Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
� Alex Avery, Center for Global Food Issues
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
� Alex Avery, Center for Global Food Issues
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
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides
� 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
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides
� 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)
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 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides
� 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides
� 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides
� 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived &Certified Organic Pesticides
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides
� 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides
� 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides
� 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
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides
� 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides
� 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
� John D. Stark (Washington State University, Puyallup)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides
� Multiresidue Analysis & Photochemistry of Some Insecticides Used byOrganic 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 & EcotoxicologicalEffects of Natural 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)
Environmental, Health, & EfficacyAspects of Biologically Derived andCertified Organic Pesticides
� Multiresidue Analysis & Photochemistry of Some Insecticides Usedby 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 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?