W WMNWMWWI p

3 1293 01088 2987

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wil]
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
ESTABLISHING PESTICIDE MAXIMUM
RESIDUE LIMITS IN COLOMBIA

BY

Ruby Londono Uribe

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michi an State University
in partial fuléillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Entomology
1980

4
a

6130703

ABSTRACT

ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN

ESTABLISHING PESTICIDE MAXIMUM
RESIDUE LIMITS IN COLOMBIA

By
Ruby Londono Uribe

An analysis of the parameters to be considered in
establishing pesticide maximum.residue limits in Colombia
and the application of them to residue limits of aldrin
and dimethoate in potatoes is made. This analysis includes
the study of parameters of two different types. The
first one is those parameters which, at a given moment,
due to the nature of the research done internationally,
could be accepted as valid for Colombia. The second one
includes those variables which, due to the available
infrastructure and their specific nature, must be studied
under the conditions of the country.

The suggested parameters to be accepted from an
international level are: the methodology used by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by FAD/WHO in
establishment of maximum residue limits; the Acceptable
Daily Intake (ADI's) proposed by the Joint Meeting of
FAD/WHO (JMPR) and the careful study to accept or reject
the International Codex Alimentarius maximum residue

limit suggestions.

The parameters analyzed under the Colombian conditions
are legal and administrative ground work for pesticides; I
a compendium of studies on pesticide residues and available
resources for this kind of work; per capita/day consumption
of food; average weight of the Colombian consumer; agri-
cultural practices used in growing potatoes; field experi-
ments and sampling that must be done; analytical techniques
in residue analysis; suggestion of the maximum residue
limits for aldrin and dimethoate in potatoes.

This work is presented as a basic document that makes
it possible to formulate a policy on pesticide residues
and tolerances for Colombia on the basis of international
research and discussion of the every-day Colombian

community questions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is greatly indebted to the group who
compose the Pesticide Laboratory of the Colombian Agri-
culture Institute (ICA), for their support and cooperation
in the residue analysis and in carrying out the experiments
and sampling of potatoes. Also the author wishes to
acknowledge the help of the Direction of the Agricultural
Supplies Laboratory of ICA, the ICA Tuber Program, the
Statistics Division of ICA, the Regional Offices of ICA,
the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (I.C.B.F.),
the Plan for Food and Nutrition (P.A.N.), and the
National Planning Department (D.N.P.), for their concern
towards providing information and services that made
possible this work.

Thanks are due to Dr. Miguel Revelo for his assistance
in Colombia in discussing the present subject; to
Dr. Robert Ruppel and the Graduate Committee for their
advice; to the Department of Entomology, Michigan State
University; to the ICA Staff and ICETEX for all the
academic and financial support given to complete the Ph.D

degree.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.
LIST OF FIGURES .
INTRODUCTION.
OBJECTIVES.
PESTICIDES.

TOLERANCE OR MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMIT .
Pesticide Residue .

Codex Tolerance/Codex Maximum Residue Limit :

Bases for the Establishment of Maximum
Residue Limits.
1. Principles. .
1.1. Considerations. . .
1.2. Identity of Agents. . .
1.3. Permanence of a Maximum.Residue

Limit . .
2. Chemical Aspects. .
2.1. Data Requirements . .
2.2. Interpretation of Data.

3. Toxicological Aspects

3.1. Data Requirements .
3.2. Concepts Used in the Evaluation
of Safety . . . . .
4. Tolerance Acceptability .
4.1. Determination .

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF THE RESIDUE AND
MAXIMUM RESIDUE . . .

Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic

of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of

LIMIT QUESTION.

Ecuador .
Paraguay.
Peru. .
Venezuela .
Chile . . .
El Salbador .
Guatemala .
Mexico.
Brazil.
Argentina .

PRINCIPAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ON
RESIDUES AND MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS . .

Codex Alimentarius. . .
FAQ/WHO Joint Meeting . .
Other International Organizations

ii

12

12
12

14
14
14
15

16
16
16
17
18
18

18
23
23

25

3O
30
30
31
31
31
32
33

34

35

36
4O
54

PARAMETERS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE STUDY

OF RESIDUES AND IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MAXIMUM
RESIDUE LIMITS IN COLOMBIA. .

1.

Feasibility for Implementing a Residue

Program.for the Country . .

1.1. Analysis of the Legal, Technical,
and Economic Facts of Pesticide
Policies. . .

1.2. Studies Conducted in. Colombia on
Residues and the Resources
Available for the Analysis of
These Residues.

Analysis of Per Capita Food Consumption :

2.1. ICBF Surveys. .

2. 2. The PAN Surveys

2. 3. Data Analysis . .

2. 4. Discussion of the Results

The Average Weight of Colombian

Consumers .

Analysis of Agricultural Practices

Used in Growing Potatoes with Special

Emphasis on the Utilization of

Pesticides. .

4.1. General Information on Potato
Crep. .

4.2. Official Agronomic Practices
Recommended in Potatoes .

4.3. Analysis of the Agronomic
Practices Used by the Potato
Growers .

Experiments and Sampling That Must.

Be Done to Help Establish Maximum

Permissible Residue Limits.

5.1. Experimental Design .

5.2. Sampling. . .

Discussion of the Analytical Methods

Used in the Analysis of Aldrin and

Dimethoate Residues and Some Comments

on the Results. . . . . . .

6.1. Aldrin Residue Analysis .

6.2. Dimethoate Residue Analysis

6.3. Comments on the Results
6.3.1. Aldrin. .
6.3.2. Dimethoate- Dimethoxon .

Proposed Maximum Residue Limits for

Aldrin and Dimethoate in Potatoes

Based on Both Sets of Data as Applied

to Colombia . . . .

iii

57

57

57

64
74
76
78
83

89

89
89
95

95

104

I 104

110

113
113
118
121
121

I 127

129

International Data.

Colombian Data.

Calculation of the Maximum
Residue Limit . .

Aldrin.

Dimethoate. .

Proposed Maximum Residue Limits

\l\l\l \JNN
GNU-P WNH

SUMMARY .

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY.

APPENDICES

 

A. DATA TO DEFINE COLOMBIAN FOOD CONSUMP-
TION . . . . .

B. DATA TO DEFINE "GOOD AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICE". . . . . . . . . .

C. DATA CONCERNING TO THE ANALYSIS OF

ALDRIN AND DIMETHOATE RESIDUES IN
POTATO . . . . . .

iv

129
130

130
130

I 131

131

. 131

137
144

148

. 162

182

Table

10

11

LIST OF TABLES

Areas and countries in order of
pesticide use per Ha of major
crop yields

Use of insecticides in developing
countries expressed in thousands
of tons . . . . .

Potentially adverse effects of
pesticides on the environment .

Summary of residue data of organo-
chlorides obtained from different
food products . . . . . . .

Pesticide residues found in 74
tomato samples collected in the Valle
del Cauea . . . . . . .

Organochloride residues found in
several products sold in three
marketplaces in Cali (ppb).

Average values of organochloride
insecticide residues in four crops
in the Villamaria zone (in ppm)

Food consumption per person/day in
general and of potatoes in particular
in grams (ICBF Survey, 1972 and

Pan, 1977). . . .

Order of importance of the principal.
foods in national according to
average daily intake (ICBF, 1972)

Order of importance of the principal
foods in the nation according to
average daily intake (PAN, 1977).

Area, production and yield of the
potato crop in Colombia (period
between 1970-1980). . . .

Page

10

11

13

65

67

69

70

8O

84

85

90

Table
12

I3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Al

A2

A3

Area seeded and potato production,
1976 . . . . . . . . . .

Number of potato farms, area and
production for small, ‘medium.and
larger producers in Colombia,
1976 (ICA, 1970) .

Distribution of the surveys done on
the use of pesticides in potato
crops. . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the use of pesticides
in farmers potato crops and the
recommendations made by ICA.

Potato sampling sites in four
potato growing zones

Averages of aldrin and dieldrin
residues in experimental samples

of potatoes expressed in micrograms
per kilogram (ug/kg) . . .

Averages of aldrin and dieldrin
residues in farmer' 3 samples of
potatoes expressed in ug/kg.

Data to standardize the analytical
method for dimethoate. . . .

Data to standardize the analytical
‘method for dimethoxon.

Individual interview for food
consumption by students. .

Zones, towns and number of families
and persons included in each of the
surveys conducted by the ICFB (1972)
and by PAN (1977).. .

The most widely consumed foods in
the different zones of the country
with their corresponding percentages
(National Diet Survey, ICBF, 1972)

Page

92

93

96

102

. 112

. 123

. 126

127

128

. 149

, 150

154

Table Page

A4 The most widely consumed foods in

the different zones of the country
with their corresponding percentages

(Food Habits Survey, PAN, 1977). . . . . 159
Bl Pesticide recommended by ICA in

potato crop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
'32 Interview on pesticide use in

potato crop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
BS Pesticides used by farmers in

potato crop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
B4 Survey on use of pesticide in

crops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
C1 Residues of aldrin and dieldrin in

experimental samples of potatoes
expressed in micrograms per kilogram

(mg/kg). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
C2 Residues of aldrin and dieldrin

in farmer'ssamples of potatoes

expressed in mg/kg . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Figure

C1

C2

C3

LIST OF FIGURES

International institutions involved
with problems of residues and
maximum residue limits.

The CCPR procedure for establishing
international maximum residue limits.

Flow diagram identifying the critical
points and objectives of toxicological
assessment of intentional and uninten-
{éggal food additives (Vettorazzi,

Per capita daily consumption of food
by zones in Colombia (grams/day/
person) . . . . .

Per capita daily consumption of
potatoes by zones in C obmia (grams/
day/person) . , ,

Potato producing zones in Colombia
(height in meters above sea leavel,
m. a. s. 1. )

Principal potato-producing departments
of Colombia . . . . . . . . .

Plan of the aldrin potato experiment
conducted on lot 7 of the CNIA-
Tibaitata, ICA. . . . .

Plan of the dimethoate potato experi-
ment conducted on lot 7 of the CNIA-
Tibaitata, ICA. . . . . . .

Chromatogram of organochloride
insecticide standards mixture
(analysis conditions) .

Chromatogram of an extract of potatoes

treated with 0.5 kg. a. 1. /ha of aldrin

(analysis conditions)

Curve of linearity for aldrin .

viii

Page

26

41

47

81

82

91

94

108

109

183

184
185

Figure Page

C4 Curve of linearity for dieldrin. . . . . 186
C5 Chromatogram of organochloride

insecticide standards mixture

(confirmation conditions). . . . . . . . 187
C6 Chromatogram of an extract of

potatoes treated with 0.5 kg
a.i.lha of aldrin (confirmation

conditions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
C7 Chromatogram.of an extract of soil

from the experimental log. . . . . . . . 189
C8 Chromatogram of an extract of

potatoes treated with 1.5 kg
a.i./ha of aldrin (analysis
conditions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

C9 Chromatogram of the dimethoate
standard and dimethoate in potato
spiked sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

C10 Chromatogram of the dimethoxon
standard and dimethoxon in potato
spiked sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

INTRODUCTION

The problem of contamination is as old as mankind.
From the very beginning, man has had to confront the
dangers of chemical and microbiological contamination.
Initially, this was the result of uncontrollable circum-
stances independent of any activity of man, such as the
presence of micotoxins, salmonella and other micro-
organisms in stored food, fluorine in water and mercury
in fish; later, as civilization progressed, man became
the most significant source of contamination in his own
enviromment. The poor health in cities and countryside,
water pollution, food contamination by insects and rodents
(which are, in turn, vectors of disease), the use of lead
containers--all of these are problems and dangers that
have become greater with the "Industrial Revolution,"
which has increased the use of coal and several different
metals and has initiated new industrial techniques that
can result in contamination.

Over the centuries, man discovered several substances
that can be directly applied to food or crops to protect
them against insects and other destructive organisms.

At the same time, this discovery was the beginning of
deliberate contamination using substances that were

potentially toxic for man himself. This activity has

grown almost exponentially over the last 50 years to the
point that special programs are needed to reduce it.

As a fundamentally agricultural country Colombia
cannot stay out of the debate going on today about the use
of crops pesticides. Two of the main points of controversy
deal with the residues that pesticides can leave on crops
and the pesticide maximum residue limits on crops that
make them usable without causing toxic side effects for
humans.

For this reason and the fact that a program dedicated
to the study of pesticide residues did not exist in the
country, the author decided to present to Colombian
Institute of Agriculture (ICA), a project to create an
entity in charge of the implementation of this kind of
work. The answer to this project was the creation of the
Section of Residues and Tolerances, which belongs to the
Division of Control of Agricultural Supplies. This Office
started its activities in February 1977.

The first step, as it is required for this type of
project, was the establishing of a laboratory for residue
analysis and the training of personnel in this kind of
analysis. This goal was achieved in the first two years
of activity. The next step was the standardization of the
analytical techniques and to carry out the research with
potatoes in order to establish the maximum residue limits

of aldrin and dimethoate.

Simultaneously with the foregoing work, the elabora-
tion of the present document was started. The basic reason
was the necessity to put together in a publication the
parameters needed to be studied in order to establish a
maximum residue limit. A tolerance setting model was the
principal aspect in stating this type of work in the country.
The study was organized in two main parts: 1) the review
of the international information and documents dealing
with residues andmaximum residue limits, and 2) to gather
the Colombian information and surveys together in order
to extract the variables needed in establishing maximum
residue limits.

The international analysis is presented at the
beginning and is the consequence of an extensive review
and study of documents and publications from.the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAD), the World Health Organization (WHO)
and the Codex Alimentarius. Reference is made also to
the legislation existing in other countries and to the
level of development achieved for several Latin American
countries in relation to residues and maximum.residue
limits of pesticides.

As a result of the foregoing review, two parameters
were selected to be applied in the Colombian conditions.

They were the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) given by the

Joint Meeting FAQ/WHO and the recommendations for the
aldrin and dimethoate tolerances in potatoes given by

the Codex Alimentarius. Also the procedure followed by
EPA and FAD/WHO in establishing tolerances was recommended
for the country.

With regard to the Colombian conditions, the first
objective was to analyze the feasibility to implement the
program of residues and maximum residue limits at a national
level. This goal was followed by other objectives which
include the analysis of all parameters that must be taken
into account in order to calculate the maximum residue
limits for aldrin and dimethoate, in potatoes.

The analysis of each parameter involved an investi-
gation to collate the useful information needed that
had been done in the country, as well as to carry out the
type of research and studies that had not been done. The
manner of presentation follows for each variable analyzed:
presentation of the basic aspects as a background, dis-
cussion of the pertinent information and conclusion about
the data needed to calculate the maximum residue limit.

The real importance of the present work is the fact
that it is the first study made in residues and maximum
residue limits in Colombia. The work was designed in a
manner that permits clarification of concepts, establishes
a base for further studies with different crops and

pesticides, and is presented as a basic document for the

structure. It has a solid technical base for the formation

of policy and establishing regulations in the field of

residues and use of pesticides in crOps.

OBJECTIVES

General Objective:

Evaluate the parameters for the establishment of
maximum residue limits for pesticide on food crops using
as an example the crop of major human consumption and the
insecticides (an organochlorine and an organophosphate)

of major use in that crop.

Specific Objectives:

 

Analyze the international information pertaining to
residues and maximum residue limits to determine those
parameters that had already been studied internationally
and to become familiar with the kind of work carried out
by other countries and international institutions such
as the Codex.Alimentarius, the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO),
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Based on the foregoing analysis, to define those
procedures and data that can be extrapolated directly
into the Colombian conditions and consider those aspects

that must be studied in a specifically Colombian context.

Analyze each of the parameters selected for Colombia

based on information already existing in the country and

on surveys and research that are needed to obtain the

pertinent information. The order for the analysis of

these parameters will be:

1.

Feasibility for implementing a residue
program for the country analyzing two
principle aspects:

1.1. the legal, technical and economic
policy aspects of pesticides in
Colombia, and

1.2. the studies made in residues and
the existing infrastructure in
the country.

Analysis of percapita food consumption

and to prioritize food items as a base

for later studies.

Verify from information available in the

country if the average body weight of

consumers (60 kg) used as international
standard in calculating maximum residue
limits is applicable to Colombia.

Analyze the agricultural practices used

in growing crops of major human consump-

tion.with special emphasis on the

utilization of pesticides. Three

aspects will be considered for this

analysis:

4.1. general information on the crop,

4.2. official agronomic practices
recommended in Colombia in order
to define "good agricultural
practice" in the crop selected
for the present study, and

4.3. analyze the agronomic practices

actually used by growers for the
crop under study in order to deter-
mine the major pesticides and their
methods of application in commercial

plantings.

Select an example for the application of

the analyzed parameters for which the crop

of major consumption and the insecticides

(one organochlorine and one organophos-

phate) used in that crop will be selected.

This example will consist of:

5.1.

design and conduct an experiment at
the "Tibaitata" Research Center of
the Colombian Agricultural Institute
(ICA), to determine the residues

of the insecticides under experi-

mental conditions, and

5.2. sample fields of the crop to deter-
mine the residues of the insecticides
under study under the conditions
used by the growers.

6. Discuss the analytical methods used in
determining the residues of the insecti-
cides under study and to comment on the
results.

7. Propose maximum.residue limits for the
selected insecticides in the crop studied
based on both sets of data as applied to
Colombia.

PESTICIDES

There is no clear evidence of when the first pesticide
appeared on the Earth. Plinio provides the first available
information around 60 3.0. when he writes about the advis-
ability of placing the wheat seed in an extract of cypress'
to reduce mildew. Marco P010 is attributed with having
brought pyrethrum to Europe from the Far East, and the
natives of South America have been given credit for using
sabadilla to control lice before the arrival of Columbus.

In 1793 ground tobacco was already being used to
control plant aphids. During this same century, oil,

kerosene and creosote were used as pesticides. In 1865,

Paris green made its appearance and was recommended for

the control of the red potato beetle. In 1886, the use

of sulphur and cyanide was introduced to control scales

in California. At the same time, lead arsenate was used

as an overall insecticide and as a herbicide. In time,
substances like fluorine, mercury, zinc, thallium, chromium
and others gradually made their appearance and were
recommended for use as pesticides.

The use of organic synthetic pesticides began before
World War II and included dinitrophenols, carbon disulfide,
methyl bromide, naphthalene and p-chlorobenzene. DDT was
known in laboratories for many years, but only in 1939
were its insecticidal properties recognized. Benzene
hexachloride (BHC) was recognized as an insecticide in
1940 in France and England. These discoveries brought on
a new era in the use of pesticides in food production,
public health and agriculture in general. They also
initiated a series of research projects aimed at developing.
new compounds including insecticides, acaricides, fungicides,
herbicides, nematocides and other pesticides to replace,
as HCN did in 1916, those less efficient compounds that
insects had developed a physiological resistance to.

Tables 1 and 2 quantify the consumption of pesticides
in agriculture. High yields are associated with the use

of pesticides; this is not surprising if you keep in mind

10

TABLE 1. Areas and countries in order of Pesticide Use

per Ha of

major crop yields

 

 

Area or country Pesticide Yield
(g/ha) (kg/ha
Japan 10,790 5,480
Europe 1,870 3,430
United States 1,490 2,600
Latin America 220 1,970
Oceania 198 1,570
India 149 320
Africa 127 1,210

 

Source: (Industrial production and formulation of pesti-
cides in deve10ping countries, Vol. I: General
principles and formulations of pesticides,
Kenneth C. Walker, "International Aspects of
Pesticides," United Nations, New York, 1972,

p. 15).

11

TABLE 2. Use of insecticides in developing countries
expressed in thousands of tons.

 

 

Area or country 1971 1972 1973 1975 1976 1977
Mexico 11.5 14.8 15.7 16.3 16.8 20.4
Argentina 10.0 10.1 9.9 11.0 11.4 11.9
India 20.2 24.6 32.2 41.0 47.2 55.1
Philipines 0.3 0.6 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.9
Sudan 10.5 8.6 7.7 8.0 9 0 10.0
All countries 73.1 92.9 106.4 132.2 143.0 156.4
Asia, Oceania 28.7 42.4 53.2 53.4 61.3 66.5
South America 12.9 15.3 17.6 39.0 40.0 40.7
Africa 14.4 12.6 11.2 11.7 12.8 14.5

 

Source: (GTZ. Pesticide Residue Problems in the Third
World. A Contribution of the GTZ Residue Laboratory
in Dartmstadt and its foreign activities. 179, p.9)

12

that FAO estimates show that one-third of the food produced
in the world is destroyed by pests.

The contribution made by pesticides in increasing
agricultural production in recent years has also given
rise to a growing concern about adverse effects, especially
as regards residues present in vegetable food products and
the environment. Table 3 summarizes the most frequent

damage done to the environment.

TOLERANCE OR MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMIT

The following definitions establish the scope of the

meaning of these terms.

Pesticide Residue

Under the Codex Alimentarius, the term "pesticide
residue" refers to any substance or substances in food
for man or animals resulting from the use of a pesticide.
It also includes any specified derivatives, such as
degradation and conversion product, metabolites and
reaction products that are considered to be of toxico-

logical significance.

Codex Tolerance/Codex Maximum Residue Limit
For the purposes of the Codex Alimentarius, these

terms mean the maximum.concentration of a pesticide

13

TABLE 3. Potentially adverse effects of pesticides on
the environment

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL

ELEMENT POTENTIALLY ADVERSE EFFECT

l.abiotic Presence of residues in the air,

environment water and soil.

2.P1ants Presence of residues; damage due
to phytotoxicity; changes in the
plant (misuse of pesticides).

3.Animals Presence of residues in domestic
and wild animals; physiological
effects (non-viability); mortal-
ity in wild species, mortality
of beneficial insects, predators
and parasites; changes in insect
populations.

4.Mbn Presence of residues in tissues
and organs; effects of occupation-
al exposure.

5.Food Presence of residues.

6.Target organisms Development of resistance.

 

Source: N. Van Tiel. Pesticide in Environment and Food.
Environmental Quality and Safety, Vol. 1.,

1972.

14

residue that is recommended by the Codex Alimentarius to

be legally permitted in or on a food commodity. The
concentration is expressed as parts by weight of pesticide
residue per million parts by weight of the food commodity.
In general, it refers to the residue resulting from the

use of a pesticide under circumstances designed to protect
the food or food commodity against pest attack, and applied

according to good agricultural practice.

Bases for the Establishment of Maximum Residue Limits
The description of the fundamental bases for the
establishment of maximum residue limits based on the
document written for this purpose by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and is very similar, generally

speaking, to the criteria used by the FAQ/WHO Joint Meeting.

1. Principles

1.1. Considerations: To determine the amount of
residue permissible in food, efforts must be
made to see to it that this amount does not
exceed residue incurred under "correct
agricultural practice" and that the final
amount of residue in food consumed on a daily
basis does not go beyond the accepted amount
that is safe for prolonged consumption.

The FAQ/WHO Joint Meeting and the Codex

Committee on Pesticide Residues define "good

1.2.

15

agricultural practices" with regard to the use
of pesticides as "the officially recommended

or authorized usage of pesticides under practical
conditions at any stage of production, storage,
transport, distribution and processing of food
and other agricultural commodities, bearing in
mind the variation in requirements within and
between regions, and which takes into account
the minimum quantities necessary to achieve
adequate control, applied in a manner so as to:
leave a residue which is the smallest amount
practicable and which is toxicologically accept-
able."

Identity of Agents: Maximum residue limit is

 

expressed, as regards the identification of
chemical agents, in terms of chemical and
toxicological considerations and interactions.
The problem of identification is not as complex
when the final residue is the parent product

or when it is converted into another simple
product and not, as in other cases, into a
complex made up of the parent product and
several metabolites. The chemical agent that
must be borne in mind when regulating maximum

residue limits will depend on its toxicological

16

significance, the relative proportion in the
total residue and the confidence limits of the
analytical methods employed. When the components
have a constant relation, it is possible to
establish maximum.residue limit on the basis of
one simple component but all metabolites of
pharmacological and toxicological importance
must be considered.

1.3. Permanence of a Maximum.Residue Limit: Maximum
residue limit is a value derived on the basis
of levels of residues, toxicological data, food
consumption levels, evaluation of hazard and
scientific judgement. Since tolerance is a
value derived from data that can be certified
and from data that come from scientific judge-
ment, maximum residue limit can be established,

suspended or changed when circumstances so demand.

2. Chemical Aspects
2.1. Data Requirements:

1. Elucidation of the chemistry of the
product. This includes physical and
chemical properties, information on the
manufacturing process, manufacturing
impurities in the technical grade product

and formulations.

2.

2.

ii.

iii.

iv.

vi.

17

Description of the analytical methods
used in obtaining the data.

Complete information on the way the
product should be used. Usually, mention
is made of the information provided to
obtain product registration.

Information on the degradation and mobility
of the product after application. This
includes degradation in the soil, data
on any change occurring in the crop in
terms of its metabolism, oxidation,
hydrolysis, photolysis and mobility as

a result of leaching or runoff.

Data on residues from field experiments
that show the magnitude of the final
residue in products.

Data on residues in food products derived
from a harvest or forage.

If the residue is present in animal feed,
studies must be presented on feeding and
residue determination in meat, milk,

fowl, eggs, etc.

Interpretation of Data: Data interpretation

of residues is a complex and subjective process.

The aim of this interpretation is to make real

18

estimates of the residues that can appear as
the result of the cemmercial use of a pesticide.
These estimates can be made by extrapolating
data obtained in a representative number of

field experiments.

Toxicological Aspects

 

3.1. Data Requirements:

 

i. The acute oral lethal half dose (LDSO) of
the active ingredients.
ii. Data on sub-acute dose in two species of
mammals.
iii. Data on reproduction in three generations.
iv. Teratological data.
v. Data on chronic dose.
vi. Data on oncogenic potential.
vii. Mutagenicity data.
viii. Data on neurotoxicity for products that
inhibit cholinesterase.
xi. Metabolic data referring to metabolism
degradation and storage in tissues and
organs.

3.2. Concepts Used in the Evaluation of Safety

 

i. No Observable Effect Level (NOEL): The
NOEL is defined as the level (quantity)
of a substance administered to a group of

experimental animals to which those effects

ii.

19

observed or measured at higher levels are

absent and to which no significant differ-

ences between the group of animals exposed
to the quantity and an unexposed control
group of animals maintained under identical
conditions are produced.

The NOEL is determined on the basis of
four factors:

a. the substance's intrinsic potential
to produce cellular change;

b. the affinity between the substance and
the receptor tissue;

c. the response of the tissue being treated
when it comes in contact with the
product; and

d. the effectiveness of cellular and
systemic reflexes to resist or modify
the changes induced by the substance.

Food Factor: This is defined as the

percentage of the total diet made up by

the food or class of foods being evaluated.
The studies done by the World Health

Organization (WHO) in 1970 demonstrate

the usefulness of calculating potential

daily consumption of pesticide residues

iii.

20

on the basis of average food consumption
figures for each country. For instance,
in the United States, the conclusion has
been reached that the daily diet for an
adult weighing 60 kilos is approximately
1.5 kilos. This figure is used as the
standard to calculate the contribution of
any one food product in the daily diet.
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI): The ADI is
defined as the daily exposure level of a
pesticide residue which, during the entire
lifetime of man, appears to be without
appreciable risk on the basis of all facts
known at the time. The ADI is expressed
in milligrams of the pesticide as it
appears in the diet, per kilogram of body
weight per day (mg/kg/day). "Without
appreciable risk" means the practical
certainty that no adverse effect will
result even after a lifetime of exposure.
To arrive at an Acceptable Daily Intake,
the following information must be available:
a. The chemical nature of the residue.
Pesticides can undergo chemical

changes caused by environmental factors

21

or they can be permanently metabolized
in plant and animal tissues. Even
though a simple chemical is applied,
the residue can be made up from several
derivatives having different properties
and whose exact nature can differ in
animals and plants and in different
crops and products.

b. The toxicity of the significant come
pounds that make up the residue, based
on acute short-team and long-term
studies in animals.

c. Knowledge of metabolism, action
'mechanism, and the possibility of the
residue having a deleterious effect
when consumed.

If this information is available, the determination
can be made in animals of the daily level of consump-
tion that has no observable effect. Using this data,
an ADI can be suggested for human beings by using a
‘ suitable safety factor. The magnitude of the factor
affects the numerical value of the ADI. To extrapolate
the maximum.dietary level causing "no effect" in
experimental animals, to the ADI for people, a safety
factor of 100 has received wide acceptance, as long as

the necessary toxicological data is available. This

22

factor guarantees that no substance will appear in the
total human diet in a quantity calculated in long-term
studies done on animals. This factor is based on the
fact that man is apparently 10 times more sensitive
to the action of toxic substance when compared to
rats and also due to the fact that the range of human
susceptibility to these substances can vary by a factor
of 10.

In practice, the safety factor can vary greatly.
In the United States, for example, this factor has been
applied anywhere from 10 to 2,000 depending on the
grade and type of toxicological information available.
Most tolerances on raw agricultural products have
been established using a lOO-fold factor on the NOEL
in long-term feeding studies. A factor of 10 has been
used for pesticides that inhibit cholinesterase because
the anti-cholinesterase activity factor is the most
sensitive criterion of toxicity for these compounds
and the one most easily determined. As a policy, the
maximum.residue limit for cholinesterase inhibitors
does not go beyond the level demonstrated in the NOEL.
In this way, one may be sure of the absence of acute
hazard.

The factor of 2,000 is applied to the NOEL in sub-

acute studies and when temporary maximum residue limits

23

have been established with experimental use permits.
This factor is based on a series of comparisons of

the NOEL taken from 90-day studies and with NOEL taken
from.long-term studies, using the same chemical
product. The safety factor of 2,000 for a sub-acute
NOEL is calculated by multiplying the factor 100 by an

additional factor of 20.

Tolerance Acceptability
4.1. Determination: The following steps must be
followed when accepting a tolerance:
i. The NOEL, if expressed in parts per million
(ppm), must be convered into mg/kg of body
weight/daily, on the basis of the weight
of the experimental animal and the weight
of the food consumed during the day.
ii. The ADI is determined by using the right
safety factor.

iii. The Maximum Permissible Intake (MP1) of
residue in the daily diet is calculated
using the ADI and the average weight of
an adult (60 kilos).

iv. The Theoretical Maximum Residue Contri-
bution (TMRC) to the daily diet is deter-
mined by assuming that the amount repre-

sented by the proposed tolerance must be

4.2.

24

present in the food when it is consumed.
This is done by using a food factor for
each region or country.

The contribution to the daily diet from all
established tolerances for the pesticide:

they are then compared with the ADI.

When the ADI value is exceeded, the usual procedure

is to reject the tolerance for the use of the

pesticide, although there are possibly some

exceptions to this because the calculation of

the theoretical maximum contribution of a residue

in the diet is based on two main considerations:

1.

That every food contains some level of
residue when it is consumed that is equal
to the maximum residue limit. For example,
every onion contains 7 ppm of lindane
(permissible tolerance) when consumed;

the truth is that this is inexact because
when the products are harvested, they
generally have a residue that is less

than the established tolerance. Product
storage, processing and preparation usually
greatly reduce the amount of residue.
Consequently, a person rarely consumes a

maximum of 7 ppm.when he eats onions.

25

ii. It is assumed that every agricultural
product is treated with the pesticide
for which a maximum.residue limit has been
established. This is not a correct
assumption because not every onion is
treated with lindane, and it is improbable
that 100% of a crop is treated with the
pesticide for which the tolerance has been

established.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF THE RESIDUE AND
MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMIT QUESTION

The problem of pesticide residues is a tOpic that
governments are becoming increasingly concerned about,
and,as a result, international organizations have been
created to deal with it. This can be clearly seen in
Figure 1. This interest stems from considerations made
at the international level with regard to the food-
pesticide chain:

1. Food products are the articles of greatest
interest in international trade. Since
the pesticides used in one region might
appear as food residues in another region,
it is important to protect the consumer's

health while at the same time it is

26

41: 5 <
J«_.1~u
no 22.5.0034

abut-axe

 

 

Houw no.0...nut

>¢h2luxu
aujmn< 024
was; to 20.2:
._<xo_.:2¢u._.z_

II I!

 

?

 

 

4 (zo_h<zxuh2—
u >:.<¢on<4400

zo:<N.z<¢¢O
Serpuwboxm
1..sz z<usox=u

(III

zoom :00

unozau
$04.02900

 

_ nzo.h<N_z<o¢o Jdlgouc —

 

   
     

 

 

Amaaa .smxv
made: 033mm: Eng—«Ewe vow mmauwmmu mo mEmHnoun :33 @9502: mcofiusfiumcw Hop—oaumcumucw .— Ema—OE

0.49:; Oh nhxonuc

an<¢oozol
.

   

.flaeq-l Ugo-r-Us

n¢u>xuno¢ no noxflxuxu IOIIII

Juzx<zu u>:¢x b..x_lo< II I I

 

  
  

 

 

all! .3 2:5... 2:2. Ill-J 3.53.2
12.nouozcxuxw III
- — ”>wz
32...... 2.3:... .3 «22huuufluuhxuiu —

 

 

UHF-Lllou quLxu Oz!

 

1o :5; 3:52; o: _
FIngiu- 2.8.2.: .3 35:23... macaw—IL
#

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33:02:: a
413.3. .3 «warts-.3 nunoo

 

L

Ullcccoxs

 

 
    

  

nxuzapggx;
3.5131. 1 u. 3.6

 

 

l
A

 

1.
a

-4
.+
_

 

 

u>:.< Cusooo
rchnao-=\o<s

   
 

 

.0: an nth—aloe
. o¢<nx<hu coo;

  

& xo..:lloo .=_¢<qul.4< Iuaou _

 

.__._._._T___.._._

rev—v. “was.“ r<

4:22:35:

 

  
  

-—-—._cq_o_c-Pa_no—
-l—-

   

  
    

 

x°_r<u_x<0¢o
dds—:3 :o_¢o<
08¢ Doom

.PI-|-|.I- r-|-|-..

zo_h<u.l<oso _

85.44»: 04:0!

  

"20.5.4! Duh—z:

     

I

 

 

 

 

n¢uu=ooun J<o.luxo
\OC04 Lo xo.r<¢uQUt
J<xo_h<8:url. tat—JOI.

- 20:1.oofind Ado-fluxu
J1 lab... =o_zo< J<Z°_P<I

.

     

rchnaof

 

27

essential to leave the marketing process
unimpaired. A

2. Pests are found, generally speaking, in
the different regions where crops are
grown.

3. The use of pesticides is expanded from
their country of origin to other countries
having similar problems.

In 1953, the Sixth World Health Meeting expressed its
concern regarding the problem created by several products
used in the food industry. In 1955, under the auspices of
the FAQ/WHO, the Committee of Nutrition Experts met to
discuss food additives; out of this meeting came the
publication of the FAO program on legislation and the use
of additives, including pesticide residues. In 1959, the
FAO held its first meeting specifically on pesticides,
and in 1961, in conjunction with the Committee of Experts
on Pesticide Residues of the WHO, a publication was brought
out that dealt with the principles that must be followed
to protect the consumer from pesticide residues. At the
same time, Austria, the United States, and Canada showed
their interest in this area, and the European Common
Market enacted specific laws on this matter for its member
countries.

Information coming from several countries indicates

that the registration of a product varies significantly

28

from one country1x>another. For instance, in the United
States the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes
a document with instructions for the registration of
pesticides that has over 300 pages; the Federal Republic
of Germany has 70 questions about pesticide composition,
analytical methods, toxicology and crOp residues that must
be satisfactorily answered before a pesticide product may
be registered. In Norway, on the other hand, there are
only 15 questions of this type that must be answered.
Japan requires long-term effects studies that must be
conducted in Japan itself, even if this means repeating
studies already done in other countries.

Countries also differ in terms of the legislation
they have enacted to control residues in food. Countries
like the United States and Canada have very detailed laws
on this matter. In the U.S., responsibility for enforcing
the law is shared by three agencies: the EPA~~responsib1e
for establishing tolerance; the USDA (Department of
Agriculture)--responsible for seeing to it that pesticides
are safely used; and the FDA (Federal Drug Administration)--
responsible for controlling tolerances in food used for
human and animal consumption. In the United Kingdom,
pesticides are indirectly controlled by general require-
ments found in the Food and Drug Act which is part of

the Voluntary Safety Precaution for Pesticides Plan.

29

There are other laws governing this matter in Austria,
West Germany, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia,
Denmark, Finald, Holland, Luxemburg, Japan, New Zealand,
Poland, Switzerland, Sweden and Russia.

As for Latin America, direct information was requested
from each Latin American country in order to become more
familiar with pesticide residue control programs in these
countries. The answers received follow the summary of the
questionnaire sent to them, The questionnaire included the
following items:

1. mechanism adopted to control pesticide
residues in food;

2. documents regulating maximum residue
limits for pesticides in food;

3. name of the agency or institution
responsible for implementing programs
and action mechanisms;

4. personnel responsible for carrying
out programs controlling pesticide
residues in food;

5. type of facilities and equipment for
residue analysis; and

6. connections the country has with the
FAO Codex Alimentarius in the Pesticide

Residue Program.

30

Republic of Ecuador

Work on agricultural pesticide residues in food began
in this country in 1977 with the opening of the toxicology
laboratory. There are no national tolerance standards
which is why the FAO/WHO-established limits are used.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock is responsible
for programs and activities through its Department of
Agricultural Sanitation. The Department has a laboratory
that is well-equiped for analyzing residues; it is located
in Tumbaco. It maintains communication with the Codex

Alimentarius in regard to these programs.

Republic of Paraguay

The information received indicates that there is no
specific program on pesticide residues. Facilities for
residue analysis are available; the country has no

connection with the Codex Alimentarius.

Republic of Peru

. The agencies involved in the control of pesticide

residues in food are the Ministry of Health, which is

responsible for control, and the Institute of Technological

and Industrial Research and Technical Standards (ITINTEC).
The Ministry of Food is represented in these agencies

by the Permanent Consulting Commission of the Food

Sanitation Code. Decree-Law 196565 establishes that the

31

ITINTEC is the agency that shall maintain relations with

the Codex Alimentarius. However, it seems that this agency
has no laboratory to conduct residue analysis in, and up to
the present time, programs are in a preliminary stage in
'which efforts are being made to create a Regional Coordinating

Committee on Pesticide Residues with FAD/WHO advice.

Republic of Venezuela

The Environmental Control Division of the Ministry of
Health and Social Welfare is in charge of pesticide residue
control. Although this agency does have residue analysis
laboratories, no information was provided on their work;
nor was any information given on relations the country has

with the Codex Alimentarius.

Republic of Chile

The work of food pesticide residue control is done by
the National Health Service. The information received
indicates that legislation is currently in the process of
being enacted on this matter, however, it would seem that
there are no laboratories for analysis and no relations

maintained with the Codex Alimentarius.

Republic of El Salbador
The Department of Agricultural Chemistry of the

National Center of Agricultural Technology established

32

a research and quality control laboratory with a section
devoted to food pesticide residue research. Work has been
going on in this field since 1973, making this laboratory

a definite leader in this area in Central America. Article
60 of Decree-Law 315 of 1973 on pesticide control,
fertilizers and the use of agricultural products establishes
maximum limits of pesticide residues in food coming from
animal and vegetable sources. The agencies responsible

for implementing these programs are the Ministry of Public
Health and Social Welfare and the Ministry of Agriculture.
Periodic information from the Codex Alimentarius is
received regarding meetings and lists of tolerances;

they are used as part of the criteria for establishing

the country's own tolerances, especially as regards those

products for exportation.

Republic of Guatemala

Research on pesticide residues in food is centralized
in the Central American Institute of Research and Industrial
Technology (ICAITI), which has its headquarters in Guatemala
City; its radius of action, however, spreads to Costa Rica,
El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Guatemala.
The Institute was created in 1956 by the Central American
Common Market countries; its aim is to apply modern
technology to Central American industrialization effort.

The ICAITI is an autonomous non-profit organization

33

established by five Central American Republics. It receives
technical assistance from the United Nations.

The ICAITI is developing plans and projects on the
environmental effects of the use of pesticides, especially
on cotton. Pesticides were studied in an early phase in
which research was conducted on marine fauna in estuaries
and tidelands on the Southern coast of Guatemala in order
to determine the existence of pesticide residues in the
fauna of this region. The second phase of this program
is the service this organization provides for different
companies in determining pesticide residues in various
food products, principally in fats and meats coming from
packers and producers. This same service is provided for
tomatoes, tobacco and grains; an analysis was done to
determine levels of contamination in several food products

in Guatemala and El Salvador.

Republic of Mexico

The agency responsible for the control of pesticide
residues in food is the Department of Agriculture through
its Department of Pesticides of the Office of Plant
Sanitation. In Mexico, a new system has been introduced
for determining the maximum residue limits; it is called
the Inter-American System and is established between
Mexico, the United States and Canada. Its aim is to

facilitate the exchange and marketing of food products

34

with North America. To carry out this plan, the personnel
analyzing residues receive training in the United States,
and the techniques used in the system have been approved
and learned in the U.S.; thus, the products exported comply

with the established standards of the importing country.

Republic of Brazil

 

In this country, the policy on pesticide residue control
is jointly handled by the Ministries of Agriculture and
Health through the Institute Biologico (Biological
Institute) of Sao Paulo (UNDP/FAO/WHO/BTA-67-524). Several
of the Institute's activities include: toxicological
tests done on laboratory animals for new pesticides and
new formulations; the evaluation of toxicological data
to establish Acceptable Daily Intakes and maximum residue
limits; the analysis of residues in food and biological
material; the metabolism of pesticides, including radio-
isotope techniques; chemical and physical analysis of
pesticide formulations; field testing of efficacy tests
for combatting agricultural pests; and training of
personnel. Brazil also has an Inter-Ministerial Multi-
Disciplinary Committee that evalues pesticides and establishes

maximum residue limits of pesticides in food.

Republic of Argentina
Although no answer was received from this country in

regards to the questionnaire sent out, it is widely known

35

that Argentina is one of the pioneering countries in Latin
America in the field of pesticide residues in food. It has
established its own maximum residue limits, has control
laboratories and actively participates in the FAQ/WHO
Joint Meetings and in the Codex Alimentarius Conference.

No other information on the control of pesticide
residues in food was available for the rest of Latin
America. It is apparent from.the information available
that in most countries some type of legislation has been
enacted regarding the use of pesticides. In most cases,
one or more control measures and procedures have been

implemented in these countries.

PRINCIPAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ON
RESIDUES AND MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS

Internationally speaking, besides the EPA procedure
described in the foregoing pages, there are two other
organizations which are of importance to this paper;
they are the Codex Alimentarius and the Joint Meeting of
FAQ/WHO (JMPR). The first organization is responsible for
implementing a policy on residues and tolerances worldwide.
The second one conducts scientific evaluation and studies
of the information received as the basis for establishing

maximum permissible limits of residues.

36

Codex.Alimentarius

This Commission was created in 1962 by the FAO/WHO
with the aim of "protecting" the health of consumers.
and safeguarding food commerce with proper health standards.
Its objective was also to promote the coordination of all
work done on food standards by international, governmental
and non-governmental organizations. It works to determine
priorities, initiate and direct the preparation of standards
with the help of organizations working in this field, and
publishes and recommends these standards for specific
regions or for international use.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission set up committees
for most food groups, such as a committee for dairy
products, oils and fats, and areas common to all food
groups which includes the Codex Alimentarius Committee
on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) established in 1963. The
committee is responsible for international regulation
of pesticide residues in food. The CCPR, like other
Codex Committees, is "sponsored" by the government of
the country that must appoint the chairman of the meetings
and other leaders, in addition to inviting other members
to the meetings. Meetings are held annually and are
attended by the member countries of the FAO and WHO.

CCPR headquarters are located in Norway.
As the Codex philosophy has it, the main function of

the CCPR is to establish international maximum residue

37

limits for pesticide residues in specific foods. The
structure of the Codex provides a means for these standards
to be established; this is a form having 10 basic points
that gives countries an opportunity to comment on proposed
standards (points 3-6) and to accept or reject them
(point 9).
The points on the form are:
Point 1.
The Commission decides on working out the
Codex standard and assigns the task of doing
the actual work on the standard to one of the
committees.
Point 2.
The committee or institution chosen prepares
a proposed standard, taking into account the
work previously done in this area by international
agencies. The work committee head sends the
draft of the proposal to the Commission Secretariat.
Point 3.
The Secretary of the Commission sends the
proposed standard to the member states and the
FAO and WHO members and to international organi-
zations working in this field so that all of
them can send the Commission their comments on

the proposal.

38

Point 4.

The Secretary of the Commission sends the
comments received to the working groups and

to other related groups; these groups have

the power to consider the comments and approve
the proposal if they find it suitable.

Point 5.

The proposed standard is then submitted by the
Secretariat to the Commission for its approval.
The Commission may, at its discretion, send the
proposed standard to a special group before
approving it, or it may put the working group
in charge of carrying out steps 5, 7 and 8 of
this procedure.

Point 6.

The Secretary of the Commission sends the
draft proposal to all member states or members
of the FAO and WHO and other international
organizations involved in this type of work

so that they may comment on the proposal.
Point 7.

The Secretary of the Commission sends the
comments received to the working group, which
has the power to consider the comments and

approve the draft proposal.

39

Point 8.

The Secretary of the Commission submits the
draft of the standard to the Commission for

its adoption as a recommendation.

Point 9.

The recommended standard is sent to the member
states and the FAO and WHO members and all
international organizations working in this
field.

Point 10.

The recommended standard is published in the
Codex Alimentarius as a worldwide Codex standard
that has been established by the Commission on
the basis of the acceptance of it.

Once a country has accepted a standard proposed by the
Codex, it binds itself to allow the free distribution of
the product within its borders as long as the product
complies with established requirements. It also binds itself
to applying the standard impartially to both national and
imported products.

If a country cannot accept a standard recommended by
the Codex, it must inform the Commission of the following
items: 1) if the product for which the standard has been
recommended can be freely distributed within the country,

and 2) to what degree its current or proposed requirements

40

differ from the standard and, if possible, the reasons for
these differences.

The Codex system.depends on countries in terms of
compliance with the provisions of the recommendations.

Figure 2 illustrates the way in which the CCPR works.

FAQ/WHO Joint Meeting

Every year since 1966, the Joint Meeting of the
Committee of Experts on Pesticide Residues of the WHO,
and the Working Group of Experts on Pesticide Residues
of the FAO (also called the Joint Meeting FAD/WHO on
Pesticide Residues, or simply the Joint Meeting), has
its two-week meetings. These meetings have been held
in Geneva and Rome. This Joint Meeting carries out the
scientific work for the CCPR. These committees are
composed of expert scientists who are appointed by the
Directors General of WHO and FAQ in behalf of their
individual capacities, not as national representatives.
They have the competence in evaluating ADI's of pesticide
residues and establishing maximum.residue limits on foods,
based on good agricultural practices when checked against
the acceptable daily intake and methods of analysis.

From each meeting there is a report which summarize
the conclusions and recommendations on the evaluation
done on different chemical pesticides. There are supple-

mentary volumes containing monographs of evaluation,

41

Ammma .zmxv mmocmumaou Hmcoaumchmucw wawnmaanmumm now ousumooua mmoo any .N mmsuHm

muamachm>ou Hmcowumz

cowmmHEEoo mswumucofiwa< xmuoo

 

 

\ V 288 $3331

.1 mowowumom so omuufiaaoo xmuoo
A/ s

./
/,
/
/.
/

 

/
//
or 3 28 m 83m

Bmwamsomz huoumaawom Hmcowumz
l)

 

mama .muousuommncmz ouwoaumom

mugs“; mosufimmm
I!
\V EDEmez xouoo

coaumamwwma
mocmumaou £ua3
mmfiuucsoo mmonu :Hv
mmocmumaoe

 

V
\\
oofiowummm HmCOHumz

42

commentaries, acceptable daily intakes and recommendations

of residue limits in different foods. There are also

summaries of toxicological studies and chemical data on

all of the pesticides studied during the meeting.

In order to recommend an ADI, the JMPR generally

requires six types of data:

1.

biochemical studies: absorption, distri-
bution, excretion, biotransformation and
effects on enzymes and other biochemical
parameters;

special studies: reproduction, carcino-
genicity, mutagenicity and neurotoxicity
potentiation;

acute toxicity studies: LD50's and other
studies mainly involving single doses in
several species of experimental animals;
short term studies: periodic adminis-
tration of the pesticide for usually three
months in rodents and 1-2 years in dogs

or monkeys;

long term studies: administration of the
pesticide over half the life span of the
animal usually 80 weeks in mice, two years
in rats, five years in dogs; and
observations in man: including volunteers,

occupational works and accidental poisoning.

43

In making recommendations on residue limits the JMPR

acts on the basis of five kinds of data:

1.

5.

use pattern: preharvest, postharvest treat-
‘ment, and other uses; a general summary of
the range of crops treated; the extent of
these uses; and the number of countries
involved;

residue resulting from supervised trials:
this is to assess the levels of residues
likely to occur after using the pesticide
under the conditions that will control
pests;

fate of residues: in farm animals and in
plants, and the levels of residues in food
at the time of consumption;

methods of residue analysis: to ensure the
soundness of the data being reviewed and

to evaluate the method of analysis for its
use in eventual legislation; and

national pesticides tolerances.

Vettorazzi (1975) presents a review of the manner in

which the JMPR operates. According to this document

"the assessment of the toxicity of a pesticide chemical

as carried out by the Joint Meeting should be thought of

as a complex process having a dynamic rather than static

character since new facts may at any time challenge the

44

results of previous evaluations. This is particularly true
with regard to the assessment of the toxicity of these
pesticide chemicals which, because of their nature and use,
need to be kept under constant review. This task has
frequently required the adoption by the Joint Meeting of
administrative attitudes designed to ensure the continuous
awareness of parties interested in generating scientific
data. The adoption of temporary ADI's and the establishment
of dead lines for submission of further work are two
examples of such administrative measures.”

In assembling this review, Vettorazzi took as a main
of information the monographs published after each meeting
of JMPR particularly the sections under the heading of
"Comments" and "Toxicological Evaluation" and the summaries
of experimental studies from which the no-effect level
has been taken.

A scientific summary generally contains the following
elements: (a) designation of animal species employed in
the test, (b) number of animals in test and control gropus,
(c) sex, (d) identification of substance administered,

(e) purpose or objective of the experiment, (f) dose level
of treatment (levels in the diet as well as their equivalent
in mg/kg body weight), (g) routes of administration,

(h) duration of the treatment and/or of the experiment if
they are different in length, (i) biological parameters
examined, (j) effects observed, and (k) reference of the

authors.

45

In assembling the review the following sequential
steps were adopted: (1) to sort out those pesticides for
which eitheran ADI or a temporary ADI has been allocated,
(2) to list their common and chemical names as well as
separate the compound according to tentative chemical
categories, (3) to pinpoint the documents containing
information related to decisions that have been taken on
each compound, (4) to transcribe the no-effect 1evel(s)
indicated as having been served as a basis for establishing
ADI's for man, (5) to identify the study/studies in which
the no-effect 1evel(s) has/have been demonstrated and to
‘make reference of these studies as completely as possible,
(6) to construe the safety factor employed in the extra-
polation process, and (7) to indicate as many sources as
possible which can supply additional information on the
multifaceted process of toxicological and administrative
decisions carried out by the Joint Meeting.

The elements involved in the process of toxicological_
evaluation of a chemdcal pesticide by the JMPR are:

1. no-effect level: based upon long term
studies in animals or on observations on
human subjects;

2. safety factor: to extrapolate from a
safe level demonstrated in animals to a

safe level for human intake;

46

3. Acceptable daily intake (ADI): the concept
is based on the widely accepted fact that
all chemicals are toxic but their toxicities
vary markedly, not only in nature but also
in amount required to produce signs of
toxicity.

4. Temporary ADI: according to the provision
of additional data within a stated period
of time. This measure implies that the
toxicological data are adequate to ensure
the safety of the chemical during the time
that temporary ADI applies.

5. Conditional ADI: These are given under
special conditions. The JMPR has been
allocated this kind of ADI for DDT and
hexachlorobenzene under the condition to
use suitable substitutes, and for amdtrole
should be restricted to where residues
do not occur.

Figure 3 indicates some critical points of the operation
of the JMPR in a sketchy manner.

As a result of the review done by Vettorazzi, three
tables are presented here that objectively provide the
toxicological information and the name of the pesticides
that have been studied up to the present time.

Table 1 presents the list of chemical pesticides

having ADIs established by the Joint Meeting, including

47

.Amaaa .auumuooua>v

mo>wuwuum uoom Hmcofiucmucfic: use Hmcoaucmucw mo unmammommm Hmowm
uoHoonou mo mm>fiuomnno use mucwom Hmoauwuo may moahmwucmuw Emuwmwu 30am .n mmson

coauwsHm>m “
Hmowwoaoowxoe ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

acowumaawmm

 

 

 

 

 

o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coaumEuowcH m
oumnomu<
<
:owumumumhmucH ,
- I
e .. .A v mcoaumwwummzfi
. Anv mumfiumoumam. N
mcowmaoma \ ,
Hmowonoonoe ‘ )
Amv xonouosumz H
Hmowwoaoowxoe

 

those products studied in 1974 (WHO/FAD a,b). In addition,
there are explanatory notes on the problems related to the
group evaluation, the analytical limitations that existed
when the ADIs were established and the nature of the
evaluation (temporary, conditional, etc.). Information is
also provided on the possible dates of the next evaluations,
including detailed information on future work that the JMPR
deems necessary before recommending or confirming an ADI.
The overriding principle that has guided the JMPR in its
evaluation of metabolites has been that the ADI is valid
for the pesticide itself and its metabolites as long as

the main metabolites present in the food products of plant
and animal origin are identical with the main metabolites
in experimental animals. If the metabolites do not comply
with these specifications, the ADI will be valid only for
the original pesticide (WHO/FAO, 1968a; 1974a).

Table 2 gives the chemical and common names of
pesticides. The JMPR has selected the common names adopted
by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for the
titles of its monographs; they are marked in the table with
an asterisk. All of the chemical names have been written
in accordance with International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry guidelines, as they have been interpreted and
disseminated by the American Chemistry Society in its

Chemical Abstracts. They are the only available rules

49

that enable one to derive a simple name for a given compound
(Lowe and Stiles, 1974).

Table 3 gives a summary of the no—effect level and
other elements that the JMPR has chosen as the basis for
the estimation of ADI's. This table should be interpreted
in the light of the JMPR documents with their references
which are found in columns 9 and 10. In construing the
safety factors found in column 6, the following cases have
been found:

1. The chosen no-effect level and the
experimental study from.which it was taken
appear clearly indicated in the documents.
In this case, there is a direct quotation
in column 10 (example: diquat, propoxur,
etc.). i

2. A no-effect level has been demonstrated
in only one animal (example: dicofol,
methoxychlor, etc.).

3. A same level of effect has been demonstrated
in more than one species of animal. In
this case, the chosen safety factor is
indicated in all species for which the no-
effect level has been shown (example:
diphenyl, aldrin/dieldrin, etc.).

4. No-effect levels have been demonstrated in

more than one animal species. In this case,

50

the level of no effect which has been used
as the basis of establishing the ADI is

the one found in the most sensitive species
(example: chlormequat, thiophanate-methyl,
etc.).

5. A no-effect level has been demonstrated in
one or more animal species and there are
significant data in humans on safety levels.
In this case, no-effect levels in the most
sensitive animal species must be taken and
the no-effect level in humans is used to
lower the safety factor usually applied to
animals no-effect levels (example: crufomate,
disulfoton, etc.).

Safety factors have not been given for carbamodithioates,
hexachlorobenzene and bromide ion. The documents them-
selves should be directly consulted for these compounds.
The cases of folpet, captan and dimethoate-omethoate-
formothion require cross consultation.

To get a clearer idea of the information presented
in the preceding tables, the following section provides
information on the pesticides discussed in this work:
aldrin/dieldrin and dimethoate.

From the information given here we can conclude that

most of the toxicological research that had been done in

Ul
H

TABLE 1. Listing of pesticides and their toxocological

evaluation

 

Maximum acceptable

 

Compound daily intake for Remarks
man (ms/kg bW)
Aldrin/dieldrin 0.0001 The basis for the group-

ing is that the conver-
sion of aldrin to diel-
drin appears to be the
primary metabolic step
in all mammalian species
studied.

Consequently, the ADI
is applicable to aldrin
and dieldrin separately
or to the sum of them
if both are involved.
(WHO/FAQ, 1971b)

Dimethoate 0.02 As dimethoate and its
oxygen analogue ex-
pressed as dimethoate
(WHO/FAO, 1973 a -
Annex 1)

 

52

TABLE 2. Listing of counnn and chemical nanes for pesticides

Commn nane

(ISO Counnn names
mless otherwise
noted)

Aldrin

Dieldrin

Dimethoate

Chemical names

Product containingfit95‘7. of (lo< ,4o< ,
40K 3,5“ ,80< ,8“)? )-l,2,3,4,10,10-
Hexachloro-l,4,4a,5,8,8a—hexahydro-l,4:
5,8-dinethanonaphtalene

Product containing 857. of (lacx ,2 f3 ,
2a0( ,Bfl ,6 fl ,6a0( ,7/3 ,7aat )—3,4,5.
6,9,9,-hexachloro-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a-
octahvdro-Z , 7:3 , 6-dinethanonaphtalene
[LB-b] oxirene

Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dinethyl
S- [:2- (uethylandm)-2-oxoethyfl ester

3
5

o-.e

.nmoau .c<u\c:3
:ucoaouoao-

ban cause thu
uuauuuu-u a up.
Macao cal Iouu
u~na~«a>n so:

amassed. use:

na.a.-aao~
63—3—5
onu- 00m

AOAV
usual-m

acoou
smoou.osm\
can ”used
uu.uu coop»
“coma
.ao-vu use
:couovcnm

anon
wa¢~o>o~u
can cooks

Assad
.osm\c=:
“nos".aooaoz
ea. euaauuau

Aav
nonconuus

hud>uuon
unencuuocuuosu
vocab

ca unease
aeooquucmuu oz

nouunu gang»:

avOA\uo>un
cu oocouucn

vouaouu
now can: coda-u
Hausa: seasx
uo>ua can sauna
huuunquI so
Innuuucu «u0>«u
ozu nu occu-
Iou canon-ouoqx

any
ouuouuo «a
cosy-oases «can;

No.0

~coo.o

ass.

3a sex;-
aaa<v
ox-usu
auuao
anonymouon
Igluxn:

auvxcouuoa
ux\u- co
.ce.On.n~.n.c
can .hovxaa
sae\:a mx\ua n~.o use an.s~
ea ux\uu ~.o .n~.o.so.o.o .3 s
Aquacuuo
unaccouuooaav
A): max»!
.n~c.c. noun
8? a5 5 E... H 2: «:6 a: 3
Ana uxxua lee
nwc.ovuo«v as» cmu.ood.on
8?“ 5 a: a... .S.~.n.e.c a» a
Ace any Ace An.
caucuelo auuouuo gnaw vounou u~o>ua noon Hood
beau-u luoaou«86u o: Imamou«x6u
Auouum unwoauu u~o>oa no pawn

can: accuuochwuos uo shallow .n nan<h

an: auoonuuauo
won
an: auuvmouv
\ auuv~<
a~v adv
caduce- peace-co
unluc<

54

aldrin, dieldrin and dimethoate is reported in the mono-
graphs of the JMPR. The relevant toxicological data
included in this material had been summarized in Vettorazzi's
review which presents a updated picture of the most important
decision of the JMPR. This review can be considered as a
basic document from.which the ADI's to calculate the
maximum residue limit for the insecticides in study can
be taken.

Beside the above considerations, we must take into
account the high scientific standards and the responsible
work that the JMPR does in making the decision based on

the Toxicological Evaluation of the pesticides.

Other International Organizations
These organizations can be divided into two groups:
1. those interested in establishing maximum
residue limits and methods of analysis
for regions, and
2. those interested in the coordination
application of existing data and
techniques related to pesticide residues.
Among the first type of organizations are:
1. The European Economic Community (EEC).
Created in 1964 as a result of the EEC's
‘decision to set up committees in order to

establish maximum residue limits and accept

55

analytical methods that were legally recog-
nized by the member countries in an effort

to facilitate trade in foodstuffs such as
vegetables, fruits, unrefined grains and
animal products.

The European Council, which was established
in 1949 as the first political institution
of the post-World Ware era. It currently has
17 members. Since 1956, the Council has been
working on pesticide hazards to human health.
In 1960, it sponsored studies on residues

and acceptable daily intakes; with the
establishment of the Codex Alimentarius,

the Council dropped this type of work.

Today, it concentrates its efforts in this
field on pesticide publicity and labelling,
and other aspects not dealt with by the

Codex.

Among the second type of organizations are:

1.

Programs of Cooperation between the FAO and
industry. These programs promote the exchange
of ideas between industry and developing
countries with regard to modern methods

and suitable policies for the safe use of

pesticides in agriculture. This program

56

operates mainly by means of regional seminars
on pesticide production and use, and also on
safety measures in the manufacture, handling,
application, transportation and storage of
pesticides. The Programs work with the Codex
in marketing vegetable food products.

The German Agency for Technical Cooperation
(GTZ). This Agency is interested in the
environmental problems of Third World
countries; for this reason, it created a
specific program in 1973 in which the
problems of pesticide residues in developing
countries were to be studied and solutions

to them sought. At present the Agency has
projects in Algeria, Colombia, Egypt, El
Salvador, the Philippines, India, Indonesia,
Iran, Irak, Jordan, Morocco, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Sri Lanka,
the Sudan, Thailand, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia,
Turkey, and Uruguay. In these countries,

the Agency is working on such things as
planning and establishing laboratories,
planning and implementing analysis programs
to determine residues, organizing training
programs, and providing advisory services on
legislation and extension services in rural

areas .

57

The International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry. This organization advises
international agencies on the standardization
of analytical techniques; it has established
a section of pesticides for this purpose.
Bilateral agreements are established
between countries to monitor imported foods
in terms of the presence of pesticide
residues to avoid importer rejection of the
food products. The maximum residue limits
controlled by these agreements are the

tolerance values adopted by the importers.

PARAMETERS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE STUDY

OF RESIDUES AND IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS IN COLOMBIA

This section groups together those aspects of this

question that are peculiar to each region or country due

to the variability of each area. The parameters that must

be considered are listed below.

1. Feasibility for Implementing a Residue Program for
the Country

1.1.

Analysis of the Lega1,Technical, and Economic
Facts of Pesticide Policies: The national
policy on pesticide use and its implications

has a broad legislative groundwork. It involves

58

several government agencies and sectors and,
without diminishing technical autonomy, it
adequately standardizes the trade in and use
of agro-chemicals. When compared to similar
policies adopted in other American countries
or even to those adopted in other parts of the
world, the Colombian policy is better than many
of them because it is feasible to implement it
and it does embrace important concepts; never-
theless, it does contain several negative and
confusing points.

1.1.1. Pesticide Legislation: Before 1968,

 

governmentintervention in the field of
pesticides and other agro-chemical
inputs was carried out by the Ministry
of Agriculture with much good will but
limited efficiency and effectiveness.
Decree 557 of 1957 was the first
practical measure taken in this area.
The Decree established "the registra-
tion of pesticides used in agriculture,"
setting up minimum manufacturing require-
ments and a certificate with "the
respective consular visa" on the free
sale of the product in the country of

origin. At the end of 1967, this Decree

59

was repealed by Decree 779, which
established, for the first time, the
EFFICIENCY CERTIFICATE requirement.

The CERTIFICATE was to be issued by a
government or private agency especially
authorized to do this. The Decree also
established more specific definitions
and toxicological requirements to be
established by the Ministry of Health,
as well as technical norms to be estab-
lished by the Ministry of Development.
The provisions of Decree 779 also
established the idea of shared responsi-
bility so that no decision would come
from one person alone.

At the end of 1968, the Colombian
agricultural sector underwent an entire
restructuring established in Decree 2420.
The standards created by Decree 779 were
replaced by the provisions of Decree 843,
1969, "whereby the fertilizer, soil
conditioners, animal feed, pesticide
defoliant, physiological plant regulators,
drugs and biological products for veterinary

use industries are regulated." With this

6O

Decree, the government establishes a
complete series of regulations that
included Resolution 108, 1974, issued
by the Ministry of Agriculture. This
Resolution "established regulations for
the use of pesticides in animal and
vegetable products." This Resolution
also gave ICA the power to adopt the
necessary regulations to place pesti—
cides in categories: those pesticides
thought to be toxicologically safe; those
pesticides free from maximum residue
limits; and those pesticides for which
maximum.residue limits must be established.
Thus, in 1974, ICA issued Resolution 654,
which established certain maximum residue
limits for a large number of insecticides
used for tobacco. These tolerances were.
the same ones used by the FDA. Ag£_-
cultural Topics No. 135, 1978, contains
the other measures taken in this field.
Colombian legislation in this area
will take on another dimension with the
adoption of Law 007, 1979 passed by

the Colombian Congress.

1.1.

2.

61

The Pesticide Industpy: The pesticide
industry emerged in the 1950's. The

first plant was established in Barranquilla
in 1953. The work done by the plant was

to physically mix active and inert
materials.

The industry grew slowly but steadily,
despite certain difficulties. Nineteen-
Hundred and Sixty Three was an important
year for this industry for it was in that
year that the importation of most of the
finished pesticides was substituted by
national formulation. The government
stimulated this sector by establishing
30% protective tariffs on finished
pesticide products.

The decade of the 1960‘s saw tremendous
expansion in this sector. All solvents
and most emulsifiers and other inert
ingredients were produced 1J1 Colombia.

In 1964, the production or synthesis of
fungicides from the bisdithiocarbamate
group was begun, along with the production
of herbicides such as diuron and propanile.

At present, there are 26 companies

formulating and distributing pesticides

1.

l.

3.

62

in Colombia. Their work and operations
are based on concessions or patents they
have obtained from U.S., European and
Japanese firms.

In regard to specifications and
technical norms, local production is
regulated by international standards.
The high quality of pesticides formulated
in Colombia has enabled them.to be
accepted in U.S., Taiwanese, Japanese,
Brazilian and other markets; this is in
addition to meeting local consumption
needs which are estimated to be between
20,000 and 25,000 tons of active ingredi-
ents worth approximetely 100-125 million
dollars. The Colombian pesticide market
represents almost half of the total
consumption of Andean Pact countries.
The production and consumption of
pesticides in Colombia involves more
than 100 active ingredients in close to
900 commercial formulations; 50% of
them are for insecticides and 25% for
herbicides.

The Use of Pesticides: Pesticide use

 

in Colombia is a professional type of

63

activity carried out under strict govern-
ment norms. Unlike other countries,
pesticides in Colombia can only be
prescribed by professionals, no aerial
spraying can be done without the author-
ization or prescription of a professional.
The extent of aerial pesticide spraying
in Colombia can be seen in the fact that
there are approximately 300 aircraft for
this purpose, and 3-4 million hectares
are sprayed annually.

Laws established strict parameters
for providing agricultural technical
assistance. They establish obligatory
civil liability and limit the amount of
area of each crop that one professional
may have under his control and work on.

Agri-businessmen must contract
technical assistance; this requirement
is complied.with because it is an essential
requirement for obtaining agricultural
credit or government financing. More
detailed information on the standardized
use of pesticides in Colombia may be
found in Volume XXXI, No. 10, 1979 of

the magazine Nueva Agricultura Tropical.

l.

2.

64

Studies Conducted in Colombia on Residues and

the Resources Available for the Analysis of

these Residues: Up to the present, studies done

on pesticide residues have focused on detecting

residues in food products and not on the estab-
lishment of maximum residue limits. Most of

this analytical work has been done by the Institute

of Technological Research (IIT). The other

studies done have been graduate theses done by
students from the ICA Graduate School — National

University and other universities in Colombia.

There follows here a summary of the results

obtained from these studies.

1.2.1. Institute of Technological Research (TIT):
Studies have been conducted on the deter-
mination of residues in the products sold
in the marketplace in Bogota. The results
of this study are found in Table 4.

1.2.2. Masters thesis done in the ICA Graduate
School - National University program.on
pesticide residues in tomato crops in the
Valle del Cauea area (1975): A survey
was done in this study on the utilization
of pesticides in this crop; then the

residues themselves were analyzed. The

655

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz a no. cu. o mg. no. m~.~ na.~ a nu. mm. «o. oz Amwv umuuao

on. an. o nu. ad. nu. an. nu.~ mg. no. No. no. Aonv mafia

a no. jo. o o~. «o. s no. a om. we. a o.~ «o. ammo coxuuzo

oz no. oo. o on. «o. s no.u c ow. «fl. oz AnNV anon

oz 1 we. no. ,c cu. as. a so. a a". co. . a «a. xn~o do»:

oz a «o. moo. ooo. a no. no. No. do. No. oz Aomv «cum

on. oz on. on. Ho. do. coo. a «o. o No. soc. ou. coo. Aonv demon

oz a «o. o «o. do. a do. No. a «o. 1 oz Ammo u:o~u cuoo

a on. oz a «o. o do. a go. o ~o. co. c oz Anwv cuoo

no. a oz ou. ou. no. No. No. No. do. a c do. No. a no. An~qo cocoa-oh

oz. a on. on. «o. o no. No. No. ou. oa. no. ow. a Ho. Aooao secuauom
<oh “an Hun (on “an hum <oh “an Run “a” bun <oh ”an Hun (fit “an hum "cushulwu “MMMHHW
as. u, an.mo AaaaV Anna. Alamo guano sensuous

ueozeanoh «aquacuzo acuzoauooz poo auuoaouo auuvcm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nauseoue poem acououuuo lean voaqauao coughedzuoeuuuo uo nuns oaouuou no nun-Isa .e u4n<a

 

66

“mod a ~o~ canola: .aauuuonocuoh concuoquuuoo>au cuauuuoon .aouOAocuob .oaon

.33.; .3. ..<.z .3393:

.ooucauu~0u com

.22 .7.” .18..- ..»a: S .422 82:2 6.535.. 53.1.8 328532 .268

“mmoz=Om
mucouo~6u uaozuua c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c a a o oo. o c on. c o~.~ c c o~.~ a a do. sown uu>qz
oz no. no. no. o « coo. a an. o No. nso. o «o. co. Aonv zoom amaue<
c oo. co. 1 a a co. Away vacuum duuomu>
on. oz No. ou. do. «o. mg. a do. No. an. AANV duo douowo>
oz, «o. «o. co. on. no. on. so. ow. moo. Aonv ammo
oz c no. «A. o nu. co. n~.~ oe.~ « mg. on. No. oz Anuv unseen
25 25 25 25 95 25 2.3 :25
<om o<u hum ¢oh o<m hum <oh oas hum o<m Hun <om o<m bum <om o<m Hum ode-an no soaaacv
uuuovOum
Annov A: v Annoy Aaaov Aaoov Annoy
ocuzanxoh ocavuono «casuaueuz boo cuuoaouo cannon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.u=ooo .q mun<a

 

67

findings of this study on the determina-
tion of residues in 74 samples analyzed

are found in Table 5.

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Pesticide residues found in 74 tomato samples
collected in the Valle del Cauea.

No. of Average

Samples Amount of FDA

Having Residues Tolerances

Pesticide Residues (ppm) (ppm)

Bisdithiocarbamates 47 29.7 7
Copper oxychloride 8 14.7 0
Parathion 20 0.32 l
EPN 29 2.2 3
DDT (total) 28 0.01 7
Endrin 10 0.39 0

 

 

1.

2.3.

Graduate Thesis Done by the Chemists
Ines Toro S. and Marta Pena P. in ICA,
Tibaitata, 1974 as Part of the Require-
ments for Graduation from the National

University: DDT and heptachlor residues

 

in cabbage and beets were analyzed in
this study. The experimental basis of
this study used three different appli-

cation doses of the insecticides; the

68

maximum dose was 2 kilograms of active
ingredient per hectare. Analyses were
also done on samples coming from.market-
places. The same insecticide residues
were determined. The results obtained
from samples taken from field test
products, after having applied proper
agricultural practices in growing
cabbage and beets showed amounts of
residues very much below the maximum
residue limits established by the
FAO/WHO, which are 7ppm for DDT and 0.1
for heptachlor.

The amounts found were:

Cabbage: Highest concentration
of DDT -- 0.297 ppm.

Cabbage: Highest concentration
of heptachlor --
0.038 ppm.

Beets: Highest concentration
of DDT without meta-
bolites -- 0.301 ppm.

Beets: Highest concentration
of heptachlor --
0.041 ppm.

69

The sample taken in the marketplace
yielded far lower analytical data than
the data reported at the experimental
level.

1.2.4. Graduate Thesis Submitted to the
Universidad del Valle by Gilberto
Hernan Gallego A., 1973, on Organo-
chlorides in Agriculture Products for

Humen Consumption: The thesis was done

 

in Cali, Colombia. Samples were taken
in three marketplaces. The finding of

the residue analyses are shown in Table 6.

 

 

Table 6. Organochloride residues found in several products

soldixlthree marketplaces in Cali (ppb).

 

Product BHC Heptacho. Aldrin DDE TDE DDT Endrin

 

Tomato 18.8 30.6 33.1 193 339

Grapes 105* 179 44 306

Lulo 29.6 234

Blackberry 81.0 76.7* 100*
("mora")

Orange 20.3 15.3 88

Potato 32.0 48.5 10.3 44.5 54.8

Cabbage 155 230 59.5 1320

Lettuce 26.3 22.6 22.6

 

*Above FAO/WHO tolerances

 

 

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.5. Graduate Thesis Presented by Carlos
Enrique Restrepo G. and Jose Jesus
Jaramillo P. at the Universidad de
Caldas, 1975: The thesis is a study of
the utilization of pesticides in the
horticultural zone of Villamaria. The
study then takes samples and analyzes
the residues present in four crops.
The results obtained are found in
Table 7.
Table 7. Average values of organochloride insecticide
residues in four crops in the Villamaria zone
(in ppm).
Diel- En- Endo-
Crop Aldrin DDD DDT drin drin BHC sulfan
Cabbage .0348 .1424 .033 .043
(33%;: .002 .029 .054 .005 .0088 .0012
Lettuce .0067 .0123 .0223 .0852 .1695 .0048 .0474
Carrots .0071 .0280 .0613 .0297 .0790 .0014
FAO/WHO
Tolerance 0 none 7.0 0 0 3.0 2.0

 

 

As to the resources available for analyzing

residues,

that have specific residue programs:

there are three institutions in Colombia

71

-- The Institute of Technological Research
(IIT) works in residue analysis of
organochlorides in food products, taking
samples from marketplaces; and determines
residues of pesticides in coffee samples
for export for the National Federation
of Coffee Growers.

-- The National Health Institute (INS) has
conducted residue studies on blood serums,
determined mercury in fish and in the Bay
of Cartagena. It has plans to determine
residues in the average family diet and
to do toxicological studies on pesticides.

-- The Colombian Institute of Agriculture
(ICA). This is the most recent program;
it was established in 1976, and from the
outset, has been oriented towards the
program of establishing maximum residue
limits for the conditions existing in
Colombia.

The infrastructure and equipment these Institutes
have provides the basis for carrying out the

initial phases of determining pesticide residues.
Although specific programs have yet to be created,

other national institutes are interested in

72

beginning this type of work in cooperation with
others so that efforts will not be duplicated.
However, there would be a certain separation

of activities at the practical level. For
instance, Coltabaco (the national tobacco/
cigarettes manufacturer) would be in charge of
analyzing residues in the tobacco crop; the INS
would be in charge of working on residues in
people; the Institute of Municipal Development
(INSFOPAL) would analyze water for aquaducts;
universities would conduct research and studies
on residues; ICA would work on residues in agri-
cultural products and soils; thus, each institute
and institution would make its own special
contribution to a national residue program.

An inter-institutional group has been set
up to work on residues. COLCIENCIAS (The.
Colombian Fund for Scientific Research and
Special Projects, "Francisco Jose de Caldas")
sees it as a pilot program for Colombia that
will obtain the financial assistance needed to
carry out different projects. The section on
Residues and Tolerances from ICA has set up
and coordinated this group, which is made up

of the following people:

73

Institute

 

Institute of Municipal
Development (INSFOPAL)

Colombian Tobacco Company
(COLTOBACO)

Fumigation Company (FUMIGAX)
National Health Institute (INS)
National School of Health

Autonomous Regional Corporation
from.the Valle del Cauca (CVC)

Institute of Technological
Research (IIT)

Colombian Institute of Hydrol-

ogy, Meteorology and Land
A ptation (HIMAT)

Colombian Company of Dairy
Products (CICOLAC)

School of Medicine, Universidad
de Santander

Department of Pharmacy,
National University

Department of Chemis try ,
National University

Department of Pharmacology,
National University

Department of Processes,
Universidad del Valle

School of Agronomy,
Universidad de Caldas

School of Agronomy,
Universidad de Narino

ICA, Section on Residues and
Tolerances

No. of
Representatives

2

NHwH

74

Analysis of Per Cepita Food Consumption

To find out about person/day consumption of food
in general, and specifically of potatoes--which is
the food product being studied in this paper--one
must analyze the data obtained from the only two
sources of information there are on this subject:
the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF) and
the National Planning Department (DPN), with its
National Food and Nutrition Program (PAN). The infor-
mation presented here is a summary of what these two
agencies are and the role they play in developing
programs, plans and policies relating to the food and
nutrition of the Colombian people.

According to Varela Velasquez, 1979, work in the
field of nutrition began in 1942, when a group of
Colombian professionals initiated specialization
‘courses in nutrition and promoted technical and
scientific exchange. In 1944, the Laboratory of
Dietetics was created; it would later become the
Institute of Nutrition, created in 1947 as part of
what was then called the Ministry of Hygiene. The
Institute was responsible for nutritional research in
Colombia.

In 1963, the national government strengthened

the Institute and transformed it into the National

75

Institute of Nutrition, which is an autonomous agency
with its own facilities and budget. The Institute
then organized the Integrated Nutrition Programs
(FINA). Through them, the Institute formed and
coordinated at the local level health activities,
agricultural production and community education and
action. It also began to integrate international
organizations into its programs. Among them were the
Pan-American Health Organization (PHD/WHO), the FAO
and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).

There are 67 articles in the 1968 law. It is
divided into three chapters: chapter three creates
the ICBF (the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare).
It is a public agency having its own judicial status.
It is administratively autonomous, has its own
facilities and has, as part of it, the National
Nutrition Institute. The Nutrition Institute became
part of the ICBF as of May 1, 1969 by virtue of
Decree 398 and Agreement 37. The Institute works
out of the Department of Nutrition of the ICBF.

The Institute's activities include the Integrated
Program of Applied Nutrition (FINA), which coordinates
the resources and work done by agencies working to
improve the community's nutritional and food situation.

It has conducted studies in areas representing

76

different socio-anthropological groups in Colombia.
The overall aims of these studies have been to contri-
bute to making a national diagnosis of the nutritional
level of Colombians and to provide the groundwork for
planning and implementing nutrition programs.

The PAN (National Food and Nutrition Plan) being
carried out by the Department of Nutrition was formally
approved by the Council on Economic and Social Policy
on March 5, 1975. Varela Vasquez (1979) states that
the PAN is oriented towards those groups in the
population who are most vulnerable to malnutrition and
who live in rural and poor urban areas.

2.1. ICBF Surveys: The national diet survey conducted

 

in 1972 and 1973 provides the basis of the studies
done by ICBF. Three types of surveys were
devised: the Food Survey, the Clinical Anthro-
pometric Survey for Pre-school Children and the
Anthropometric Survey of School Children. The
Food Survey, which is the survey of greatest
interest for the present study, included questions
on the purchase and consumption of food according
to local customs. The number of families studied
and the length of the survey made it possible to
obtain information for every day of the week for

two weeks, with each day being studied (surveyed)

77

twice. The questionnaire or format used in the

survey is found in Appendix A, Table A1.

The ICBF established the following zones

which were studied:

Zone 1:

Zone 2:

Zone 3:

Zone 4:

Zone 5:

Zone 6:

Zone 7:

Zone 8:

The Atlantic Coast--includes the
cities of Barranquilla, Cartagena,
Monteria and Riohacha.
Antioquia--includes the cities of
Medellin, Rionegro, Girardota,
Manizales, Chinchina, Armenia and
Pereira.

Caucana--includes the cities of
Cali, Buenaventura, Puerto Tejada,
Popayan and Quibdo.
Cundinamarca-Boyaca--includes the
cities of Bogota, Girardot, La Mesa,
Tunja and Duitama. .
Villavicencio

Narino--includes the cities of
Pasto and La Union.
Santandereana--includes the cities
of Bucaramanga, San Gil, Cucuta
and Pamplona.

Tolima--includes the cities of

Ibague, Guamo and Neiva.

2.2.

78

Zone 9: National Territories--includes
Florencia.
Zone 10: The Islands of San Andres and
Providencia.
To select the families to be surveyed, the popu-
lation was divided into sectors according to
the census survey done by health workers employed
by the Health Service. In each sector, the
families were chosen randomly and in proportion
(in terms of numbers) to the concentration of
families in the sector.

The PAN Surveys: To have a realistic basis for

 

carrying out PAN activities, a study was done on
PAN areas regarding pepulation make-up, nutri-
tional condition, food consumption, availability
of nutrients and income, breastfeeding, health
and environmental health. These surveys were
done during July and August, 1977 in 11 depart-
ments in Colombia: Atlantico, Bolivar, Caldas,
Cauea, Huila, Magdalena, Norte de Santander,
Risaralda, Tolima, Valle and Bogota, D.E.

The survey sample was made up of 44 communities
randomly selected. One hundred families were
chosen from each city, trying to keep a balance

between rural and urban areas. Sample size and

2.3.

79

selection of families were based on statistical
principles involving population size, number of
standard deviations, standard deviation and
tolerated sample error (DNP-PAN document, May,
1978). Appendix A, Table A2 shows a comparison
of the zones included in each survey (ICBF and
PAN surveys) and includes the number of families
and people interviewed.

Data Analysis: The Institute analyzed the data

 

obtained from.the ICBF survey. The report is
presented for each zone in Appendix A, Table A3.
The data obtained from the PAN survey were analyzed
by computer. The results of this analysis are
presented in Appendix A, Table A4; in this annex,
only those products that are part of the total
food consumption (up to 1%) are included. This
is why the totals that appear at the bottom do
not correspond to the sum of the figures, but
rather to the average total obtained in the
complete tabulation of the survey. This is also
true for Table 10.

Table 8 and Figures 4 and 5 show in a compara-
tive form the food consumption per person/day in
general and of potatoes in particular, which are

principal data as far as this study is concerned.

80

TABLE 8. Food consurption per person/day in general and of potatoes
in particular, in grass (ICBF Survey,l972 and PAN, 1977)

 

ICBF Interviews

PAN Interviews

 

 

 

Z 0 n e 3

Food Potatoes Z Food Potatoes Z

Cons. Cons. Total Cons. Cons. Total
Costa Atlantica 743 23 3. 926 28 3.0
Antioquena 770 89 11. 902 66 7.3
Caucana 824 87 10. 871 129 14.8
Cundinamarca 1,057 357 33. 863 277 32.1
Villavicencio 860 186 21. - - -
Narino 965 247 25. - - -
Santandereana 951 175 18. 994 89 9.0
Tolimense 773 118 15. 934 108 15.3
Territories Nales 909 77 8. - - -
San Andres Islas 1,134 49 4. - - -
TOTAL FOR COUNTRY 8,986 1,408 5,490 696
AVERAGE FOR COUNTRY 899 141 915 116

 

81

 

D PAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I300 ‘

IZOO -

m.

I00 -

0

FIGURE 4. Per capita daily consurption of food by zones in

Colombia (grans/ day/ person)

350

325

275

200

ITS

ISO

|25

IOO

75

 

 

82

ICBF

[3 PAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

FIGURE 5. Per capita daily consumption of potames by zones
Colombia (grams/day/person)

2.4.

83

Tables 9 and 10 give the order of importance

of the main foods in the Nation according to

the average daily intake.

Discussion of the Results: The results obtained
in these two surveys (ICBF-PAN) make it possible
to make the following observations:

-- The surveys were conducted in similar
areas and in both cases, preference was
given to zones where the Health Service
operated.

-- The social strata of the population
surveyed in both surveys was a low income
one that is affected by food and mal-
nutrition problems.

-- The PAN survey covered many more families
and people than the ICBF survey. However,
the ICBF survey covered a larger geographic
area than the PAN. One must remember that
ICBF conducted surveys in areas where
there is high consumption of potatoes, like
Narino and Villavicencio. This fact gives
a more realistic situation since the
calculation of the maximum residue limit
can be made upon the higher potato consump-

tion rather than the lower one. Consequently,

84

TABLE 9. Order of importance of the principal foods in
nation according to average daily intake (I.C.B.F.

 

 

1972)
No. list Foods Average Cons. Percent
(grams) on average

1 Potatoes 140.8 15.66
2 Milk 115.1 12.90
3 Plantain 92.0 10.42
4 Rice 82.0 9.23
5 Beef 75.0 8.47
6 Brown sugar 70.7 7.97
7 Wheat 65.0 7.34
8 Yucca 43.0 4.89
9 Sugar cane 42.3 4.81
10 Corn 36.7 4.19
11 Tomatoes 17.5 2.05
12 Fish 17.8 1.98
13 Vegetal grease 11.8 1.31
14 Eggs 10.0 1.11
15 Oranges 9.4 1.04
16 Bananas 9.3 1.03
17 Onion 9.2 1.02
18 Peas 8.2 0.91
19 Vegetal oil 7.7 0.85
20 Arracacha '7.2 0.80
21 Carrots 7.1 0.79
22 Beans 6.8 0.75
23 Cabbage 5.4 0.60
24 Animal grease 4.5 0.50
25 Guava 3.2 0.35

 

85

TABLE 10. Order of importance of the principal foods in

the nation according to average daily intake
(P.A.N. , 1977).

 

 

No. list Foods Average Cons. Percent on
. (grams) Average
1 Potatoes 116.268 12.71
2 Milk 114.612 12.53
3 Brown sugar 101.596 11.10
4 Rice 80.037 8.75
5 Yucca 76.563 8.75
6 Plantain 64.789 7.08
7 Corn 42.966 4.69
8 Beef 39.196 4.28
9 Sugar cane 26.782 2.93
10 Salt 18.840 2.06
11 Beans 15.713 1.72
12 Oranges 13.851 1.51
13 Fish 13.468 1.47
14 Bread 12.745 1.39
15 Cocoa 12.471 1.36
16 Cheese 12.205 1.33
17 Wheat pasta 11.964 1.31
18 Vegetal grease 11.711 1.28
19 Coffee 10.915 1.19
20 Bananas 10.203 1.11
21 Carrots 10.058 1.10
22 Tomatoes 9.709 1.06
23 Squash 9.226 1.01
24 Corn flour 8.816 1.00
25 Onion 8.800 1.00

 

86

this constitutes an additional safety
factor in establishing the maximum.residue
limit in the daily intake.

-- The areas surveyed in both surveys are
different in terms of the number of
families and towns; except for Cundinamarca,
these numbers are always larger or the
same as the PAN figures. As far as
Cundinamarca is concerned, the PAN only
conducted four surveys in the District
of Bogota; one of these surveys does not
correspond to the strata defined by the
PAN for conducting the surveys.

-- As for making a list in the order of
importance of the food consumed, potatoes
occupy first place in both surveys; for
this reason, potatoes can be considered
the priority food in the study of residues
and establishment of maximum residue limits.

-- The variation of data in terms of total
consumption of food/person/day is not
very large and does not much differ from
the data obtained in the two surveys.
Thus, one may take 907 grams/person/day

as the average value and round this figure

87

off to 1,000 grams without any diffi-
culty.

One could object to this value in terms

of its representing the entire Colombian
population by saying that it is based on

a low-income sector of the population.
Nevertheless, as long as there is no

data on a broader sector of the population,
the value obtained in the ICBF and PAN
surveys will have to be used.

In defining the per capita/day consumption
of potatoes, the FAQ/WHO concept shall be
taken in account in terms of using the
average of total consumption for a country
or region. In the present case, the
figure obtained in the ICBF survey will

be used because it is higher than the PAN
one and because it corresponds to the
average of the total obtained in the
survey and includes the value of an
important zone like Narino. Consequently,
the figure 141 grams of potato/person/day
will be used.

The data on the per capita consumption/day
of potatoes may be considered representa-

tive and valid. This corresponds to a

88

sector of the population whose consumption
of potatoes is very high and consequently
they are more exposed to the chemical
pesticides applied to this product. The

preference for potatoes is based on:

the comparatively low price of this
product,
-- the constant availability of the
product on the market,
-- the acceptable nutritional value
of the product compared with its
cost,
-- traditional food habits that make
potatoes the product most eaten
by the population,
-- the ease of its preparation,
-- the savings of time, seasonings
and fuel in the cooking of potatoes,
-- the volume of potatoes eaten
replaces other more nutritious
foods which are more expensive, and
-- the smallholding characteristics
of potato growing determines that
part of the potato crop will be
consumed by the producer and his

family.

89

The Average Weight of Colombian Consumers

The Sectional Growth, Development and Nutrition
Study done on 12,138 children in Bogota in 1965-1968
by the ICBF is the only document containing infor-
mation on the average weight of Colombians. The
study was done on both sexes between the ages of 0-20
years. The data published is of 2,979 people from the
upper classes in Bogota. The authors of this study
propose that the average values obtained for weight
and height be used as standards of reference in the
evaluation of the growth of Colombian children.
There lies their importance for the studies done on
the maximum residue limits. The average weight is 60
kilograms, which is the same figure used by FAO/WHO
when calculating the pesticide intake per kilogram

body weight.

Analysis of Agricultural Practices Used in Growing

Potatoes with Special Emphasis on the Utilization

 

of Pesticides

4.1. General Information on Potato Crop; Because
potatoes are one of the basic staples in the
Colombian diet they are then one of the most
important and technicalized crops in the country.
The importance of this crop can be seen in the

statistics on it shown in Table 11.

90

TABLE 11. Area, production and yield of the potatoe cr0p
in Colombia (period between 1970-1980

 

 

Year Area Variation Production Variation Yield
(thous. ha) indice (thous. ton) indice Tons/ha
1970: 100 1970:100

1970 84. 1 100 913 . 1 100 10 . 8
1971 83.8 99 824.6 90 9.8
1972 85.0 101 782.0 86 9.2
19 73 94. 1 112 983 . 5 108 10 .4
19 74 87 . 5 104 902 . 5 99 10 . 3
1975 110 .0 130 1 , 320 . 0 144 12. 0
1976 125 . 0 148 1 ,515 .8 166 12. 1
1977 127 . 9 L52 1 , 608 . 6 176 12 . 5
1978 128.9 153 1, 754.9 192 13.6
1979 70.0 83 902.6 99 12.9
1980* 67 . 0 80 923 . 9 101 13 . 8

 

* Proyections calculated by Potato Growers Federation

SOIRCES: Documento de trabajo No 13, Seccion Estudios Agroeconomicos del
ICA. - Ministerio de Agricxfltura, OPSA, 1977-1979. Programas
Agricolas 1977.

91

Aeeae .mama on Hanan:
v H0>0H mom m>onm mumume CH unwwmav manEoHou :H moaou wcaonpoum oumuom .0 mmauHm

 

 

 

A < 2 H u m <.2 a m m m 2 D 2 H H m o A < 2 H U m «.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo.¢ oon.m ooo.m cem.~ ooo.~ oom.H

 

 

 

 

A < H U m m 2 Z O U

 

 

 

A < H H z m H o m

 

92

TNN£212. Area seeded and potato production, 1976

 

 

 

 

State A r e a P r o d u c t i o n
Has Z on tot. Tons. Z on tot.
Boyaca 30,000 360,000
Cundinamarca 29,000 377,000
Narino 25,000 331,600
84,000 67 1'068,600 70
Antioquia 13,500 135,000
Santander 8,000 80,000
Tolima 7,200 104,000
Norte Sant. 5,800 58,000
Caldas 4,100 44,100
Cauea 1,800 19,900
Quindio 400 4,050
Risaralda 150 1,700
40,950 33 447,750 30
TOTAL 124,950 1'515,750

 

SOURCE: Ministerio de Agricultura, OPSA Programas Agricolas,
1977.

93

The potato growing areas are well defined and
found in areas that satisfy their ecological
needs, as shown in Figure 6.

Table 12 includes the areas of greatest
production in 1976 and Figure 7 shows the
geographical location of the three departments
that produce the most potatoes.

There are approximately 70,850 potato
producers. The comparison between the area
seeded with potatoes (124,950 hectares in 1976)
and the number of producers reveals that small
growers predominate; 95% of the area where
potatoes are grown is on plots of less than
7 hectares even though this type of potato
farming accounts for 81% of the total area

under cultivation. This is shown in Table 13.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Number of potato farms, areaand.production for

small, medium and larger producers in Colombia,

1976 (ICA, 1970).

Area Production Number of

Producer (hectares) (tons) Farms
Small 69,340 632,045 64,893
Medium 32,395 482,590 5,120
Large 23,215 410,705 837
TOTAL 124,950 1,525,340 70,850

 

 

94

COLOHBIA

 

I Mum
2 “nod
3 Ind“

departments of Colonbia

ucing

rod

FIGURE 7. Principal potato p

4.2.

4.3.

95

The most important point to be considered in
this paper is related to the use of pesticides
for controlling different pests attacking the
potato crop. This analysis includes the
technology officially recommended by ICA and
the technology used by the farmer. The summarized
and objective presentation of this information
was done on the questionnaire on "Good Agri-
cultural Practices" prepared by the Canadian
delegation during the X Meeting of the Codex on
Pesticides, held in The Hague from May 29 to
June 5, 1978.

Official Agronomic Practices Recommended in
Potatoes: The official technology recommended
by ICA appears in the different publications on
potato crops put out by the Institute. These
articles are summarized in the Potato Manuel,
number 130, 1977 and in the Pest Control Guide
prepared by ICA in 1975. A summary of this
information is found in Appendix B, Table B1.
Analysis of the Agronomic Practices Used by the

Potato Growers: To obtain information on the

 

technology used by farmers, a regional survey
was done in the most important potato zones that
are most representative of the country; 82% of

the surveys were done in the departments of

96

Boyaca, Cundinamarca and Narino, and 18% were
done in Antioquia, Caldas and Tolima. The size
of the potato farms surveyed was under 6 hectares
in 93% of the cases, 50 hectares in 6% of the
cases and 90 hectares in 1% of the cases. The
distribution of the surveys by department is
found in Table 14.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14. Distribution of the surveys done on the use of
pesticides in potato crops.

Department No. Surveyed No. Towns % Surveys
Boyaca 228 18 43.68
Cundinamarea 133 ‘ 11 25 .48
Narino 67 5 12.84
Antioquia 42 6 8.05
Caldas 34 3 6.51
Tolima 18 2 3.45
TOTAL 522 45 100

 

 

A model of the format used in the surveys is
found in Appendix B, Table B2. The tabulation
and analysis of the information obtained was
done by a computer from the Division of Statistics
and Biometry, ICA. A study of the tables provided

the following information:

97

The average area farmed among those
surveyed was 3.18 hectares; the maximum
area was 84 hectares in the Department
of Caldas.

Pesticides were applied by Sprayers
carried on the back; the average sprayer
had a 20 liter capacity with a maximum
capacity of 50 liters.

96.4% of those surveyed used hoes to
control weeds.

The most commonly controlled diseases
are late blight of potato, Phitgphtora

infestans and to a far lesser extent

 

potato rust, Puccinia pittieriana.

The most widely used fungicides in
controlling these two diseases are the
bisdithiocarbamates (manzate, dithane,
M-22 and M-45). They made lesser use
of fentin hydroxide (duter), fentin
acetate (brestan), sulphur (elosal) and
copper oxychloride.

The average number of applications of
these fungicides was eight per crop.
The most commonly controlled insect

pests were:

98

 

 

 

 

% of Those
Interviewed Who
Insects Control Them

White worm, Prenomtrypes vorax 80.08
Toxton, Liriomyza quadrata 46.16
Pulguilla, Epitrix spp. 41.96
Trozador or Rosquilla, Agrotis 27.76
ipsilon

Aphids or plant lice, Myzus 20.68
persicae

"Mosco" or Minador de follaje, 18.96
Scrobipalpula absoluta

Muque, Copitarsia consueta 10.52

 

-- In the order of their use, the most

widely used insecticides were:

 

% of Those
Interviewed Who

Insecticides Use Them
Carbofuran (furadan), applied 71.65
to soil
Dimethoate (roxion), applied 41.76
to foliage
Parathion 50, applied to foliage 37.36
Metamidofos (tamaron, monitor), 14.56
applied to foliage
Diazinon (basudin), applied to 12.28
foliage
Aldrin, applied to soil 10.72
Aldicarb (temik), applied to soil 8.43

Metil parathion, applied to foliage 7.08

99

The average number of applications of
insecticides to the growing crop was
eight; the departments of Caldas and
Tolima had the lowest number of appli-
cations: 5.

The pesticides most widely used in

mixtures were bisdithiocarbamates,

(dimethoate, parathion, and diazinon.

Most of those interviewed suspended
the use of pesticides 52 days before
harvest. The last pesticide products
they applied were manzate, dimethoate
and parathion.

The main sources of information the
farmer has for making decisions as to

which pesticides to use and the dosage

 

 

 

 

were:
Pesticide to be Used Application Dose
Source % Interviewed Source % Interviewed
Neighbor 36.78 Label 34.10
Salesman 23.75 Neighbor 20.88
Agronomist 14.76 Salesman 15.71
SENA 2.30 Agronomist 10.54
Agrarian Bank 2.11 Radio 3.45
Cooperatives 1.72 SENA 1.53
Radio 1.34 CooPeratives .96

Agrarian Bank .77

100

-- The main agricultural practices used on

the crops were:
-- first weeding--45 days after
sowing (average),
-- half earthing over--62 days after
sowing (average),
-- earthing over—-72 days after
sowing (average), and
-- harvest--l84 days after sowing
(average).
Semi-earthing over and earthing over
appear to be done at very short intervals;
however, this only appears that way because
the farmer does one of these procedures,
but not both of them.
87.74% of those interviewed market the
potatoes immediately after harvest; they
market them in small neighboring markets
and marketplaces, and one may assume
that consumption was also immediate.
The most objective summary of the tech-
nology used by the farmers is found in
Appendix B, Table B3. I
A comparison of Table Bl (recommended use

of pesticides) and Table B3 (use of

101

pesticides by farmers) makes it possible

to see the differences found in Table 15.
On the basis of the foregoing information, the
following conclusions can be reached:

-- Farmers use pesticides to control pests
that affect the potato crop and do not
follow the recommendations made by ICA
as regards products, doses and applica-
tion frequency.

-- Nevertheless, the study on residues
conducted with a view to establishing
maximum.residue limits, must take in
account the pesticides and doses used
by farmers.

-- Mindful of the products used by the
farmer, a study on residues must have
the following priorities:

-- bisdithiocarbamates (fungicides); and

-- dimethoate, parathion, metamidofos,
diazinon, metil parathion (organo-
phosphorate insecticides); aldrin
(organochlorides); carbofuran and
aldicarb (carbamates).

-- Due to the chemical nature of bisdithio-

carbamates, they do not pose the same type

102

TABLE 15. Comparison of time use of pesticides in farmers

potatoe crops and the recommendations made by ICA.

 

 

Farmer's used pest- R e c o m m e n d e d U s e d

icides kg a.i.lha No appl. kga.i./ha No appl.
Aldrin 1.0-2.0 1 soil 0.62 2 soil
Aldicarb 2.0 2 soil 6.18 2 soil
Bux No recommended 0.67 3
Canphechlor-DDT 20 kg. bait soil .66-.33 E 3 soil
Carbofuran 1.0 2 soil 1.62 3 soil
DDT No recommended 1.48 5
Dieldrin No recommended 0.20 8
Diazinon No recommended 0.50 6
Dimethoate 0.50 3 - 4 0.40 6
ECU (BHC) No recommended 0.14 4
HCH-DDT-CuO No recommended .04-.02

-.2 3

Malathion 0.50 - 1.0 3 - 4 0.46 5
Metamidophos 0.50 3 0.53 6
Methyl parathion No recommended 0.30 6
Meth. parath.-parath. No recommended .54-.27 5
Methomyl 0.25 - 0.50 3 - 4 0.73 7
Parathion No recommended 0.46 5
Trichlorphon No recommended 0.79 6

 

103

of problem encountered with organophos-
phorated pesticides, organochlorides and
carbamates.

Despite its high toxicity, the widely
used carbofuran is an important product
in the study of residues. Much the

same can be said for aldicarb.

The information obtained determined the
study of one organophosphorated insecti-
cide (dimethoate) and one organochloride
pesticide (aldrin); they are both used
extensively by farmers.

Mention has already been made of the fact
that farmers use these two insecticides
in spite of the official recommendations.
Aldrin is only used on the soil; the dose
is 0.62 kg. active ingredients per hectare;
it is applied twice although the official_
recommendation says it should be applied
once in a 1-2 kg. dose of active ingred-
ients per hectare. Thus, the dose applied
by farmers falls within the limits set

by ICA.

Dimethoate is applied to foliage as per
official recommendation, but the farmers

are applying it six times in 0.4 kg. active

104

ingredient doses per hectare. The result

is that the farmer is applying 0.4 kg.
ai/hec more than the dose recommended by
ICA.

The farmer applies aldrin for the last

time 105 days before harvest even though

the official recommendations say he should
do so at the time of sowing. ICA recommends
applying dimethoate 60 days before harvest
while farmers apply it 46 days before

harvest.

5. Experiments and Sampling That Must Be Done to Help

Establish Maximum Permissible Residue Limits

5.1.

Experimental Design: This is an important aspect

 

if you wish to obtain samples having a residue

content that is representative of the level one

hopes to find in the crop as the result of the

use of a pesticide. The experimental design

should follow an outline made by:

i.

ii.

iii.

staff that has suggested technically and
officially the handling of the pesticide
to be studied and the crop it will be
applied to;

staff that will be in charge of handling
the crop in field conditions; and

chemists or analytical chemists.

105

The sampling systems to be used should be planned
(with alternate systems provided for) taking into
consideration the variables that will arise as a
result of a representative sample.

When making the experimental design, it is
important to understand the object of determining
residues. When, as in the present case, the aim
is to establish maximum residue limdts, one
important consideration is that the experiment
must be exclusively designed for this purpose
since the introduction of other variables into
the study, such as efficacy tests, might invalidate
a sample and make it difficult to execute a
sample suitable for obtaining representative
data.

The size and location of the experimental
plots must be defined keeping in mind the
officially recommended practices on the use of
the pesticide, crop practices (distance between
rows sown, cultural practices, pest control,
etc.) and considerations on the size of the
gross sample that must be obtained when harvest
occurs. One must also think about the meteorolog-
ical conditions of the plot location.

With these considerations in mind, the

experiment for establishing tolerance for

106

dimethoate and aldrin hnpotato crops was designed
like this:
Location: Agricultural Research Center,

Tibaita, Municipality of Mosquera,

Department of Cundinamarca

Meteorological Conditions:

Height: 2,550 meters above sea
level; an optimal height
for growing potatoes

Meteorological Temperature:

13.5 debrees C
Relative Humidity: 76.4%
Annual Precipitation: 668 m.m.
Two separate experiments were done for the study
for each of the insecticides. The experimental
designs were discussed beforehand with the
Biometry and Statistics Division of ICA.
Experiment 1:
Seed: San Jorge variety, second class
Pesticide: Aldrin 2.5% in powder form to be sprinkled
Application: To soil and sown land
Dose: 500-1,000-1,500-2,000 grams active ingred-
ient per hectare and an untreated control
area. These doses include both official
recommendations and the average dose used

by farmers.

Experimental
Design:

Experiment 2:
Seed:

Pesticide:

Application:

Dose:

Experimental
Design:

107

Random.blocks. The field plan is found

in Figure 8.

San Jorge variety, second class

Dimethoate 400 grams/litre formulation,
emulsifiable concentration

To foliage. Three application frequencies
during growing period: 4-6-8 applications
between germination and flowering. These
frequencies include official recommendations
and methods used by farmers.

500-750-1,000 cubic centimeters active
ingredient per hectare and an untreated
control area. These doses include both
official recommendations and two higher
ones as a safety factor in the determin-
ation of residue since the product under-

goes relatively rapid degradation.

Divided plots. The field plan of the

design is found in Figure 9.

Each plot in the experiment was 10 meters long

and 4 meters wide. Each plot was made up of

four rows, one meter apart and the distance

between plants was 30 centimeters.

108

EXPERIMENT No.l

 

 

T2

 

 

 

 

 

4 m
_ ,_, “
II | I
T0 T3 T4
fl 7—Jv *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To

Abs.

 

 

 

FIGURE 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lOm.

Treatments:

To: Control

T1: 500 g a.i./ha
T2: 1,000 g a.i./ha
T3: 1,500 g a.i./ha
T4: 2,000 g a.i./ha

Plan of the aldrin potato emerinent conducted on lot 7

of the CNIA - Tibaitata, ICA

lOm.

EXPERIMENT

F2 T2

Fl TI

 

I

A
I?
_I

 

 

 

-||

 

 

J 0"" __ _"n __ “11
4 - — ——
. 4 ° 0" «3"

u
F21'0

L

 

No. 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

m
‘37:

I
l
l

HI
Fl 1'3

H
H

l l

m
F272

 

 

 

HI
FI TI

Ill
‘le

 

 

 

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
F172

m
F273

 

— l

 

l

 

 

 

7.7

F270

 

 

 

Treatments:

To: Control

T1: 500 cc a.i./ha
T2: 750 cc a.i./ha
T3: 1,000 cc a.i./ha

Frecxnncies:

F1: 4 applications
F2: 6 applications
F3: 8 applications

FIGURE 9. Plan of the (finethoate potato experiment conducted on

lot 7 of the CNIA - Tibaitata, ICA

5

.2.

110

The agricultural practices used were those
recommended by the ICA Tuberose Program for
commercial crops.

Sggplipg: The first sample taken was of the
soil in the plots where the experiments were
done. The sample was taken before sowing
occurred. The purpose of the sample was to deter-
mine aldrin residues. The sample was taken by
moving in zig-zangashion over the plot;
approximately 20 small samples were taken at
random from different places. A thin drill
runner was used to take the samples; the drill
runner extracted soil from a depth of 15 centi-
meters. The sample was divided into three and
was stored for 20 days at a temperature of 15
degrees centigrade below zero before it was
analyzed.

The sampling of the potatoes from the ‘
experimental plots by taking potatoes (harvesting
them) from the center row of each treated plot
until a sample of approximately 20 kilograms was
obtained. Then, each one of these samples was
reduced by quartering it until samples of three
kilograms each were obtained. The samples were
quick frozen by submerging them in liquid

nitrogen and keeping them at a temperature of

111

20 degrees centigrade below zero for one week
for dimethoate and one mpnth for aldrin before

taking them into the laboratory for analysis.
The sampling done in the untreated control

plOtS‘WaS done and handled in the same way.

The sampling of farmer's potato crops was
done to determine aldrin and dimethoate residues
in samples frmm crops in which these insecti-
cides had been used; they would then be compared
with the results obtained experimentally.
Samples were taken in four potato growing zones
as shown in Table 16.

The samples were taken at harvest time,
collected at random.moving across the plot in
a zig-zag fashion during the harvest. The field
sample in each sample site weighed 50 kilograms;
the sample was divided in two and reduced by
quartering it to obtain laboratory samples of
three kilograms each.

After quick freezing the samples in liquid
nitrogen, they were taken to the laboratory the
day they were harvested and handled exactly
like the experimental samples.

In all cases the potato samples were washed
to remove the soil. This was done because it

is the first thing the consumer does before

112

TABLE 16. potato sanpling sites in four potato growing zones

 

 

State Rural area Aldrin* Dineth** No app
k a.i.l k a.i.l dlm' th
ha- ha
Boyaca Baron Gemania-ija 50 1.20 15
2, 700-2800 Chorro Blanco-‘Iimja - 1.45 14
a.s.1. Matavita - ija — 0.30 8
Cmdinamrca San Jorge-Zipaquira - 0 . 30 3
2,800-3,100 Llano Grande-Tausa - 0.35 6
a.s.1. E1 Destino - Usme - 0.40 6
Caldas Santa Teresa-Villa 1 . 25 0 .20 6
3,200-3.300 ””13
a s 1 El Desquite- Phru- 0.93 - -
o o o 131%
E1 Desquita- Maru- 0.62 - -
landa
Antioquia l.as Palms -Envigado 1.87 - -
2,400-2,700 Llano Grande-Rime- - 0.64 6
a.s.1. gro
La Lomita-San Pedro 1.25 0.45 8

 

* Preplanting soil application

** Foliage application

a.s.1. above sea level

113

consumption. However, the skin of the potatoes
was not removed because very often people eat
potatoes without pealing. Besides that, the
maximum.residue limit must be established in
base of the residue determined on the total

edible part of the food.

Discussion of the Analytical Methods Used in the

Analysis of Aldrin and Dimethoate Residues and Some

Comments on the Results

6.1.

Aldrin Residue Analysis: The analysis of the
aldrin residues in potatoes was carried out
using the technique for the crop products that
have a low fat and a high water content (AOAC,
1975). The cleaning-up technique used was

the procedure developed by the Hessische
Landwirtshaftliche Verschsanstalt Institute,
(Steinwandter and Schluter, 1977), which has
some advantages if compared with the traditional
method using florisil. Some of these advantages
are: all the organochlorines pesticides come
out in only one elution, with a recuperation

of 95%; it is more economic, since the silica-gel
is cheaper and faster than florisil.

6.1.1. Cleaning-Up of the Extract:

 

1. Equipment:

-- Rotary evaporator

114

-- Round flasks, 10 to 500 m1.

-- Chromatography column of 25 mm
inner diameter, 300 mm.1ong,
with teflon key

-- Wood glass

-- Disposable Pasteur pipets

-- Concentrator tube (joints 19/22)
with three balls

-- Water simmer to keep the temper-
ature between 95 to 100°C

2. Reagents:

-- Petroleum ether, grade pesticide,
with a boiling point between 40
to 60°C.

-- Silica-gel 60, 70 - 230 mesh
(Art. 7754 Merck), deactivated
with 30% of water. In order to
do this, the silica-gel is dried
up at a temperature of 130°C,
during 6 hours. After that is
cooled down in a desecator and 30
m1. of water for every 70 grams
of silica-gel must be added.

-- Anhydrous sodium sulfate.

—- Hexane, pesticide grade.

3.

115

Procedure:

 

-- The chromatography column is

prepared by mixing 20 grams of
moistured, deactivated silica-
gel with petroleum.ether. This
mixture is put inside of the
glass column, where previously
has been placed a small amount
of glass wool. Add anhydrous
sodium sulfate until 2.5 centi-
meters layer is formed. The
petroleum ether level must be
the same as the sodium sulfate,
so that the silica-gel does not
crash.

The petroleum ether pass-out
through the column until it
just reaches the sodium sulfate
level. This extract is trans-
ferred into the column with a

Pateur disposable pipet.

-- When the last solvent reaches

the NaZSO4 top level, begin the
elution of the column in which
case 300 m1 of petroleum ether

is used.

116

-- The extract is concentrated to
10 m1., in the rotary evaporator.
The concentration process con-
tinues using a modified K-D until
the extract is almost dry. Then
it is diluted to a volume that
permit chromatographic analysis.
-- Conditions of the chromatographic
analysis. This analysis was
carried out under the following
conditions and by the external
standard method:
-- Stationary phase, 4% silicon
GE - SE 30 plus 6% 0V - 210
on chromosorb W.H.P. 100 -
120 mesh
-- Glass column, six feet long

and % inch inner diameter

-- Temperatures:
Column 224°C
Injector 250°C

Detector (ECD Ni63) 300°C
-- Carrier gas, N2
-- Flow rate, 15 ml. per minute

-- Equipment, G.L.C. Varian

A.E. Series 2100

117

-- Conditions of the confirmation
analysis:
-- Stationary phase, 1.5% 0V -
17 plus 1.95% Q.F. - l on
chromosorb W.H.P. 100 - 120
mesh
-- Glass column, six feet long

and % inch inner diameter

-- Temperatures:
Column 210°C
Detector 300°C
Foil (Sc - H3) 275°C
Injector 250°C

-- Carrier gas, N2

-- Flow rate, 30 ml. per minute

-- Equipment, G.L.C. Varian
A.E. Series 2100

The analysis of the aldrin residues in the
samples that were taken in the farms were done
following the same method used in the experimental
samples of potatoes.

The analysis of aldrin residues in soil
samples used the A.O.A.C. method which is
described in the Training in Pesticide Analysis
Manual (Mann, 1978), II-C section, pg. 1 by

removing sulfur, II-C-2.

118

6.2. Dimethoate Residues Analysis: For the analysis
of dimethoate and dimethoxon residues was used
the Cela Merck Method* but with some modifica-
tions. The changes introduced were the
following: the polyamide clean-up was elimin-
ated, since the detector characteristics used
for determination makes no use of this step;
the internal standard for quantification was
eliminated too. Added was a filtration step
for the chloroform phase through sodium sulfate
in order to remove any water from the partition
step. The method used was as follows:

6.2.1. Principles: Dimethoate and dimethoxon
are extracted from macerated plant
tissues with acetone. The extract was
filtered and the solvent evaporated.
The aqueous residue was cleared over
Hyflo-Super-Cel. Dimethoate and
dimethoxon were taken up by chloroform,
the solution was concentrated to dryness
and the residue was disolved in acetone.
The determination was carried out by
gas chromatography.

6.2.2. Reagents:

-- Acetone distilled

 

*Unpublished, confidential, personal communication.

119

-- Chloroform distilled

-- Dimethoate purest

-- Dimethoxon purest

-- Hyflo-Super—Cel (Lehmann u. Voss,
Hamburg)

6.2.3. Procedure:

 

-- 100 grams of finely macerated plant
tissue were homogenized in a mixer
with a 250 m1 acetone for approximately
2 minutes. The mixture was filtered
through glass filter funnel (G 2).
The filtrate was extracted once again
according to the procedure with an
additional 150 m1 acetone. The
extracts were then cleaned up.

-- The acetone was distilled under
vacuum in a rotary evaporator. The
remaining aqueous solution over a
aqueous suspension of approximately
8 g Hyflo-Super-Cel was filtered on
a 7 centimeters porcelin suction
funnel and the residue was washed
with approximately 100 ml water.

The aqueous solution was reduced
to approximately 20 m1 under vacuum

in a rotary evaporator at 60°C.

120

-- The aquous phase + 22 g sodium
chloride was extracted for three
times with 50 ml chloroform each
time. The combined chloroform
phases were filtered through a
filter moistered with chloroform
that contains 2 grams of anhydrous
sodium sulfate and were reduced
to dryness at 50°C under vacuum
in a rotary evaporator.

-- The distillation residue was
quantitatively transferred with
acetone into a 10 ml measuring flask
and filled up to the mark.

-- The gas chromatographic determination
was carried out under the following
conditions:

-- Aparatus, Perkin Elmer Model 900
-- Column, 5% 0V 210 on chromosorb
W-HP 80/100 mesh

-- Detector, flame photometric

-- Temperatures:
Column 180°C
Detector 200°C
Injector 225°C
-- Transfer line _ 102 x 8

121

-- Full scale deflection (recorder-
1 mv), 8 x 10-10 amp.

-- Recorder chart speed, 1 centi-
meter or 2/5 inches/min.

-- Gases flow:

Carrier gas (N2) 70 mlfmin.
Hydrogen (H2) 40 mlfmin.
Air 100 ml/min.

6.3. Comments on the Results:
6.3.1. Aldrin:
1. Standardization of the Column:
-- Standard mixture Chromatogram
under analytic conditions,
Appendix C, Figure C1.
-- Chromatogram of an extract of
potatoes treated with 0.5 k
active ingedient (a.i.) per
hectare (ha), under analytical
conditions, Appendix C, Figure
CZ.
-- Efficiency (theoretical
plates in base of pp' DDT)
= 3,500
-- Elution time for pp' DDT =

19 minutes

122

-- Linearity curves for aldrin and
dieldrin, Appendix C, Figures
C3 and C4.

-- Standards mixture Chromatogram
under confirmation analytical
conditions, Appendix C, Figure
C5.

-- Chromatogram of an extract of
potatoes treated with 0.5 k a.i.
per ha, of aldrin, under confir-
mation analytical conditions,
Appendix C, Figure C6.

Results: The analysis of the soil
samples did not show any residue of
aldrin or dieldrin. Appendix C,
Figure C7 is an example of the
Chromatogram.obtained in these
analyses. The results obtained in
the analysis of aldrin in the exper-
imental samples of potatoes are shown
in Appendix C, Table C1. The averages
of these residue values are presented
in Table 17.

An example of the chromatograms
under analytic conditions is the one

presented as Appendix C, Figure C8,

123

which corresponds to an extract of
potatoes treated with 1.5 k a.i./ha
of aldrin.

 

 

Table 17. Averages of aldrin and dieldrin residues in
experimental samples of potatoes expressed in

micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg).

 

 

Treatment Aldrin +
k a.i./ha Aldrin Dieldrin Dieldrin
0.0 0.30 2.25 2.55
0.5 1.48 6.22 7.70
1.0 1.36 5.85 7.21
1.5 2.06 8.69* 10.75*
2.0 2.03 9.08 11.11

 

*Estimated for missing plot.

 

 

The variance analysis of the data

gave no significant differences
between treatments. The regression
analysis was carried out for the total
amount (Aldrin + dieldrin) and it
showed a significant correlation
between the treatments and the residue
present in the samples with the

following results:

124

Regression Analysis:

r - 0.653 * Significant

a = 3.83

b = 4.04 (residue increase per

kg a.i./ha added)

)1 = 1.00

Y - 7.86
The amount of residues of aldrin +
dieldrin present in the experimental
samples analyzed were very little and
in some cases the quantification was
not possible because they were in the
no detectable level or gave just
traces as a result. However, in order
to make some statistical appreciation
the data were transformed to micrograms
per kilogram.

The regression analysis confirm
the expected result of an increase in
the residue present as the doses of
aldrin applied increases. The no
significant difference between treat-
ments allow us to say that when the
aldrin is used between 0.5 to 2.0 k
of a.i./ha, applied to soil, pre-

planting, there is no probability that

125

the residue will be present, in a
significant amount, in the harvested
product.

In order to calculate the maximum
residue limit under Colombian condi-
tions, the average value of the residue
in treatment three (0.01 mg/kg), will
be taking in account, since this residue
comes from the most representative
doses used in potato crops (1.5 k a.i.l
ha). This average corresponds to the
summation of aldrin and dieldrin, since
the residue is expressed in terms of
the parent product and its metabolite.
The average values obtained in the
residue analysis of aldrin and dieldrin
in farmer's samples are presented in

Table 18.

126

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18. Averages of aldrin and dieldrin residues in
farmer's samples of potatoes expressed in ug/kg.
Doses Aldrin +
Zones a.i. k/ha Aldrin Dieldrin Dieldrin
Boyaca 0.50 2.86 30.26 33.10
Cundinamarca 0.00 0.00 5.52 5.52
Caldas 1.25 35.80 29.80 68.93
0.93 8.50 14.50 23.00
0.62 11.90 8.30 20.20
Antioquia 1.87 1.00 2.00 3.00
1.25 2.76 11.90 14.60
AVERAGE 24.05

 

 

As in the experimental samples, the
residues of aldrin and dieldrin
present in the farmer's samples are
low. The value which will be used to
calculate the tolerance using these
results will be the general average,
which is 0.02 miligrams per kilogram.
The original data from.where these
averages were taken is presented in

Appendix C, Table C2.

127

6.3.2. Dimethoate-Dimethoxon:
1. Standardization of the Analytical
Method:

 

 

Table 19. Data to standardize the analytical method for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dimethoate*.
Standard Spiked Potato Sample
No Injection Peak’ Injection Peak ug per
Sample Vol. Height Vol. Height 100 g
1 5.6 149 5.0 157.0 118.0
2 5.1 118 5.1 121.4 105.0
3 5.6 130 5.1 130.6 110.3
4 5.6 130 5.1 134.5 113.6
5 5.3 127 5.6 145.2 108.2
6 5.3 127 5.1 134.6 106.0
661.1
*Standard concentration: 100 pg/ul
Amount of spiked sample: 100 gr
Concentration in sample: 1 ppm of dimethoate

Sample final dilution volume: 1,000 m1

Standardization results:

% of recuperation: 110.18
Average error: 10.18%
Absolute deviation: 4.49

Minimum detectable amount: 80 pg.

128

 

 

Table 20. Data to standardize the analytical method for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dimethoxon*
Standard Spiked Potato Sample
No Injection IPeak InjectiOn Peak ug per
Sample Vol. Height Vol. Height 100 gr
1 5.1 225 5.6 200.00 81.0
2 5.1 225 5.4 183.44 77.0
3 5.1 225 5.2 191.56 83.5
4 5.0 204 5.1 187.69 90.2
6 5.0 204 5.6 189.00 82.7
5**
414.1
*Standard concentration: 0.5 ng/ul
Amount of spiked sample: 100 gr
Concentration of sample: 1 ppm of dimethoxon
Sample final diluation volume: 200 ml
**Masked by solvent front
Standardization results:
% of recuperation: 82.88
Average error: 17.12%
St. deviation: 4.81

Minimum detectable amount:

255 pg

129

The chromatograms of the dimethoate

standard and dimethoate in potato

spiked sample are shown in Appendix

C, Figure C9. The Chromatogram for

dimethoxon standard and dimethoxon

in potato spiked sample is shown in

Appendix C, Figure 010.

2. Results for Sample Analysis: The

analysis of potato samples under the

experimental conditions and in

farmer's samples did not present any

detectable residue of dimethoate or

dime tho xon .

Proposed Maximum Residue Limits for Aldrin and Dimethoate

in Potatoes Based on Both Sets of Data as Applied to

Colombia \

7.1. International Data:

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
for Aldrin:

Codex Maximum Residue Limit
for Aldrin in Potatoes:

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
for Dimethoate:

Codex Maximum Residue Limit
for Dimethoate:

0 .0001 mg/kg/day
0.1 mg/kg
0.02 mg/kg/day

2 mg/kg

130

7.2. Colombian Data:

Food Daily Intake: 1/kg/person/day
Potatoes Daily Intake: 0.141 kg/person/

day
Average Body Weight: 60 kg

Mean of Aldrin Residues in
Experimental Samples of

Potatoes: 0.01 mg/kg
Mean of Aldrin Residues in

Farmer's Samples of Potatoes: 0.02 mg/kg
Mean of Dimethoate Residues

in Experimental Samples of No detectable
Potatoes: residue

Mean of Dimethoate Residues
in Farmer's Samples of No detectable
Potatoes: residue

7.3. Calculation of the Maximum Residue Limit:
Maximum Permissible Intake = ADI x kg body weight
Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution
(T.M.R.C.) - Residue present in harvested crop

x food factor x food daily intake

Acceptance of the Tolerance: Comparison between
M.P.I. and T.M.R.C.

7.4. Alggin:
-- Experimental samples:
M.P.I. = 0.0001 x 60 = 0.006 mg/kg
T.M.R.C. = 0.01 x 0.141 x 1.0 = 0.001 mg/kg
Comparison M.P.I. and T.M.R.C.:
0.006 0.001

131

-- Farmer's samples:
M.P.I. - 0.0001 x 60 = 0.006 mg/kg
T.M.R.C. = 0.02 x 0.141 x 1.0 - 0.00282
0.003 mg/kg
Comparison M.P.I. and T.M.R.C.:
0.006 0.003
7.5. Dimethoate:

 

-- Experimental samples:
No detectable residue
-- Farmer's samples:
No detectable residue
7.6. Proposed.Maximum Residue Limits: According to
the results it will be wise for the country to
accept the Codex maximum residue limits for
aldrin and dimethoate in potatoes which are:
0.01 mg/kg for aldrin and 2.0 mg/kg for

dimethoate.

SUMMARY

The object of this paper was to describe the parameters
or variables that must be taken into consideration in the
establishment of the maximum reside limits of pesticides
in harvested food products.

The fundamental reason for this description is to

present jointly those parameters which, at a given moment,

132

due to the available infrastructure in Colombia and the
nature of the research done internationally, could be
accepted as valid for Colombia without undermining those
parameters which, due to their specific nature must be
studied in the conditions of the country.

The importance of this study lies in the fact that
it is a basic document that makes it possible to formulate
a policy on pesticide residues and tolerances for Colombia
on the basis of international research and discussion of
such questions as was described earlier in this paper.

The suggested parameters for the country in establishing
the maximum permissible limits of pesticide residues are:

1. The methodology used by the Environmental
Protection Agency and by FAQ/WHO in the
establishment of tolerances.

2. The Acceptable Daily Intake's (ADI's) proposed
by the Joint Meeting FAO/WHO (JMPR) because of
the serious and responsible toxicological
evaluation done by the Meeting of scientific
research submitted for its consideration.

3. The maximum residue limits suggested at the
international level by the Codex Alimentarius
of the FAO; they are based on JMPR suggestions.
One may accept or reject these suggestions,
once the ranges of oscillation of residues

in food products have been verified and once

133

the tolerance in the food consumption condi-

tions for Colombia have been calculated.

The parameters studied in the conditions in Colombia are:

l.

A legal and administrative groundwork for
pesticides as the basis for developing a
program on residues and maximum residue
limits.

A compendium of studies on pesticide residues
and available resources as the basis for the
possible implementation of this type of

study in Colombia.

Per capita/day consumption of food to define
the food factor in local conditions; this

is important for calculating the "theoretical
maximum contribution of the residue."

The average weight of the Colombian consumer
in order to calculate the Maximum Permissible
Intake in individuals.

Agricultural practices used in growing potatoes
as recommended officially and as actually done
by farmers. This would serve as the basis
for making a suitable experimental design for
residues, including those most widely used
pesticides in Colombia.

Field experiments and sampling that must be

done because it is the most important source

134

of information on residues present in food
products; this would be done with a view to
establishing maximum residue limits.

7. Methods of residue analysis for the validity
of the results obtained and the recommendation
made on the basis of the results.

’8. Suggestion of the maximum residue limit for
aldrin and dimethoate; the respective calcula-
tion would be done to do this, including
the toxicological parameters adopted in inter-
national studies and those obtained at the
national level. On the basis of the study
done and adjustment made on the resulting
parameters, it is possible to suggest that the
maximum.residue limits of aldrin and dimethoate
residues in potatoes for Colombia are 0.1
mg/kg for aldrin and 2.0 mg/kg for dimethoate.

The following table shows a summary of the parameters

described in this paper, their source and objective.

135

Parameters Involved in the Establishment of
the Maximum Permissible Limits of Pesticide Residues

 

Information
Source

Parameter

Parameter
Objectives

 

INTERNATIONAL LEVEL:

EPA-FAO/WHO

JOINT MEETING
FAG/WHO
(JMPR)

CODEX Committee

on Pesticide
Residues (CCPR),

FAD

NATIONAL LEVEL:

Ministries-
Agriculture-
Health

Institutes-
Universities

IIT, INS, ICA
Pesticide Group

ICBF-PAM

Discussion of
chemical and
toxicological
variables

Toxicological
evaluation of
international
information
submitted

Studies pro-
posed inter-
nationally

Legislation on
pesticides

Current state
of studies on
residues

Resources for
the analysis

and the approach
to research

Per capita
consumption of
food

Procedure followed

to establish maximum
residue limits

Establishment of
ADI's for different

pesticides

Recommendation of
‘maximum.residue
limits to govern-
ments

Legal and adminis-
trative groundwork

Basic to the
approach to the
activity to be
undertaken

Possibility of
implementing the
activity in the
country

Determine the food
factor in the
conditions of the
country

 

ICBF

ICA-Farmers

ICA

ICA

AOAC

Pesticide Indus-
try

ICA

136

Average weight
of Colombian
consumer

Utilization of
pesticides on
crops

Experimentation
and sampling

Analytical
techniques for
pesticides

Proposed maximum
residue limits
to Ministry of
Health

Calculation of
daily intake per
kg of weight

Determine correct
agricultural prac-
tices that minimize
presence of residues

Source of informa-
tion on pesticides
and pesticide
residues

Validity of results
obtained

Bringing together
toxicological infor-
mation obtained
internationally and
nationally defined
parameters

 

137

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

International interest in pesticide residues in food
has lead to governments designing administrative and
technical methods that can provide information on,

and solutions to, this problem.

It must be mentioned that as far as the standardization
of residues and maximum residue limits, with the excep-
tion of Brazil and Argentina, all of the other Latin
American countries have not gone very far in this area
even though some of them, like Colombia, already have
the means to make signifiCant development in this area
in the short term.

There are good possibilities for developing residues
related work in Colombia if you remember that the laws
on pesticides are workable, and there is an effective
infrastructure and a history of work done in this
field. The interest demonstrated by the Inter-
Institution Residue Group and the ICA residue program
that has been turned into a pilot program by COLOCIENCIAS
are promising signs.

Agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO), the
FAO and the Environmental Protection Agency have done
basic far-reaching work that is scientifically serious
and responsible. For this reason, they are sources

of information on the procedures and evaluations of

138

toxicological data in the process of establishing
maximum residue limits.

The parameters and variables that have been defined by
the three agencies mentioned in the preceding point

in the area of maximum residue limits (and that are
recommended her to be accepted in Colombia for the
calculation of maximum residue limits) are:

-- The procedures for establishing maximum residue
limits employed by the EPA, FAQ/WHO. These
procedures include all of those aspects related
~to the toxicological research for the study and
establishment of these maximum residue limits.

-- The Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI's) suggested
by the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting. For those products
not having an ADI defined by the meeting for
which a maximum.residue limit must be established
for Colombia, the suggestion is made that the
Ministry of Health be responsible for defining
the parameter, preferably following the method-
ology used by the JMPR to evaluate toxicological
questions.

—- The international maximum residue limits
suggested by the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS. These
maximum residue limits should be accepted

with the condition that the limits of residues

139

found in experiments conducted in Colombia be

verified and the maximum residue limit intake

be calculated in accordance with local food

consump tion .
Among those parameters studied in Colombia, the following
ones may be considered permanent until new studies are
completed or new surveys conducted:

-- Per capita food consumption -- one kilogram
-- Average weight of Colombian consumer —— 60

kilograms
Parameters such as the per capita/day/food consumption
under study. In this case: potatoes, 0.141 kilograms;
this parameter can be obtained by doing the necessary
calculation using the data found in this paper.
The parameter ”good agricultural practice" must be
defined in accordance with the technical recommendations
tested in the country for the handling of the crop
with special emphasis on the use of pesticides. The
priority of the pesticides to be studied should be
established through surveys done among farmers; these
surveys are useful for finding out the way farmers use
pesticides, especially in terms of doses and frequency
of application. The purpose of this is to include a
series of treatments that include the ones used by

farmers in the experimental design. The format for

10.

ll.

12.

140

surveys presented in Appendix B, Table B4 which could
be modified to adapt itself to different crops can

be used for conducting surveys and would make it

easier to do tabulation and computer work.

The field experiments for determining the levels of
residues and the samples produced from those experiments
must conform to internationally recognized methodologies
and norms that are considered valid for this type of
work.

The sampling of the product must follow a previous
accepted methodology according to the nature of the
product. Almost for every product there is a different
methodology. It is important to establish the conditions
in which the sample will be treated specifically:
reduction, transportation and storage. One must keep
in mind that the analysis is carried out in the edible
part of the product.

The analytical methods used to determine residues

must be specific for each pesticide studied; preferably,
internationally recommended methods should be employed
or those methods that clearly prove that they satisfy
the requirements for a valid analysis.

The level of residues found in experimental and farmer
potato samples analyzed for aldrin and dimethoate had

no significant quantification even with higher doses

141

and application frequencies. The average levels
obtained were:
Experimental Sample: Aldrin 0.01 mg/kg

Dimethoate - no detectable
residue

Farmer Samples: Aldrin 0.02 mg/kg

Dimethoate - no detectable
residue

13. On the basis of observing all of the parameters
discussed in this paper and on the calculation of
maximum.residue limits using the results obtained, in
Colombia, an acceptable maximum residue limit for
aldrin in potatoes is 0.1 mg/kg and for dimethoate

in potatoes is 2.0 mg/kg.

The final evaluation that can be given to the present
work and to the developmental activities in Colombia to
obtain a beginning of a program of residues and maximum
residue limits can be summarized by the following points:

a. Preparation of the first study on residues
and tolerances that was made considering
Colombian conditions.

b. Achieving the announced objectives of the
project which final ends were to fix value
to certain parameters, present precise conclu-
sions and recommendations, and to present a
proposal for maximum residue limits for aldrin

and dimethoate in potatoes.

142

The proposal of these maximmm residue limits
implies the beginning in this country of a
series of studies can be made for the establish-
ment of new maximum residue limits of other
pesticides and crops, to detect problems in

the use of the pesticides in crops, to advance
programs for greater utilization of those
products that tend to reduce residues, and

to establisha control over the appearance of
residues on products in the markets.

This work is a basic document for the elabora-
tion of legislature concerning residues in that
it clarifies concepts that until now have been
ignored in large part by persons involved in the
agricultural and health fields.

Even though the work until now has been done

by the Ministry of Agriculture, means have been
shown of coordination with other institutions
particularly the Ministry of Health, the

entity that ultimately has the authority to
legalize the maximum residue limits in the
country and to enforce them.

The evaluation of activities advanced to obtain
the beginning of the program of residues and

tolerances in Colombia can be summarized by the

143

fact that, starting from nothing, the three
years of study, organization and coordination
with other national and international institu-
tions have been raised to a "pilot project for
the country" as recognized by COLCIENCIAS,

the most prestigious research institution in

the country. This indicates a good future for
research on pesticide residues and the necessary
support to obtain the program of residues and

maximum residue limits at the national level

that was desired from the start.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

144-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Association of Official Analytical. Chemists (A.O.A.C.).
1975. Methods of Analysis, 12th ed., 29.015.

Betancourth, E. F. Pardo, R. Grueso, M. DeVillota. 1975.
Habitos alimentarios de la poblacion colombiana en
relacion con la alimentacion del lactante y del pre-

escolar. Bogota, Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar
Familiar. 27 p.

Bohorquez, C., E. Sotomayor, F. Pardo. 1976. Hoja de
balance de alimentos Colombia, 1976. Bogota,
Instituto Colombiano de Bienstar Familiar (ICBF).
27 p.

Codex Alimentarius Commission. Joint FAG/WHO Food Stand-
ards programme. Eleventh session. 1976. Report of
the eighth session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide
Residues, the Hague. 1975. Alinorm 76/24. 91 p.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. Washington,

D.C. (United States of America). Tolerance paper.
22 p.

Gallego Ayala, G. H. 1973. Residuos de pesticides
organoclorados en productos agricolas de consumo humano
en Cali. Cali, Universidad del Valle, Div. Ingenieria,
Depto. Ing. Sanitaria. 48 p. (Tesis Ing. Quimico).

German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). 1979.
Darmstadt (Germany). Pesticide Residue Problems in
the third world. 60 p.

Gomez Granada, A. 1973. El uso de insecticidas en tomate
y su influencia en los niveles de residuos toxicos.
Bogota, Programa de Estudios para Graduados Univer-
sidad Nacional - Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario.
48 p. (Tesis Mag. Sci).

Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). 1975. Bogota.
El cultivo de papa, conferencias curso de papa. 149 p.

145

Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). 1975. Bogota.
Guia para el control de plagas, Manual de Asistencia
Tecnica No. l, Tercera edicion. 174 p.

Instituto Colombiano AgrOpecuario (ICA). 1976. Bogota.
Lista de insectos daninos y otras plagas en Colombia.
Boletin tecnico No. 43. 484 p.

Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar (I.C.B.F.).
1972. Bogota. Encuestas nutricionales. Fasciculos
de resultados.

Kay, A. D. 1975. The International Regulation of Pesti-
cide Residue in Food, NSF-RA-X- 75-003.

Logothetis, C., W. E. West Lake. 1964. The role of the
food and agriculture organization of the United Nat-
ions in the pesticide problem. Residue Review, No.
7. p. 1-8.

Mann, J. B. 1978. Manual for training in pesticide
analysis. University of Miami, School of Medicine,
Miami, Florida. Section II-C, p. 1.

Manual de Papa. 1977. Temas de Orientacion Agropecuaria,
edicion 130. Bogota. 119 p.

McCormick, G. De Vargas, M. Rozo. 1977. Investigacion
sobre residuos de plaguicidas en productos agricolas
y pecuarios. Control de calidad (Colombia), V. I
No. 3. p. 37-46.

McCormick, N. A., G. De Vargas. 1977. Investigacion sobre
residuos de plaguicidas en productos agricolas y
pecuarios (11). Control de calidad (Colombia) V. L,
No. 4. p. 34-41.

McCormick, N. A., G. De Vargas. 1977. Investigacion
sobre residuos de plaguicidas en productos agricolas
y pecuarios (III). Control de Calidad (Colombia)
V. 2, No. 5. p. 41-46.

Ministerio de Agricultura. Bogota (Colombia). 1977. OPSA
Programas Agricolas.

146

Munoz, J., R. Florentino, M. Pineiro. 1978. Inventario
Tecnologico del cultivo de la papa en Colombia y
aspectos economdcos de las nuevas tecnicas propuestas.
Bogota, Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA).
Documento de trabajo 00-6. - 013-78. 68 p.

Pena, M Toro,I. 1974. Residuos de insecticidas clorados
en hortalizas de la Sabana de Bogota. Bogota,
Universidad Nacional. Fac. de Ciencias, Depto. de
Quimica. 126 p. (Tesis Quimica).

Plan Nacional de Alimentacion Y Nutricion (PAN). 1977.
Bogota. Encuestas habitos alimentarios. Material
para tabulacion y analisis.

Plan Nacional de Alimentacion y Nutricion (PAN). 1977.
Bogota. Informe de evaluacion PAN. Documento DNP-PAN,
mayo 1978. 75 p.

Restrepo, C. E., J. J. Jaramillo. 1973. Residuos de
insecticidas clorados en cuatro hortalizas en Villa-
maria. Manizales, Universidad de Caldas, Fac.
Agronomia. 59 p. (Tesis Ing. Agr.).

Rueda, Williamson, R., H. Luna, J. Ariza, F. Pardo,
J. O. Mora. 1968. Estudio seccional de crecimiento,
desarrollo y nutricion en 12.138 ninos de Bogota,
Colombia. Bogota. Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar
Familiar (I.C.B.F.). EPI-68-02 T.R.I. 31. 21 p.

Somers, E. 1971. Enviromental contaminants in foods.
Problems and possible solutions of the seventies.
Special report No. 9. Proceedings of sixth annual
symposium, New York State Agricultural Experimental
Station, Cornell University, Ithaca. November. 5 p.

Steinwandter, H., H. Schluter. 1977. Beitrage zur
verwendong von Kieseigel in der pesticidanalytik.
Z. Anal. Chem. 286. p. 90-94.

' Van Tiel, M. 1972. Pesticide in environment and food.
Environmental quality and safety, V. 1. p. 181.

Varela, Velasquez, G. 1979. E1 plan nacional de alimentacion
y nutricion de Colombia: Uh nuevo estilo de desarrollo.
Bogota, Depto. Nacional de Planeacion, Nutricion,
edicion especial del Plan Nacional de Alimentacion y
Nutricion (PAN).

147

Vettorazzi, G. 1975. Toxicological decisions and recom-
mendations resulting from the safety assessment of
pesticide residues in food. Reprinted from: Toxico-
logical decisions and recommendations resulting from
the safety assessment of pesticide residues in food;

G. Vettorazzi; Critical Reviews in Toxicology, V.4,
No. 2. p. 125-182.

Vettorazzi, G. 1977. Pesticide residues in food in the
context of present and future international pesticide
managerial approaches. Reprinted from: Pesticide
management and insecticide resistance. Academic
Press, Inc., New York. p. 97-128.

WHO/FAO. 1967. Evaluation of some pesticides residues in
food, FAO/PL: l967/M/ll/l; WHO/Food Add./68.30.
1968 b. p. 9-13, 103-132.

APPENDICES

148

APPENDIXA
DATA'IOIEFINECDIOMBIANFCDDCONSUI’PTION

149

APHDEEXIX
'DUifiAl.Ihxfiyimxfl.inunndew.fimribod1mmunnptux1bysnidenua

 

 

 

 

 

 

Place Date Interview N9

Head of the family

Student's name Age Sex

Menu Ingredients Amount Consumption
in grams

Breakfast

 

Merning snacks

 

Lunch

 

Afternoon snacks

 

Dinner

 

Observations:

 

 

 

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

c.m~n ao ououuoul ovHouoouu c.oo~ Hm ouuoco«u ouooouuc<
~.nmo ca coma-ac oovqoo a.nun an cauuoou: ooaHou
ocosuo«u:< ocoooouuc<
a.oan.ca «an.a «a c.-a.~ sea 4 a<ooe
once“ ecu ones» oasoaa
o n~m oca Hoodoo
onmno OOH caduceus
o.cq~ can ooououou<
o.mmo ecu sonu>um
o.en~ con unocoqo
o.m~n can oouoaox
o.nom no dunno:
m.mns «a .0 IH om ones
a «as oo ouuoHooonom
o.ocm oo «Hausooouuom n.Hc~ an nauseous ouqnooo
c.o- cog aoaaacom cauaoeuuz ~.oo~ an sausage: usovuoo
n.~n~ no .n up cashew uo>unon n.¢0n an ooowouuoo uo>uuon
0.50“ ccH consumo: ouuucoHu< n.a- nn odawoooouuon oouuco~u<
unoou aquooau< uuooo uuueoHu<
mcouuoo oz aowHuaou oz oouuqu oocou ocoouoo oz oowHulou oz nouuuu ooeou

 

 

usou>uoucn Az<mv oouuuuuoz poo poo“ uou oon Honouuoz ozow>u0u=H Annouv unauH<3 AHulom mo ououquucu noun-odoo

 

 

ES .55 Ba 35% an: V
333.435 ufimogfioofi cannon—HE 83am Manon—REE 333 £38 .255?
.< Samara

 

 

1151

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

o.oen cod ouaamaqazauauomon a.sau an «easy
o.-~ cod nuaauuaeouauouon o.on~ an «an: «a
o.oam om H> oHaomlouomon e.c- on noon-hue
o.~no cod oaaaaauouon o.oo< on nuance
.ud auouonx sooxoa
ooh-loom 350 so.» 235 menu
o.mno.¢ cos c o.-n.a and n
c.nno cod ua>a~oa
c.a~o cod ¢u=u=0>a=uaa o.oon an sundae
a.s«e cad annuau. n.cn~ an auknaom
o.mno cad ouacouoo o.cs~ an cosmos ouuuaa oases
O. Hao OOH nomad 6 . ANN hm Suzanne‘s—0:: a use“.
o.~no cod canvases coaao Hon «Haas o.4- on «and auaao sue ~l_a>
2.33.0 acaoamu
m.mac.e “as a a.~ao.~ aow a s<_oo
c.oo~ oca coasts: o.ao~ an essence
a.sao cos «guano «a a.sew an aucuau<
a.sae cos uncanny an ~.oon on acoeueaeo
s.nno so .aua:u<-nuu< c.non an oceanocqx asamtamae
~.n~a and queueoao a.san an naoeunuao cascaao
nous-young . 251535.
coo-ho.— oz 25:55 oz .330 cocoa coo-u!— oz agenda oz .330 macaw

 

388 .~< was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.~oo oo~ nouonoo usuuoa a.sQN on cam-so amazon
coco-«Hob oncoauzoh
c.4na.~ cos c a<eoa a.~ao.~ and s s<~oe
e.aoa ooa «aquous n.oe~ an . «cadence
o.s~a co— naau>=ouae ~.ca~ on «Cacao
o.~ma cog auoeuoa o.ce~ an use can
c.0mfi coH ouHau Ouuoz novcoucom ~.~c~ mm queasuuouan oouovcaucom
oooouovcoucom accouuvcoucom
o.-n I N a<eoe
oz n.o- cogs: as
U n .42 u 3 a... 2.2.2
n.nn~ n caucuua>a-4> concouasaaaas
o.ecn.~ «on e a<soa n.4o4.~ «mg n a<aoa
n.oe~ an access: .
noun-oouuooo oouosoouocou
accouon oz ouuuqlou oz nouuwu cocoa acouuoo oz ouuuuaou oz nouuao cocoa

 

 

A968

.N¢.mgnsw

 

 

o.n-.4 and . a<eoe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1523

 

 

o.one we uoaauooeuuoou
as: 8 .83: 2:: .322 :3
o.ao~ I ouocououm nuHooouuoz
ooquuuuuuH
o.e-.n cos . a a<aoa n.-n ~44 n a<eoe
c.a~a cog caucus condom
o.o- cod cannon
o.qu «a caua=m< cam
s.~so as nonsense
o.moo no Houuoaoau
c.amo cod aucaasauau o.o- on «>402
s.aso om coouauauouam cogs: ~.aq~ an cacao aaaaa
ooooaddoh coco-duos
mcoouoo oz oouHulou oz unmade oocoN ucoauoo oz oouHuaou oz ouuuuo ouooN

 

 

388 .«< 33

154

APPENDIXLA

TABLE A3. The'most1widely'consumed.food.in.the different zones in

the country with their corresponding;percentages (national
diet survey, ICBF, 1972)

Zone 1. Costa Atlantica

 

 

No Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p* total

1 Rice 142 19.1
2 Milk 141 18.9
3 Plantain 74 9.9
4 Yuca 67 9.0
5 Beef 64 8.6
6 Sugar cane 48 6.4
7 Corn 41 5.5
8 Fish 30 4.0
9 Wheat 29 3.9

10 Potatoe 23 3.1
11 Brown sugar 16 2.1
12 Veg. oil 14 1.8

13 Tomatoe 13 1.7

14 Onion .13 1.7

15 Anim. grease 8 1.0
16 Veg. grease 6

17 Eggs 5

l8 Carrots 3

19 Cabbage 3

20 Beans 3

21

22

23

TOTAL 743

Zone 2. Antioquena

 

 

Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p total
Brown sugar 143 18.6
Plantain 96 12.5
Corn 90 11.7
Potatoe 89 11.5
Milk 87 11.3
Beef 60 7.8
Rice 59 7.7
Yuca 32 4.1
Wheat 20 2.6
Beans 20 2,6
Tomatoe 13 1.7
Veg. grease 11 1.4
Anim. grease 8 1.0
Eggs 7
Banana 6
Arracacha 6
Oranges 5
Sugar cane 4
Cabbage 4
Peas 3
Guava 3
Carrots 2
Veg. oil 2
TOTAL 770

155

TAKE A3. (cont.)

 

 

 

Zone 3. Caucana Zone 4. Cundinamarca
Food Consump. Z on the Food Consump. Z on the
s/d/p total g/d/p total
1 Rice 120 14.6 Potatoe 357 33.8
2 Plantain 119 14.4 Milk 204 19.3
3 Milk 93 11.3 Wheat 80 7.6
4 Potatoes 87 10.6 Brown sugar 79 7.5
5 Wheat 83 10.1 Beef 61 5.8
6 Sugar cane 66 8.0 Rice 61 5.8
7 Brown sugar 46 5.6 Plantain 32 3.0
8 Beef 37 4.5 Banana 28 2.6
9 Tomatoe 31 3.8 Corn 26 2.5
10 Veg. grease 25 3.0 Yuca 23 2.1
11 Corn 24 2.9 Sugar cane 15 1.4
12 Yuca 17 2.1 Orange 11 1.0
13 Fish 13 1.6 Peas 10
14 Eggs 12 1.5 Tomatoe 10
15 Onion 11 1.3 Carrots 9
16 Beans 7 0.8 Arracacha 9
l7 Banana 7 Eggs 7
18 Carrot 6 Onion 7
19 Oil 6 Fish 6
20 Cabbage 5 Cabbage 5
21 Orange 5 Oil 5
22 Peas 2 "Lima beans 4
23 Lenteja 2 Veg. grease 3
24 Beans 3
25 Guava 2
TOTAL 824 TOTAL 1,057

 

156

TABLE.A3. (cont.)

 

 

 

Zone 5. Villavicencio Zone 6. Narino
No Food Consump. Z on the Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p total g/d/p total
1 Potatoes 186 21.6 Potatoes 247 25.6
2 Brown sugar 109 12.7 Wheat 105 10.9
3 Milk 95 11.0 Plantain 84 8.7
4 Beef 82 9.5 Sugar cane 82 8.5
5 Plantain 71 8.3 Milk 81 8.4
6 Wheat 67 7.8 Beef 79 8.2
7 Rice 53 6.2 Rice 71 7.4
8 Corn 35 4.1 Yuca 57 5.9
9 Yuca 18 2.1 Brown sugar 38 3.9
10 Sugar cane 15 1.7 Lima Beans 29 3.0
11 Eggs 15 1.7 Peas 14 1.4
12 Tomatoes 14 1.6 Tomatoes 14 1.4
13 Carrots 13 1.5 Corn 12 1.2
14 Peas 12 1.4 Eggs 10 1.0
15 Bananas 12 1.4 Cabbage 9
l6 Veg. grease 11 1.3 Veg. oil 7
17 Veg. oil 8 0.9 Veg. oil 7
l8 Lenteja 7 ’Onion 6
19 Cabbage 7 Veg. grease 4
20 Guava 7 Arracacha 3
21 Arracacha 6 Animal grease 3
22 Oranges 6 Bananas 2
23 Onion 5 Beans l
24 Beans 4
25 Animal grease 2
TOTAL 860 TOTAL 965

 

157

TABLE A3. (cont.)

Zone 7. Santandereana Zone 8. Tolimense

 

 

 

 

No Food Consump. Z on the Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p total g/d/p total
1 Potatoes 175 18.4 Potatoes 118 15.3
2 Milk 165 17.3 Milk 99 12.8
3 Brown sugar 101 10.6 Plantain 99 12.8
4 Wheat 93 9.8 Beef 69 8.9
5 Beef 70 7.4 Rice 69 8.4
6 Plantain 70 7.4 Brown sugar 66 8.5
7 Yuca 67 7.0 Wheat 46 6.0
8 Rice 53 5.6 Corn 40 5.2
9 Corn 28 2.9 Yuca 33 4.3
10 Sugar 23 2.4 Sugar 25 3.2
11 Tomatoes 19 2.0 Tomatoes 23 3.0
12 Banana 16 1.7 Veg. grease 12 1.5
13 Onion 11 1.2 Arracacha 11 1.4
14 Eggs 9 0.9 Peas 9 1.2
15 Peas 9 Carrots 9 1.2
16 Carrots 8 Beans 8 1.0
17 Veg. oil 6 Onion 8 '
18 Veg. grease 6 Bananas 7
19 Cabbage 5 Guava 5
20 Arracacha 5 Eggs 4
21 Fish 4 Fish 4
22 Lima beans 4 Veg. oil 4
23 Guava 4 Cabbage 3
24 Oranges 2
951 TOTAL 773

TOTAL

158

TABLE A3. (cont.)

Zone 9 Territorios Nales. Zone 10. San Andres Islas

 

 

 

No Food Consump. Z on the Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p total g/d/p total
1 Plantain 192 21.1 Sugar cane 146 12.9
2 Beef 116 12.8 Rice 131 11.5
3 Milk 114 12.5 Beef 124 10.9
4 Brown sugar 91 10.0 Wheat 104 9.1'
5 Potatoes 77 8.5 Plantain 100 8.8
6 Rice 71 7.8 Yuca 85 7.5
7 Corn 61 6.7 Milk 81 7.1
8 Yuca 41 4.5 Coconut 56 4.9
9 Wheat 33 3.6 Fish 50 4.4
10 Tomatoes 25 2.7 Potatoes 49 4.3
11 Veg. grease 23 2.5 Oranges 30 2.6
12 Arracacha 11 1.2 Brown sugar 28 2.5
13 Onion 10 1.1 Eggs 24 2.1
14 Sugar cane 9 0.9 Tomatoes 23 2.0
15 Eggs 7 Corn 20 1.8
16 Peas 7 Veg. oil 18 1.6
17 Oranges 7 Veg. grease l7 1 . 5
l8 Carrots 5 Onion 12 1.1
19 Cabbage 3 Cabbage 10
20 Animal grease 3 Beans 9
21 Guava 2 Carrots 9
22 Bananas l Bananas 5
23 Animal grease 3
TOTAL 909 TOTAL 1,134

 

 

* ggam/day/person

159

APPENDIX.A

TABLE A4. The most‘widely consumed foods in.the different zones
of the comtry with their corresponding percentages
(food habits survey, PAN, 1977)

 

 

 

Zone 1. Costa Atlantica Zone 2 Antioquena
No Food Consump.* Z on Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p total g/d/p total
1 Yuca 163.48 17.66 Brown sugar 227.64 25.75
2 Milk 162.09 17.51 Plantain 91.89 10.19
3 Rice 151.26 16.34 Corn 90.20 10.00
4 Sugar cane 64.12 6.93 Potatoes 65.81 7.29
5 Plantain 42.50 4.56 Milk 54.02 5.99
6 Beef 34.29 3.70 Beef 48.68 5.40
7 Yuca bread 31.56 3.41 Rice 45.00 4.99
8 Potatoes 28.20 3.04 Oranges 37.85 4.20
9 Suero 22.61 2.44 Yuca 24.76 2.75
10 Fish 21.90 2.36 Beans 24.18 2.68
11 Salt 20.51 2.22 Salt 18.35 2.03
12 Veg. oil 16.95 1.83 Bananas 17.48 1.94
13 Brown sugar 16.71 1.80 Cocoa 16.94 1.84
14 Squash 16.61 1.79 Sugar cane 12.30 1.36
15 Cheese 15.48 1.67 veg. grease 11.59 1.28
16 Coffee 14.64= 1.58 Corn flour 8.82 1.00
17 Wheat flour 12.65 1.37
18 Wheat pasta 11.77 1.27
19 Corn 10.68 1.15
20 Tomatoes 9.46 1.02
21 Eggs 8.75 1.00
TOTAL 925.87 TOTAL 902.07

 

TAKE A4. (cont.)

Zone 3. Valle - Cauca

160

Zone 4 . Cund inamarca

 

 

No Food Consump. Z on Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p total g/d/p total
1 Potatoes 128.75 14.79 Potatoes 277.21 32.10
2 Brown sugar 107.56 12.35 Milk 121.28 14.03
3 Milk 106.13 12.19 Brown sugar 88.37 10.24
4 Rice 77.16 8.86 Rice 61.03 7.90
5 Plantain 59.05 6.78 Yuca 27.43 3.10
6 Yuca 57.73 6.63 Corn 20.65 2.30
7 Corn 44.27 5.08 Bread 19.89 2.30
8 Sugar cane 35.60 4.10 Kidney bean 17.61 2.0
9 Beef 34.26 3.97 Salt 17.43 2.0
10 Salt 19.10 2.19 Onion 16.07 1.80
11 Beans 17.43 2.00 Wheat pasta 15.41 1.7
12 Veg. grease 13.72 1.58 Carrots 13.56 1.3
13 Bread 12.63 1.45 Beef 10.31 1.10
14 Coffee 10.77 1.24 Sugar cane 9.67 1.10
15 Onion 10.15 1.12 cocoa 9.47 1.10
16 Squash 9.18 1.05 Plantain 9.42 1.00
17 Fish 9.00 1.03 Veg. grease 9.13 1.00
18 Wheat pasta 9.00 1.03 Caffee 8.22 1.00
19 Bananas 8.66 1.00
20 Carrots. 8.66 1.00
21 Tomatoes 8.35 1.00
.TOTAL 850.55 TOTAL 863.15

 

TABLE A4.

Zone 5.

(cont.)

161

Santander Norte

 

 

No Food Consump. Z on
g/d/p total
1 Yuca 130.43 13.12
2 Milk 129.54 13.03
3 Potatoes 89.35 8.99
4 Brown sugar 83.76 8.42
5 Plantain 71.00 7.14
6 Rice 69.12 6.95
7 Corn 51.18 5.15
8 Beef 41.17 4.14
9 Salt 22.48 2.26
10 Bread 20.77 2.09
11 Beans 19.90 2.00
12 Coffee 18.43 1.86
13 Wheat pasta 17.78 1.79
14 Corn floue '16.42 1.66
15 Oranges 14.91 1.50
16 Sugar cane 10.95 1.10
17 Tomatoes 10.55 1.06
18 Eggs 10.45 1.05
19 Fish 9.50 1.00

TOTAL 994.20

 

 

Zone 6. Tolima - Huila
Food Consump. Z on the
g/d/p total
Plantain 115.11 12.32
Potatoes 108.29 11.59
Brown sugar 85.44 9.15
Rice 76.66 8.21
Beef 66.47 7.12
Yuca 55.55 5.95
Corn 40.81 4.37
Sugar 28.06 3.00
Beans 20.54 2.20
Arracacha 19.70 2.11
Veg. grease 15.49 1.66
Salt 15.18 1.62
Carrots 14.48 1.55
Wheat pasta 13.77 1.47
Tomatoes 13.52 1.45
Bread 11.58 1.24
Cocoa 11.00 1.18
Eggs 10.59 1.13
TOTAL 934.13

 

* Average gams/day/person

 

162

APPENDIX B
DATA 'lO DEFINE "CIDD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE"

 

163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

mama
.a .3 4.2 on S S o .3 Beam .8? Sausages
mmnHuHuZE mum—mamma—

.o.e 2w 8.. moaning H as .43.sz

.u.m H \w com 98.5.6.3 H m.~ 3363 88:3 838d «among
8...... (m can
mg «Joana
.m... H8 . m
. game
.3. Ne... 38618 H . 0.3 848.84.. -flmfifls SEES
g; .Rm 480-94.. H a... 5.3882 3885.... «>3.
. .mm as;
.m. 3 New wugamua H N . H .535 Summon afiwothom
. SumH
.93 Non 39510.3 H o .N gnaw: 535nm 5560955
3MB
.93 N? H o.~ 35.539 unanimous 33mg
.93 «K.» .whmfinoua H m.H g3 do 955.35
@5ng E3
E ML IE. 539.1%. 4E
8.5.3.3... 313332.84. Huh—.9333: :3:3=2< 2.2.3:: .5520... 2:3 3323... 23¢ 3.22
s :3. s .25.... 5.2... rat 3 .35.... .
. d

 

 

 

 

 

 

no.8 Sauce 5 5H .3 mango... «Ban. mom .3 Ema.
m 58an?

 

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“#1 a

. 93 mm 8:... H 3qu
.U.m HR mmm movHo

a R Nm.~ cmH .ucmHm .H 0H 5.6: nomnmumom mfifimooé
.93 Nmm
.3.m HR 8e .33:
.3... Q... com Home

.3 SH Nm Nm COH cm $5qu .m o.H :mHGofimo xon? mogofiomfim

mmHHHoHHbmmzH mBmmzH
.3..m H\w on.» .umouu poem de Honour—mama HHBHom 38883
.93 Raw on OH 0H m . o £335
.3. N8 on S 3 N5 3183
a... 8 an.” cm 3 S m .N 8388 .888 .
Doom:
.93 .\. 8+8 cm S S ~.o + 838m 5985
.93 New on OH CH ~.o summoupg £355
.3. HR cm 3 S o... 858m 538E 3508..
.93 H8 on S S o... boom: monumomfi 80383.3
E i. . 11ml— . . I .E 6253.11 b E
3.2263... 39.552304 $32323: 3333.24 33:32.3 Ego-6:33.04 c.2235 23m .222
z. 23. o. .25.... 3328.»! .o .3532 .o 23.

 

 

 

 

 

H883 .Hm Ema.

 

165

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UEHW EH on
mum mu «8:3 3:0
.u . x... 63...... .93.U 8 .
o... .R .3 .8. .2: Sauna 9.. can... A m. 839... .38..
:33: $503 .mm 9.0..va
u .5 .8. 8. 8 an“... .N c.~ e882 8828 Sflfifiou
m $8
a - «hum
o... Rafe:
Cw do... 8
9m S~-8.. cm. .52... 0.... 5.828298...
m N .2...
9m .3 N8 .8... . .
c NH 8. .69.. H o . 8.8.53.
.93 Nmm
.9... in. $2..
0 NM .
a Nm «and on 3.5.3 H o4 Heanomummm
.m.3 No.» Now
a .8. .R
.u.m an mam mm mQBm.
.o.m H mmm
.0... (m 8.. cm. «58.5 8.33 3.83
.ml. Tm... i.. ll 1 EL .
3.225.. 33.2.2.3 38:25.. .8..8......< 323:... 2:“. 3...:
3 :3. o. .25.... 58.3.5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:8. .8 a...

 

166

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2... HR Rm 8 fl m m... Hbmfimo
o H... S «H m o.~ 88383
o own .
.o.m HR So 8 2 m n.H 889$
.32.. _
w .5 08H 8H 8 55H. .N o.~ flung? am xflu Hmm
o.m HR 03 a m H. H .33.. .H m... Hafimfiflenn.‘
«gmfixcmna
.u.m HR 8.. a m .V H .HEHH .H OH -HufimvééoHfiE
a 0.3
.H.3 N on
c on. .\.m
0.... HR SN ..
9m HR Rm 5 m c H .ufiHn H c.H $3385.
o Nam;
.o.m HE oHN
H... 0.8 a m H. H .22.. .H 3 385...:
4.833 g om
mum 9H 5:3 38 A3965
.0393 .993 3 nu 85 mm mEOHWHHmm
c Rm .Hom :Um Hommwm Qfi 803339 38950 mHmedeoo
E h .- E.
8.3.3.3... 23.355233 .naoaznotor «sang-sad 333;... 23.. 3?:
3 :3. o. .25.... .33.... :8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adsoov :E g

 

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.52 +

u N2 HS 2: S .23.. .N 3 £8.62 magmas 833.3
.0... HR RN S 2 m n... Hmfimumofinfi

u fig
.3. HR
.2... HR 03 8 nH m a... 35.3,.
H... HE

u .SH Hm .33..
.3... HR 98 Ham...
.3... HR 8.. 8H 8 .23.. .m a... 553.5
.0... HR :8 8 3 m m... mfiaonyafifl

u R ofi
.0... H on
.o. m HR 8.. 8 2 m m . o mBQHHHEoHG

935....ng

9... HR 8.. S 2 m m.H -HHfimvHvéoHfiE
.3. HR 8.. 8 2 m 9H HE“... mfigm
5.... HS

H. Hm .

u Hm... NM 8 2 m m... H.595 am “an“: .

E I... , y E .531 B i E
5.2359... 33.3.2.3 .fiaznotoz 2.3.3.3.; 23:03.3 .5896... 3:3 330:»... 23.. 3?:
3 :3. 2 .25.... .3028 {Mi .9 .3532 .o :3.
$141.43

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:8. .3 Hams...

 

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.. HR 8. 8 .H m m... Hgmafiag
0 .EH
g... .8
.2... HR 8H. 8 .H m a... H.853.
a... AHHE
0 8H .R .58
.3... HR 8.. 8H 8 88H. .m .2. 8.5.8.8
.08 H... 08 8 .H m m... 8.8.5.:
.0... HR 08 8 a m 0 H OH. HE... 3.88.5
0 8....
0.. HR 8.
.0... HR 8.. 8 a m 0 H m... 8.3636
gfimfigmm
0.... <0 8.. 8 a o 0 H .H -..fim.8-BoH€E
0.. HR 8.. 8 s m 0 H m... 2.0
09. 3.330
8.3%... o... a...
39. ea. «5 0. 8-. 0.. 8.0.3.8
0 N.
0.0 H... 8H. 8 2 m ..H 889.. 8.88... 3.58....
u t ..... 1... + .2 3.1 1c 1 .t
8.8-:63... 313358.34 $39123: 23:00:24 2.3.3.34 .5306... 3:04 320:3... 23.. 3.0:
x :3. o. .25.... 5.3.3 :8! .o .35.... .o :3.
. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.88. .8 0.8....

 

1659

 

.U.m

'5m

5:: mm mm mm

0:05
Mk}

HR 8.
.8
HR 8.

a...

N8

.8 ..\.m
HR .8
HR 8.
HR 8.

HR 8...
HR. 88
HR o8

H\.. can
HR 8.

HR o8
HR .8

.8
HR 8:
HR 88
HR .8

co

co

co

co

ma

ma

3

ma

ma

ma

 

m6
m4
m6

Ed.

50

5.0

m.o

m6

15.45233.
88.38
8580.5.

8.3.8:...

c8582..
H.932 85585

3855

.852...

 

9.3
38:90 8.5% mean:

 

 

$.onqu 9mg

 

 

 

8.8.3.3..

.322. 2:3
s :3.

E

73912.3:
2 .25....

rm

 

22.3.3.2
.828 :8

 

E

 

 

 

 

 

320:...

E

33.. 33.2

 

 

688v .H. 5.2..

 

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.93 .Nmm N8
9 Rm
6 Nm ..H NM
.2... 2.. in 8 e c H N... 1.3.8
3 NM 00 E w H Nu 95.0359. ".3...me .83...
How 5 ”Em m 05 name . .5”.
u H... 8 8:. 88... .R 8.8.23. -3838 8.88
gmfimcmm
H... S... 8.. 8 .H .. ..H -HHfimvH..-o.sHfiE
.0... HR 8.. 8 m. .. m... z...
c \m N...
.wfl #3.. fi 00 ma m m.o monaflwmugfi 4353638 “NEE“...—
.u.... i. 8.. 8 m. m no 2... ,
mcmfimfizcmw 33H
.0... Q» 8.. 8 2 m 3 .5388..an -88 3.1.38...
u b -.. E t.
5.3.2.3... 33.95.33 2.83322. 23.33.34 320...: 23.. 3...:
3 23.. o. .25.... .328 :8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:88 .H. g

171

AFHQEEXIS
'DMIEIBZ.ImmermunvonIxmmicniacae:htpotau:<:up

State City Date

Rural area Farm. Planting area

 

Pesticide application method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manual equipment : Yes No
Description Capacity
Mechanical equipment: Yes No
Description Capacity
Weed Control: Manual
Mechanical
Chemical

Herbicides used (commercial names and active ingredient
concentration)

Name Doses App. time Controlled weeds

__L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of herbicide applications: Weekly
Monthly
Seasonal

Diseases control: Yes No

 

 

Fungicides used (commercial name and active ingredient
concentration)

Name Doses App. time Controlled dis-
eases

 

 

 

 

 

 

172
TNH£232.(chL)

Number of fungicide applications: Weekly
Monthly
Seasonal

Insect control: Yes No

 

 

Insecticides used (commercial names and active ingredient
concentration)

Name Doses App. time Controlled insects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of insecticide applications: Weekly

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monthly
Seasonal
Mixture of pesticides: Yes No
Mixtures used Doses Application time
Number of mixture applications: Weekly
'Mbnthly
Seasonal
Last pesticide used in the crop
Name - concentration Doses App. time (before harvest-

ing)

 

 

 

 

 

Who did recomend the used pesticide in the crop: Neighbor_

 

 

Agronomist Dealer Other
Who did recommend the used pesticide doses: Label
Neighbor Dealer Agronomdst Other

 

Do you use temik (Aldicarb) Yes No

173

'UfllE?EL.(amuL)

When do you use temik: Planting time Billing

Doses of temik used

 

Do you use furadan (Carbofuran) Yes No
When do you use furadan: planting time germination
Hilling Doses use

 

Additional information:
Labor during the season Days after planting

First manual weed control

 

Billing

 

Harvesting

 

Use given to the product:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Storage Yes No ____’ How long
Marketing Yes No ____. Where
Processing Yes No ____. Where
Exportation Yes No ____ Where

’ Own consumption Yes ____ No ____ How: pealing

without pealing

Observations:

 

 

 

 

 

174

 

 

 

 

 

 

x; .5 R S m 34 Sn
.3; $58 a 3 8 85 mfiaonafiufl .
.o NWN 2: 8 do». .N 86 5%? sodmfl m3
.3. $8,” 8 R m 85 8382
4:2
.u 8.2 8 2 SEE .m 88 £882
422
.Eumw
.u NM mm mm Jana .m NBA 553.80 xmuo? mafia—8
mBHoHBmmzH $82
x; New 8 mm m 84 5&3 guflfia «Eu
.3. Nam 3 S S me .o Sfloafius .898
8.: N8 8 mm s 85 838m :38m
x; .8“ S 2 A mm .o SWEEE Sofie
g; «.8 3 mm s 8.~ 888m:
.9: N8 8 2 m. «a; g snowman“ EBfiSHE
mmflmfla
3.23.8 33.2.5.3 28:35: 2.2.8.23 2.2.3.34 .395... 3:3 322:... :2... 3:5
3 23. 2 .25.... 5.3.3 {at .o 39.5: .o 23. _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 BER 5 Emeam .3 88 8333mm .8 E

m “nay—mar?

175

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£39483.

d... R... on R .. ..... 8.0386». «8.9.2. 8%:

dd 3.-.... m... 8 m .8... 5.8.58.5

dd .R 8.. R R d 8... 8......qu 15...:

dd .R o8 S d. m. 9.... 8.5.3.

dd .R 8.. R R d 9.... 8.32...

dd .R R. R N. d 8d Ego...

dd .R Sm Q. d. d on... Sana...

d .8. o. R m 9.... 8..

d... d... on R .. ..... d...

dd .R o8 R .N m and 8.839. .9... 5.58...

d... R. 8. ..d d S... 5...... Noam.
13.3.8... fitmfioofi.

“.3 Q...

dd 3...... a. a... m 8. o 8983.3..5

dd .3. SR dd R m Rd 828:8...

dd .8 8 m. d 2... maggot...

dd .R o8 Q. d. d and gm... 8...... a...

u 1.. n... .. E
8.3.338... 33335-384 13332.3: 2.3.3.3.; 3392.... 23.. 3.22
3 :3. o. .25.... .823 :8—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:8. .8 59....

176

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.u.m 1m 8m an R m $6 82332
yam «.8 on S h 25 Hgfi
dd :w 8n «n 2 n 35 838mm
.o.m HE Sq R S o 85 Surfing HEM:
.u.m in «2 cm 2 m 8.5 5.638
.o.m Q» o? R S e 35 83:28 83
.o.m Ht o8 mm a m 85 ”“885”: $QO mEEEEBUm
dd 1m 8m an R m $5. 3§B£
.o.m Sm m3 8 2 m 85 fififla
.o.m in 9% Q S o 8.0 Sauna
.m.m ”Ea on S n ma HE“:
.o.m 1m 8n «n 3 m 85 838mm
.o.m HR 93 R D o 86 833mm 159
.o.m HR o3 R S o 35 Egg
.9 GB“ E .8 m. 34 Ba 83
.m . 3 NE on R q S . H can -uongo .5an 88%
8330a 39$
u E I ‘ E
5.2.5.8.... 33855.3 anauazuotoz 20:90:24 330:3; 22:. 3?:
3 :3. o. .25.... 3.2... :8—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?EBV .mm Ems.

 

177

 

 

 

 

 

.0... .3 8.. m... R m 3... 853m.
.5... 4b.. 8 2 o 2... 8.8.53...
.3 08.. on S N 2... .55....
.0... .3 8n «n m: m 8... csfimfim
.0... Q». 8.. R S e on... SEER. 3.3. $83
.0... in. 23 R D o 8... 88.325 .mfl .% 55.29.
.o.m 1. Sn 3 S e on... 2.38 389.8 fiflmfiag,
t E I 1 E
3.22:3... 3333....zfia aux—.9133: u..£.3:3< 333.2... 23.. 3.32
s :3. 2 .25.... 52...... :8

 

 

 

 

Ill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

388 .2 was.

178

AHHQEEXIB

TABLE B4. Survey on pesticide use in crops

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year I I IEst. order III I |Sheet NoL_i_JInerview II I I 1,4
State, Intendencia I I .Town IIII
Rural area I I IFarm's name

Crop II.Cr0p areaI I I I II

 

 

A. Data about the crop
1. Natural region I I I

. Heigh above sea level L,I .I I I

 

2
3. Average temperature L_i_J °C
4. Crop variety I I I
5. Length of seasonal period I I I I days
B. Pesticide application
I. kind of equipment used I I
2. Capacity of the equipment I I I I
3. Applied volume per hectar L_J_J
C. Weed control
1. How the control is made

(if herbicides are used fill out the following table)

 

 

 

 

 

Nana and conc. Doses k/ha Applic. time No applic. per
of'herbicide or lt/ha season
.4 I I iIII £44 i | I
L J I III I I..I ;_L_J

 

 

 

 

1 L4 11 L1 LA; L_J_J

 

 

TABLE B4 (cont.)

179

 

Yearl I IEst.orderiI I ISheetNoI I IInterviewI I I III

 

D. Diseases control

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naneand conc. Doses k/ha Appl. fre Maincb’.sease Noappl. per
of fungicide or lt/ha quency controled season
II II II II I I I III I_I_.I
IIJII ILLI I II III LU
[LII IILI ___I_I_I III I_II
E. Insect control
Name and cone. Ibses k/ha Appl. fig Main Insect No appl. per
of insecticide or lt/ha quency oontroled season
IIII IIII I LI IILI II I
IIII lIII ILI IIII III
IIII IIIJ III IIII III
[In IIII III IILI III

 

 

 

 

F. Mixture of pesticides

 

 

 

 

Nana and cone. Doses k/ha Appl. frequency No appl. per
of pesticides or lt/ha season
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
MII I I LI I I I I I._J

 

 

 

180

TABLE B4. (cont.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YearI_I__IEst. orderL_I_I_ISheetNoI_I_IInterviewI I I I I I I
G. Last applied pesticides
Nana and cone. of the last Doses k/ha or lt/ha Pre-harvest days
applied pesticide application
LI II 4 I I I I__L_I__I
I I LI I I I I I__I_I___I
I J II I I; I I___I__I__I
I I I I I I I I I__I_I_I
H. Crop nanagemxt
l. Transplant yes 1 days after plant. I_I__I
no 0
2. Planting distance between furrows I_I_I_I cms.
3. Planting distance between plants I_I_I_I am.
4. First weed control yes j days after plant. L_I__I
no . 0
5. Second weed control yes 1 days after palnt. I_I___I
no 0
6. Hilling yes I1 _ days after plant. I_I'__I
.. 3L,
7. Harvest days after planting I._I__I
8. Yield of the crop I__I__I_I tonsfha
I. Post-harvest use of the product
1. Storage yes 1 lenght of storage I_I___L_I days

 

 

 

no 0

 

TABLE B4 (cont.)

181

 

 

 

Year _ Fst. order Sheet No __ Interview
2. Marketing yes 1 Where: in the farm 3;
no 0 » in local maket i
3. Processing yes 1 in neighborwood market B
no 0
4. quaortatim yes 1 Where
no 0
5. Family consmption yes 1
no 0
6. Marketing and family consurption yes 1
0
no

OBSERVATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

182

APPENDIXC
DATACIJNCERNDIG'ID'IHEANALYSISOFAIDRINAND
DWRESIDLESINPOTAIU

183

Emu... 878: m.m.... £89.
-85 8 BEE .S + on ammo :83... we .82... finesse. -...B.& .w anus g
.898 .o 53.3.. .n Ba .& .e 8.98... 8.63%.... .m 5.6... .N 88:: A
3838.5 e338... 8.an .595... 8335958 we 6%8886 .8 9.83

 

 

I‘III I III: .‘me 0“

 

H

 

_
L
.
.

Jjfljm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U 53%

 

1.84

3:336:00 393953 .599. J flaw? .m macho .N 5.61.. .H
633w mo 24...“. 9. md 53 @383 88309 no uomuuxm cm mo sapwoumeoafi .8 9505

I'

 

_ J

 

 

 

 

U xHszmm<

 

 

 

.

 

Height of the peak (milineters)

' 1M

"0-

.04

.04

00-4

40“

80"

 

185

APPENDH C

 

 

T ‘r V T 1’

OJ 0.! 0.. 0.4 CI

FIGURE C3. Curve of linearity for aldrin

Height of the peak (milineters)

00+

70+

004

80+

10"

186

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

T r r

03 c4 0.. 0..

FIGURE C4. Curve of linearity for dieldrin.

1137

89% N. can}. .2 898 .3 55... .e 5.63% .m
BEE .e 82x... 8.68%. .e 5.6... .n 838...... .e mass. .m 0.... .N 8.. A
Accoflfiocoo cofiugmfluoov madame: Ego 333085 mcfloafiocmwuo mo Emuwoumuoab .8 $503

I_

I’ll}

j]:

 

.er-

2.)

30:

N— AV

40

 

c.
: o h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intek
Intek
\o
d:
‘2
:3:==:=:
6‘)
«t:
33

 

“6.1

0"

05%

188

359%. .q 5.53m? .m mocha .N 3.6? .H .AmcoUHBB cowumfiflcoo
v 5..pr .u—o Edd mo. m.o fig @385 803qu mo 39.8.8 cm mo amuwoumBHU .8 9.33....

/.\

 

 

 

 

k
e
t
.m

 

 

 

189

:3on chgmeno 9t .89... flow mo uomuuxo am no :fiuwoumuoufiu .8 $505

 

 

 

 

. ,
3.: r2 . I

.

9

ll- - ,..."_.‘. OII. II" IIIIC- I '0.
_.

.

U ., —.. .
u H . .

v I o l l
I .o fill-1|-" .Ilvlufl..a'o .Wo-wl‘-lr:' ‘- u. ...I'|' JTl'luII-III . I.. II..- '9

a
g .
‘ .

 

 

 

 

 

w.
.
-ccl . I. 0' u
. a _
2 . . _
. n. u
. ' .
. II II I. 1“! ! g. I. l
I I... - IIT, . _ .IVIIII III. I! .. .I I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$83380 39395 Babe .e :53... .m Babe .N 5.6? A

 

1.90

.58? mo 9:4... 9. n4 fit; cough. mooomuod mo 3388 cm mo gauwoumeoufi .8 9502 _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U XHQZMEAZ

191

   

 

03.5.... Romeo 3%..on 5 8855 can vgum

.._ .
.1.
_ ._.

II? I

_

..
.
..

..

.2.-l

. .

u

..
. .1
_
_

ofimo

.

Esme“.

 

 

  

gonad . mo

 

   

192

 

FIGURE ClO. Chromatogram of the cflnedzomn standard and dinethomn

in potato spiked sanple.

193

moomuu "E

memdumqu oz 02%.

 

 

2H 2 2 9.: 2 EH .2 CH e... m
2 2.8 We 2... 2H 2... OH 9.. .2 2
2H 2H Has «A: we 93 H... 22 H.Hm H .2
m.mm 0.2 9m H.H~ N... we 2 9H 2... m
2.3 2 .22 2H .3 3.2 2 .2 m... 2
2H ea 2 2H o2 2 H2 2 H... H OH
HeH we .2 3: He .2 Na 2 o oz m
2m .3 E. :2 en E. .2 H H Hz 2
HS 2 9H H2 m... 9H o... H H e. H o.H
2 2H .2 we .2 .22 e... H... .2 m
e... we a... N... as E e... no .2 2
Ne m.HH 2 m... e... EH e... 2 e... H m...
EH 2 E. 2H 2.0 E. e... H.H oz m
Hz «.3 E. e. 3 E. e. .2 ez 2
E. 2 .2 E. 2 OH 9. «E. E.,. H o...
HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H .cemeIBm SSH... v.
Ewan—+3 szn—AMHQ ZHmQA< .nmd .ummum.

 

Rims egos? Mom Baumgofiu 5 @3398
8839. Ho 83% Hfifieuuea 5. 53:3. as 3.6? no 333. .6 59a.
o 595%?

194

 

oe.m~ o~.eH as. e 2
as. mH oe.HH oo. 2 H mm.o 2
ON. «0 oH.Hm oH. mm m
oo. 22 oe.om oo.He N
co.o~ om.- o~.~e H m~.H H emeHmo
co. m co. m oo. o m
on. e co. e oo. o 2
cm. e on. e oo.o H oo.o .m
om.m om.n oo.o m
as my o9 o N
om.m om.m o9 o H oo.o 2
O9 o 09 o o9 o m
o9 o o9 o o9 o 2
c9 0 o9 o o9 o H oo.o H muemameHecao
o9 o o9 o o9 o m
o9 o o9 o o9 o 2
oo.o 09 o o9 o H oo.o m
o9 o o9 o o9 o m
o9 o oo.o o9 o N
oo.o oo.o o9 o H oo.o N
om.mm cm.om on. 2 m
oo.em oH.Hm oe.~ 2
oo.~m o~.e~ om.~ H om.o H memeom
mHmEmm ms\x oz
.335 + 5.62 3.633 5.82 -45 e3 .9... 88.. mHeam e m c o N

 

wa\wnv EmuonHx Hon msmuwouoHE :H
commoumxm mooumuoo mo moHdEmm m.HoEHmm cw cHHpHoHc paw cHHpHm mo moachom .No mum<H

U anzmmm<

195

 

 

co.~H oH.oH cm.m m
H2.cH cog. Hc.~ N
cm.mH cc.~H c~.~ H n~.H m
cog. cogo cog. m
cog. ccgo ccgo N
cog. cog. cog. H ccgo N
cog. 992 cc:H m
cog. .X9N co:H N
82 8.2 8H H EH H 2:835.
Honmm cog. .x9eH m
cc.oH cc.c on.HH N
co.cH c~.c c~.cH H Nc.c m
cc.m~ co.nH cH.o m mo.c N mocho
mHosem mexx oz
quHoHc + 56H... 5.638 5...ch -8... e3 Ho 38c Scam m m c o N

 

H.ucooo No cHo<e