Hubbry Logo
DaminozideDaminozideMain
Open search
Daminozide
Community hub
Daminozide
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Daminozide
Daminozide
Daminozide
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Daminozide
Skeletal formula of daminozide
Skeletal formula of daminozide
Ball and skill formula of daminozide
Ball and skill formula of daminozide
Names
Preferred IUPAC name
4-(2,2-Dimethylhydrazin-1-yl)-4-oxobutanoic acid
Other names
N-(Dimethylamino)succinamic acid; Butanedioic acid mono (2,2-dimethyl hydrazine); Succinic acid 2,2-dimethyl hydrazide
Identifiers
3D model (JSmol)
1863230
ChemSpider
ECHA InfoCard 100.014.988 Edit this at Wikidata
EC Number
  • 216-485-9
KEGG
MeSH daminozide
RTECS number
  • WM9625000
UNII
  • InChI=1S/C6H12N2O3/c1-8(2)7-5(9)3-4-6(10)11/h3-4H2,1-2H3,(H,7,9)(H,10,11) checkY
    Key: NOQGZXFMHARMLW-UHFFFAOYSA-N checkY
  • CN(C)NC(=O)CCC(O)=O
Properties
C6H12N2O3
Molar mass 160.173 g·mol−1
Appearance White crystals
Melting point 159.24 °C; 318.63 °F; 432.39 K
Hazards
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC):
  • >1,600 mg kg−1 (dermal, rabbit)
  • 8,400 mg kg−1 (oral, rat)
[1][needs update]
Related compounds
Related alkanoic acids
 Octopine
Related compounds
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
checkY verify (what is checkY☒N ?)

Daminozide, also known as aminozide, Alar, Kylar, SADH, B-995, B-nine,[2] and DMASA,[3] is an organic compound which acts as a plant growth regulator.[2] It was produced in the U.S. by the Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., (now integrated into the Chemtura Corporation[not verified in body]), which registered daminozide for use on fruits intended for human consumption in 1963. It was primarily used on apples until 1989, when the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew it after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed banning it based on concerns about cancer risks to consumers.[4] In addition to apples and ornamental plants, Uniroyal also registered daminozide for use on cherries, peaches, pears, Concord grapes, tomato transplants, and peanut vines.

When used on fruit trees, daminozide affects flower bud initiation, fruit maturity, fruit firmness and coloring, preharvest drop and market quality of fruit at time of harvest and during storage.[4] When consumed by mammals, daminozide is catabolised into succinic acid (a non-toxic general intermediate in primary metabolism[citation needed]) and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH, a compound with a history of studies associating it with carcinogenic activity in animal models relevant to humans). Breakdown into these two compounds also occurs when the sprayed chemical residue remains on stored fruit, especially with higher temperatures and over longer time periods.[5]

In 1989, the EPA outlawed daminozide on U.S. food crops, but still allowed it for non-food crops like ornamental plants.[6] As of August 2022, daminozide appeared as severely restricted in its exports on the list of pesticides whose shipments were ineligible for export credit insurance under the Export–Import Bank of the United States.[7]

Chemistry

[edit]

While described by the FDA as an amino acid derivative,[2] daminozide is more formally and correctly described as a dicarboxylic acid monohydrazide.[8][citation needed] It is the product of the condensation of succinic acid with 2,2-dimethylhydrazine,[citation needed] and in its pure form is a high-melting temperature water-soluble white crystalline solid.[2][citation needed]

Modes of action

[edit]

Daminozide is classified as a plant growth regulator, a chemical sprayed on fruit to regulate their growth.[4] When used on fruit trees, it affects flower bud initiation, fruit maturity, fruit firmness and coloring, and preharvest drop,[how?] which together make harvest easier and keep fruit from falling off the trees before they ripen; it also improves quality of fruit at time of harvest and during storage.[4]

Carcinogenicity of daminozide degradation products

[edit]

When daminozide residue on fruit is consumed by mammalian species, it is catabolised into two chemical components, succinic acid (a non-toxic general intermediate in primary metabolism[citation needed]), and 1, 1-dimethylhydrazine ("unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine", UDMH). Degradation into these products also occurs when the sprayed chemical residue remains on stored fruit, increasing with time and elevated temperature.[5] UDMH has had a history of studies associating it with carcinogenic activity in animal models relevant to humans, beginning in the 1960s.[5]

U.S. campaign to ban Alar

[edit]

In 1985, the EPA studied daminozide's effects on mice and hamsters, concluding that it was a "probable human carcinogen" with a dietary risk possibly as high as one cancer for every thousand people exposed, and proposed banning its use on food crops.[9] They submitted the proposal to the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), which concluded that the tests were inadequate to determine the carcinogenicity of the tested substances.[10]

Later, in May 1989, Democrats Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Harry Reid (D-NV) held a press conference[why?] in which the pesticide program at the FDA was accused of being "riddled with pro-industry bias", charging that 7 of 8 SAP members had worked as "consultants for the 'chemical industry'" — that the worst of them, after serving on the SAP (see below), had "later broke[n] conflict-of-interest laws", with career university academic toxicologists Wendell Kilgore and Christopher Wilkinson (29 years, UCal-Davis and 22 years, Cornell) being singled out as "possible violators of the [FDA] ethics code", with invitation to the "EP[A] inspector general [IG] to investigate".[11] Marshall Elliot, writing for the News & Views section of the AAAS publication, Science, noted that these Senators' public scolding of SAP members—which was prompted by the FDA's "waffling on Alar"—led to the investigation of just these two academics by that agency's IG, and of forwarding of Kilgore's file to the U.S. Justice Department for review.[11] Marshall further noted that the event was being seen, in the months following, more for its forcing clarification of rules regarding

how much the government [can limit its]... more than 100,000 advisors, including scientists... who deal with issues ranging from biomedicine to arms control... [quotes spliced to clarify advisor roles] involvement with industry without isolating itself from the expertise it seeks,[11]

than for unearthing formal wrongdoing in the Alar case (wherein, after reversal of an earlier, similar conviction on appeal, no charges were ultimately brought[verification needed]).[11] In particular, the Senators alleged that Kilgore had a financial connection to Uniroyal, with Wilkinson and the other five being accused of having more general financial ties to the chemical industry;[verification needed][12][better source needed] notably, the key formal contention was of possible violation of FDA ethics rules regarding limits to the "kind of consulting jobs that can be accepted after leaving an advisory panel" [emphasis in original source].[11]

The next year, the EPA retracted its proposed ban on Alar and required farmers to reduce its use by 50%.[citation needed] The American Academy of Pediatrics urged EPA to ban daminozide,[citation needed] and some manufacturers and supermarket chains announced they would not accept Alar-treated apples.[12][better source needed]

In a 1989 NYT opinion by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) trustee John B. Oakes, regarding a two-year NRDC study peer-reviewed by an independent panel,[13] Oakes presented the report's argument that children ingesting daminozide in legally permissible quantities were at "intolerable risk" (from it and a wide variety of other potentially harmful chemicals); by their estimate, Oakes said, the "average pre-schooler's exposure to this carcinogen... result[s] in a cancer risk '240 times greater than the cancer risk considered acceptable by E.P.A. following a full lifetime of exposure.'"[14][better source needed] In February, 1989, the CBS television program 60 Minutes broadcast a story about Alar that featured the NRDC report highlighting problems with the chemical.[15][16]

Later in 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to ban Alar on the grounds that "long-term exposure" posed "unacceptable risks to public health."[This quote needs a citation] However, in June 1989—before the EPA's preliminary decision to ban all food uses of Alar went into effect—Uniroyal, Alar's sole manufacturer, agreed to halt voluntarily all domestic sales of Alar for food uses.[15][17] Hence, the consequences of CBS broadcast were swift and severe; as Percival, Schroeder, Miller, and Leape note in review of legal aspects in their Environmental Regulation text,

"[t]he denouement... came quickly. Alar was removed from the apple market by its manufacturer, not because of regulatory requirements imposed by the EPA, but because of consumer pressure"

in particular, the "rapid decline in apple consumption that followed the "60 Minutes" report"[15] As the Chicago Tribune noted at that time, Alar's export was not prohibited, such that Uniroyal could continue its sales in about 70 countries, which led critics to note that Americans still faced exposure (via imported fruit and juice).[17] However, as of August 2022, daminozide/alar was appearing as a "severely restricted" entry on the List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides Under the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Program of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, making its shipments ineligible for export credit insurance.[7]

Backlash

[edit]

In November 1990, Washington apple growers filed a lawsuit in Yakima County Superior Court against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications (hired by NRDC to publicize their report on Alar)[18] claiming that unfair business practices (product disparagement in particular) cost them $100 million.[19][20][21] The suit was moved from state to federal court at the request of CBS.[22] U.S. District Judge William Fremming Nielsen ruled in 1993 that the apple growers had not proved their case,[23][better source needed] and it was subsequently dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[24][better source needed]

Elizabeth Whelan and her organization, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), which had received $25,000 from Alar's manufacturer,[25] stated that Alar and its breakdown product UDMH had not been shown to be carcinogenic.[26] During a 1990 speech at Hillsdale College, Whelan said that groups like the NRDC were ignoring a basic principle of toxicology: the dose makes the poison. "It is an egregious departure from science and logic when a substance is labeled 'cancer-causing' based on a response in a single animal study using high doses of a test material", she said.[27][page needed]

Current views

[edit]

Taken together, the complexity of the problem of assigning risk to this agent—the debate over assumptions concerning risks from early-in-life exposure, the principal role of a decomposition product rather than the agent itself in determining its long-term toxicity, the generation of that product both abiotically and through metabolism after consumption, as well as challenges in determining appropriate "subpopulations for study, representative parameters of the potency distribution, and corrections for bioassay length"[5]—have had as a consequence that disagreement and controversy remain about the safety of daminozide and the appropriateness of responses to it in its history.[16][5][needs update][citation needed]

Consumers Union did its own analyses and estimated that the human lifetime cancer risk was 5 cases per million, as compared to the previously reported figure of 50 per million.[citation needed] (The EPA had argued for a level of lifetime cancer risk of 1 per million to be the highest acceptable, in this type of case.[clarification needed][28][verification needed]) On the other hand, representatives of the California Department of Health Services are on record as of 1991 stating that "the plausible estimates of risk, derived from conservative, reasonable assumptions, exceed those developed by EPA and NRDC".[5] As late as 1995, results continued to appear (e.g., from a medium-term carcinogenicity assay approved for use by the ICH)[29]—supporting insignificant levels of "carcinogenicity of daminozide, alone or in combination with... 1,1-dimethylhydrazine".[30][needs update]

As of 2005, daminozide remained classified as a probable human carcinogen by the EPA, and listed as a known carcinogen under California's Prop 65.[25][needs update]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Daminozide

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Daminozide, also known as Alar or succinic acid mono-(N,N-dimethylhydrazide), is a synthetic organic compound with the molecular formula C₆H₁₂N₂O₃, utilized as a systemic plant growth regulator to inhibit excessive vegetative growth in agricultural and horticultural crops. It operates primarily by interfering with gibberellin biosynthesis, resulting in shorter stem internodes, compact plant stature, and delayed fruit maturation, which enhances fruit size, firmness, and market appearance in crops like apples, cherries, pears, and ornamentals. Daminozide exhibits low acute toxicity to mammals, with oral LD₅₀ values exceeding 8 g/kg in rats, but chronic studies have identified carcinogenic effects in rodents, including uterine tumors in female rats and increased tumor incidences in mice, largely attributed to its metabolite unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH). These findings prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to cancel daminozide registrations for food-bearing plants in 1989, restricting its use to non-food ornamentals, while some medium-term bioassays have indicated limited carcinogenicity potential under specific conditions.

Chemical and Physical Properties

Molecular Structure and Synthesis

Daminozide, with the molecular formula C₆H₁₂N₂O₃, is systematically named 4-(2,2-dimethylhydrazinyl)-4-oxobutanoic acid or N-(dimethylamino)succinamic acid. It is a white crystalline solid with a of 154–161 °C. The compound features a backbone where one carboxylic group is amidated with 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, forming a linkage central to its chemical identity. Daminozide was originally synthesized in the early by researchers at Uniroyal Chemical Company as a derivative of intended to modulate activity. The synthesis typically involves the reaction of with 1,1-dimethylhydrazine to yield the mono- product, followed by purification to meet specifications of at least 98% purity. This method leverages the reactivity of the anhydride ring to selectively form the hydrazide without affecting the remaining group. Daminozide exhibits high water solubility, exceeding 100 g/L at 25 °C, rendering it suitable for aqueous spray formulations. It displays low volatility, as its ionic form at environmental values limits vapor-phase partitioning. Thermal or acidic conditions promote its to unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), a process accelerated by elevated temperatures on treated surfaces.

Stability, Solubility, and Environmental Fate

Daminozide is highly soluble in , with a solubility of approximately 180 g/L at 20°C, and also soluble in polar solvents such as and acetone, but insoluble in non-polar solvents like . This high polarity contributes to its low (log Kow = -1.51), indicating negligible potential in aquatic organisms or sediments. In , daminozide demonstrates rapid degradation under aerobic conditions primarily via , with a of 9.5 hours, yielding volatile compounds and bound residues as primary products. It remains stable to across a range of pH values (4–9) at 25°C, showing no significant breakdown via this pathway, while anaerobic degradation and soil photolysis are minor routes with half-lives exceeding 40 days. The organic carbon-water (Koc) ranges from 204 to 349 mL/g, classifying it as moderately to highly mobile in , though its short persistence limits long-term leaching risk to . In aqueous environments, daminozide resists photolysis, with an extrapolated of 162 days under conditions, and does not volatilize appreciably from or moist surfaces due to its low (approximately 1.3 × 10-7 mm Hg at 25°C). Overall environmental dissipation is dominated by soil microbial processes rather than abiotic transformation, resulting in low persistence (DT50 < 1 day in aerobic soils) and minimal atmospheric transport potential.

Biological Mechanisms and Agricultural Applications

Modes of Action in Plants

Daminozide functions primarily as an inhibitor of the late stages of (GA) biosynthesis in plants, targeting 2-oxoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases such as those catalyzing the 3β-hydroxylation of to the bioactive GA1. This selective blockade reduces concentrations of active GAs, which normally promote internode elongation and overall stem extension, thereby inducing compact growth habits without disrupting fundamental processes like or . Upon foliar application, daminozide is systemically absorbed through leaves and translocated via the to apical meristems and growing points, where it exerts its effects locally on and expansion. The resulting physiological changes include shortened internodes, increased stem diameter, darker green foliage due to elevated retention, and delayed flowering or maturation, all proportional to application dosage and timing. These outcomes stem from diminished GA-mediated signaling, which limits expansive growth while enhancing structural robustness in treated plants. Empirical trials conducted in the established daminozide's efficacy as a growth retardant across various crops; for instance, applications at 1000–2500 ppm on apple trees (e.g., varieties like Delicious) reduced shoot elongation by 20–50% and delayed by 1–2 weeks, enabling extended harvest windows. Similar dose-dependent retardation was observed in ornamentals such as , where treatments curtailed stem height by up to 40% in potted cultivars, facilitating uniform branching and improved market quality without residual . These findings, derived from controlled field and experiments, underscored daminozide's role in modulating GA pathways for practical horticultural control.

Historical Development and Approved Uses

Daminozide, a growth regulator, was developed by the Uniroyal Chemical Company in the early to inhibit excessive vegetative growth in crops. It was first registered in the United States in 1963 for use on ornamental plants, specifically potted , to control height and promote compact growth. By 1968, registration expanded to include food crops, with apples as the primary initial application to enhance fruit color, firmness, and resistance to premature drop. Approved uses focused on horticultural benefits, including reduction of shoot elongation in fruit trees such as apples, pears, peaches, cherries, and grapes, which allowed for better light penetration and improved fruit quality. In greenhouse settings, it controlled height in ornamentals like poinsettias and , enabling denser branching and uniform flowering. For edibles, applications promoted uniform ripening and extended by delaying maturation, resulting in reported yield increases of up to 20% in some apple varieties through reduced pre-harvest losses and enhanced marketability. Typical application involved foliar sprays at concentrations of 1000 to 2500 parts per million (ppm), applied once or twice during the to achieve optimal growth control without . These rates were effective in minimizing excessive vigor in high-density orchards, where untreated trees often suffered from shaded lower branches and uneven development, thereby supporting efficient mechanical harvesting and storage.

Scientific Assessments of Toxicity

Animal Studies on Daminozide and UDMH

In chronic dietary studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, daminozide administered to B6C3F1 mice at doses up to 8,000 ppm in feed resulted in increased incidences of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas, particularly in males, with tumor rates rising dose-dependently from controls (e.g., 4-12% in low-dose groups to 42-60% at high doses). Similar high-dose feeding (up to 4,000 ppm) in Fischer 344 rats produced no significant increase in tumor incidence across multiple tissues, including liver and , despite evidence of systemic such as reduced body . These findings exhibited species-specific patterns, with mice showing sensitivity to liver effects absent in rats or dogs in parallel subchronic and chronic exposures. The metabolite UDMH, formed via of daminozide, induced tumors in inhalation studies; for instance, lifetime exposure of Swiss mice to 5 ppm UDMH vapor led to dose-related increases in adenomas/carcinomas, liver hemangiosarcomas, and tumors, alongside vascular and lymphatic neoplasms not observed in controls at comparable rates. In , gavage or of UDMH at extreme doses (e.g., 10-50 mg/kg) produced nasal turbinate squamous cell carcinomas, though systemic tumors were less consistent across studies. No tumors were evident in low-dose UDMH exposures mimicking environmental levels, with effects confined to overt toxicity thresholds in . Genotoxicity assessments, including multiple Ames bacterial reversion tests using typhimurium strains TA97, TA98, TA100, and TA102 with and without metabolic activation, showed no mutagenic activity for daminozide up to cytotoxic concentrations. Observed tumors were attributed to non- mechanisms, such as proliferator-activated receptor-alpha (PPARα) agonism in murine livers, a pathway inefficient in humans and absent at human-relevant exposures below 100 ppm in feed. The U.S. EPA's evaluation classified daminozide as a "possible human " based on Q*1 linear extrapolations from high-dose data, yielding theoretical risks despite no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) exceeding dietary residues by factors of 1,000-10,000.

Evaluations of Human Carcinogenic Risk

No epidemiological studies have demonstrated carcinogenicity of daminozide in humans, with classifications such as ("possibly carcinogenic") relying solely on animal data and its metabolite UDMH. Post-1990 reviews, including those by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), have concluded that projected human risks were overstated due to reliance on linear no-threshold (LNT) from high-dose studies, which assumes proportional risk at environmental doses without evidence of no-effect thresholds or species-specific metabolic differences. Actual residues on apples typically ranged from 1 to 5 ppm, far below levels used in animal tests, yielding estimated lifetime cancer probabilities below 1 in 100,000 even under conservative models, a level deemed negligible compared to background risks. Critics of EPA and NRDC assessments argue they employed worst-case scenarios that ignored daminozide's rapid degradation during cooking and processing (reducing UDMH formation by up to 90%), interspecies pharmacokinetic variations (e.g., faster clearance), and the absence of genotoxic mechanisms at low doses. These models, rooted in precautionary LNT assumptions without causal validation for daminozide, amplified perceived risks while overlooking countervailing factors like reduced overall use enabled by daminozide's disease-control benefits in orchards. Independent quantitative re-evaluations, such as WHO/FAO expert analyses, affirmed no oncogenic effects in mice and emphasized that exposure pathways did not align with tumorigenic conditions observed in . A 1996 Japanese medium-term multi-organ in rats, administering daminozide alone or combined with UDMH at doses up to 500 mg/kg, found no increases in preneoplastic or neoplastic lesions across multiple organs, including liver, , and —sites implicated in prior studies. This model, designed for rapid carcinogenicity screening with high sensitivity, supported the interpretation that daminozide lacks inherent carcinogenic potential under realistic exposure regimens, challenging EPA-driven cancellations as exemplars of overreach absent human-relevant evidence. Subsequent EPA acknowledgments that non-food uses pose no unreasonable risks further underscore the disconnect between regulatory actions and empirical risk quantification.

Regulatory and Political History

Pre-1980s Approvals and Monitoring

Daminozide received initial U.S. registration for food crop uses, including apples, in following evaluations by federal authorities that deemed it effective for regulating plant growth without exceeding established safety thresholds. The EPA set a residue tolerance of 20 parts per million (ppm) for daminozide on apples, based on toxicological studies indicating no acute or chronic effects at anticipated exposure levels from treated produce. Through the , annual FDA compliance monitoring programs sampled domestic and imported apples, consistently finding residues far below the 20 ppm tolerance, with actions rare due to widespread adherence to label instructions and pre-harvest intervals. Internationally, daminozide gained approvals in Canada and various European countries starting in the late 1960s for orchard applications on apples and other fruits, mirroring U.S. assessments of its utility in controlling excessive vegetative growth and promoting uniform ripening. The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) conducted a 1977 review, analyzing global field trial data that confirmed typical residues remained under 2-5 ppm in harvested apples, well below provisional limits and the estimated acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.04 mg/kg body weight derived from animal no-observed-adverse-effect levels adjusted by safety factors. These endorsements facilitated daminozide's routine use in commercial apple production, where it stiffened cell walls to yield firmer fruit less susceptible to mechanical damage during handling and storage, thereby cutting industry-reported losses from bruising and premature drop by enabling longer and export viability without evidence of elevated residue violations in pre-1980s surveillance.

The U.S. Alar Campaign and Media Response

In early 1989, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released the report Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food, which identified daminozide (marketed as Alar) as the posing the highest projected cancer risk to children, attributing this primarily to its thermal degradation product (UDMH), a known animal . The NRDC's risk estimates relied on conservative modeling assumptions, including maximum tolerance residue levels of 20 ppm for daminozide on apples, children's apple consumption rates five times higher than adults on a body-weight basis, and linear no-threshold extrapolation from high-dose rodent studies to predict lifetime cancer incidences as elevated as 240 cases annually among U.S. children under six. These projections overlooked empirical data on actual UDMH residues, which were typically undetectable or below 0.01 ppm in processed apple products, and the limited conversion of daminozide to UDMH under typical conditions. The report's claims gained widespread attention through a 60 Minutes segment aired on February 26, 1989, narrated by , which labeled Alar "the most potent cancer-causing agent in the food supply today" and focused on purported threats to children's , including visuals of pediatric cancer patients to evoke urgency. Reaching approximately 40 million viewers, the broadcast amplified NRDC's selective emphasis on worst-case scenarios while downplaying real-world exposure metrics, such as surveys showing average daminozide residues on apples at 0.17-1.3 ppm—far below tolerances—and minimal UDMH formation during cooking or storage. Advocacy figures, including actress testifying before , reinforced the narrative of Alar as a reckless industry tool endangering youth, prioritizing alarm over balanced toxicological evidence questioning the models' validity, such as their failure to account for metabolic differences and dose-response thresholds. Public reaction manifested as immediate panic, with apple juice sales plummeting 20-30% and school districts banning apple products, prompting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to expedite its ongoing review and propose revoking all daminozide tolerances for food uses on May 14, 1989, citing precautionary concerns over UDMH despite prior assessments deeming residues safe. Environmental organizations portrayed daminozide as emblematic of corporate disregard for , framing regulatory delays as complicity in "poisoning" children, even as independent analyses highlighted the campaign's reliance on unverified high-end projections rather than monitored exposure data indicating negligible population-level risks. Facing pressures and market collapse, Uniroyal Chemical Company announced on June 2, , that it would voluntarily cease domestic sales of Alar for food crops, while maintaining its safety based on extensive testing showing no adverse effects in chronic studies at doses orders of magnitude above human-equivalent exposures. This withdrawal occurred amid the media-driven frenzy, which sidelined dissenting scientific commentary on the risk models' overestimations, including their disregard for actual residue surveys and pharmacokinetic data demonstrating UDMH's poor at environmental levels. In March 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked tolerances for daminozide residues on food crops, effectively canceling its registration for such uses due to concerns over carcinogenic risks from its breakdown product (UDMH). This followed Uniroyal Chemical Company's voluntary suspension of sales and distribution for food applications in late 1989, with EPA proposing a full prohibition on labeled food crop products, including existing stocks, by mid-1990. Tolerances were progressively lowered, reaching 1 ppm by November 30, 1990, and rendering any detectable levels illegal after May 31, 1991. The cancellations triggered significant industry backlash, including lawsuits from apple growers seeking $250 million in damages from CBS's and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) for allegedly exaggerating risks and causing market panic. These suits argued that the coverage ignored countervailing data on low actual exposures and overstated theoretical risks, though courts ultimately dismissed claims on First Amendment grounds. Uniroyal faced substantial financial strain from the withdrawal, contributing to broader apple sector losses estimated at approaching $100 million amid plummeting prices—dropping to around $7 per 42-pound box in 1990, below the $12 break-even threshold—and a sharp sales decline following the prior year's publicity. Critics challenged EPA's risk assessments for relying on high-dose animal studies without adequately balancing benefits under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which mandates weighing agricultural advantages against hazards. Exposés highlighted NRDC's strategic design of the campaign to generate public donations, with internal memos indicating intent to channel revenue back to the organization, raising questions about advocacy motives amid claims of scientific overreach. The 1993 report on pesticides in children's diets, while advocating enhanced protections, indirectly fueled reevaluations by critiquing regulatory methodologies for underemphasizing developmental vulnerabilities, though it did not reverse daminozide-specific actions. Globally and domestically, daminozide persisted for non-food uses like ornamentals, where EPA permitted applications on such as poinsettias and due to lower exposure risks. Recent reviews as of 2025 confirmed low risks for ornamental field and greenhouse uses, supporting continued approvals in regions prioritizing benefit-risk analyses over blanket prohibitions. Challenges emphasized that food crop bans overlooked daminozide's role in improving crop uniformity and yield without compelling evidence of real-world harm at typical residue levels.

Economic and Societal Impacts

Effects on the Apple and Horticultural Industries

The 1989 Alar controversy triggered immediate market panic, resulting in a reported 30% drop in raw apple sales and estimated losses of $100 million for U.S. growers that year due to boycotts and reduced demand. Apple purchases nationwide fell by up to 60% in the ensuing months, exacerbating financial strain on producers amid fears of risks from daminozide residues. These short-term disruptions extended into the early , with growers facing higher labor costs and reduced yields without daminozide's growth-regulating effects, which had previously minimized pre-harvest fruit drop—losses from drop alone can exceed 50% in untreated orchards during peak seasons. Longer-term, the voluntary withdrawal of daminozide for food crops led to annual economic costs estimated at $31 million for the apple sector, according to EPA assessments, stemming from the need for alternative management practices like additional harvesting labor and less effective substitutes that increased production expenses and fruit waste through uneven maturity and drop. The International Apple Institute projected even higher impacts, with overall industry losses reaching hundreds of millions over the decade from diminished quality control and market confidence. Post-withdrawal residue monitoring showed declines in daminozide levels on apples, but no corresponding reductions in population-level health metrics attributable to the chemical, while unmanaged drop contributed to higher discard rates and processing inefficiencies. In the broader horticultural sector, daminozide's retained approval for ornamentals mitigated some losses, sustaining applications on crops like , where the U.S. potted poinsettia market exceeded $146 million annually as of recent industry data, supporting compact growth and marketable development without the food-crop restrictions. However, the precedent of media-amplified withdrawal chilled investment in similar plant growth regulators, as developers anticipated regulatory and public backlash risks, indirectly raising barriers to innovation in controlled-release formulations or safer analogs for both edibles and ornamentals.

Lessons on Risk Communication and Regulatory Overreach

The Alar controversy highlighted flaws in risk communication, where media outlets like CBS's on February 26, 1989, amplified extrapolated risks from high-dose rodent studies, portraying daminozide as "the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply" despite actual exposure levels being 35,000 times lower than tested doses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employed linear no-threshold from studies like those by Toth (1973, 1977), which administered daminozide at 29 mg/kg/day to rats—equivalent to s consuming thousands of times normal dietary amounts—yielding theoretical lifetime cancer risks of 45 per million, a method critiqued for ignoring dose-response thresholds and promoting probabilistic hype over empirical low-dose safety data. This approach, as noted by biochemist , overstated synthetic dangers relative to natural plant toxins, which constitute 99.99% of dietary carcinogens yet receive less scrutiny, eroding by conflating animal high-dose effects with negligible probabilities. Regulatory overreach via the further exemplified bias toward inaction, as the EPA's 1989 phaseout ignored causal benefits of daminozide, such as preventing pre-harvest fruit drop that reduced multiple orchard passes, labor-intensive (adding 30-51 hours per acre), and potential shifts to more hazardous alternatives like oxamyl. While environmental advocacy groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council hyped child-specific risks up to 910 cancers per million—far exceeding EPA estimates—the and Food and Agriculture Organization's 1989 review found daminozide non-oncogenic in mice, and no human cancers were ever linked to approved uses on 15% of U.S. apple trees. This selective alarmism, often aligned with institutional preferences for restriction over balanced risk-benefit analysis, overlooked how daminozide's growth regulation lowered per-acre costs ($95 versus $248 for organic methods) and minimized worker exposures during fewer harvest cycles. The episode strained the science-policy interface, prompting defensive industry withdrawals—like Uniroyal's voluntary market exit—and discouraging investment in agricultural technologies amid fear of similar politicized bans, a echoed in later controversies over where linear models again prioritized theoretical harms over verified safety records. Post-ban economic fallout, including $120-250 million in apple industry losses, underscored how precautionary defaults stifle innovation by favoring unproven alternatives that may elevate real-world risks, such as increased applications or labor hazards, without rigorous comparative assessment. Scientific bodies like the in 1993 reaffirmed minimal risks from regulated synthetics, advocating for communication emphasizing context over consensus-driven narratives that amplify uncertainty into policy mandates.

Current Global Status and Ongoing Research

Regulations in Key Regions as of 2025

In the , daminozide remains prohibited for application on food crops, with the Environmental Protection Agency having revoked all tolerances for residues in or on food commodities effective August 31, 1990, due to concerns over its metabolite (UDMH). However, it is permitted for use on non-food ornamental grown in enclosed spaces such as greenhouses, with maximum application rates not exceeding 2500 ppm, subject to label restrictions to prevent drift or runoff to food crops. In the , daminozide's approval for use as a plant growth regulator on ornamental underwent by the in February 2025, identifying data gaps on consumer exposure and environmental risks but concluding low risk for field uses under proposed conditions. Maximum residue levels (MRLs) are set at 0.01–0.5 mg/kg for non-food products, with ongoing evaluations for potential extensions under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) processes as of October 2025; it is not approved for food-producing crops. Canada banned daminozide for all food crop uses in 1991, with Health Canada maintaining zero tolerances for residues in foodstuffs and prohibiting imports containing detectable levels. Australia similarly revoked registrations for food applications via the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, enforcing a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg for monitored commodities as of 2025. In Asia and Latin America, daminozide sees continued ornamental and limited non-food uses with residue monitoring requirements, though specific tolerances vary; for instance, some countries like China permit greenhouse applications under impurity limits (e.g., N-nitrosodimethylamine <1.0 mg/kg), while broader export-oriented regions align with importing nations' zero-tolerance standards for food. No comprehensive bans apply universally, reflecting market-driven adoption amid global scrutiny.

Recent Toxicity Reviews and Potential Re-evaluations

In February 2025, the (EFSA) published a of the for daminozide, focusing on its use as a growth regulator in ornamental plants. The assessment concluded that daminozide presents low risks to humans and non-target organisms under representative ornamental applications, with classified as low via oral, dermal, and inhalation routes, and no evidence of or reproductive/developmental toxicity warranting additional reference values beyond existing data. Regarding carcinogenicity, the review upheld the harmonized classification as Category 2 (suspected human , H351), primarily based on tumors observed in male mice from historical studies, but identified no new signals or thresholds of toxicological concern for the evaluated exposures, emphasizing that metabolite (UDMH) levels do not pose unacceptable risks in these non-edible uses. Retrospectives from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) have highlighted post-1989 data indicating that 1980s fears of widespread carcinogenic risks from daminozide residues on were overstated, given actual exposures were orders of magnitude below levels causing effects in models—often less than 0.001% of administered doses—and that media-driven led to regulatory actions disproportionate to of harm. These analyses argue for rebalancing assessments toward causal exposure data rather than precautionary assumptions, noting that daminozide's degradation to UDMH occurs minimally under real-world conditions and that no epidemiological links to cancer have emerged in subsequent decades. Research since the early 2000s has advanced alternatives like prohexadione calcium, which inhibits biosynthesis similarly to daminozide but with a more favorable residue profile, as demonstrated in field trials on and apples where it controlled vegetative growth without exceeding tolerance limits. However, studies comparing the two show daminozide's efficacy in specific horticultural contexts remains unmatched for cost and compactness control, prompting discussions on whether modern precision application technologies—such as low-dose foliar sprays minimizing residues—could justify limited reintroduction for edible crops if residue monitoring confirms exposures below 0.01 mg/kg, where toxicological margins exceed 1,000-fold. Such re-evaluations would hinge on integrating updated data showing rapid in and soils, outweighing trace risks with documented yield benefits in controlled trials.

References

  1. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Daminozide
  2. https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/Reports/202.htm
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4673902/
  4. https://gpnmag.com/article/successful-use-pgr-daminozide/
  5. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9101Z6BQ.TXT
  6. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/reports/tr/tr083
  7. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100AFNB.TXT
  8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8732881/
  9. http://www.bcpcpesticidecompendium.org/daminozide.html
  10. http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/daminozi.htm
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/daminozide
  12. https://hortscans.ces.ncsu.edu/uploads/t/h/the_grea_52827725d5bae.pdf
  13. https://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v077pr17.htm
  14. https://pesticideinfo.org/chemical/PRI2426
  15. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0242-0012/content.pdf
  16. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30006EAC.TXT
  17. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9210
  18. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0081-0132/content.pdf
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230034134_Daminozide_and_prohexadione_have_similar_modes_of_action_as_inhibitors_of_the_late_stages_of_gibberellin_metabolism
  20. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1997.tb01001.x
  21. https://scispace.com/pdf/a-history-of-commercial-plant-growth-regulators-in-apple-21pf4xtr77.pdf
  22. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ScHor..53..127L/abstract
  23. https://www.acsh.org/news/1999/02/01/an-unhappy-anniversary-the-alar-scare-ten-years-later
  24. https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1989/5/24/22543-22573.pdf
  25. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/daminozide-alar-pesticide-canceled-food-uses.html
  26. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-24-mn-17369-story.html
  27. https://www.e-gro.org/pdf/2024-13-16.pdf
  28. https://digitalpubs.ext.vt.edu/vcedigitalpubs/7229424295377732/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1609352
  29. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp100.pdf
  30. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA152208.pdf
  31. https://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/issue_papers/Dimethylhydrazine11.pdf
  32. https://roczniki.pzh.gov.pl/Daminozyd-brak-aktywnosci-genotoksycznej-w-krotkoterminowych-testach-bakteryjnych%2C181334%2C0%2C2.html
  33. https://datasheets.scbt.com/sc-326749.pdf
  34. https://www.acsh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20040504_alar_5.pdf
  35. https://www.acsh.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/20090220_greatapplescare.pdf
  36. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tcm.1770150607
  37. https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-rced-87-21.pdf
  38. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/all-about-alar
  39. https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/alarscarenegin.html
  40. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED339064.pdf
  41. https://www.simplystreep.com/articles/198903peoplemagazine/
  42. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/14/us/steps-to-ban-alar-announced.html
  43. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/06/02/Alar-pulled-off-market/3012603127614/
  44. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-20-mn-5090-story.html
  45. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/67/816/584521/
  46. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/09/us/apple-growers-bruised-and-bitter-after-alar-scare.html
  47. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2786&context=mlr
  48. https://heartland.org/opinion/natural-resources-defense-council-the-scaremongering-chemophobe-in-chief/
  49. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/2126/chapter/2
  50. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/9210
  51. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/07/07/Alar-scarred-apple-industry-gets-US-help/7674615787200/
  52. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/016224399602100203
  53. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0109-0028/content.pdf
  54. https://files.toxplanet.com/cpdb/pdfs/applesauce.pdf
  55. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2190/NS6.2.d
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11843222/
  57. https://www.acsh.org/sites/default/files/Facts-Versus-Fears-Unfounded-Health-Scares%25204th%2520edition.pdf
  58. https://peanutscience.com/article/id/1603/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.