environmental, health, & efficacy aspects of...

Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides

Symposium organized for the 225thNational Meetings of the American

Chemical Society in New Orleans, LA

March 23-27, 2003

Evolution of Perspective

� Integrated Control Concept

� Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

� Integrated Crop Management (ICM)

� Low Input Sustainable Agriculture(LISA)

� Sustainable Agriculture (SA)

Organic Agriculture

Risk Management

� Government Regulations� FFDCA, FIFRA, FQPA

� Agronomic Practices� No tillage, crop rotation

� Reduced Risk Pesticides� Spinosyns, ‘fenozides’, glyphosate

� Biotechnology-derived crops� Roundup Ready soybean, corn, cotton, canola� Bt corn, cotton

Bt Corn

How Reduced Risk IsReduced Risk?

� Neonicotinoids insecticides have verylow hazards for vertebrates and verylow overall risk

� But, some have acquired a notoriousreputation for bee kills

� Are they friendly to natural enemies andtherefore compatible with IPM?

Symposium Context

� A lot of interest among all types ofgrowers for becoming goodenvironmental stewards

� Techniques and practices must meshwith economic reality

� Organic producers have asked forregulation so that its set of standardscan be used to market its products

Technologies in Organic

� It is a myth to think that organic meansno pesticide

� In fact, the National Organic MaterialStandards Board decides what materialtechnologies are acceptable and notacceptable, including pest controlagents

What We Need to Know

� All pesticides must obtain EPA registration� As a result of research efforts we know a lot

about the more conventional syntheticpesticides

� However, we know little about the certifiedorganic pesticides, yet these materials alsohave biological activity� A good example is sulfur fungicide, which is

known to cause worker dermal irritation problemsin western U.S.

Bridging the Gap

� The purpose of the symposium was toprovide information on compounds thatare currently used or might someday begood candidates for certified organic ag.� The symposium also included a discussion

of biologically derived compounds thatcould also be good candidates

Questions About Alternative &New Technologies

� Just beginning to assess the environmentaland heath aspects of these compounds� Are they less risky if a lot of chemical has to be

applied (both in terms of amount and frequency)?

� Application of risk assessment logic

� Are these materials efficacious enough?

� Environmental chemistry is important forunderstanding how long biological activitymight persist

� Cost effectiveness?

Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides

� Organic Certification of pesticides:Philosophy to practice--the viewpoint ofone participant

� Nancy Ostiguy, Penn State University� The IR-4 Program for Registration of Biopesticides

� Michael Braverman, D. L. Kunkel, J. J. Baron, R. E. Holm,Rutgers University

� Organic vs. Conventional Pesticides: What We Know and WhatWe Don’t know About Use, Toxicity, & Environmental Impacts

� Alex Avery, Center for Global Food Issues

Organic Certification of Pesticides:Philosophy to practice -

the point of view of one participant

Nancy OstiguyDepartment of Entomology

The Pennsylvania State University

The National List

• Petition to be added to list• Chemical categories

– Synthetic allowed– Non-synthetic prohibited

• Use categories– Crops– Livestock– Processing

Allowed Synthetic Substances -Crops

• Algicides, sanitizers– Alcohols*, chlorine

compounds*, H2O2,soaps

• Herbicides– Soap*, mulches*

• Animal repellents– Soaps* and ammonium*

• Rodenticides– SO2*, Vitamin D3

• Insecticides– Ammonium carbonate*,

boric acid*, elemental sulfur,lime sulfur, oils*, soaps,sticky traps and barriers,pheromones

• Plant Disease– Coppers*, copper sulfate*,

hydrated lime*, H2O2, limesulfur, oils*, potassiumbicarbonate, elementalsulfur, streptomycin*,tetracycline*

Prohibited Nonsynthetic Substances- Crops

• Ash from manureburning

• Arsenic• Lead salts• Sodium

fluoaluminate

• Strychnine• Tobacco dust

(nicotine sulfate)• Potassium chloride*• Sodium nitrate*

Ozone

• Petition Content– Intended use

• Weed control• Anti-microbial to clean irrigation lines

– Rate & method of application– Manufacturing process– Reviews by other certification programs– Physical properties and mode of action– Safety information– Any information the petitioner believes is important

Technical Advisory Panel Review

• Reviewer 1– Allow with restrictions

• Reviewer 2– Allow with restrictions

• Reviewer 3– Do not allow

• NOSB vote– Weed control: No– Antimicrobial agent to clean irrigation lines: Yes

The National List

• Contains allowed synthetics andprohibited non-synthetics

• Listed materials are to used only whenother methods of pest control fail.

• All materials reviewed every 5 years.• There are considerations other than

toxicity, risk, and efficacy - the 7questions.

Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides� Organic Certification of pesticides: Philosophy to practice--the

viewpoint of one participant

� Nancy Ostiguy, Penn State University

� The IR-4 Program for Registration ofBiopesticides

� Michael Braverman, D. L. Kunkel, J. J.Baron, R. E. Holm, Rutgers University

� Organic vs. Conventional Pesticides: What We Know and WhatWe Don’t know About Use, Toxicity, & Environmental Impacts


Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides� Organic Certification of pesticides: Philosophy to practice--the

viewpoint of one participant

� Nancy Ostiguy, Penn State University

� The IR-4 Program for Registration of Biopesticides

� M. Braverman, D. L. Kunkel, J. J. Baron, R. E. Holm,Rutgers University

� Organic vs. Conventional Pesticides:What We Know and What We Don’tknow About Use, Toxicity, &Environmental Impacts


Organic Pesticides: What weOrganic Pesticides: What weknow, donknow, don’’t know, and why wet know, and why we

need to knowneed to knowAlex Avery,

Director of Research and Education

Hudson InstituteCenter for Global Food Issues

Top 10 Most-Used PesticidesTop 10 Most-Used PesticidesRank Active Ingredient millions lbs/Year1 Oil (I) 1022 Sulfur (F) 783 Atrazine (H) 754 Metolachlor (H) 675 Metam Sodium (O) 606 Sulfuric Acid (O) 487 2,4-D (H) 418 1,3-D (O) 359 Glyphosate (H) 3510 Methyl Bromide (O) 33F = Fungicide, H = Herbicide, I = Insecticide, O = OtherFrom NCFAP, http://www.ncfap.org/ncfap/index.html

Most Used Pesticides -- CopperMost Used Pesticides -- Copper

Copper was the 18Copper was the 18thth most-used pesticide most-used pesticidein the USin the US

13 million pounds applied to 54 crops13 million pounds applied to 54 crops

Toxic metalToxic metal

Vineyards in France suffering fromVineyards in France suffering fromphytotoxicity phytotoxicity of high soil copper levelsof high soil copper levels

High Use Rates of OrganicHigh Use Rates of Organic

Organic pesticides, because of lowerOrganic pesticides, because of lowertoxicity to target organisms require fartoxicity to target organisms require farhigher AI use rateshigher AI use rates

Sulfur applied at average of 34.9 lbs/acreSulfur applied at average of 34.9 lbs/acre

Synthetic fungicide average was 1.59Synthetic fungicide average was 1.59lbs/acrelbs/acre

Average Fungicide Use RatesAverage Fungicide Use Rates

0

10

20

30

40

Synthetic fungicides Copper Sulfur

Pounds

per

Acr

e

Fungicides:Fungicides:Organic vs. SyntheticOrganic vs. Synthetic

Replacing all synthetic fungicides withReplacing all synthetic fungicides withsulfur at average use rates would add 840sulfur at average use rates would add 840million lbs to national pesticide usemillion lbs to national pesticide use

740% increase in pesticide 740% increase in pesticide ai ai applicationapplication

Copper replacement would replace 40Copper replacement would replace 40million lbs of synthetic with 103 million lbsmillion lbs of synthetic with 103 million lbscopper, or 47% increase in copper, or 47% increase in ai ai applicationsapplications


� Putting the Toxicology and riskAssessment of Approved OrganicPesticides into Perspective� Angelina Duggan, CropLife America

� Development and Registration of a Reduced Risk, CertifiedOrganic Insecticide: Spinosad Case Study

� Kenneth D. Racke, Dow AgroSciences

Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides� Putting the Toxicology and risk Assessment of Approved

Organic Pesticides into Perspective� Angelina Duggan, CropLife America

� Development and Registration of aReduced Risk, Certified OrganicInsecticide: Spinosad Case Study� Kenneth D. Racke, Dow AgroSciences

™

Development &Registration

of a Reduced Risk,Certified Organic

Insecticide:Spinosad Case Study

Ken Ken RackeRacke

Dow Dow AgroSciencesAgroSciences

™

� 1982 - Soil sample from rumdistillery in the Caribbean

� 1985 - Initial Screening offermentation broth demonstratedactivity in Aedes aegpyti larvalassay; activity confirmed inSpodoptera eridania

� 1986 - Newly discovered bacteriumisolated which producedinsecticidally-active metabolitesduring fermentation

� 1988 - First milligram samples andfield testing

Discovery of the Spinosyns

™

Spinosad1999 Project Summary

Insert Product Photograph HereInsert Product Photograph Here

Kingdom:Kingdom: Monera MoneraPhylum:Phylum: Firmicutes Firmicutes (thick-walled, gram positive(thick-walled, gram positivebacteria)bacteria)Class:Class: Thallobacteria Thallobacteria (branching bacteria)(branching bacteria)Order:Order: Actinomycetales Actinomycetales (fungus-like bacteria)(fungus-like bacteria)

Saccharopolysporaspinosa

™

OO

spinosyn A: R = H MW = 732spinosyn D: R = CH3 MW = 746

CH3

CH3 CH3O O

CH3CH2 OH H

H H

R

H

O

OOCH3 CH3 OCH3

OCH3

N

CH3

Discovery of the Spinosyns

� 1989 - Structure of spinosyn A determined– Fermentation broth activity due primarily to spinosyns A and D

– Spinosad is a mixture of spinosyn A and spinosyn D (~85:15)

™

Spinosad Mode of Action

� Sensitive insects demonstrate uniquesymptomology; general paralysis accompanied byloss of body fluids resulting in flaccid paralysis

� Biological testing indicated activity of spinosadassociated with excitation of the insect nervoussystem

� Spinosad uniquely alters the function of nicotinicand GABA-associated ion channels

� Spinosad does not interact with known bindingsites for other nicotinic or GABA-ergic insecticides(neonicotinoids, fiproles, avermectins, cyclodienes)

� Novel mode of action results in no cross-resistanceand supports resistance management efforts

™

� Low mammalian toxicity– Rat (oral) LD50 > 5000 mg/kg (F); >3738 mg/kg (M)

– Rabbit (dermal) LD50 > 2000 mg/kg

� Low environmental impacts– Soil half-life = 9 - 15 days

– Soil sorption Kd = 129 (low mobility)

– Aquatic LC50: Daphnid 14 mg/L; Trout 30 mg/L

– Quail LD50 > 2000 mg/kg

� Compatibility with IPM– Low toxicity to beneficial predators/parasites

– Unique mode of action

Spinosad Reduced RiskClassification by U.S. EPA

™

Fermentation with

S. spinosa

Inoculum Development

Fermentation

Solvent Extraction

Solvent Exchangeand Protonation

PrecipitationDow AgroSciences Manufacturing PlantHarbor Beach, Michigan

™

Spinosad Organic

Certification?

� Natural fermentation product origin of spinosad was an early commercial interest

� Concept for use in certified organicagriculture arose informally at first

– Unclear picture of marketplace value– Bewildering array of certification bodies

� Organic Materials Review Institute determined spinosad to benon-synthetic and allowable during 1998, but Successformulation not approved due to inert ingredient content

� First U.S. “listings” for spinosad arose from State actions– Colorado - SpinTor 2SC added to approved listing (1999)– Texas - Temporary approval of Tracer for organic cotton (2000)– California - Temporary approval of GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait (2001)

™

Spinosad Organic

Certification?

� International– Austria Bio Garantie listed Iprasan for

organic farming (2000)

– Tunisia Ministry of Agriculture listedTracer for organic farming (2000)

– FIBL in Switzerland added Audienz toapproved list for organic vegetableproduction (2001)

– Ecocert International (Germany)approved Tracer for use in SouthAfrica citrus (2001)

– Bio-Dynamic Institute (Brazil) rejectedTracer for use in organic agriculturebased on inerts (2001)

™

USDA National Organic

Program� Provided a standardized, national, official source for

active ingredient evaluation for organic agriculture

� Petition to support spinosad for organic listing(Dec-2001)

� National Organic Standards Board evaluation (May-2002)

– Determined that spinosad is a natural substance

– As such, does not require addition to the nationallisting

– Formulated products containing spinosad and EPA “List 4 inerts” are approved for use in organic agriculture

� USDA Organic Seal for labels of qualified formulated products?

™

Future Considerations

� Commercial benefits of organic certification forspinosad are yet to be fully evaluated

� Organic listing of spinosad in the U.S. hasincreased access of certified organic growers to ahighly effective and reduced risk product

� Potential for additional spinosad formulations fororganic listing

� Approvals for overseas use of spinosad products inorganic agriculture will be sought where appropriate

� The Codex Alimentarius Commission organicprogram may offer the potential for an internationallisting of spinosad


� Spinosad Mode-of-Action and ProactiveResistance Management� Nailah Orr, G. D. Thompson, T. C. Sparks;

presented by K. Racke (Dow Agrosciences)� Building a Multitactic Biologically Intensive Pest Management

System for Western Orchards� Jay Brunner (Washington State University)

� Environmental Dissipation of Codling Moth Pheromone fromHand-Applied Dispensers� Vince Hebert, J. Brunner, V. Jones (Washington State

University)


� Spinosad Mode-of-Action and Proactive Resistance Management� Nailah Orr, G. D. Thompson, T. C. Sparks; presented by K. Racke

(Dow Agrosciences)

� Building a Multitactic Biologically IntensivePest Management System for WesternOrchards� Jay Brunner (Washington State University-Wenatchee)

� Environmental Dissipation of Codling Moth Pheromone fromHand-Applied Dispensers� Vince Hebert, J. Brunner, V. Jones (Washington State University)

Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides� Spinosad Mode-of-Action and Proactive Resistance Management

� Nailah Orr, G. D. Thompson, T. C. Sparks; presented by K. Racke(Dow Agrosciences)

� Building a Multitactic Biologically Intensive Pest Management Systemfor Western Orchards� Jay Brunner (Washington State University-Wenatchee)

� Environmental Dissipation of Codling MothPheromone from Hand-Applied Dispensers� Vince Hebert, J. Brunner, V. Jones (Washington State

University, Tri-Cities & Wenatchee))

WSU Survey(Tree Fruit R&E Ctr.)

USDA NASS(Nat’l. Ag. Statistics Survey)

0102030405060708090

100

% Apple AcreageUsing Guthion

Total Guthion Applied (lbs) x 10,000

‘89

‘00

‘89

‘00

‘91

‘01

‘91

‘01

Changing Insecticide Use in Washington Orchards

� Catnip Essential Oil Activity in Sand forControl of Subterranean Termites in theLaboratory� Chris Peterson, J. Ems-Wilson (USDA Forest Service, Starkville,

MS)� Bioherbicides: Research and Risk Assessment

� Robert E. Hoagland, C. D. Boyette (USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS)� Environmental and Health Assessments for Spinosad Against the Backdrop of

Organic Certification� Cheryl B. Cleveland; presented by Ken Racke (Dow AgroSciences)

� Field Testing of Natural Herbicides in the Pacific Northwest� Tim W. Miller (Washington State University-Mt. Vernon)


� Catnip Essential Oil Activity in Sand for Control of SubterraneanTermites in the Laboratory� Chris Peterson, J. Ems-Wilson (USDA Forest Service, Starkville,

MS)

� Bioherbicides: Research and RiskAssessment� Robert E. Hoagland, C. D. Boyette (USDA-ARS,

Stoneville, MS)� Environmental and Health Assessments for Spinosad Against the Backdrop of

Organic Certification� Cheryl B. Cleveland; presented by Ken Racke (Dow AgroSciences)

� Field Testing of Natural Herbicides in the Pacific Northwest� Tim W. Miller (Washington State University-Mt. Vernon)


� Catnip Essential Oil Activity in Sand for Control of SubterraneanTermites in the Laboratory� Chris Peterson, J. Ems-Wilson (USDA Forest Service, Starkville,

MS)� Bioherbicides: Research and Risk Assessment

� Robert E. Hoagland, C. D. Boyette (USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS)

� Environmental and Health Assessments forSpinosad Against the Backdrop of OrganicCertification� Cheryl B. Cleveland; presented by Ken Racke (Dow

AgroSciences)� Field Testing of Natural Herbicides in the Pacific Northwest

� Tim W. Miller (Washington State University-Mt. Vernon)


� Catnip Essential Oil Activity in Sand for Control of Subterranean Termites inthe Laboratory� Chris Peterson, J. Ems-Wilson (USDA Forest Service, Starkville, MS)

� Bioherbicides: Research and Risk Assessment� Robert E. Hoagland, C. D. Boyette (USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS)

� Environmental and Health Assessments for Spinosad Against the Backdropof Organic Certification� Cheryl B. Cleveland; presented by Ken Racke (Dow AgroSciences)

� Field Testing of Natural Herbicides in the PacificNorthwest� Tim W. Miller (Washington State University-Mt. Vernon)



� Inducible Plant Defenses: Prospectsfor Disease & Stress Control� Roy Navarre, USDA-ARS, Prosser, WA

� Messenger: Environmentally Sound Solution for CropProduction & Protection� Zhongmin Wei (EDEN Bioscience, Bothell, WA)

� Soil Fate of Bt Proteins from Foliar Sprays & TransgenicCrops� Graham Head (Monsanto, St. Louis, MO)


� Inducible Plant Defenses: Prospects for Disease & StressControl� Roy Navarre (USDA-ARS, Prosser, WA)

� Messenger: Environmentally SoundSolution for Crop Production & Protection� Zhongmin Wei (EDEN Bioscience, Bothell, WA)

� Soil Fate of Bt Proteins from Foliar Sprays & TransgenicCrops� Graham Head (Monsanto, St. Louis, MO)


� Inducible Plant Defenses: Prospects for Disease & StressControl� Roy Navarre (USDA-ARS, Prosser, WA)

� Messenger: Environmentally Sound Solution for CropProduction & Protection� Zhongmin Wei (EDEN Bioscience, Bothell, WA)

� Soil Fate of Bt Proteins from Foliar Sprays& Transgenic Crops� Graham Head, Monsanto, St. Louis, MO


� Multiresidue Analysis & Photochemistry of SomeInsecticides Used by Organic Farmers� Xuejen Zang, Joe D. Rosen (Rutgers University)

� Environmental Fate & Ecological Impact of Copper Hydroxide� Pam J. Rice, C. J. Hapeman, J. A. Fetcho, L. P. Heighton, L. L.

McConnell, A. M. Sadeghi (USDA-ARS, Univ. of Minnesota & Beltsville,MD)

� A Review of the Environmental Fate & Ecotoxicological Effects of NaturalProduct Pesticides in Canada� Dean G. Thompson, D. P. Kreutzweiser (Canadian Forest Service, Sault

St. Marie, Ontario)� Ecotoxicology of Neem

� John D. Stark (Washington State University, Puyallup)


� Multiresidue Analysis & Photochemistry of Some Insecticides Used by OrganicFarmers� Xuejen Zang, Joe D. Rosen (Rutgers University)

� Environmental Fate & Ecological Impact of CopperHydroxide� Pam J. Rice, C. J. Hapeman, J. A. Fetcho, L. P. Heighton, L. L. McConnell,

A. M. Sadeghi (USDA-ARS, Univ. of Minnesota & Beltsville, MD)� A Review of the Environmental Fate & Ecotoxicological Effects of Natural Product

Pesticides in Canada� Dean G. Thompson, D. P. Kreutzweiser (Canadian Forest Service, Sault St.

Marie, Ontario)� Ecotoxicology of Neem



� Multiresidue Analysis & Photochemistry of Some Insecticides Used byOrganic Farmers� Xuejen Zang, Joe D. Rosen (Rutgers University)


McConnell, A. M. Sadeghi (USDA-ARS, Univ. of Minnesota & Beltsville,MD)

� A Review of the Environmental Fate & EcotoxicologicalEffects of Natural Product Pesticides in Canada� Dean G. Thompson, D. P. Kreutzweiser (Canadian Forest

Service, Sault St. Marie, Ontario)� Ecotoxicology of Neem



� Multiresidue Analysis & Photochemistry of Some Insecticides Usedby Organic Farmers� Xuejen Zang, Joe D. Rosen (Rutgers University)


McConnell, A. M. Sadeghi (USDA-ARS, Univ. of Minnesota &Beltsville, MD)

� A Review of the Environmental Fate & Ecotoxicological Effects ofNatural Product Pesticides in Canada� Dean G. Thompson, D. P. Kreutzweiser (Canadian Forest

Service, Sault St. Marie, Ontario)

� Ecotoxicology of Neem� John D. Stark (Washington State University, Puyallup)

CanadianForest Service

Environmental Fate and Effects ofNatural “Reduced-Risk” Pesticides in

Canada

Environmental Fate and Effects ofNatural “Reduced-Risk” Pesticides in

Canada

Dean G. Thompson & David P. Kreutzweiser

ObjectivesObjectives

� Phospinothricin, azadirachtins, spinosyns� Natural pesticides as used in Canada

� Physico-chemical & Laboratory Toxicity Data� Hazard Quotient analysis

� Environmental Fate & Ecotoxicology� focus on Canadian field studies

�� Do Natural Pesticides = Do Natural Pesticides = ““Reduced RiskReduced Risk””

Phosphinothricin-based HerbicidesPhosphinothricin-based Herbicides

PHOSPHINOTHRICIN

H3C P

O

OH

CH2 CH2 CH COOH

NH2

BIALAPHOS

H3C P

O

CH2

OH

CH2 CH CONH CH

CH3

CONH CH

CH3

COOH

NH2

GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM

H3C P

O

O-CH2 CH2 CH COOH

NH2

NH4+

Active Ingredient

Natural Tripeptide – Streptomyces spp.HERBIACE®

Ammonium SaltFINALE®; IGNITE®; LIBERTY ®

Azadirachtin-based InsecticidesAzadirachtin-based Insecticides

Azadirachtin A

OCH3

O

O

HO

CH3

CH3

O

OO

OHO

O

O

OH

H

CH3

CH3

OO

OCH3

OHH

CH3 Azadirachtin BO

HO

O

OHO

O

O

OH

H

CH3

CH3

OO

OCH3

OH

OH

CH3

CH3

CH3

O

C

O

NeemixNeemix®® 4.5 4.5

Comparative LabToxicity

Comparative LabToxicity

0.16

22

106

37

AlgaeLC50

17>10010002342150>5000Tebufenozide

1078010119>10038005600Glyphosate

1.86

(NOEC)

935.9970.002520003783Spinosyn A/D

0.04.039.048>2.5>2253540Azadirachtin

0.57560320>1000aNOECa

15L/ha10001510Phosphinothricin

Aq.Plants

LC50

DaphniaLC50

FishLC50

WormsLC50

BeesLD50

BirdsAOLD50

RatsAOLD50

Active

a data from field applicaitons of Basta formulation

Use Rates & EECsUse Rates & EECs

86

2636

322

62

1848

EEC

Foliage

0.050.030.07Tebufenozide

MIMIC

1.430.942.14Glyphosate

VISION

0.170.090.26Spinosyn A/D

NAF 85

0.040.020.05Azadirachtin

NEEMIX 4.5

1.050.661.5Phosphinothricin

IGNITE

EEC

Water

EEC

Soil

Maximum

Label

Rate

Active

EEC = Expected Environmental Concentration as calculated by Canadian regulators for Tier I risk analysis; assumes full deposition at maximum label rate to soil or water 15 cm in depth

Hazard QuotientAnalysisHazard QuotientAnalysis

0.313

0.065

0.002

0.028

Algae

0.0030.001<0.001<0.001Tebufenozide

1.430.0020.1430.00826Glyphosate

0.0020.029<0.001128800Spinosyn A/D

1.001.030.83325Azadirachtin

1.840.0020.003Phosphinothricin

Aq.Plants

DaphniaFishWormsBeesActive

HQ = EEC for foliage, soils or water/LD50 or LC50; values > 1 indicate requirement for further (higher tier) study

Laboratory Toxicology

In-Situ Fate Studies

In-Situ Stream Channels

In-Situ Aquatic Enclosures

Tiered Testing a la CFSTiered Testing a la CFS

Chemical & Biomonitoring

ComparativeEcotoxicology

ComparativeEcotoxicology

NA

No

NA

No

NA

Fish

NA

No

NA

NA

NA

Bees

No

No

NA

NA

NA

Birds

No

No

NA

possibleChronicgrowtheffect

NA

Amph-ibians

No

No

NA

No

NA

Stream

Insects

Equiv.NoNoTebufenozide

MIMIC

NoNoNoGlyphosate

VISION

NANANASpinosyn A/D

NAF 85

YesNoNoAzadirachtin

NEEMIX 4.5

YesEquiv.NAPhosphinothricin

IGNITE

Zoo

plankton

AlgaeSoilOrganisms

Active

Do Canadian studies demonstratesignificant ecotoxicological impacts under

realistic exposure scenarios?

Symposium Summary

� Highlighting of different pest controlmaterials, both registered anddeveloping

� Examination of environmental andhealth issues that may arise

� Examination of efficacy

Where Do We Go From Here?

� Book proposal under review withAmerican Chemical Society (publish apeer-reviewed symposia book series)

� Future Research?

Testable Hypothesis??

Future Research Area?

� How do agronomic managementpractices affect secondary metabolites(e.g., antioxidants, other nutraceuticals)in food?

environmental, health, & efficacy aspects of...

Documents