Deliverable 28: Specification of low risk products REBECA ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Demonstration of Risk Indicator using selected pest control agents In order to demonstrate the validity of the proposed risk indicator we applied this system to a number of well-studied biological control agents and selected chemical products used for similar purposes. Organisms scored were Bacillus thuringiensis, Beauveria brongniartii, Beauveria bassiana, Coniothyrium minitans, Metarhizium anisopliae, Pantoea agglomerans, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Trichoderma harzianum; conventional pesticides assessed were atrazine, chlorpyrifos, benomyl, DDT, methyl bromide, phorate and streptomycin. Indices were calculated using open literature and published regulatory documents. The results are displayed in Table 7. The organisms with the lowest risk indicator were soil applied fungi with very narrow host ranges when used in environments to which they are native. These organisms consistently scored low in all categories. Biocontrol agents with broader host ranges delivered by spray application typically had a higher dispersal potential and also scored higher under direct and indirect effects, but remained about one magnitude or more below conventional chemical alternatives. The highest scoring substances were DDT, methyl bromide, and chlorpyriphos. These scores were largely a consequence of high persistence and dispersal potential, combined with wide target ranges and high values assigned for direct and indirect effects. On average, biopesticides had an approximately 40 times (range 9-200) lower risk indicator than conventional products used for the same purpose. Conclusions and envisaged applications The proposed risk indicator is, to our knowledge, the first indicator to allow a direct numerical comparison of relative environmental risks posed by microbials and conventional chemical pesticides. While microbials are often reported to pose low risks to the environment (OECD, 2007), it is of critical importance for the credibility of the promoters of microbial pest control products to be able to underline such generic statements with solid data. The presented framework permits the unbiased generation of an environmental risk score for biological and chemical products on the basis of scientific and regulatory data. Key advantages of the proposed system compared to previously available risk indicator systems are (i) the applicability to biological and conventional pesticides to allow a direct comparison between products, (ii) the ability to score the risk on an application basis rather than on an active ingredient basis, (iii) the flexibility of the system that permits the use of regulatory data or published literature, and (iv) a readily understandable output. The latter allows for a broader discussion beyond the highly specialised expert community of the environmental advantages certain products may offer from an environmental risk perspective. In our analysis of selected products we found that the environmental risk score greatly varied within the assessed chemical products, and also, yet at a much lower level, within the group of microbial products. Further to this, it was demonstrated, that the use pattern of a product has a great influence on the estimated environmental risk posed by a specific product. 25
Table 7 Risk scores and calculated risk indicator for selected microbial and conventional pest control products. Active Ingredient Persistence factor Dispersal factor Distance Quantity Host Range Direct Effect Species Taxonomic level Likelihood Magnitude Indirect Effects Likelihood Magnitude Vertebrate effects Risk Score Sources Bacillus thuringiensis (foliar spray) 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 1 280 Beauveria brongniartii (soil) 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 Beauveria bassiana (foliar spray) 1 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 260 Beauveria bassiana (soil) 1 3 1 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 96 Joung & Coté (2000); Pest Management Regulatory Agency (2006c) Kessler et al. (2004); Kessler (2004); Laengle et al. (2005); Laengle (2005); Traugott et al. (2005) Vänninen et al. (2000); BIPESCO (2001); Hokkanen et al. (2003); Butt (2004); Laengle (2006); US EPA, (2006a) Vänninen et al. (2000); BIPESCO (2001); Hokkanen et al. (2003); Butt (2004); Laengle (2006); US EPA, (2006a) Coniothyrium minitans (soil) 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 24 US EPA (2002b) Metarhizium anisopliae (soil) 1 3 1 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 96 Metarhizium anisopliae (foliar spray) Pantoea. agglomerans (foliar spray) 1 3 3 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 240 1 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 98 Vänninen et al. (2000); BIPESCO (2001); Hokkanen et al. (2003); Butt (2004); Meyling et al. (2005) Vänninen et al. (2000); BIPESCO (2001); Hokkanen et al. (2003); Butt (2004); Meyling et al. (2005) Pest Management Regulatory Agency (2006a) 26
Page 1 and 2: Deliverable 28: Specification of lo
Page 3 and 4: Table of contents Introduction.....
Page 5 and 6: Further more the substances which a
Page 7 and 8: Regulator’s experiences in defini
Page 9 and 10: Bacteria directly consumed by human
Page 11 and 12: Annex I. List of taxonomic units pr
Page 13 and 14: Annex 2 Developing a risk indicator
Page 15 and 16: cannot afford the high costs for a
Page 17 and 18: esulting from microbial pest contro
Page 19 and 20: ERBIC Risk Indicator To our knowled
Page 21 and 22: The multiplication of non-target ri
Page 23 and 24: For a given chemical pesticide, the
Page 25: Indirect Effects. Indirect effects
Page 29 and 30: These results demonstrate that the
Page 31 and 32: Jaronski ST, Goettel MS & Lomer CJ
Page 33 and 34: Pest Management Regulatory Agency (

Deliverable 28: Specification of low risk products REBECA ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?