Crops: Pesticide withdrawal: Potential impacts in conjunction with increasing levels of insecticide resistance

Transcription

1 Edinburgh Discussion Circle, 2 nd March 2015 Crops: Pesticide withdrawal: Potential impacts in conjunction with increasing levels of insecticide resistance Andy Evans Pest Management & Leader of the Applied Practice Team andy.evans@sruc.ac.uk

2 Loss of pesticides media attention 2 2

3 History of pesticide withdrawals Directive 91/414/EEC Implemented in 1993 to harmonise approvals across the EU All existing approved substances had to be reapproved The approved active substances placed on Annex 1 Over 75% of active substances were lost most unsupported due to economic reasons or superseded by other actives ~1,000 actives down to ~250 Only actives with market justification remained 3

4 History of pesticide withdrawals Annex 1 Member States can only authorise pesticides listed in Annex 1 for supply, sale, storage and use Many actives due to be considered for re-approval in the years through to 2020 The Annex 1 Review number 1 (AIR-1) - saw seven active substances successfully renewed AIR-2 has 31 active substances under review by end 2015 AIR-3 group of 150 active substances that are just starting re-approval process 4

5 Regulation 1107/2009 Replaces Directive 91/414/EEC and came into force in June 2011 Has more stringent requirements for active substance approval Covers both the approval of new active substances and the renewal of existing substances, AIR-2, AIR-3 and any subsequent re-approvals Active substances will not be approved (or re-approved) if they are classified as having the following properties; Mutagenic Carcinogenic or have Reproductive Toxicity (unless the exposure is negligible ) Endocrine Disruptors which cause adverse effects Persistent Organic Pollutants (PoPs) Persistent Bio-accumulative and Toxic (PBT) Very Persistent / very Bio-accumulative (vpvb) These are known as the cut-off criteria 5

6 Regulation 1107/2009 Derogation - pesticides approved for five years in exceptional circumstances, if they are necessary to control a serious danger to plant health that cannot be contained within other means e.g. Asulam for bracken control Key change is the move from a risk-based to a hazard-based approvals system Under 1107/2009 rules, any level of exposure to a substance that is deemed as hazardous is considered unacceptable. It is the intrinsic properties of an active substance that are now key, rather than risk of exposure 6

7 Regulation 1107/2009 Some active substances may be approved, but deemed to be candidates for substitution This means that products containing these pesticides may have their approval removed if a safer alternative is available to control a particular weed, pest or disease problem on a crop For this to happen, the alternative product must have a significantly lower risk to human health or the environment and there must be historical experience in using the product Candidates for substitution will only be approved (or re-approved) for a reduced, seven year, period. These include: Herbicides: diflufenican, flufenacet, metsulfuron-methyl, Fungicides: cyprodinil, isopyrazam Insecticides/nematicides: pirimicarb, ethoprophos, fosthiazate, oxamyl 7

8 Endocrine disruptors With the move from a risk to hazard based assessment criteria for the approvals of pesticide active substances - endocrine disrupting active substances should be classified as a hazard However, the definition of an endocrine disruptor has been hard to develop - Public consultation response currently being evaluated on this issue Anticipated that a number of important agricultural pesticide actives could be defined as endocrine disruptors Scenario 1: Active substances most likely to be lost (within next 2 years) Scenario 2: Scenario 1 actives, plus active substances less likely to be lost unless a strict definition of endocrine disruptors is taken Scenario 3: Scenario 2, plus active substances for which there is insufficient information available to determine whether they will be classified as endocrine disruptors 8

9 9 9

10 10 10

11 Scenario 1 - Active substances most likely to be lost - 10 fungicides, 3 herbicides and 4 insecticides Large losses in edible horticulture crops: yield losses of >50% in protected salad leaves and rhubarb. Additional crops >33% reductions in yields include leeks, salad onions, asparagus, carrot, blackberry, raspberry, strawberry, and hops. Actives lost in this scenario of greatest importance in terms of value of crop impact are abamectin, thiacloprid, prochloraz, iprodione, linuron, mancozeb and tebuconazole. AHDB, December

12 Scenario 2 - Scenario 1, plus active substances less likely to be lost unless a strict definition is taken an additional 11 fungicides, 7 herbicides and 2 insecticides In scenario 2, crops expected to suffer yield losses >50% include; leeks, asparagus, baby leaf brassicas, celery, protected salad leaves, rhubarb, strawberry, and hops. Additional crops with yield losses >33% include; salad onions, beetroot, lettuce, blackberry, raspberry, pome fruit, Sweet Williams (cut flowers), sugar beet and vines. Other crops will become increasingly difficult to grow economically e.g. potatoes due to loss of metribuzin for weed control; winter oilseed rape and field beans where blackgrass is present due to the loss of propyzamide and carbetamide. The key active substances affected in scenario 2 are metribuzin (especially in potatoes), deltamethrin, 12 propyzamide, carbetamide, bupirimate and difenoconazole. 12

13 Scenario 3 - Scenario 2, plus active substances for which there is insufficient information available to determine whether they will be classified as endocrine disruptors an additional 10 fungicides, 11 herbicides (including one used as a sprout suppressant) and 8 insecticides. Crops suffering estimated yield losses >50%; bulb onions, leeks, salad onions, asparagus, beetroot, baby leaf brassicas, carrot, courgette and cucurbits, baby leaf brassicas, celery, outdoor lettuce, spinach, protected salad leaves, protected salads lettuce, blackberry, blackcurrant, raspberry, rhubarb, strawberry, pome fruit, fresh beans, fresh peas, other pulses, sugar beet, hops and vines. Additional crops with yield losses >33% include; protected peppers, cider fruit, stone fruit, bulbs and outdoor cut flowers, bedding and pot plants, hardy nursery stock, oilseed rape and potatoes. All other crops are expected to suffer at least some impact. The five most important active substances, in terms of value of crop lost if withdrawn are; chlorpropham ( 226m), thiacloprid ( 187m), metribuzin ( 167m), abamectin ( 154m) and prothioconazole ( 138m). The top five active substances in terms of the number of crops assessed impacted by their loss are lambda cyhalothrin (28 crops), chlorpyrifos (22 crops), spinosad (22 crops), thiacloprid (21 crops) and 13 deltamethrin (18 crops). 13

14 14 14

15 Impact on Potatoes key losses Scenario 1 Pesticide Importance Estimated economic loss (farmgate) Herbicides Scenario 2 Pesticide Importance Estimated economic loss (farmgate) Herbicides Linuron Fungicides 60% of ware potatoes treated in Yields will be impacted by 10% and additional costs will be incurred. 52.2m Linuron As Scenario m Metribuzin In % of ware crops were treated. Assume a 10-39% yield loss. 56m- 218m Mancozeb 80% of potato area 2012 (average No. of applications 4.4 per crop). Growers would switch to more expensive chemistry resulting in reduced gross margins. 3.4m of extra costs Fungicides Mancozeb As Scenario 1 3.4m of extra costs 15 15

16 Impact on Potatoes key losses Scenario 3 Pesticide Importance Estimated economic loss (farmgate) Herbicides Linuron As Scenario m Metribuzin As Scenario 2 56m- 218m Fungicides Mancozeb As Scenario 1 3.4m of extra costs Insecticides Scenario 3 Pesticide Importance Estimated economic loss (farmgate) Sprout suppressant Chlorpropham CIPC used to control sprouting in store. Loss of this active would have a very significant impact on storage of potatoes with production likely to drop by 25% from immediate withdrawal and no mitigations 226m Chlorpyrifos Lambdacyhalothrin Used to control cutworms. Alternative treatment is lambda-cyhalothrin however, this is at risk from the endocrine disruptor ban. 21% of ware crop area. If cypermethrin is lost, no alternative for caterpillars and if chlorpyrifos also lost there are no alternative actives for the control of cutworms. See below 0.8m 16 16

17 What about other EU directives? Drinking Water Directive Limits pesticides in drinking water: 0.1 μg/l for any individual pesticide 0.5 μg/l for total pesticide concentration Water companies supplies must meet these limits Water Framework Directive Requires drinking water protected areas (DrWPAs) to be identified and abstracted water to be treated Protection measures must be implemented in DrWPAs to avoid deterioration and reduce treatment levels Sustainable Use Directive Removed grandfather spraying rights Requirements for sprayer testing Requirement to demonstrate IPM 17

18 What about other EU directives? 18

19 Slugs are getting all the breaks The European Union has voted to revoke the use of methiocarb in slug pellets, due to their risk to graineating farm birds Sales of methiocarb molluscicides were permitted until 19 th September 2014, with growers having until 19 th September 2015 to use up stocks If slugs are left totally uncontrolled: 28m losses in winter wheat a year 18m in winter oilseed rape 53m in potatoes 19

20 Alternatives to methiocarb? Data from SASA 20 20

21 Percentage of Scottish potato crops treated with molluscicides (Mean No. of applications per crop) metaldehyde methiocarb ferric phosphate Any molluscide Ware potatoes % (2.5) 55.4% (2.3) 4.9% (2.3) 77% Seed potatoes % (1.6) 28.2% (1.6) 0 35% All potatoes % (2.4) 43.4% (2.1) 2.7% (2.3) 59% Ferric phosphate waiting in the wings as the replacement for methiocarb? Environmental concerns? EDTA? Risk to aquatic organisms still to be finalised at EU level Data from SASA 21 21

22 Concentration (µg/l) Metaldehyde in drinking water issues Metaldehyde in River Ugie (Raw water) Metaldehyde (µg/l) PCV (0.1µg/l) /06/ /09/ /11/ /04/ /01/ /06/ /08/ /08/ /05/ /03/ /01/ /10/2011 Data from Scottish Water Date 15/10/ /12/

23 Metaldehyde in drinking water issues continue Data from Scottish Water 23 23

24 Metaldehyde in drinking water Some perspective Even with the highest concentrations of metaldehyde found in tap water, the average-size person would need to drink more than 1000 litres, or one tonne, of water each and every day of their lives to get near the acceptable daily intake for metaldehyde 1,760 pints of IPA* a day! * Purely as an example there are other beers 24

25 25 25

26 26 26

27 Sprays against cabbage stem flea beetle autumn 2014 Data from HGCA 27 27

28 Resistance and loss of neonicotinoid seed treatments having an immediate impact InSyst (acetamiprid a neonicotinoid!) granted emergency 120 days from emergence approval in late Sept 2014 (but too late for many growers in England) Do we need to be concerned in Scotland? 28

29 29 29

30 % control Septoria tritici Trend in azole eradicant activity over time against Septoria 100 Half dose 100 Full dose Proline 10 Opus / Ignite

31 Fungicide resistance update Mutations or issues identified Mildew Net blotch Rhynchosporium QoI G143A F129L (G143A) Brown rust outlier Ramularia G143A SDHI Multiple Lab mutants DMI / azole Multiple Multiple Morpholine Cyprodinil Chlorothalonil 31

32 68 pages 32 32

33 Peach-potato aphid Pollen beetle Cabbage stem flea beetle Grain aphid Chickweed Black grass Wild oats Italian ryegrass Mayweeds 33 33

34 34 34

35 35 35

36 Grain aphids and resistance in English and Scottish suction trap samples 36

37 37 37

38 In Summary Losses in pesticide availability very much dependent on the classification of an endocrine disruptor Some pesticides may be lost due to other reasons e.g. metaldehyde, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, neonicotinoids, candidates for substitution etc Best case scenario Cereals, oilseeds, potatoes relatively unscathed Edible and ornamental horticulture sector badly hit Worst case scenario Cereals, oilseeds, potatoes significant impact Edible and ornamental horticulture sector severely affected Loss or restricted use will make control of weeds, disease, and pests in key UK crops far more difficult Reliance is on fewer actives could lead to pesticide resistance build-up becoming more likely 38