![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Update from AZM Transition Issues Workgroup Provided at Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) Meeting
Background Material
- Slide Show Presentation (13 pp, 139K)
October 17, 2007
- Rick Keigwin opened by saying that workgroup members would put on the presentation to share with the group the two transition plan ‘pilots’ that are in-the-works. Adam Sharp from Ohio Farm Bureau will present the case study on Ohio parsley, and Mike Willett and Jay Brunner will present (over the phone) on apples in Washington State.
- Mr. Keigwin went on to say that over the past seven months the workgroup has also discussed developing tracking tools for the transition, possible performance measures to track progress through transition, and possible Web site enhancements that might be helpful and useful to folks working through transition. We have created a proposed tool (matrix) for tracking MRLs in key export markets that is with workgroup members now for review and comment.
- Adam Sharp then began on the Ohio Parsley case study. He said that it has been a bit of a struggle to get started. The Ohio parsley community is a small community of six growers and it was affected by the variable weather this year. Jeff Zellers (one of the AZM workgroup members and an Ohio parsley grower) was one of the victims of the weather. In his area of Ohio, 5 inches of rain fell in an hour in August. He lost 155 acres out of 500 acres of vegetables. The variable weather serves to illustrate a point; some growers had already completed all of the pesticide applications they thought they were going to need before rain. Instead, they ended up having pest issues from dormant pests after rain. A meeting is scheduled for November 15 in Wooster, Ohio to create a PMSP (Pest Management Strategic Plan) for parsley. Academics from Ohio State, Ohio State extension, USDA, and representatives from the North Central IPM Center will participate. USDA and the North Central IPM Center have been helpful in this process. Casey Hoit from Ohio State will be working with the group. There is a draft pest management plan that will be discussed on the 15th of November.
- Larry Elworth asked, “Once the plan is drafted, will you come back to workgroup or PPDC with it?”
- Adam Sharp responded by saying that they would follow guidance from workgroup on that. The meeting will be a full day session. Five alternatives to AZM have been identified for discussion.
- Rick Keigwin stated that Jay Brunner of Washington State University and Mike Willett of the Northwest Horticultural Council would talk about transition plans in WA apples.
- See “Transition of apple insect pest management to new pest control technology” presentation by Jay Brunner and Mike Willett for more information.
- Slide 2 of the presentation dealt with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data that tracked the amount of OP pesticides used per year. This data has been very helpful over the years to track changes in crops. Organophosphate (OP) use has declined over the years due to regulatory pressure and pheromone availability. However, AZM use has remained high.
- Slide 3 outlines the phase out of use of AZM on apples. The phase out ends in 2012, and AZM use will be restricted over time.
- Slide 4 shows that Guthion is the main pesticide, and other alternatives include Assail, Calypso, etc.
- Slide 5 shows the two new insecticides that will be registered. Altacor is a new family of pesticides by Dupont. An experimental use permit for Altacor was granted in 2007. It is a reduced risk pesticide. It will be available next year for use.
- Slide 6 lists known problems with alternatives to AZM for control of codling moth. Neonicotinoids (Assail, etc.) tend to have problems with spider mite control. Intrepid has resistance issues, and the resistance seems to be a cross resistance with Organophosphates. They don’t expect to use alternatives as one-for-one replacements for Guthion.
- Mike Willett pointed out that the shown on the slides are impacts that aren’t evaluated prior to registration of a product. This type of data is only collected after registration.
- Jay Brunner went on to talk about Slide 7. Before the AZM workgroup formed, WA State was working on proactive strategy to transition from OPs. Some groups took concept to WA legislature and received funding. So this project had legs before the AZM workgroup was formed.
- Mike Willett added that as we go through this project, you will note its wide scope. There are 3000-4000 apple growers in the Pacific NW, so there are lots of people transitioning there. The NW apple case study is not a one-size fits all transition for other commodities or even for apples in other parts of the country. Site specific and regional differences are important too.
- Slide 8 shows the elements of the transition plan. Jay Brunner said that they are not focusing just on the coddling moth, but on the entire system.
- Slide 9 shows the objectives of the transition plan.
- Slide 10 shows the organizational chart. There is an Advisory Committee being formed.
- Slide 11 shows the members of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee was formed by an executive committee and includes people they were aware of that could provide input in the project. They plan to have first meeting in mid November.
- Slide 12 outlines that they have achieved the first two objectives, and will work on the other objectives in next 2 years.
- Slide 13 shows that exports are a big barrier to any transition program. The top 10 export markets are listed. Approximately 30 % of all apples grown in NW are for export. During the growing season, growers do not have any certain export market in mind. Growers grow the best quality fruit and hope that they can sell to the market that gives them the best price. They need the flexibility to sell to whichever market will do that. Acetamiprid doesn't have MRL in many markets. Currently acetamiprid is used early in the season because of this, and then if pest pressure is high at the end of the season, AZM is used because it has MRLs. The two newly registered alternatives will be important too. Jay Brunner said that we need to start the process of registering these alternatives in export markets. Growers are not the folks who try to register MRLs in different countries; registrants are the people who try to register for MRLs. So even though the growers may have a need for an MRL, the action is out of their hands.
- Rick Keigwin said that we will continue to work on these case studies. Some members of the work group have wanted to move beyond the tools we have already discussed and/or developed. Other groups have expressed desire to develop regional plans. Also, to inform the PPDC, Rick mentioned that Canada has formed an analog AZM committee to work on transition. The U.S. and Canada intend to work together on AZM transition.
- Cindy Baker of Gowan Company added a comment on phosmet. There is a tolerance in the UK, and working on having a tolerance in the EU. She thinks it is very important that the workgroup give feedback like this to larger PPDC because it is such an important product and an important process. Cindy Baker noted that AZM is a broad spectrum material; and asked if there is any data being collected to talk about the secondary pests?
- Jay Brunner responded by saying that their project is an implementation /education program, not a research program. When growers first started using mating disruption they saw an increase in leaf rollers. They will be able to document what happens with secondary pests. For example, the wooly apple moth has increased and they’re not sure why.
- Cindy Baker responded on the MRL question. Part of the problem with Acetamiprid is that there are two registrants. One registrant is a US registrant, and there is another international registrant. That kind of thing is a factor in whether a registrant decides to pursue an MRL.
- Mike Willett said that that was a good point and it reinforces that this is a challenge.
- Next, Shelly Davis of Farmworker Justice commented that this is a very good case study. She applauded the Northwestern apple interests for moving along as fast as they have. EPA has worked on an in depth matrix on MRL question that lists where the MRLs are proposed, and where they are final. She thinks that it should be noted what percentage of crop goes to MRL countries, i.e., what are key export countries. Shelly Davis said that there is no point in going through transition process to transition to a chemical that has adverse health effects or ecological effects. She wouldn’t choose to apply something that would cause big health problems.
- Larry Elworth said that he looks forward to hearing what the relative efficacy is of each of the alternatives. Also, it would be interesting to see cost of the materials. He asked how many bushels of apples are exported every year?
- Mike Willett said that 30 million cartons of apples are exported. Half of that goes to Mexico and Canada. The other half goes to 30 or 40 countries around the world.
- Larry Elworth said that it would be interesting to know where the MRLs are and where they are proposed. Really good exercise. To the extent you see this array for Western apples, the situation in the Eastern U.S. is more complicated in terms of the number of primary and secondary pests.
- Jay Brunner said that there exists relative efficacy for these products in literature, and also noted that the cost of new technology is more expensive than old technology.
- Caroline Brickey had a comment regarding slide 13. She noted that registrants are pursuing unilateral strategy to establish MRLs, and asked “What does that say about Codex?”
- Mike Willett said that most registrants are pursuing Codex, but not all countries accept Codex. Some countries only accept their own MRLs, some accept exporting countries’ tolerance. Mike noted that Codex acceptance on a larger scale would be good. He notes, as well, that registrants will have to pursue MRLs in countries that do not accept Codex.
- Caroline Brickey said that there is a lot to learn as everyone goes through this process. She asked how the two new chemicals are being incorporated into these plans.
- Jay Brunner said that they have researched these two new chemicals for several years. They have ideas on how they can be incorporated. This project is also tracking how people receive information, who they trust, and how they adopt the new information.
- Caroline Brickey asked if there is funding to answer the adoption question.
- Jay Brunner said that they did receive funding that allowed them to hire a post doc in rural community sociology. This new hire will research how people make decisions and change programs.
- Caroline Brickey said that there is a lot of research in that area, and that she hopes it is being taken advantage of.
Public Comment
- Mark Whalon of Michigan State University stressed the importance of AZM to cherries and blueberries in Michigan. He mentioned that climatically Michigan is different than the Pacific Northwest and as such the pest pressure is very different. Currently there are not many alternatives registered for use to control plum curculio in cherries. He wants the AZM transition workgroup to be aware of the unique pests in Michigan as it goes through the AZM transition process.