Supplementary appendixThis appendix formed part of the original submission and has been peer reviewed. We post it as supplied by the authors.

Supplement to: Jepson PC, Murray K, Bach O, Bonilla MA, Neumeister L. Selection of pesticides to reduce human and environmental health risks: a global guideline and minimum pesticides list. Lancet Planet Health 2019: 3: e56–63.

1

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS This pesticide risk management guideline accompanies Jepson PC, Murray K, Bach O, et al. Selection of pesticides to reduce human and environmental health risks: a global guideline and minimum pesticides list. Lancet Planet Health 2020; 4: e56–63. Pesticide Risk Reduction: An International Guideline Paul C. Jepson1, Katie Murray1, Oliver Bach2, Maria A. Bonilla3, Lars Neumeister4 1Integrated Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University; 2Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN), San José, Costa Rica; 3Rainforest Alliance, San José, Costa Rica; 4Independent pesticide consultant, Costa Rica & Germany Correspondence: paul.c.jepson@gmail.com BACKGROUND We provide a system that classifies pesticides by the hazards and risks that they pose, and we identify a list of pesticides that are lower in risk. 2Widespread use of this classification system should accelerate phase-out of the most hazardous pesticides, mitigate some of the risks associated with pesticides that are less toxic, and encourage use of pesticides that are compatible with integrated pest management (IPM) programs. The intended audiences for this guideline include farmers and other pest-management decision makers, agricultural educators and extension workers internationally, and standard-setting bodies that underpin the global market in agricultural exports. It accompanies a peer-reviewed article, where we outline the background to, and some example uses of, this system.1 As an end user, you may work through the pesticide tables in this guideline, selecting pesticides that are not highly hazardous, or which do not require risk mitigation – thus limiting and progressively reducing risks on your farm, or among your clients. HOW TO USE THIS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IN IPM DECISION MAKING The pesticide tables below, and the risk mitigations that we suggest, can be used along with other information to support pesticide selection. We provide a step-by-step guide to using the tables, which can be conducted before the season for planning an IPM program, or during the season to manage a challenging pest problem. Please note that these lists provide guidance that is supplementary to the pesticide label. The label is intended to be the primary source of risk management information, and it indicates practices that are mandatory. Where labels are inadequate, this guideline provides access to scientifically based risk assessments and risk mitigation procedures that reduce the likelihood of an unintended adverse impact if they are used as part of an IPM program. Also note our lists are internationally comprehensive, and contain pesticides that may not be registered in all countries. This classification system does not account for pesticide efficacy, which is a critical consideration in pesticide selection. There are many reasons why a pesticide may lack efficacy – it may not be toxic to the target insect, disease or weed, or the pest may have evolved resistance to it. But, just as importantly, even pesticides that are toxic to the pest may not be effective because the pest is hidden and not exposed to the product, because application equipment is not specified for the product, or well maintained, because applications are made at the wrong rate, because weather conditions reduce pesticide exposure, and/or because the timing is wrong and treatment is targeted toward a less susceptible pest life stage. Problems such as these drive farmers towards selecting highly toxic pesticides that can have some efficacy even when mistimed or improperly applied, and this has negative health, environmental, and economic consequences. If this guide is to support effective IPM programs that limit pest impacts in a sustainable way, it is essential first to consider crop and habitat management that can limit pest populations, and also to implement crop scouting, so that IPM decisions are based upon information from the fields that are being managed. If, however, a decision is made to use a pesticide, it is essential that the farmer understand what is needed to achieve an effective treatment with maximum targeting of the pest, minimal pesticide losses from the site of treatment, and minimum impacts to health and the environment. Without these considerations, pesticide use may only generate costs, and fail to provide benefits.

2

STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO USING THE PESTICIDE TABLES

Please use the steps below to develop a plan for how to introduce and make use of these tables with farmers, or other IPM decision makers. Step 1: Develop your IPM Plan.

• Consider what you can do to limit pest presence and damage before using pesticides, and develop a plan for adopting these practices.

Step 2: Develop Pesticide Lists. • Assemble a list of all pesticides that are registered and available locally for your intended use. • If possible, determine which of these pesticides are efficacious, based upon locally-relevant data. • Ensure effective training in pesticide storage, transport, personal protection, handling, application, cleanup and disposal. • Note that one may BEGIN this process with the last table (3b), which lists only lower-risk pesticides that may meet

your pest management needs. 2

Step 3: Identify and Reduce Highly Hazardous Pesticides. • Refer to Table 1 to determine if any of the pesticides that you have listed are classified as Highly Hazardous Pesticides

(HHPs), and also determine if additional compounds have been listed as HHPs because of evidence for impacts locally 1 • If no pesticide on your list is an HHP, move on to Step 4. • If you have included an HHP, select a less toxic alternative that does not fall within this classification. • If no suitable alternatives are available, and IPM alternatives to pesticides have been exhausted, it is essential that steps are

taken to protect handlers, applicators, bystanders, and the environment. You must first follow label instructions, but in cases where these are not available or incomplete, see some examples of risk management for HHPs below (see “RISK MITIGATION MEASURES”).

• Develop a plan to phase out use of any HHPs by adopting a wider array of IPM tactics, and by consulting experts including researchers, extension agents, and other farmers, about effective alternatives.

Step 4: Identify Pesticides Requiring Risk Mitigation. • Refer to Table 2 to determine if any of the pesticides that you have listed require risk mitigation. • If no pesticide on your list requires risk mitigation, move to Step 5. • If you are considering a pesticide that requires risk mitigation, consider using an alternative, lower risk pesticide that does

not fall within this classification (Step 5). • If no alternatives are available, and IPM alternatives to pesticides have been exhausted, it is essential that steps are taken to

implement risk mitigation practices, and to protect yourself and bystanders. You must first follow label instructions, but in cases where these are not available or incomplete, we provide examples of effective risk mitigations for pesticides below (see “Risk mitigation to protect aquatic life, terrestrial wildlife, pollinators and bystanders” under “RISK MITIGATION MEASURES”).

Step 5: Identify and Select Lower-Risk Pesticides • If none of the pesticides that you are considering are HHPs or pesticides requiring risk mitigation according to our analysis,

refer to Tables 3a &b. • IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU CONSIDER LOCAL REGULATORY, HEALTH, AND RESEACH

INFORMATION THAT MAY FACTOR IN RISKS THAT OUR ANALYSIS HAS NOT CONSIDERED, BEFORE DEVELOPING A FINAL LIST OF PESTICIDES THAT MAY FIT WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM

• If one or more pesticides that you are considering are not referred to in either Tables 1, 2, 3a or b then either, the risks associated with this pesticide have not yet been analyzed, or, the data to carry out the risk assessment are not available. In this case, follow label instructions, and unless you have clear guidance that this pesticide is of low risk, treat the pesticide as if all the mitigations in Step 2 are required, and protective clothing (PPE) is needed for handling, application and clean-up.

• If you are considering pesticides that are listed on Table 3a or b, then lower risk pesticides are available to you. Note however that the pesticide label may address other risks that need to be managed, or it may indicate a requirement to manage risks that our analysis did not consider.

NOTE: Never assume a pesticide is safe. Our classification system is a guide towards risk reduction, but you must handle every pesticide with care, and apply it correctly at the labeled rate, and only on the crops and pests indicated on the label. Please also note that pesticide formulations vary widely in concentration, and the hazard that they pose to handlers.

3

THE PESTICIDE TABLES Highly Hazardous Pesticides: Table 1 lists Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) as they are defined by the Joint FAO\WHO Meeting on Pesticide Management (JMPM). 3,4 HHPs are: “pesticides that are acknowledged to present particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards to health or environment according to internationally accepted classification systems such as WHO or GHS or their listing in relevant binding international agreements or conventions. In addition, pesticides that appear to cause severe or irreversible harm to health or the environment under conditions of use in a country may be considered to be and treated as highly hazardous.” 1, 3 Table 1 includes pesticides that meet the acute and chronic risk criteria of the HHP definition, and pesticides that are listed under key international conventions. We also invoked the eighth criterion of the formal HHP definition: i.e.: “Pesticide active ingredients and formulations that have shown a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.”3 This criterion was used in the development of our classification system with the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN; Table 7), and resulted in the addition of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid & thiamethoxam), and fipronil, based upon pollinator impacts;5 paraquat, based upon evidence of irreversible effects and use as an agent of self-harm;2 atrazine, as a result of its occurrence in surface waters and risks to aquatic life,6 and three fumigants that are not covered under WHO hazard criteria (aluminium and magnesium phosphide, and phosphine.4 These additions were subject to intensive peer review and international consultation (see Table 7), including submission of relevant evidence to the SAN board. Users of these guidelines may seek to add pesticides using the eighth criterion of the HHP definition based upon local factors, or new research. Our analysis seeks to address risks of global concern, including self-harm, other than paraquat, it has not addressed local variation in products of choice for suicide. It has also not addressed specific health and environmental impacts that may apply to sensitive sub-populations, or to threatened and endangered species. We encourage end-users to treat our lists as a robust, peer-reviewed starting point, but to add materials to the HHP list if there is evidence for severe or irreversible effects. Pesticides Requiring Risk Mitigation Table 2 lists pesticides that require specific risks to be mitigated if impacts to human health or the environment are to be limited. The risk analysis is based a state-of-the-science risk assessment tool that identifies pesticides with moderate to high (10% or greater) risks to aquatic life, terrestrial wildlife, and/or bystander inhalation, and a 15% (or greater) risk of honey bee hive loss.7 These risks require mitigation to reduce the likelihood of unacceptable impacts. The risk categories are:

1. RISK TO AQUATIC LIFE: Pesticides qualified for this risk category if one or more aquatic risk models (aquatic algae, aquatic invertebrates, or fish chronic risk) exhibited > 10% risk at a typical application rate.7

2. RISK TO TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE: Pesticides qualified for this risk category if one or more terrestrial risk models (avian reproductive, avian acute, or small mammal risk) exhibited >10% risk at a typical application rate.7

3. RISK TO POLLINATORS: Pesticides were selected here based on a widely-used hazard quotient (HQ) resulting from pesticide application rate in g a.i./ha (a.i. = active ingredient), and contact LD50 for the honey bee (Apis mellifera) (see Detailed Methods).

4. INHALATION RISK: Inhalation risk to bystanders was calculated using a model for inhalation toxicity calculated on the basis of child exposure and susceptibility.7

RISK MITIGATION MEASURES Risk mitigation for exceptional uses of HHPs listed in Table 1 One goal of this document is to illuminate a pathway for removal of HHPs and their attendant hazards. In our work in voluntary sustainable certification standards it became clear that in some circumstances, a transition period was necessary for some HHPs, because alternatives were not immediately apparent or available. In these cases, exceptional risk management steps are needed. HHPs should only be used when applicators are effectively trained, when medical supervision is available, and when protective clothing is both available and used. If these basic requirements cannot be met, then Table 1 is best interpreted as a “do not use list,” because the costs to human health and the environment are likely to exceed any potential benefit from pesticide use. The risk management guidance below is intended to supplement information that may be found on the pesticide label, and can be used when risk management information is lacking or in addition to the information provided on the label.

4

Reproductive toxins: at least eight HHPs with reproductive toxicity are in widespread use: borax, boric acid, carbendazim, epoxiconazole, fluazifop-butyl, glufosinate-ammonium, quizalfop-p-tefuryl, and tridemorph. Replacing the use of these pesticides with lower risk chemicals, or non-chemical practices, is an important priority for risk management. Where use is considered essential, or during phase-out, the following risk management guidelines should be implemented.

1. Include the use of essential HHPs as part of a rotation with less toxic pesticides. 2. Women of reproductive age (15-50 years) should not apply pesticides that are classified as reproductive toxins. 3. Workers applying reproductive toxins should wear the most protective clothing that is available, including chemically-

resistant gloves, boots and socks, long pants and long sleeved shirt, overalls that cover trousers and shirt, respirators and face masks, and should exercise high levels of caution when handling pesticide containers and sprayers.

4. Restricted entry intervals should be implemented for all persons entering the field after application. These should be at least 48h, or as indicated on the pesticide label, whichever is greater.

5. Potentially affected persons or communities should be identified and alerted in advance of application, flags should be used to identify treated fields, and access to treated fields should be prevented.

6. Non-crop vegetative barriers and/or non-application zones (see specifications below) should be maintained between treated fields and areas of human activity.

Nematicides: most nematicides are highly toxic, and many are HHPs. There are less toxic alternatives entering the marketplace, and there are many non-pesticide options available, particularly prior to planting. However, a risk mitigation program should be implemented while alternatives are sought. The list below, developed by the SAN under international review, provides an example risk mitigation program for five nematicides that meet the criteria for HHP designation: cadusafos, ethoprop, fenamiphos, oxamyl and terbufos:

1. Use lower toxicity nematicides as part of the rotation of nematicides for resistance management. 2. Use application methods that place the product precisely within the plant root zone, or use tree injection. 3. Workers applying reproductive toxins should wear the most protective clothing that is available, including chemically-

resistant gloves, boots and socks, long pants and long sleeved shirt, overalls that cover trousers and shirt, respirators and face masks, and should exercise high levels of caution when handling pesticide containers and sprayers.

4. Avoid uncovered application of granules, particularly close to aquatic areas. 5. Limit daily maximum application time for applicators to eight hours, in two shifts, with bathing to wash off residues. 6. Make applications during the coolest hours of the day. 7. Monitor applicator health annually for kidney and liver function.

Rodenticides: many rodenticides are, by definition, mammalian toxins, and many are HHPs. The following risk management guidelines are important to limit risks when using brodifacoum, bromadiolone, bromethalin, chlorophacinone, difethialone, diphacinone, strychnine, warfarin and zinc phosphide:

1. Food sources attracting rodents and debris should be eliminated. 2. Signs of rodent activity (droppings, tracks, gnaw marks, burrows) should be monitored and the results recorded. Traps

should be inspected daily, and bait stations and installations weekly. 3. Rodenticide-baited traps should only be used inside buildings if, and only if, rodent monitoring demonstrates

that mechanical-only control methods are not effective. 4. Use of rodenticides should be restricted mainly to the protection of storage places for harvested crops, and crop packing

stations and handling facilities. 5. Routine field applications should not be undertaken: the need for them should be determined by scouting, and applications

should be localized and their effects monitored. 6. Only formulated rodenticide-baited traps classified as moderately toxic (blue label in some countries) or slightly toxic

(green label in some countries) should be used. 7. Bait stations should be tamper- resistant, anchored, and constructed in such a manner and size as to permit entrance

only by rodents. 8. Rodent carcasses should be handled with gloves and buried in locations that do not pose risks to human or wildlife health

or water contamination. 9. Bait stations should be removed and the amount of stations diminished when there are no longer signs of rodent feeding

or, if there is evidence of use by non- target wildlife.

Pesticides classified as HHPs because of pollinator impacts: the three neonicotinoids clothianodin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam, and the phenylpyrazole fipronil were classified as HHPs because of evidence for their adverse impacts on

5

pollinator populations. Open field uses of these pesticides should be minimized and phased out, and treatment of perennial crops should be avoided because of their persistence, and accumulation in plant tissues. If less toxic and efficacious pesticides are not available, and if any of these insecticides are used in annual crops during a phase-out period, mitigation measures that limit RISK TO POLLINATORS should be used. Risk mitigation to protect aquatic life, terrestrial wildlife, pollinators and bystanders This summary applies primarily to pesticides listed on Table 2, although it can also be used to improve risk management for HHPs in the phase out period.

1. Pesticides listed in Table 2 as having RISK TO AQUATIC LIFE, or RISK TO TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE, should only be applied if:

a. Non- application zones are used around natural ecosystems and sensitive sites; or b. Vegetative barriers, or riparian and wetland buffers (see specifications for these methods below) are

established; or c. Other effective mechanisms are used to reduce spray drift.

2. Farms should also establish and maintain non-crop vegetative barriers and non- application zones between pesticide-treated crops and areas of human activity.

3. Farms should apply substances listed in Table 2 as having RISK TO POLLINATORS only if: a. Less toxic, efficacious pesticides are not available; b. Exposure of natural ecosystems to pesticides is minimized by establishing non-application zones, or

functional vegetative barriers; and c. Contact of pollinators with these substances is further reduced:

i. Substances are not applied to flowering weeds or flowering weeds are removed; and ii. Substances are not applied while the crop is in its peak flowering period.

4. Pesticides listed in Table 2 as having INHALATION RISK should only be applied if a. Restricted Entry Intervals (REIs) are enforced; and b. Respirators with an organic vapor (OV) cartridge or canister with any N, R, P, or 100-series filter are used;

and c. All application sites are flagged to indicate inhalation risks to bystanders.

Specifications for risk mitigation methods When applying synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, spray drift and run-off to natural ecosystems and zones of human activity, can be prevented by implementing:

1. Non-application zones between treated crops and these areas: a. 5 meters (5.5 yards) wide for application by mechanical, hand-assisted, and targeted application methods, such as:

knapsack sprayers, banding, baiting, specific granule placement, soil or plant injection, seed treatments and weed wiping;

b. 10 meters (11 yards) wide for application by broadcast or pressurized spray application methods, such as: motorized sprayers, or spray booms, air blast sprayers, foggers (including ultra-low-volume (ULV) fogging machines), depending on the equipment’s specifications;

2. Functional vegetative barriers that are: a. As high as the crop height or the height of the equipment’s application nozzles over the ground, whichever is

higher; b. Composed of plants that maintain their foliage all year, but which are permeable to airflow, allowing the barrier to

capture pesticide drops; and c. Composed of non-invasive species.

3. Riparian and wetland buffers that consist of: a. Vegetative buffers consisting of native vegetation, of the following minimum widths (water course width is

defined as the width of the normal flow during the rainy season, but not during flood conditions): i. 5 meters (5.5 yards) horizontal width along both sides of water courses less than 5 meters (5.5 yards)

wide; ii. 8 meters (8.75 yards) horizontal width along both sides of water courses 5-10 meters (5.5-11 yards)

wide, and around springs, wetlands, and other water bodies; iii. 15 meters (16.4 yards) horizontal width along both sides of rivers wider than 10 meters (11 yards).

We do not address the complex requirements for mitigating drift associated rotary- and fixed-wing aerial application..

6

FINAL ADVICE TO END USERS If we are to reduce the persistent use of pesticides that pose high risks we will need to operationalize science-based systems such as this one, in order to support pesticide use decision-making in ways that factor in risk and hazard more prominently. By doing this, we may overcome an important barrier to IPM adoption, and provide opportunities for more sustainable management of pests, diseases and weeds that currently do not exist in pesticide-dependent systems. Pesticide handlers, applicators and farm workers are exposed directly and indirectly to pesticides, and it is essential to read labels and observe precautions including protective clothing, restricted entry, and pre-harvest intervals. However, this information may be lacking or insufficient in the context of pesticide use in developing countries. We have demonstrated that restricted entry intervals on some pesticide labels are insufficient to protect farm workers in West Africa.7 IPM compatibility is also an important consideration. Our guideline does not yet summarize toxicity to natural enemies, pesticide resistance management, pesticide efficacy, or the cumulative risks associated with complete annual pesticide programs. All of these should be factored into pesticide use decisions that are made in an IPM context, and our classification system should be viewed as a contributor to broader IPM decision-making. The HHP and risk mitigation lists already underpin internationally-applied voluntary certification standards that have been created to protect farm workers and the environment in tropical countries. Farmers in more developed systems such as the USA may use these tables to monitor pesticide risks on their farms and to document risk reduction, if they adopt the selection process that we propose. Farmers and their advisors with limited access to pesticide and IPM education may use this guideline as a source of reliable and rigorously obtained data, for use when selecting and purchasing pesticides, and when managing risks. Note We have used science and evidence-based processes throughout the development of these lists. Placement of pesticides in a particular table is determined by our analytical process and by criteria of hazard established by high-level UN committees. We included a number of public and professional consultations in development of the lists and tables, and they represent current knowledge about pesticide hazards and risks. Certain pesticides attract controversy, such as the herbicide glyphosate, which has entered the public domain because of legal action. We have reviewed the evidence for carinogencity, and followed the conclusions of the WHO/FAO JMPR that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen. 14 We do however track new information, and review the placement of all pesticides in our tables, and they should not be viewed as static or permanent. Acknowledgements The drafting of this guideline was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service under Agreement No. FX18TA- 10960R021, and the U. S. Agency for International Development. Any opinions, findings, conclusion, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or USAID. We report sources of funding for the underlying analysis in the associated publication. 1 CITATIONS

1. This pesticide risk management guideline accompanies Jepson PC, Murray K, Bach O, et al. Selection of pesticides to reduce human and environmental health risks: a global guideline and minimum pesticides list. Lancet Planet Health 2020; 4: e56–63.

2. Eddleston M, Karalliedde L, Buckley N. Pesticide poisoning in the developing world – a minimum pesticides list. Lancet 2002; 360: 1163—67

3. FAO. FAO International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management: Guidelines on Highly Hazardous Pesticides, FAO, Rome 2016; ISBN 978-92-5-109187-6. Available from the Internet (accessed May 14th, 2019): http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5566e.pdf

4. WHO (2010) The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard, and Guidelines to Classification 2009. World Health Organization, Geneva. Available online at: https://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_2009.pdf?ua=1

5. Woodcock BA, Isaac NJB, Bullock JM, et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nature Communications 2016; 7: 12459 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12459

6. EPA. Refined Ecological Risk Assessment for Atrazine. 2016. Available from the Internet (accessed May 14th, 2019): EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-0315.pdf

7

7. Jepson PC, Guzy M, Blaustein K et al. Measuring pesticide ecological and health risks in West African agriculture to establish an enabling environment for sustainable intensification. Phil Trans R Soc B, 2014; available from the Internet (accessed May 14th, 2019): http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0491

8. Oomen, PA. A sequential scheme for evaluating the hazard of pesticides to bees, Apis mellifera .Med. Fac. Landbouww.Rijksuniv.Gent, 1986; 51: 1205-1213.

9. Lewis, G. The assessment of pesticide risks to bees: the work of the ICPBR Bee Protection Group. Julius Kuhn Archiv 2009; 423: 11-14

10. Thompson, H.M. Risk Assessment for honey bees and pesticides – recent developments and new issues. Pest Management Science. 2010; 66: 1157-1162 DOI 10.1002/ps.1994

11. Sustainable Agriculture Network. Sustainable Agriculture Standard, 2016. 2017a. Red de Agricultura Sostenible, San Jose, Costa Rica

12. Sustainable Agriculture Network List of Prohibited Pesticides, 2016. 2017b. Red de Agricultura Sostenible, San Jose, Costa Rica

13. Rainforest Alliance. Sustainable Agriculture Standard, 2017. 2017a. Red de Agricultura Sostenible, San Jose, Costa Rica 14. Rainforest Alliance. Lists for Pesticide Management: Lists of Prohibited and Risk Mitigation Use Pesticides. 2017b. Red de

Agricultura Sostenible, San Jose, Costa Rica 15. Sustainable Agriculture Network. Procedure for Exceptional Pesticide Use, 18pp, 2016. 2017c. Red de Agricultura

Sostenible, San Jose, Costa Rica 16. Jepson PC, Murray K, Bach O et al. Pesticide hazard and risk management, and compatibility with IPM, pp 29-44. In

Prasanna BM, Huesing JE, Eddy R, Preschke VM. Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management, First Edition. 2018. Available on the Internet (accessed May 14th, 2019): https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/fall-armyworm-africa-guide-integrated-pest-management-first-edition

17. Shah P, Jacobs M, Cerniglia C, Eastmond DA et al. Glyphosate in: Pesticide residues in food – 2016: toxicological evaluations / Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues, Geneva, Switzerland, 9–13 May 2016. 2017 World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland p.89-296. Available on the Internet (accessed October 30th, 2019): http://apps.who.int/pesticide-residues-jmpr-database/Document/254

THE TABLES Table 1 Highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), with criteria for classification: definitions of HHP criteria provided in text, with personal protection and risk management requirements for essential uses during HHP phase-out. Pesticides listed as obsolete are not fit for further use, and may also have been deregistered locally, or banned internationally.

Pesticide CAS number WHO Ia

WHO Ib

GHS Cancer 1A, 1B

GHS muta 1A,, 1B

GHS repro 1A, 1B

Mont-real

Proto-col

Rotter-dam

Conven-tion

Stock-holm

Conven-tion

Severe Effects

Acrolein 107-02-8

Alachlor 15972-60-8

Aldicarb 116-06-3

alpha-BHC; alpha-HCH 319-84-6

Alpha-chlorohydrin 96-24-2

Aluminum phosphide 20859-73-8

Anthracene oil 90640-80-5

Arsenic and its compounds 7778-39-4

Atrazine 1912-24-9

Azafenidin 68049-83-2

Azinphos-ethyl 2642-71-9

Azinphos-methyl 86-50-0

Benomyl 17804-35-2

Beta-cyfluthrin; Cyfluthrin 68359-37-5

beta-HCH; beta-BCH 319-85-7

Blasticidin-S 2079-00-7

8

Pesticide CAS number WHO Ia

WHO Ib

GHS Cancer 1A, 1B

GHS muta 1A,, 1B

GHS repro 1A, 1B

Mont-real

Proto-col

Rotter-dam

Conven-tion

Stock-holm

Conven-tion

Severe Effects

Borax; disodium tetraborate decahydrate

1303-96-4

Boric acid 10043-35-3

Brodifacoum 56073-10-0

Bromadiolone 28772-56-7

Bromethalin 63333-35-7

Butoxycarboxim 34681-23-7

Cadusafos 95465-99-9

Captafol 2425-06-1

Carbendazim 10605-21-7

Carbetamide 16118-49-3

Carbofuran 1563-66-2

Chlordane 57-74-9

Chlorethoxyphos 54593-83-8

Chlorfenvinphos 470-90-6

Chlormephos 24934-91-6

Chlorophacinone 3691-35-8

Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6

Clothianidin 210880-92-5

Coumaphos 56-72-4

Coumatetralyl 5836-29-3

Creosote 8001-58-9

Cyproconazole 94361-06-5

DDT 50-29-3

Demeton-S-methyl 919-86-8

Dichlorvos; DDVP 62-73-7

Dicrotophos 141-66-2

Difenacoum 56073-07-5

Difethialone 104653-34-1

Dinocap 39300-45-3

Dinoterb 1420-07-1

Diphacinone 82-66-6

Disulfoton 298-04-4

DNOC and its salts 534-52-1

Edifenphos 17109-49-8

Endosulfan 115-29-7

Endosulfan I (alpha) 959-98-8

E-Phosphamidon 297-99-4

Epichlorohydrin 106-89-8

EPN 2104-64-5

Epoxiconazole 133855-98-8

Ethiofencarb 29973-13-5

Ethoprophos; Ethoprop 13194-48-4

Ethylene dibromide; 1,2-dibromoethane

106-93-4

9

Pesticide CAS number WHO Ia

WHO Ib

GHS Cancer 1A, 1B

GHS muta 1A,, 1B

GHS repro 1A, 1B

Mont-real

Proto-col

Rotter-dam

Conven-tion

Stock-holm

Conven-tion

Severe Effects

Ethylene dichloride; 1,2-Dichloroethane

107-06-2

Ethylene oxide 75-21-8

Ethylene thiourea 96-45-7

Famphur 52-85-7

Fenamiphos 22224-92-6

Fenchlorazole-ethyl 103112-35-2

Fipronil 120068-37-3

Flocoumafen 90035-08-8

Fluazifop-butyl 69806-50-4

Flucythrinate 70124-77-5

Flumioxazin 103361-09-7

Fluoroacetamide 640-19-7

Flusilazole 85509-19-9

Formetanate 22259-30-9

Furathiocarb 65907-30-4

Glufosinate-ammonium 77182-82-2

Heptenophos 23560-59-0

Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1

Hexchlorocyclohexane; BHC mixed isomers

608-73-1

Imidacloprid 138261-41-3

Iprodione 36734-19-7

Isoxathion 18854-01-8

Lindane 58-89-9

Linuron 330-55-2

Magnesium phosphide 12057-74-8

Mecarbam 2595-54-2

Mercury and its compounds 7439-97-6

Methamidophos 10265-92-6

Methidathion 950-37-8

Methiocarb 2032-65-7

Methomyl 16752-77-5

Methyl bromide 74-83-9

Mevinphos 7786-34-7

Monocrotophos 6923-22-4

Nicotine 54-11-5

Nitrobenzene 98-95-3

Omethoate 1113-02-6

Oxamyl 23135-22-0

Oxydemeton-methyl 301-12-2

Paraquat dichloride 1910-42-5

Parathion 56-38-2

Parathion-methyl 298-00-0

PCP; Pentachlorphenol 87-86-5

10

Pesticide CAS number WHO Ia

WHO Ib

GHS Cancer 1A, 1B

GHS muta 1A,, 1B

GHS repro 1A, 1B

Mont-real

Proto-col

Rotter-dam

Conven-tion

Stock-holm

Conven-tion

Severe Effects

Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5

Phorate 298-02-2

Phosphamidon 13171-21-6

Phosphine 7803-51-2

Propetamphos 31218-83-4

Propiconazole 60207-90-1

Propylene oxide, Oxirane 75-56-9

Silafluofen 105024-66-6

Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) 62-74-8

Spirodiclofen 148477-71-8

Strychnine 57-24-9

Sulfluramid 4151-50-2

Sulfotep 3689-24-5

Tebupirimifos 96182-53-5

Tefluthrin 79538-32-2

Terbufos 13071-79-9

Thiamethoxam 153719-23-4

Thiofanox 39196-18-4

Thiometon 640-15-3

Thiram in formulations with benomyl and carbofuran only

137-26-8

Triadimenol 55219-65-3

Triazophos 24017-47-8

Trichlorfon; metrifonato 52-68-6 Tridemorph 81412-43-3

Triflumizole 68694-11-1

Vamidothion 2275-23-2

Vinclozolin 50471-44-8

Warfarin 81-81-2

zeta-Cypermethrin 52315-07-8z

Zinc phosphide 1314-84-7

Z-Phosphamidon 23783-98-4

OBSOLETE SUBSTANCES

2,4,5-T 93-76-5

2,4,5-TCP 35471-43-3

2,3,4,5-Bistetrahydro-2-furaldehyde

126-15-8

Aldrin 309-00-2

Binapacryl 485-31-4

Carbosulfan 55285-14-8

Chloranil 118-75-2

Chlordecone (kepone) 143-50-0

Chlordimeform 6164-98-3

Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6

11

Pesticide CAS number WHO Ia

WHO Ib

GHS Cancer 1A, 1B

GHS muta 1A,, 1B

GHS repro 1A, 1B

Mont-real

Proto-col

Rotter-dam

Conven-tion

Stock-holm

Conven-tion

Severe Effects

DBCP 96-12-8

Dieldrin 60-57-1

Dinoseb and its salts 88-85-7

Endrin 72-20-8

Heptachlor 76-44-8

Leptophos 21609-90-5

Mirex 2385-85-5

Nitrofen (TOK) 1836-75-5

Octamethylpyrophosphoramide (OMPA)

152-16-9

Safrole 94-59-7

Silvex 93-72-1

Strobane; Terpene polychlorinates 8001-50-1

TDE 72-54-8

Thallium sulfate 7446-18-6

Toxaphene (camphechlor) 8001-35-2

Table 2 Pesticides requiring risk mitigation (see text for details of mitigation methods). Only use these products if you are trained, and you have access to high quality personal protective equipment (PPE) for mixing, loading, handling, application, clean-up, and during the of restricted entry period. “Higher-level personal protection required” () indicates that occupational exposure risk assessments have demonstrated potential for exposure, and significant acute or chronic risks. If labels do not provide details of PPE for applicators, a precautionary PPE recommendation is: wear coveralls over long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and stout shoes, with chemically resistant gloves, with protection for eyes (i.e. a face mask or goggles), and respiratory protection (i.e. a respirator). For pesticides labeled as having a requirement to mitigate bystander risk, wear respirators with an organic vapor (OV) cartridge or canister with any N, R, P, or 100-series filter. Some of these compounds require additional engineering risk mitigations such as closed mixing, and closed cabs, and are not suitable for smallholder farmer use. Please obey all restricted entry and pre-harvest intervals indicated in the label.

Pesticide CAS number

Higher level personal

protection required ()

Mitigate Aquatic

Risk

Mitigate Wildlife

Risk

Mitigate Pollinator

Risk

Mitigate Bystander

Risk

1,3-Dichloropropene 542-75-6

2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester 1928-43-4

2,4-D, isooctyl ester 53404-37-8

Acephate 30560-19-1

Acequinocyl 57960-19-7

Acetamiprid 135410-20-7

Acifluorfen, sodium salt 62476-59-9

Amitraz 33089-61-1

Amitrole 61-82-5

Anilazine 101-05-3

Avermectin 71751-41-2

Azoxystrobin 131860-33-8

Bendiocarb 22781-23-3

Benfluralin 1861-40-1

Benfurcarb 82560-54-1

12

Pesticide CAS number

Higher level personal

protection required ()

Mitigate Aquatic

Risk

Mitigate Wildlife

Risk

Mitigate Pollinator

Risk

Mitigate Bystander

Risk

Bensulide 741-58-2

Bentazon, sodium salt 50723-80-3

Bifenthrin 82657-04-3

Bromacil 314-40-9

Bromoxynil heptanoate 56634-95-8

Bromoxynil octanoate 1689-99-2

Captan 133-06-2

Carbaryl 63-25-2

Cartap 15263-53-3

Chloropicrin 76-06-2

Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2

Chlorpyrifos-methyl 5598-13-0

Copper hydroxide 20427-59-2

Copper oxide (ic) 1317-38-0

Copper oxide (ous) 1317-39-1

Copper oxychloride 1332-40-7

Copper oxychloride sulfate 8012-69-9

Copper sulfate (anhydrous) 7758-98-7

Copper sulfate (pentahydrate) 7758-99-8

Cube root extracts

Cyanazine 21725-46-2

Cycloate 1134-23-2

Cyhalothrin, gamma 76703-62-3

Cyhalothrin, lambda 91465-08-6

Cypermethrin, alpha 52315-07-8

Cypermethrin, beta 65731-84-2

Dazomet 533-74-4

Deltamethrin 52918-63-5

Diazinon 333-41-5

Dichlobenil 1194-65-6

Dichloran 99-30-9

Diclofop-methyl 51338-27-3

Dicofol 115-32-2

Difenzoquat methyl sulfate 43222-48-6

Diflubenzuron 35367-38-5

Dimethenamid-P 163515-14-8

Dimethoate 60-51-5

Dinotefuran 165252-70-0

Diquat dibromide 85-00-7

Diquat ion 2764-72-9

Diuron 330-54-1

Dodine 2439-10-3

D-trans Allethrin (Bioallethrin) 584-79-2

Emamectin benzoate 137512-74-4

13

Pesticide CAS number

Higher level personal

protection required ()

Mitigate Aquatic

Risk

Mitigate Wildlife

Risk

Mitigate Pollinator

Risk

Mitigate Bystander

Risk

EPTC 759-94-4

Esfenvalerate 66230-04-4

Ethalfluralin 55283-68-6

Ethion 563-12-2

Etoxazole 153233-91-1

Famoxadone 131807-57-3

Fenbutatin-oxide 13356-08-6

Fenitrothion 122-14-5

Fenoxycarb 79127-80-3

Fenpropathrin 39515-41-8

Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6

Fentin hydroxide 76-87-9

Fenvalerate 51630-58-1

Ferbam 14484-64-1

Fluazinam 79622-59-6

Flufenacet 142459-58-3

Fluopyram 658066-35-4

Folpet 133-07-3

Fomesafen sodium 108731-70-0

Formetanate hydrochloride 23422-53-9

Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 38641-94-0

Glyphosate-trimesium 81591-81-3

Hexazinone 51235-04-2

Indoxacarb, S-isomer 173584-44-6

Iodosulfuron methyl, sodium salt 144550-36-7

Isoxaben 82558-50-7

Lenacil 2164-08-1

Lime-sulfur 1344-81-6

Lufenuron 103055-07-8

Malathion 121-75-5

Mancozeb 8018-01-7

Maneb 12427-38-2

MCPA, 2-ethyl hexyl ester 29450-45-1

MCPA, isooctyl ester 26544-20-7

Metalaxyl 57837-19-1

Metam acid 144-54-7

Metam potassium 137-41-7

Metam-sodium 6734-80-1

Metconazole 125116-23-6

Methoprene 40596-69-8

Methoxychlor 72-43-5

Methyl iodide 74-88-4

Methyl isothiocyanate 556-61-6

Metiram 9006-42-2

14

Pesticide CAS number

Higher level personal

protection required ()

Mitigate Aquatic

Risk

Mitigate Wildlife

Risk

Mitigate Pollinator

Risk

Mitigate Bystander

Risk

Metolachlor 51218-45-2

Metolachlor, (S) 87392-12-9

Metribuzin 21087-64-9

Mineral oil, refined 8042-47-5

Myclobutanil 88671-89-0

Naled 300-76-5

Napropamide 15299-99-7

Norflurazon 27314-13-2

Novaluron 116714-46-6

Oryzalin 19044-88-3

Oxadiazon 19666-30-9

Oxycarboxin 5259-88-1

Oxyfluorfen 42874-03-3

Oxythioquinox 2439-01-2

PCNB (Quintozene) 82-68-8

Pendimethalin 40487-42-1

Permethrin 52645-53-1

Phosalone 2310-17-0

Phosmet 732-11-6

Pirimicarb 23103-98-2

Pirimiphos methyl 29232-93-7

Profenofos 41198-08-7

Prometryn 7287-19-6

Propamocarb hydrochloride 25606-41-1

Propanil 709-98-8

Propargite 2312-35-8

Propoxur 114-26-1

Prosulfuron 94125-34-5

Pyraclostrobin 175013-18-0

Pyrethrins 8003-34-7

Pyridaben 96489-71-3

Pyridalyl

179101-81-6

Resmethrin 10453-86-8

Rotenone 83-79-4

S-Dimethenamid 163515-14-8

Simazine 122-34-9

Sodium chlorate 7775-09-9

Sodium tetrathiocarbonate 7345-69-9

Spinetoram (XDE-175-J) 187166-40-1 935545-74-7

Spinosad (mixture of Factors A & D)

131929-60-7

Sulfentrazone 122836-35-5

Teflubenzuron 83121-18-0

Terrazole; etridiazole 2593-15-9

15

Pesticide CAS number

Higher level personal

protection required ()

Mitigate Aquatic

Risk

Mitigate Wildlife

Risk

Mitigate Pollinator

Risk

Mitigate Bystander

Risk

Tetrachlorvinphos, Z-isomer 22248-79-9

Tetraconazole 112281-77-3

Thiabendazole 148-79-8

Thiacloprid 111988-49-9

Thiobencarb 28249-77-6

Thiodicarb 59669-26-0

Thiophanate-methyl 23564-05-8

Tolfenpyrad 129558-76-5

Triallate 2303-17-5

Triclopyr, triethylamine salt 57213-69-1

Trifloxystrobin 141517-21-7

Triflumuron 68628-44-0 Trifluralin 1582-09-8

Triforine 26644-46-2

Triticonazole 131983-72-7

Zineb 12122-67-7

Ziram 137-30-4

Table 3a Pesticides that do not trigger environmental or bystander risk mitigations, but which require additional occupational health risk mitigation, in addition to baseline personal protective equipment (PPE). Occupational exposure risk assessments have demonstrated potential for exposure, and significant acute or chronic risks. If labels do not provide details of PPE for applicators, a precautionary PPE recommendation is: wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and stout shoes, with chemically resistant gloves, with protection for eyes (i.e. a face mask or goggles), and respiratory protection (i.e. a respirator). Please obey all restricted entry and pre-harvest intervals indicated in the label. Also, consider every chemical on a case-by-case basis, and obtain local regulatory data, and research that address aspects of risk that this system does not take into account. Low Risk Pesticide CAS number

Ammonium thiosulfate 7783-18-8

2,4-D 94-75-7

2,4-D, butoxyethanol ester 1929-73-3

2,4-D, diethanolamine salt 5742-19-8

2,4-D, dimethylamine salt 2008-39-1

2,4-D, isopropyl ester 94-11-1

2,4-D, isopropylamine salt 5742-17-6

2,4-D, sodium salt 2702-72-9

2,4-D, triisopropanolamine salt 18584-79-7

2,4-DB acid 94-82-6

2,4-DB butyl ester 6753-24-8

2,4-DB, isooctyl ester 1320-15-6

2,4-DP, isooctyl ester 28631-35-8

2,4-DP,2-ethylhexyl ester 79270-78-3

Acifluorfen 50594-66-6

Allyl isothiocyanate 57-06-7

Aminopyralid 150114-71-9

Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt 566191-89-7

16

Low Risk Pesticide CAS number

Buprofezin 69327-76-0

Chloroneb 2675-77-6

Clopyralid 1702-17-6

Clopyralid, monoethanolamine salt 57754-85-5

Copper 8-quinolinoleate 10380-28-6

Copper ammonium complex 16828-95-8

Copper ethanolamine complex 14215-52-2

Copper octanoate 20543-04-8

Copper salts of fatty and rosin acids 9007-39-0

Copper sulfate (basic) 1333-22-8

DCPA 1861-32-1

Desmedipham 13684-56-5

Dicamba 1918-00-9

Dicamba with 2,4-D 8068-77-7

Dicamba, diethanolamine salt 25059-78-3

Dicamba, diglycolamine salt 104040-79-1

Dicamba, dimethylamine salt 2300-66-5

Dicamba, isopropylamine salt 55871-02-8

Dicamba, potassium salt 10007-85-9

Dicamba, sodium salt 1982-69-0

Endothall 145-73-3

Endothall, di (N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt 66330-88-9

Flamprop-M 58667-63-3

Flamprop-M-methyl 57973-66-7

Fosetyl-Al 39148-24-8

Free fatty acids and/or amine salts 84776-33-0

Haloxyfop-P-methyl 72619-32-0

Hexaconazole 79983-71-4

Hydrogen peroxide 7722-84-1

Hymexazol 10004-44-1

Imazalil sulfate 58594-72-2

Imazapyr 81334-34-1

Ioxynil 1689-83-4

Ioxynil octanoate 3861-47-0

Lactofen 77501-63-4

MCPA 94-74-6

MCPA, butyl ester 1713-12-8

MCPA, dimethylamine salt 2039-46-5

MCPA, potassium salt 5221-16-9

MCPA, sodium salt 3653-48-3

MCPP 7085-19-0

MCPP, diethanolamine salt 1432-14-0

MCPP, dimethylamine salt 32351-70-5

17

Low Risk Pesticide CAS number

MCPP, potassium salt 1929-86-8

MCPP-P, dimethylamine salt 66423-09-4

MCPP-P, potassium salt 66423-05-0

Mefenoxam 70630-17-0

Meta-cresol 108-39-4

Metaldehyde 9002-91-9

Methyl eugenol 93-15-2

MSMA 2163-80-6

Naptalam 132-66-1

Naptalam, sodium salt 132-67-2

Peroxyacetic acid 79-21-0

Pethoxamid 106700-29-2

Picloram 1918-02-1

Picloram, potassium salt 2545-60-0

Picloram, triisopropanolamine salt 6753-47-5

Piperonyl butoxide 51-03-6

Propionic acid 79-09-4

Pymetrozine 123312-89-0

Pyroxasulfone 447399-55-5

Sodium metabisulfite 7681-57-4

Sodium percarbonate 15630-89-4

Sorbitol octanoate 108175-15-1

Spirotetramat 203313-25-1

Streptomyces griseoviridis strain K61

Sucrose octanoate 42922-74-7

Sulfoxaflor 946578-00-3

Tebuconazole 107534-96-3

Tetrachlorvinphos, E-isomer 961-11-5

Thiazopyr 117718-60-2

Tralkoxydim 87820-88-0

Triadimefon 43121-43-3

Triclopyr 55335-06-3

Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester 64700-56-7

Triflumizole 68694-11-1

Table 3b Pesticides that do not meet the HHP, risk mitigation, or other of criteria of concern in Tables 1, 2 & 3a, but which require single layer, baseline, personal protective equipment (PPE): i.e. wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and stout shoes, with chemically resistant gloves. Note: occupational exposure is unlikely for pheromones. Consider every chemical on a case-by-case basis, and obtain local regulatory data, and research that addresses aspects of risk that this system does not take into account, including use of products for self harm.

Low Risk (Minimum List) Pesticide CAS number

(E)-11-tetradecenyl acetate 33189-72-9

(E)-4-tridecen-1-yl acetate 72269-48-8

18

Low Risk (Minimum List) Pesticide CAS number

(E)-5-decen-1-ol 56578-18-8

(E)-5-decenyl acetate 38421-90-8

(E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate 54664-98-1

(E,Z)-3,13-octadecadien-1-ol acetate 53120-26-6

(Poly-N-acetyl-D-glucosamine)-protein 9012-76-4

(R,Z)-5-(1-decenyl) dihydro-2-(3H)-furanone 64726-91-6

(Z)-11-hexadecenal 53939-28-9

(Z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate 60037-58-3

(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate 20711-10-8

(Z)-4-tridecen-1-yl-acetate 65954-19-0

(Z)-9-dodecenyl acetate 16974-11-1

(Z)-9-tetradecen-1-ol acetate 16725-53-4

(Z,E)-9,12-tetradecadienyl acetate 31654-77-0

(Z,Z)-11,13-hexadecadienal 71317-73-2

(Z,Z)-3,13-octadecadien-1-ol acetate 53120-27-7

Acibenzolar-S-methyl 135158-54-2

Aclonifen 74070-46-5

Agrobacterium radiobacter (strains K84, K1026)

Anagrapha falcifera multi-nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AFMNPV)

Azaconazole 60207-31-0

Azadirachtin (incl. Azadirachta indica) 11141-17-6

Bacillus thuringiensis (berliner) subspecies Kurstaki strain SA-12 solids, spores, and insecticidal toxins, ATCC # SD-1323; strain SA -11 solids, spores and insecticidal toxins, ATCC # SD – 1322; subsp. Aizawai, GC-91 protein: subsp. Israelensis, serotype H-14; subsp. Kurstaki, strain EG2348; subsp. Kurstaki, strain EG2371: subsp. Kurstaki, strain SA-11; subsp. Kurstaki strain BMP 123; subsp. Kurstaki, genetically engineered strain EG7841 lepidopteran active toxin; subsp. Kurstaki, genetically engineered strain EG7841 lepidopteran active toxin; subsp. Tenebrionis, strain NB-176; supsp. Israelensis strain SA3A; var. Kurstaki, genetically engineered strain EG7826 Lepidopteran active toxin; subsp. Aizawai, Strain ABTS-1857; subsp. Israelensis, strain AM 65-52; subsp. Kurstaki, strain ABTS-351, fermentation solids and solubles; subsp. Tenebrionis delta endotoxin as produced in potato by Cry IIIA gene and its controlling sequences and found in the following constructs: PV-STBT02, PV-STBT04, and PV-STMT01, IR-22

68038-71-1

Bacillus firmus strain I-1582

Bacillus pumilus GB34; strain QST 2808

Bacillus sphaericus 143447-72-7

Bacillus subtilis GBO3; MBI 600; QST 713

Beauveria bassiana ATCC 74040

Beauveria bassiana strain GHA

Bentazon 25057-89-0

Bifenazate 149877-41-8

Boscalid 188425-85-6

Brewer's yeast extract hydrolysate from Saccharomyces cerevisiae

19

Low Risk (Minimum List) Pesticide CAS number

Bromacil, dimethylamine salt 69484-13-5

Bromacil, lithium salt 53404-19-6

Bromoxynil phenol 1689-84-5

Canola oil 120962-03-0

Capsicum oleoresin 404-86-4

Carboxin 5234-68-4

Carfentrazone-ethyl 128639-02-1

Chenopodium ambrosioides var. ambrosioides 89997-47-7

Chitin 1398-61-4

Chlorantraniliprole 500008-45-7

Chloridazon 1698-60-8

Chlorsulfuron 64902-72-3

Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2

Citronellol 106-22-9

Clethodim 99129-21-2

Clodinafop-propargyl 105512-06-9

Clofentezine 74115-24-5

Clomazone 81777-89-1

Cloransulam 159518-97-5

Cloransulam-methyl 147150-35-4

Clove oil 8000-34-8

Cryolite 15096-52-3

Cyazofamid 120116-88-3

Cycloxydim 101205-02-1

Cydia pomonella granulosis virus

Cyflufenamid 180409-60-3

Cymoxanil 57966-95-7

Cyprodinil 121552-61-2

Cyromazine 66215-27-8

Diatomaceous earth

Dichlorprop 120-36-5

Dichlorprop, butoxyethyl ester 53404-31-2

Difenoconazole 119446-68-3

Diflufenzopyr 109293-97-2

Diflufenzopyr-sodium 109293-98-3

Dimethenamid 87674-68-8

Dimethomorph 110488-70-5

Dithiopyr 97886-45-8

Dodecanoic acid, monoester with 1,2-propanediol 27194-74-7

Dodemorph acetate 31717-87-0

E,E-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol 33956-49-9

E-8-dodecenyl acetate 38363-29-0

EDTA, iron chelate 15708-41-5

20

Low Risk (Minimum List) Pesticide CAS number

Ethametsulfuron 111353-84-5

Ethametsulfuron-methyl 97780-06-8

Ethofumesate 26225-79-6

Eugenol 97-53-0

Farnesol 4602-84-0

Fenamidone 161326-34-7

Fenarimol 60168-88-9

Fenbuconazole 114369-43-6

Fenhexamid 126833-17-8

Fenoxaprop-P ethyl (+) 71283-80-2

Fenpyrazamine 473798-59-3

Flonicamid 158062-67-0

Florasulam 145701-23-1

Fluazifop-P-butyl 79241-46-6

Flubendiamide 272451-65-7

Flucarbazone-sodium 181274-17-9

Fludioxonil 131341-86-1

Flumetsulam 98967-40-9

Fluopicolide 239110-15-7

Fluoxastrobin 193740-76-0

Fluridone 59756-60-4

Fluroxypyr 69377-81-7

Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester 81406-37-3

Flutolanil 66332-96-5

Fluxapyroxad 907204-31-3

Fomesafen 72178-02-0

Foramsulfuron 173159-57-4

Fosamine, ammonium salt 25954-13-6

Gamma aminobutyric acid 56-12-2

Garlic 8000-78-0

Geraniol 106-24-1

Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446

Glyphosate 1071-83-6

Glyphosate, diammonium salt 114370-14-8

Glyphosate, dimethylammonium salt 34494-04-7

Glyphosate, monoammonium salt 40465-66-5

Glyphosate, potassium salt 39600-42-5

Halosulfuron-methyl 100784-20-1

Harpin alpha beta protein

Harpin proteins 151438-54-9

Hexythiazox 78587-05-0

Imazamethabenz 100728-84-5

Imazamethabenz-methyl 81405-85-8

21

Low Risk (Minimum List) Pesticide CAS number

Imazamox 114311-32-9

Imazapic 104098-48-8

Imazethapyr 81335-77-5

Imazethapyr, ammonium salt 101917-66-2

Indaziflam 950782-86-2

Ipconazole 125225-28-7

Iron phosphate 10045-86-0

Isoxaflutole 141112-29-0

Kaolin 1332-58-7

Kresoxim-methyl 143390-89-0

Lauryl alcohol 112-53-8

Limonene 138-86-3

Mandipropamide 374726-62-2

MCPB, sodium salt 6062-26-6

Mesotrione 104206-82-8

Metaflumizone 139968-49-3

Metamitron 41394-05-2

Metarhizium anisopliae 67892-13-1

Methoxyfenozide 161050-58-4

Methyl anthranilate 134-20-3

Metobromuron 3060-89-7

Metosulam 139528-85-1

Metsulfuron-methyl 74223-64-6

Mineral oil, unrefined 8006-61-9

Mono- and di- potassium salts of phosphorous acid 13492-26-7

Muscodor albus strain QST 20799

Myristyl alcohol 112-72-1

Myrothecium verrucaria, dried fermentation solids & solubles, Strain AARC-0255

Neem oil 8002-65-1

Nerolidol 7212-44-4

Nicosulfuron 111991-09-4

N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide 113-48-4

Nonanoic acid, ammonium salt 63718-65-0

nonanoic acid 112-05-0

Oil of jojoba 61789-91-1

Oil of thyme 8007-46-3

Oxytetracycline 79-57-2

Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 2058-46-0

Paecilomyces lilacinus strain 251 (A filamentous fungus)

Pantoea agglomerans strains C9-1; E325; NRRL B-21856

Penoxsulam 219714-96-2

Penthiopyrad 183675-82-3

Phenmedipham 13684-63-4

22

Low Risk (Minimum List) Pesticide CAS number

Phenylethyl propionate 122-70-3

Phosphoric acid, monopotassium salt 7778-77-0

Phosphorous acid 13598-36-2

Picolinafen 137641-05-5

Pinoxaden 243973-20-8

Polyhedral occlusion bodies (OB's) of the nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Helicoverpa zea (corn earworm)

Polyhedral occlusion bodies of the beet armyworm nuclear polyhedrosis virus

Polyoxin D zinc salt 146659-78-1

Potash soap 61790-44-1

Potassium bicarbonate 298-14-6

Potassium laurate 61789-30-8

Potassium phosphate, dibasic 7758-11-4

Potassium silicate 1312-76-1

Potato leafroll virus (PLRV) replicase protein as produced in potato plants

Primisulfuron-methyl 86209-51-0

Prodiamine 29091-21-2

Propaquizafop 111479-05-1

Propoxycarbazone-sodium 181274-15-7

Propyzamide 23950-58-5

Prothioconazole 178928-70-6

Pseudomonas fluorescens A506

Pseudomonas syringae, strain ESC-10 68583-32-4

Pyraflufen-ethyl 129630-19-9

Pyrasulfotole 365400-11-9

Pyrethrum powder other than pyrethrins 8003-34-7

Pyridate 55512-33-9

Pyrimethanil 53112-28-0

Pyriproxyfen 95737-68-1

Pyroxsulam 422556-08-9

Pythium oligandrum DV 74 (ATCC 38472)

Quillaja 68990-67-0

Quinclorac 84087-01-4

Quinmerac 90717-03-6

Quinoxyfen 124495-18-7

Quizalofop-P-ethyl 100646-51-3

Quizalofop-p-tefuryl 119738-06-6

Reynoutria sacchalinensis

Rhamnolipid biosurfactant 147858-26-2

Rimsulfuron 122931-48-0

Saflufenacil 372137-35-4

Sethoxydim 74051-80-2

S-Methoprene 65733-16-6

Sodium metasilicate 6834-92-0

23

Low Risk (Minimum List) Pesticide CAS number

Soybean oil 8001-22-7

Spinetoram (XDE-175-L) 187166-15-0

Spiromesifen 283594-90-1

Spodoptera frugiperda nuclear polyhedrosis virus

Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108

Streptomycin sulfate 3810-74-0

Sulcotrione 99105-77-8

Sulfosulfuron 141776-32-1

Sulfur 7704-34-9

Sulfur dioxide 7446-09-5

Tebufenozide 112410-23-8

Tepraloxydim 149979-41-9

Terbacil 5902-51-2

Thiencarbazone-methyl 317815-83-1

Thifensulfuron-methyl 79277-27-3

Triasulfuron 82097-50-5

Tribenuron methyl 101200-48-0

Trichoderma gamsii (formerly T. viride) (ICC080)

Trichoderma harzianum rifai strain KRL-AG2 67892-31-3

Trichoderma ICC 012 asperellum

Trifloxysulfuron-sodium 290332-10-4

Triflusulfuron-methyl 126535-15-7

Tritosulfuron 142469-14-5

Z-8-dodecenol 40642-40-8

Z-8-dodecenyl acetate 28079-04-1

Zoxamide 156052-68-5

24

DETAILED METHODS We employed the definition of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) established by the FAO/WHO JMPM (the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management).3 This definition includes a number of non-overlapping criteria with clear toxicological definitions, informed by expert peer review. The one exception to this is pesticides that are listed under Annex three of the Rotterdam Convention. Listing under this convention requires petitioning and consensus building, and the listing does not therefore include all the pesticides that qualify for inclusion, based upon scientific criteria alone. For non-HHPs, we determined the requirement for risk mitigation using the databases and risk calculation models in ipmPRiME, with an additional model for pollinators that we outline below.7 The analysis procedure depended upon: 1. A typical or reference application rate for each active

ingredient. 2. ipmPRiME-calculated benchmark application rates for

each active ingredient and risk model that yield 10% or greater (moderate to high, Table 5) risk.7

3. A procedure for aggregating over risk models for each active ingredient by comparing (1) and (2), where the aggregate statistic was used to classify active ingredients into two categories, one requiring mitigation, and the other not.

4. A procedure that flags zero or more components (terrestrial wildlife, pollinators, aquatic life, human bystanders), with respect to risk-based mitigation requirements.

The typical or reference application rate for a specific active ingredient was, when available, the median application rate from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CaDPR) Pesticide Use Report dataset (over 50 million records) of 1974-2012. If a specific active ingredient was not found in the CaDPR data set, then a fallback reference rate was used. Overall 69% of active ingredients were listed in the CaDPR dataset. In the final results for pesticides requiring risk mitigation (Table 2, SM), 89% of active ingredients were in the CaDPR dataset. The fallback reference rate was calculated using a heuristic that was specific for each risk model, and which required the calculations from step 2. For each risk model, over all active ingredients, step 2 produced a distribution of application rates that yielded 10% risk from each model. Model-specific fallback reference rates were equated to the fifth percentile from this distribution. The decision to use risk model-specific fallback rates derived from exploratory statistical analysis that showed differences between models in the distributions of 10% risk-generating rates. An iterative numeric method was used to calculate, for each unique combination of active ingredient and risk model, the rate that generated 10% ipmPRiME risk.7 The method involved use of the secant method, but if on iteration the

secant method diverged, then the method recalculated the estimated rate for that iteration using the bisection method. The procedure that classified active ingredients into the two classes that required, or did not require, risk mitigation, depended on application of a set of rules derived by expert knowledge and exploratory statistical analysis of the data from step 2. The procedure consisted of four steps. For each active ingredient, risk flags were first set as true or false for each model. The flag was true if the reference rate was greater or equal to the rate that generates 10% ipmPRiME risk; otherwise it was flagged false. Secondly, depending on the values for the risk flags, an accumulator was incremented for each of the conditions in table 4 that flagged as true. Thirdly, the final classification was made according to Table 5, where the risk classification depends on the number of rows in table 4 that were flagged as true. The rows of table 4 in general correspond to an ecological compartmentalization according to terrestrial wild life, aquatic life, pollinator, or human risk. However, the aquatic algae risk model was separated from the other two aquatic risk models because exploratory statistical analysis indicated a lack of correlation (Spearman Rank Correlation less than or equal to 0.14) with the 10% risk active ingredient rates associated with the other aquatic models (and less than or equal to 0.17 with respect to all other models).7 Because of this apparent orthogonal relationship to the other models, we made it a standalone. In general, the risk models within a compartment showed higher correlation (e.g. fish chronic and aquatic invertebrate risk Spearman Rank Correlation = 0.68; small mammal and avian risk > 0.5). In these risk management guidelines, we have three classes of pesticides: HHPs, and those either requiring, or not requiring, risk mitigation. However, for in the accompanying article we have also classified the most toxic of the non-HHP pesticides requiring mitigation in all categories as a high-risk class, and we develop a candidate list for HHP classification. 1 Finally, step four determined, for each active ingredient, any mitigations required depending on the value of the risk flags in the aquatic, terrestrial, pollinator, and human compartments. In this case, the aquatic algae model is included in the aquatic compartment. Table 6 shows the conditions that trigger a need for risk mitigation. For the personal protective equipment (PPE) recommendations in Tables 2, 3a&b, we reviewed publicly available occupational exposure risk assessments for all pesticides in these tables, and developed a precautionary PPE recommendation based upon findings from this analysis.

25

Pollinator risk calculation: We employed a simple and robust hazard quotient for pollinator protection, based upon a widely used methodology. 8 The quotient is based upon data that are currently available for most pesticides i.e. the pesticide application rate (AR) in g a.i./ha, and the contact LD50 for the honey bee (Apis mellifera), based upon standardized testing, expressed as μg a.i./bee. Bee LD50 data, derived from standardized test methods, were obtained from publically available sources including the EPA Ecotoxicity database, the INRA Agritox database, the Oregon State University Extoxnet database, the IPCS Inchem database, Europa reports, University of California extension literature, and EFSA scientific opinions, publications and reports, which have superceded Europa reports. We thus included a number of LD50 estimates for some compounds, and we developed a set of rules to derive a single LD50 value for each one, based upon geometric means, excluding values that were qualified with <. > or c. where this was possible. The hazard quotient (HQ) is calculated as AR/LD50. Values of HQ<50 have been validated as low risk in the European Union, and monitoring indicates that products with an HQ>2,500 are associated with hive loss.9 We divided the LD50 by an adjustment factor of 10 for systemic pesticides (those with a log10 Pow >4), to account for the high likelihood of an extended period of exposure to pesticides via nectar, that would not be accounted for in the standard 48h acute toxicity bioassay.10 The HQ value that we employ is HQ>350, which corresponds to a 15% risk of hive loss in our analysis. The quotient includes a correction for systemic pesticides, where risks to bees are amplified.

Table 4. Risk flags that increment accumulator

Increment

Inhalation 1

Avian_Acute OR Avian_Reproductive OR Small_Mammal_Acute

1

Aquatic_Algae 1

Pollinator 1

Aquatic_Invertebrates OR Fish_Chronic 1

4 or more of the set of 9 1 Table 5. Risk Category Classification from accumulator

Risk Category

Number of true rows in table 4 greater than or equal to 4 1=high Number true rows in table 4 are between 1 and 3 2= moderate Zero true rows in table 4. 3=low Table 6. Mitigation plan required if flags are true

Compartment

Inhalation Human Avian_Acute OR Avian_Reproductive OR Small_Mammal_Acute

Terrestrial

Pollinator Pollinator Aquatic_Invertebrate OR Fish_Chronic OR Aquatic Algae

Aquatic

26

SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The table below documents the comprehensive process of development, end-user review and use of the HHP, risk mitigation and lower-risk pesticide classification system (Tables 1-3). This system has been tried and tested, and we publish the full classification system here for the first time in complete form, including the lower-risk (minimum list), as a practical guideline that is ready for use. Table 7: Development chronology for the pesticide hazard elimination and risk mitigation system, and lower-risk (minimum) list Chronology Key stages Comments June 2013-Feb 2014 Review and rejection of initial Sustainable

Agriculture Network (SAN) pesticide prohibited list by producers

Prohibited list derived from advocacy groups and political processes and lacking a firm scientific basis

April 2014 SAN board requests an outcome-based pesticide standard

Key outcomes requested – conservation of natural ecosystems and resources while optimizing farm productivity – with an accompanying change to use of science-based pesticide concepts

Dec 2015 SAN International Standards Committee (ISC) endorses proposal by PCJ for a system of two lists based upon HHPs,§and pesticides requiring risk management

Proposed use of JMPM Highly Hazardous Pesticide (HHP) criteria,¶ and a risk mitigation classification system based upon a 10% risk of an adverse outcome based upon published pesticide risk scenarios. ⌘

Feb – March 2015 Public consultations, ROUND 1 conducted by OB & MAB

Outreach to 200 stakeholders & 100 organizations, yielding 650 comments about classification concepts. Meetings conducted with NGOs, producer organizations, industry and large plantation representatives. Webinars were conducted with ISC members and stakeholders. An on-line survey yielded 65 responses, and there were Q&A sessions within an on-line SAN Consultation Center

June 2015 Analysis by PCJ of ~800 AIs to establish HHPs and develop risk mitigation classification and methods. Plant growth regulators and microbicides were excluded, leaving 659 pesticides,

Results reviewed by ISC and proposed risk mitigation language for pollinators, aquatic life, vertebrate wildlife and human bystanders refined

Aug 2015 Field testing of classification system and feedback to standard led by OB & MAB

Conducted by experienced technicians in C. & S. America, W. & E. Africa, India and Indonesia. Smallholders and estates growing banana, cocoa, coffee, cattle and tea. Language about classifications refined to be more outcome focused

Dec 2015-Jan 2016 Public consultations, ROUND 2 conducted by OB & MAB

Testing with producers in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and with NGOs and retailers in Germany and Switzerland. The main challenges: 1) phase out of nematicides, rodenticides, neonicotinoids, and reproductively toxic compounds within the new classification system, 2) previously banned substances who’s status as candidate HHPs required review – e.g. paraquat, atrazine & stored product fumigants

March 2016 SAN Board approves new requirements The SAN standard should include a pesticide classification system that includes a prohibited list containing HHPs, and a risk mitigation list including risk mitigations

May 2016 Public consultation, ROUND 3 conducted by OB & MAB

Intended to calibrate implementation time window for new pesticide regimes. 260 producer representatives in 12 countries (Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico); 18 crops (banana, berries, cattle, citrus, cocoa, coconut, coffee, flowers, grapes, macadamia nuts, melon, fruits, oil palm, pepper, pineapple, rubber, spices, tea, water melon)

Aug 2016 SAN board agrees to create and implement a specific exception request process for 25 pesticides, with a phase out limit of June 2020

HHPs falling within this list would only be authorized for a maximum 3-year period if approved, following analysis by an expert committee and on a case-by-case basis

September 2016 SAN and Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard incorporates pesticide hazard & risk classification and management system. �

Sept 2016 – March 2017

Public consultations, ROUND 4, conducted by OB, MAB, & LM

Requests for pesticide use exceptions sought: 65 applications submitted, with 452 exceptional use requests encompassing 35 crops in 28 countries

27

Chronology Key stages Comments April 2017 SAN pesticide experts committee reviews

requests (including OB, MAB, LM, PCJ)

Criteria for consideration of requests: 1) submitted by producers or their representatives, 2) lack of current access to locally-registered, less toxic pesticides for a specified use, 3) risk mitigation procedures are available and feasible for use under the specified conditions 75% of applications were in compliance, encompassing 17 pesticides used in 28 countries within 35 crops

Sept 2016 – Sept 2018

Western US Pesticide Risk Reduction Workgroup formed (KM & PCJ).

IPM coordinators in 14 Western US States and Pacific Islands, review and operationalize hazard and risk mitigation classification lists

October 2016 Grant obtained to add hazard and risk classification system to Pest Management Strategic Plans in the Western USA (KM). �

New integrated pest management strategic plans (IPMSPs: see narrative), include pesticide risk management information to set priorities for risk reduction and investments in IPM

June 2017 Public consultations, ROUND 5 conducted by OB, MAB, LM.

Requests for pesticide use exceptions sought: 43 applications submitted, with 250 exceptional use requests encompassing 16 crops in 17 countries

July 2017 SAN pesticide experts committee reviews requests (including OB, MAB, LM, PCJ)

50% of applications were in compliance

July 2017 SAN publishes procedure for exceptional pesticide use (LM, OB, MAB & PCJ). �

Including procedure for exceptional pesticide use, and risk management requirements for nematicides, rodenticides, pollinators, and reproductive toxins

Sept 2018 Hazard and risk mitigation classification system employed in Africa-wide response to Fall Armyworm invasion (PCJ).

Pesticide procurement by governments and IPM program education guided by pesticide risk management system.

Oct 2018-Sept 2022 Western US Pesticide Risk Reduction Workgroup funding (KM & PCJ).

IPM coordinators in 14 Western US States and Pacific Islands, operationalize hazard and risk mitigation within IPM extension programs

May 2019 Rainforest Alliance adopts updated hazard and risk classification system (LN, MAB)

Existing criteria reviewed, and tables updated

June 2019 Analysis of PPE requirements conducted to develop precautionary personal protection criteria for pesticides requiring risk mitigation, and low risk pesticides (PCJ).

EPA and EFSA risk assessments for individual pesticides reviewed to classify pesticides by occupational exposure risk and PPE requirements for backpack pesticide use by smallholder farmers – these should ultimately be refined by locally-relevant risk assessments

February 2020 Low risk, or minimum list published for the first time, alongside the hazard and risk management lists

This publication presents a candidate minimum list for immediate, practical use.

§: HHP – Highly Hazardous Pesticide (3); ¶: JMPM = FAO/WHO Joint Panel of Experts in Pesticide Management; ⌘: (7); �: (11&12); : (13&14); : USDA WARE PDP Contract (1): �USDA NIFA ARDP grant; �: (15); : USAID/USDA FAS Contract; (16); : USDA CPPM WIPMC Signature Program [see Acknowledgements in (1) for grant and contract details]