SEVIN INSECTICIDE PESTICIDE

[Michigan2Iowa]

I have questions on the residual affects of using the popular insecticide sold as SEVIN (1-napthyl methylcarbamate).

Mainly, if insects are killed with SEVIN do they then carry any harmful chemicals to birds or amphibians that may consume them? Also, can SEVIN residue on flowers harm our dwindling Midwestern bee population?

Thanks,
-Paul-

[Michigan2Iowa]

Well, with a little research, I've answered my own question:
(please note that SEVIN is the brand name for carbaryl insecticide, and that carbaryl is the common name for the active ingredient, 1-napthyl methylcarbamate)

From an article by Penn State University Extension Pesticide Specialist, Winand K. Hock

"We do know that carbaryl is quite toxic to honey bees, certain beneficial insects such as lady beetles, and parasitic wasps and bees, certain species of aquatic insects, and some forms of shellfish such as shrimp and crabs. Care must be taken when using carbaryl in areas where these organisms exist."

See the full article on Cornell University’s Website:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slide ... sevin.html

I'm sad to say that I have used SEVIN in the past when I was just too frustrated with my swiss cheese garden. I hope that I didn't harm too many beneficial species. I hope this helps educate others out there.

-Paul-

[grandpasrose]

Paul, Sevin is what my father used to use to destroy wasp nests, so I think you're pretty safe in assuming it is dangerous to other insects and animals!

Val

[Grey]

Sevin can damage you, too. My mom was in the store buying some of the stuff years ago, and the guy behind her in line said to make sure she didn't get any on her - and lifted his pant leg to show a really nasty red swollen area.

[opabinia51]

Generally speaking we discourage use of insecticides because most insecticides are broad based and kill both insect pests and beneficial insects. Furthermore, most insecticides are very toxic. Also, they tend to cause more problems than they solve because not only do they kill all the insects ( both bad and good) but, they also kill all of the flora and fauna living on plants.

In an experiment recently done at one of the local golf courses half of the palnts were sprayed with insecticides and the other plants were sprayed with compost tea. The plants that were sprayed with compost tea had more beneficials compared to pathogens living on the leaves and grew that much better.
In fact, the plants sprayed with insecticides had pathogenic bacteria, nematodes and so on living on their leaves with very few beneficials to combat the pathogens.

Anyway, it's something to think about.


With regard to: 1-napthyl methylcarbamate


One Canadian environmental organization in a letter addressed to local citizens cites some of the 'documented' effects of carbaryl.

It causes birth defects in mammals, especially dogs.
It worsens the condition of people with hypertension and people on anti-depressant drugs.
It impairs the function of the pituitary gland, the thyroid gland, and the reproductive system.
It causes hyperactivity and learning disabilities in mammals.
It could increase the chance of heart attack in people with weak hearts.
The main break-down product, nitrosocarbaryl, which is easily created in the human gut, is a potent cancer-causing agent.
It causes irreversible chromosomal damage to human DNA (the genes in our cells).

Sublimation Point: 112-115 C (basically, you don't have to worry about
it vapourizing)
1-napthyl methylcarbamate is soluble in water: 1.2 g/l @ 17 C

[The Helpful Gardener]

Any testing of pesticides to date has been done by the industry, and needless to say they have agendas, like not rocking the boat and making a lot of money. All the info they do list is for short term exposure. Almost NO work has been done on long term exposure in this country. F'rinstance, 2, 4,D, a lithium salt found in many herbicides, has been an industry darling here ("degraded in two weeks" is the common battlercry). But a study in Denmark, where it has been banned for years shows significant decrease in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. And that's just one chemical; most herbicides are combinations of two or three.

There's an organization doing good work on this front; check out...

http://www.ehhi.org

I am also looking into a contact I made at shows for an on-line disributor of biological solutions to most common pest problems. Hope to have more there soon...

HG

[Michigan2Iowa]

With regard to: 1-napthyl methylcarbamate


One Canadian environmental organization in a letter addressed to local citizens cites some of the 'documented' effects of carbaryl.

It causes birth defects in mammals, especially dogs.
It worsens the condition of people with hypertension and people on anti-depressant drugs.
It impairs the function of the pituitary gland, the thyroid gland, and the reproductive system.
It causes hyperactivity and learning disabilities in mammals.
It could increase the chance of heart attack in people with weak hearts.
The main break-down product, nitrosocarbaryl, which is easily created in the human gut, is a potent cancer-causing agent.
It causes irreversible chromosomal damage to human DNA (the genes in our cells).

I do want to say that while I do not like the broad ranging effects of SEVIN, research shows that 1-napthyl methylcarbamate does not cause the wide ranging birth defects, thyroid interaction, heart attack and chromosomal damage claimed by some groups. I ask that the article be read in full at Cornell University’s website:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slide ... sevin.html

Extensive evidence indicates that carbaryl does not cause cancer or genetic changes in animals. Carbaryl has also been extensively tested for its effect on reproduction and the occurrence of birth effects (we call this teratogenic potential). Experiments have been conducted on various strains of rats and mice, and on hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, sheep, and monkeys. Adverse effects have occurred only in dogs.

The "documented" claims reported by said Canadian environmental organization aren't truly documented anywhere, and haven't been substantiated in any scientific studies. SEVIN is a chemical, very dangerous to beneficial insects, and I strongly agree that it should be avoided in lieu of better alternatives.

Thanks,
-Paul-

[The Helpful Gardener]

Paul., do you know who funded the research? Cornell is an excellent plant university, and a bit of an industry darling because of that. Corporate funded research is the name of the game now, with federal grant budgets slashed to ribbons, and you operate under the onus of making the data come out the way your sponsor wants it to. More likely to get good data from socialist govs with no axe to grind (Sweden buried it's entire electrical grid based on research there; the gov here refuses to validate the research (decades of it) due to pressure from the energy lobby). Gotta follow the bucks to see what the results really mean...(not that they make that easy... )

Scott

[Michigan2Iowa]

Scott,

Good questions. The article is on Cornell's Website, but it was published by Penn State University Extension's Pesticide Specialist, Winand K. Hock.

I'm not validating nor refuting the information, and I want to stress that I feel using SEVIN is not in anyone's best interest...however I am concerned about skewed data and claims being disseminated that can cloud the truth.

Look to DDT for example. We all know now how harmful that chemical was. Part of the problem is that years passed before thoughtful research was done. There were fantastic claims made from both fronts, pro and con. You can't claim to educate when you simply state 'facts' that haven't been substantiated. Do I feel it’s appropriate for research to be funded solely by chemical companies? Definitely not. However, I also feel it isn't appropriate for groups to state dangerous ramifications of using a certain product by using fantastical information simply to bring more people to their cause. Does that make any sense? Maybe not, I am simply saying that informative and constructive dialogue from both sides is critical to doing the right thing for humanity and the environment. Drawing lines in the sand and then pointing at each other while making accusations simply won't get us anywhere.

I know, I'm trying to bring the weapons of intelligence and rationality to the battlefield of the almighty dollar...call me an altruist I suppose!

Okay...I'm off my soap box now. Back to talking about plants!


-Paul-

[The Helpful Gardener]

Hey Paul, you and I are on the same page, my friend. It is precisely discussions like this that need to be taking place both at the end-user AND the industry stage. Take the invasives issue. Entire genera are being banned by state organizations, with very little review (COnnecticut banned bittersweet years back. We in the industry said "What about the native one?" and the legislature said "What? There's more than one?". Now we have a review board (Invasive Plant Council) that takes more things into consideration because there is a discussion first. They did much the same thing in Maryland when they started to mandate planting lists within two hundred yards of the Chesapeake. Now anyone who wants to sit in on these meetings has the same say as the DOT, the EPA, or the Maryland nursery trades. Audobon and their like are all at the table, discussing...

So while we may seem at first glance to come from different places, it ain't necessarily so. I am at first glance a tree hugging liberal (for the most part true) But I am also a nurseryman and feel the pain when they are talking aboput removing some big money items from the sales floor (All you nurserymen should be getting out of the invasive biz, not fighting it, and then I'd be even more in your camp... ) But this as good a place as any to start these discussions as many (read most) o fthe people I talk to have little or no idea that these are even issues, let alone what their position is...

So weigh in, folks! All opinions posted here are welcome; I would like to hear what you all have to say on this matter...

Scott

[Michigan2Iowa]

Scott,

I totally agree.

Thank you for the great discussion.

Hey, you, reading this...put in your two cents! A jumpin-jivin forum is the BEST!

-P-

p.s. Scott, from my first glance I took you for a 3 foot tall leprechan with a weird Northeastern accent. But some people say I'm a bad judge of character.

I'm a tree huggin conservative...my wife laughs and says I'm the only person she knows that can even make that possible! (BTW, I'm a registered Independent. Elephants and Donkeys make me nervous)

[grandpasrose]

Well, I don't know what to say - I think you both have said it all. Although I couldn't believe I read intelligence and rationality in the same sentence as the almighty dollar! Those two realms of thought are so far apart, often I don't think they're even talking about the same thing anymore!

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with both of you and it was a very captivating discussion.

Val

[opabinia51]

Hi Paul, I have read your words and understand what you are saying but something that is very important to understand is that just because some information is published by a University, a non profit organization, a government or whatever doesn't necessarrily mean that is true or not true. What is really important is to read the data for yourself and compare what the group doing the study was looking at as to what another group was looking at in the study.

The data that I posted from above was from the Material Safety Data Sheets on 1-napthyl methylcarbamate but, just because I retrieved from an MSDS doesn't necessarrily make it true or not true. Each person must conider for themselves what is correct and not correct.

Thank you very much for posting the data that you retrieved.

[Michigan2Iowa]

What is really important is to read the data for yourself and compare what the group doing the study was looking at as to what another group was looking at in the study.

Opa,

I like that point that you've made. Read the data for yourself. I find it very interesting that the information you quoted was on an MSDS, as the articles I've read on SEVIN at other sites claim those exact words only came from an environmental group. If those warnings did appear in an MSDS...well, that's very interesting.

Thanks for your input

-Paul-

[grandpasrose]

I just Googled Sevin MSDS's and I got hundreds of hits all saying relatively the same thing. I read many of them, and here is a sample of what they all say:

Tech Pac, LLC - July 2001

SECTION 3 - HEALTH HAZARD DATA
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
A creamy, tan, odorless liquid:
* Harmful if swallowed.
* Extremely toxic to aquatic and estuarine invertebrates.
* Highly toxic to bees.
* Causes injury to Boston Ivy, Virginia Creeper and Maidenhair fern. During early season, may injure Virginia and Sand pines.
ROUTE(S) OF ENTRY: Ingestion
EYES: May cause minimal irritation.
SKIN: May cause slight irritation.
INGESTION: Harmful if swallowed.
SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS: Harmful if ingested. This product causes reversible cholinesterase inhibition. Repeated overexposure may cause more severe cholinesterase inhibition with more pronounced signs and symptoms. May lead to rapid onset of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, involuntary shaking, excess salivation, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision, profuse sweating, temporary paralysis, respiratory depression, and convulsions.

I guess we all have to be responsible for ourselves in the end. Read the data, and with our intelligent and rational minds, come to our own conclusions as to what to think.

I for one have no intention of ever using Sevin in my gardening, and can only hope that others will be just as responsible.

Val