2

Aldicarb Preliminary Work Plan – Table of Contents 

Overview 3 

Anticipated Data Needs 3 

Statutory and Regulatory Authority 4 

Chemical Facts 5 

Use and Usage Information 5 

Recent Actions 6 

Anticipated Risk Assessments for Registration Review 7 

Timeline 9 

Next Steps 10 

Appendix – Additional Areas Considered in Aldicarb’s Registration Review 11 

References:

This Preliminary Work Plan summarizes the Environmental Protection Agency's current position 

based on the following documents: 

1. EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Aldicarb. Federoff and Jones. May 

24, 2012. 

2. Aldicarb. Human Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration 

Review. Olinger, Taylor, and Dawson. May 16, 2012. 

3. BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Aldicarb (098301). Brassard, Stebbins, and 

Berwald. December 8, 2011. 

4. Aldicarb: Review of Human Incidents. Recore. March 14, 2012.

These and other supporting documents for the aldicarb registration review case may be found in 

the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0161 at http://www.regulations.gov. 
3

OVERVIEW

The docket for aldicarb is now open, initiating the first public comment period for this 

registration review (docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0161). Aldicarb is an N-methyl 

carbamate insecticide that is marketed only as a granular product with a concentration of 15 

percent active ingredient. Aldicarb is registered for use to control soil borne pests including 

mites, various insects, and nematodes. There are no residential uses of aldicarb. Aldicarb 

products are used in agricultural areas and are registered for use on cotton, dry beans, peanuts, 

soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes. This Preliminary Work Plan (PWP) document 

explains what EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs knows about aldicarb, highlighting anticipated 

data and assessment needs, identifying the types of information that would be especially useful 

to the Agency in conducting the review, and providing an anticipated timeline for completing 

aldicarb’s review. 

 

The registration review process was designed to include a public participation component to 

solicit input from interested stakeholders. The Agency intends, by sharing this information in the 

docket, to inform the public of what it knows about aldicarb and what types of new data or other 

information would be helpful for the Agency to receive as it moves toward a decision on 

aldicarb. The Agency encourages all interested stakeholders to review the PWP and Appendix 

and to provide comments and additional information that will help the Agency’s decisionmaking process for this chemical. In addition to general areas on which persons may wish to 

comment, there are some areas identified in the PWP and Appendix about which the Agency 

specifically seeks comments and information. Interested stakeholders could include: 

environmental non-profit or interest groups; pesticide manufacturers; agricultural labor or 

commodity groups; commercial, institutional, residential, and other users of pesticides; or the 

public at large. 

The PWP begins by listing the anticipated data needs for aldicarb. Next, it discusses the 

statutory and regulatory authority for Registration Review. Then the document provides 

aldicarb’s chemical facts, use and usage information, recent actions, the anticipated risk 

assessments, and a projected registration review timeline. Finally, the Appendix to this 

document includes identification and discussion of some areas that are considered generally in 

Registration Review along with some additional chemical case-specific information. 

ANTICIPATED DATA NEEDS

The table below summarizes anticipated data needs for aldicarb. For additional discussion of the 

anticipated data needs, see the EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Aldicarb

and Aldicarb - Human Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review. 

 
4

Anticipated Data Needs for Aldicarb’s Registration Review 

Guideline 

Number Study Title Test Material 

Estimated 

Timeframe 

(Months from 

receipt of DCI) 

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation study1

TGAI for parent, 

aldicarb sulfoxide 

and aldicarb sulfone 

12 

835.6200 Aquatic field dissipation study1

TGAI for parent, 

aldicarb sulfoxide 

and aldicarb sulfone 

12 

850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity test (passerine 

species) TGAI 12 

850.2300 Avian reproduction test (mallard duck) TGAI 24 

850.4100 Terrestrial plant toxicity, seedling emergence, 

Tier II2 TEP 12 

850.4150 Terrestrial plant toxicity, vegetative vigor, Tier 

II2 TEP 12 

870.7800 Immunotoxicity TGAI 12 

TGAI = technical grade active ingredient; TEP = typical end-use product 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 mandated a registration review program. All 

pesticides distributed or sold in the United States (U.S.) generally must be registered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency), based on scientific data showing that 

they will not cause unreasonable risks to human health or the environment when used as directed 

on product labeling. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability 

to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to 

meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the 

environment. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. 

Through the registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make 

sure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely. Information on this 

program is provided on EPA’s website3

. 

 

1

 See footnote 7 of 40 CFR 158.1300. EPA anticipates requiring only the environmental chemistry analytical 

methods and independent laboratory (ILV) portions of this guideline for soil and water, rather than the full field 

dissipation study. 2

 The DCI expected to be issued will provide that a Tier I plant study may be conducted in lieu of a Tier II study 

with the understanding that any adverse effects observed by the Tier I study would necessitate conduct and 

submission of a Tier II study as well. 3

 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ 
5

The Agency is implementing the registration review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and will review each registered 

pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for 

registration. The regulations governing registration review begin at 40 CFR 155.40. The 

Agency will consider benefits information and data as required by FIFRA. The public phase of 

registration review begins when the initial docket is opened for each case. The docket is the 

Agency’s opportunity to state what it knows about the pesticide and what additional risk analyses 

and data or information it believes are needed to make a registration review decision. After 

reviewing and responding to comments and data received in the docket during this initial 

comment period, the Agency will develop a Final Work Plan (FWP) and anticipated schedule for 

the registration review of aldicarb. 

ALDICARB CHEMICAL FACTS

PC code 098301 

Case Number 0140 

CAS Number 116-06-3 

Year first registered 1970 

Pesticide Type Insecticide, acaricide, and nematicide 

Chemical class Carbamate 

Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) 

September 2007 

Cumulative group N-methyl carbamate4

40 CFR Citation Tolerances for aldicarb are established in 40 CFR 180.269. 

Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division, Chemical 

Review Manager 

Susan Bartow, bartow.susan@epa.gov, 703-603-0065 

Registration Division, 

Product Manager 

John Hebert, hebert.john@epa.gov, 703-308-6249 

USE AND USAGE INFORMATION

Please see the BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Aldicarb (098301) in the 

registration review docket for more details. 

Summary of Use Aldicarb is a systemic carbamate insecticide, acaricide, and nematicide 

registered for use on agricultural crops. Aldicarb is used on cotton 

primarily for control of thrips. On peanuts, aldicarb is used to control 

nematodes and thrips and to provide suppression of leafhoppers and 

spider mites. On dry beans, aldicarb is used to control nematodes, 

seedcorn maggots, and aphids. On soybeans, aldicarb is used to 

control nematodes, Mexican bean beetle, and thrips. On sugar beets, 

aldicarb is used to control nematodes and sugar beet root maggots. On 

 

4

 EPA issued the N-methyl carbamate revised cumulative risk assessment for comment on September 26, 2007. The 

assessment is available at Regulations.gov in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0935. 
6

sweet potatoes, aldicarb is used to control nematodes.

Use Sites Aldicarb is registered for use on cotton, dry beans, peanuts, soybeans, 

sugar beets, and sweet potatoes. It is not registered for nonagricultural/residential use. 

Summary of Usage During the years of 2006-2010, on average, approximately 3.7 million 

pounds of aldicarb was used to treat 3.6 million acres.

Formulation Type(s) The only labeled formulation for aldicarb is granular.

Application Method(s) Aldicarb may be applied as a soil treatment using ground equipment 

by any of the following methods: sidedress, band/T-band, and infurrow treatment.

Technical Registrant(s) Bayer CropScience; AgLogic, LLC 

No. of Registrations 3 Section 3 products5 and 1 Section 24(c) product 

Restricted Use Yes 

Guidance for Commenters: Additional areas of use and usage related information

requested for this registration review, and of particular interest to EPA, are described below. 

 Usage data for sweet potatoes (e.g., pounds active ingredient (lbs ai) applied, total area 

treated, percent of the crop treated). 

 Confirmation of the following label information: application methods and equipment; 

maximum application rates; frequency of application, application intervals, and 

maximum number of applications per season; geographic limitations on use. 

 Use distribution (e.g., acreage and geographical distribution of relevant use sites). 

 Median and 90th percentile reported use rates (lbs ai/1,000 sq ft) from usage data – 

national, state, and county. 

 Application timing (date of first application and application intervals) – national, state, 

and county. 

 Typical application interval (days). 

 State or local use restrictions. 

 Foreign technical registrants not listed above who supply technical aldicarb to the US 

market. 

RECENT ACTIONS

On August 16, 2010, Bayer CropScience signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Agency 

that resulted in the removal of the citrus and potato uses from the Temik 15G label and a phaseout of all remaining uses of Temik 15G by 2018. Citrus and potato uses were terminated from 

the Temik 15G registration on May 9, 2012 (FRL-9348-2). 

On December 22, 2011, the Agency registered a new aldicarb end use product (Meymik 15G) 

from AgLogic, LLC for use on cotton, dry beans, peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet 

potatoes. On January 20, 2012, the Agency registered a new aldicarb technical product (Meymik 

Technical) from AgLogic, LLC. 

 

5

 Section 3 product labels can be obtained from the Pesticide Product Label System (PPLS) website 

(http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home). 
7

ANTICIPATED RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR REGISTRATION REVIEW

The most recent comprehensive human health risk assessment for aldicarb was completed in 

February 2007 in preparation for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision. The most recent 

ecological and environmental fate risk assessment was completed in September 2006 for the 

same purpose. Findings and conclusions from these risk assessments are summarized in the 

EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Aldicarb and Aldicarb - Human Health 

Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review. 

During registration review, the Agency anticipates the need to conduct a comprehensive 

ecological risk assessment, including an endangered species assessment, for all uses of aldicarb. 

For human health, EPA anticipates the need to conduct revised dietary and occupational risk 

assessments during registration review. If toxicological endpoints or points of departure are 

revised based on the data that are anticipated to be required for registration review, they will be 

considered in the new assessments, as well as any changes to the standard operating procedures 

or default exposure assumptions. 

The table below summarizes the anticipated registration review risk assessments based on the 

EFED Problem Formulation and HED Scoping Document. 

Anticipated Risk Assessments for Aldicarb’s Registration Review 

Type of Risk Assessment Include? Notes 

Ecological and Environmental Fate 

Comprehensive ecological 

(species to be assessed include 

terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms), including 

endangered species 

Y The Agency will evaluate ecological risk, 

environmental fate, and risks to Federally-listed 

threatened and/or endangered (listed) species from 

registered uses of aldicarb. 

Human Health 

Dietary 

Food TBD1 A revised dietary risk assessment may be required 

depending on the review of the cotton field trial 

studies (although the studies are not likely to 

substantially affect the dietary risk assessment), and 

drinking water modeling results. If the new drinking 

water model estimates are significantly higher than 

estimates in the current dietary risk assessment, the 

Agency will prepare a revised assessment. 
8

Anticipated Risk Assessments for Aldicarb’s Registration Review 

Type of Risk Assessment Include? Notes 

Drinking water Y A drinking water exposure assessment will be 

conducted to support future human health risk 

assessments for aldicarb to reflect label changes due 

reregistration, new percent crop area (PCA) estimates 

for surface water and new Tier 2 ground water 

modeling consistent with final guidance documents. 

The drinking water assessment will incorporate model 

estimates of aldicarb residues of concern in surface 

and ground waters. Currently, the residues of concern 

include aldicarb parent, aldicarb sulfoxide, and 

aldicarb sulfone.

Occupational 

Handlers (mixers, loaders, 

applicators) 

TBD The Agency may conduct a revised occupational 

exposure and risk assessment during registration 

review if toxicological endpoints change, based on the 

data expected to be required, or the Agency identifies 

significant changes in its interpretation and use of the 

Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED)-based 

exposure data used in the previous assessment of 

aldicarb. 

Post-application N The Agency does not believe that there is a significant 

potential for post-application exposures from aldicarb 

based on the manner in which it is applied and soil 

incorporated, the timing of application, the frequency 

of application, and the lack of known activities that 

would occur in the treated areas that might contribute 

to exposure. Also, the Agency does not believe that 

there is any significant potential for chemical trespass 

into adjoining areas such as residential neighborhoods. 

Residential 

Handlers, post-application, 

incidental oral, and 

recreational 

N Aldicarb is not registered for use in residential 

settings. Therefore, a residential exposure assessment 

is not required. 

Other 

Aggregate TBD An aggregate assessment typically evaluates the 

combined risk from dietary and residential exposures. 

Since there are no residential uses of aldicarb, only 

food and water are included in the aggregate risk 

assessment. If the new drinking water estimates 

exceed previous estimates and a new dietary risk 

assessment is conducted, then a new aggregate 

assessment would be conducted. 
9

Anticipated Risk Assessments for Aldicarb’s Registration Review 

Type of Risk Assessment Include? Notes 

Cumulative TBD The Agency will determine if there is any new 

information which would affect the cumulative risk 

assessment. Should the Agency determine that new 

information on aldicarb or another N-methyl 

carbamate is available that could potentially impact 

the cumulative risk assessment and result in a risk of 

concern, the Agency may revisit the cumulative risk 

assessment. 

Tolerances Y The tolerance expression should be revised to ensure 

that it appropriately covers the metabolites and 

degradates of aldicarb and that it specifies the residues 

to be measured for each commodity. In addition, the 

Agency may need to establish a tolerance in/on cotton 

gin by-products once crop field trial studies submitted 

to the Agency have been reviewed. 

1

 TBD = To be determined upon review of additional data. If the data do not significantly affect the 

exposure and risk estimates, the Agency will continue to rely upon existing assessments. 

Guidance for Commenters: Additional ecological information requested for this 

registration review, and of particular interest to EPA, is described below. 

 Ecological incidents (non-target plant damage and avian, fish, reptilian, amphibian and 

mammalian mortalities) not already reported to the Agency. 

 Water quality monitoring data (see Appendix for further details). 

TIMELINE

EPA has created the following estimated timeline for the completion of aldicarb’s registration 

review. 

Registration Review for Aldicarb – Projected Registration Review Timeline

Activities Estimated Date 

Opening the Docket 

Open Docket and Public Comment Period 2012 - June 

Close Public Comment 2012 - August 

Case Development 

Final Work Plan 2012 - November 

Issue DCI 2013 – July – Sept.

Data Submission 2015 – July – Sept. 

Open Public Comment Period for Draft Risk Assessments 2017 – Jan. – March

Close Public Comment Period 2017 – April – June

Registration Review Decision 
10

Registration Review for Aldicarb – Projected Registration Review Timeline

Activities Estimated Date 

Open Public Comment Period for Proposed Registration Review 

Decision 

2017 – July – Sept.

Close Public Comment Period 2017 – Oct. - Dec.

Registration Review Decision and Begin Post-Decision Follow-up 2018

Total (years)6 6 

NEXT STEPS

After the 60-day public comment period closes, the Agency will review and respond to any 

comments received in a timely manner and then issue a Final Work Plan for the registration 

review of aldicarb. 

 

6

 The timeline could be affected by a cumulative group risk assessment for the N-methyl carbamates. 
11

Appendix – Additional Areas Considered in Aldicarb’s Registration Review

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK:

Guidance for Commenters: The areas below highlight topics of special interest to the Agency 

where your comments, data submissions, or reference to sources of additional information could 

be of particular use.

Trade Irritants: 

Through the registration review process, the Agency intends to solicit information on trade 

irritants and, to the extent feasible, take steps toward facilitating irritant resolution. The Agency 

will work to harmonize tolerances and international maximum residue limits (MRLs) and may 

modify tolerance levels to do so, when possible. Growers and other stakeholders are asked to 

comment on any trade irritant issues resulting from lack of MRLs or disparities between U.S. 

tolerances and MRLs in key export markets, providing as much specificity as possible regarding 

the nature of the concern. 

Water Quality: 

Aldicarb is identified as a cause of impairment, as defined under section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act, for one water body in California, based on information provided at California EPA’s 

State Water Resources Control Board’s website 7. No Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 

have been developed for aldicarb8. More information on impaired water bodies and TMDLs can 

be found at the Agency’s website9

. The Agency invites submission of water quality data for 

this pesticide. To the extent possible, data should conform to the quality standards in Appendix 

A of the OPP Standard Operating Procedure: Inclusion of Impaired Water Body and Other

Water Quality Data in OPP’s Registration Review Risk Assessment and Management Process10

in order to ensure they can be used quantitatively or qualitatively in pesticide risk assessments. 

Environmental Justice: 

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential 

environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have 

atypical, unusually high exposure to aldicarb compared to the general population. Please 

comment if you are aware of any sub-populations that may have atypical, unusually high 

exposure compared to the general population.

 

7 http://maps.waterboards.ca.gov/webmap/303d/files/2010_USEPA_approv_303d_List_Final_122311.xls 8

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_pollutant_group_id=885&p_pollutant_

group_name=PESTICIDES

9 http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/

10 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/water_quality_sop.htm
12

ENDANGERED SPECIES:

A risk assessment that supports a complete endangered species determination has not been 

conducted for aldicarb. The ecological risk assessment planned during registration review will 

allow the Agency to determine whether aldicarb’s use has “no effect” or “may affect” federally 

listed threatened or endangered species (listed species) or their designated critical habitats. 

When an assessment concludes that a pesticide’s use “may affect” a listed species or its 

designated critical habitat, the Agency will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services), as appropriate. 

On January 19, 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Pesticide Action Network 

North America filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California, against the EPA for allegedly failing to undergo consultation with the Services 

regarding the effects of over 350 pesticides, including aldicarb, on over 200 endangered and 

threatened species throughout the U.S. (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 

C 11-00293 (N.D.Cal.). 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM: 

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse 

outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and 

chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, 

reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be 

susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, 

organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, 

and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and 

chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different 

taxonomic groups. As part of its reregistration decision for aldicarb, EPA reviewed these data 

and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing 

hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), aldicarb is subject to the 

endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). 

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide 

active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect 

produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator 

may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required 

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a 

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal 

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to 

interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA 

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and 

establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect. 

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between 

October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 

chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Aldicarb is not 
13

among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the 

EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data callins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for aldicarb. For further information on 

the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test 

guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website11. 

HUMAN STUDIES:

Occupational 

Past aldicarb risk assessments rely in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects 

were intentionally exposed to a pesticide to determine their dermal and inhalation exposure. 

Many such studies, involving exposure to many different pesticides, comprise generic pesticide 

exposure databases such as the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) and the 

Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ARTF) Database. EPA has reviewed all the studies supporting 

these multi-pesticide generic exposure databases, and has found no clear and convincing 

evidence that the conduct of any of them was either fundamentally unethical or significantly 

deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted. All 

applicable requirements of EPA’s Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (40 

CFR Part 26) have been satisfied, and there is no regulatory barrier to continued reliance on 

these studies. 

Aldicarb-specific Human Studies 

Past aldicarb risk assessments have relied in part on an intentional dosing human oral study for 

selection of points of departure. The Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) discussed the study 

extensively during a meeting held on April 2-4, 2006 and concluded that the cholinesterase data 

from the aldicarb human study were reliable for use in the aldicarb single chemical aggregate 

risk assessment. Additionally, it was concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence 

of significant deficiencies in the ethical procedures that could have resulted in serious harm 

(based on the knowledge available at the time the study was conducted), nor that information 

provided to participants seriously impaired their informed consent. In the course of registration 

review EPA will reconsider this study, as well as any other research involving intentional 

exposure of human subjects to aldicarb brought to its attention. If EPA decides to rely on any of 

these studies, EPA will ensure that all applicable regulatory requirements are met, including, but 

not limited to, the requirements for EPA ethics review and Human Studies Review Board review 

of certain research involving intentional exposure of human subjects. 

AGRICULTURAL HEALTH STUDY:

Aldicarb is among several agricultural chemicals included in the Agricultural Health Study 

(AHS). The AHS began in 1993 and is a collaboration of the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the EPA, and the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Designed as a large long-term 

epidemiological study, the AHS collects and analyzes data on the health and work practices of 

 

11 http://www.epa.gov/endo/
14

nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina who enrolled in the study 

before any disease developed. The study focuses particularly on farmers' exposure to 50 

chemicals including many of the most widely used pesticides. As data are collected over a 

period of years, scientists can compare overall health outcomes for people who differ in whether 

they have had exposure to various chemicals. While these comparisons cannot conclusively 

demonstrate how exposure affects health, they can show some statistical associations. More 

information on the AHS can be found at: http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov. EPA is monitoring the 

results of the AHS and will consider this study in the registration review of aldicarb as 

appropriate.