. However, bees and other non-target arthropods might
be attracted to certain types of treated ornamentals subsequently moved to
outside locations. Therefore, the risk to bees from residues of spinosad was
assessed. It was considered, on the basis of field studies, to be acceptable.
Studies on the residual toxicity of spinosad to a range arthropod species used
in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems indicated that toxicity of the
compound declines with age. These studies provided reassurance that
significant impacts on natural populations of non-target arthropods would
be unlikely.
Spinosad is of moderate toxicity to certain groups of aquatic life (i.e. Daphnia
magna and Chironomus riparius). Therefore, the product was classified as
‘Harmful to fish and other aquatic life’. Potential contamination of surface
water via spray drift and drainage was considered to be minimal from the