Legislation for plant protection in Germany and in the European Union1

The first regulations on plant protection in Germany date from the last century and the first basic rules from 1937. New legislation was published in 1968. The key basis for modern plant protection is the Plant Protection Act of 1986. The legal basis, organization and scope of legislation i n the tield of plant protection in Germany are dcscrihed. The specific role of the rederal German states (Linder) is pointed out. The competent authority for granting authorization o f plant protection products in Germany is the Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry in Braunschweig. The maximum period of authorization is 10 years. The legal basis for placing plant protection products on the market within the Member States of the European Union is summarized. together with the main elements of the regulations regarding authorization of plant protection products. There is a need for international cooperation to overcome foreseeable problem and workload regarding risk reduction in plant protection.     

Mittlere Gewichte von Obst- und Gemüseerzeugnissen

For acute dietary risk assessment purposes in the German authorization process of plant protection products, data from Great Britain have been used until now concerning the unit weights of fruits and vegetables and the highest large portion weight to estimate the intake of pesticide residues, since no corresponding data from Germany have been available. However, a project sponsored by the Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry has now been completed, resulting in comparable figures for the unit weights of the consumable part of nearly all edible crops that have to be considered. These data were drawn for the most important varieties of fruit and vegetables available on the German consumer market. In some cases, the German figures differ significantly from the British data, which could affect the estimation of the acute risk and therefore perhaps also the authorization of plant protection products for certain crops.     

Authorization of plant protection products containing microorganisms in the European Union1

The main principles concerning the authorization of plant protection products containing microorganisms in the European Union are explained: a positive list of microorganisms to be adopted by the Commission, authorization of individual plant protection products by the Member States according to common criteria and data requirements, obligation of mutual recognition of authorizations granted by other Member States subject to comparable conditions. Further detailed provisions are under preparation for the common criteria and data requirements as well as for the rationalization of the procedures for plant protection products containing genetically modified microorganisms.     

Authorization requirements for organisms as plant protection products in Austria

In Austria, beneficial arthropods and entomopathogenic nematodes ('macrobials'), as well as micro-organisms and viruses, are classified as active substances of plant protection products, according to the Federal Law on Transactions with Plant Protection Products which entered into force in 1991. Therefore, naturally occurring organisms, intended for use in the field of plant protection, must be authorized as plant protection products before they are permitted to be sold. Requirements for the authorization of macrobials, micro-organisms and viruses and the authorities involved are presented. The legislative regulations for the use of macrobials, micro-organisms and viruses as plant protection products are described. At the beginning of 1996, 35 plant protection products containing 21 different organisms have been authorized in Austria for use in agriculture, horticulture and forestry.     

Application Techniques Division of the Biologische Bundesanstalt (Germany)1

The Application Techniques Division belongs to the Department for Plant Protection Products and Application Techniques of the Biologische Bundesanstalt fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft (BBA). Its main task is to test plant protection equipment. for which there are in Germany two complementary procedures. As stipulated by the law since the middle of 1988, manufacturers and distributors are obliged. before plant protection equipment is put on the market for the first time, to produce an appropriate declaration. Manufacturers and distributors can also have their plant protection equipment, or parts of it, tested on a voluntary basis. The Application Techniques Division also cooperates in the procedure for approval of plant protection products and is involved in updating the regulations for good professional practice. The Application Techniques Division has very modern and efficient testing facilities and installations for plant protection equipment; it cooperates in research programmes with several European partners.     

Application of plant protection products by helicopter in Germany (legislation,requirements, guidelines,use in vineyards and forests,drift)1

In Germany, application of plant protection products by helicopter is only common in steep-sloped vineyards and in forests, where the use of conventional sprayers is nearly impossible. Because environment pollution, especially drift, is much higher than with ground equipment, the use of helicopters is subject to plant protection legislation as well as to air traffic regulations. BBA guidelines have been developed for application of plant protection products with aircraft. Each air-borne application must be based on a contract respecting these guidelines and must be reported to the proper authorities and announced to the public. The working airfields must be properly equipped and applications may only be performed under authorized weather conditions. The equipment of the aircraft must fulfil standards, especially for the spray tanks, the spray boom and the control devices, and so must the service stations on the ground.     

Plant protection means used in organic farming throughout the European Union

Following the obligatory implementation of integrated pest management in the European Union (EU), the plant protection means suitable for application in organic agriculture attracted the attention of quite a wide group of potential users. In spite of the common rules of organic production, as well as the uniform principles of placing plant protection products on the market, the availability of products that can be legally used in organic crop protection differs significantly among the Member States. There is a uniform list of 10 basic substances that can be used in the protection of organic crops throughout the entire EU. Twelve Member States have official registers of plant protection products for use in organic agriculture, and the total number of qualified products per country varies from 11 in Lithuania to 576 in Italy. Some products that improve plant vigour or resistance and may be of use in protection of organic crops are placed on the market as biostimulants. They fall under the law that governs fertilisers and the systems of their registration vary widely among the Member States. In addition, there exist a number of products that have been legally introduced onto the markets of some Member States without registration as a consequence of a loophole in the law. The use of unregistered products in organic agriculture raises some doubts, but currently it seems that there is no legal basis on which to explicitly prohibit the practice. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry     

Use and registration of macroorganisms for biological crop protection1

The use of macroorganisms (insects, mites and entomopathogenic nematodes) for biological pest control is increasing worldwide. Out of 281 products based on bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, nematodes and insects available for crop protection in 1992, 151 products (53.8%) consisted of macroorganisms. In Switzerland, 65.5% of the 58 products registered for biological pest control in 1995 are macroorganisms. According to published literature and personal information, it is estimated that at least 150 species of entomophagous insects and mites are mass-produced and released worldwide for biological control. While microorganisms are registered similarly to plant protection products, macroorganisms need registration only in a few countries. An increasing tendency towards regulation of macroorganisms for biological control is obvious. Based on the plant protection act of 1986, Switzerland was the first country where registration of macroorganisms became compulsory. The evaluation criteria for registration include a set of information on the bioecology of the organism, experimental data on efficacy, a simple risk assessment for environmental and human hazards and information on evaluation/registration in neighbouring countries. Positive effects of the registration are: (1) inefficacious products are kept away from the market, (2) quality control rules are respected, and (3) environmental risks and possible human hazards are assessed. Disadvantages are higher costs and sometimes delayed implementation of products. Indirect and direct costs for registration can be a serious problem for small producers and for products with minor markets. Therefore, authorities should consider the development of pragmatic and simplified registration procedures for macroorganisms that support efficacious and high-quality products on the market, minimize environmental risks and yet do not hamper the implementation of new biological products.     

Products containing microorganisms as a tool in integrated pest management and the rules of their market placement in the European Union

Products containing microorganisms (bacteria, fungi and viruses) can be used in plant production as an intervention as well as a prevention method for pest control. Their utilisation is strictly in line with the principles of integrated pest management, provided that they are effective and safe. The rules of registration of microorganisms for crop production in the European Union differ, depending on whether they are placed on the market as plant protection products or not. For over 20 years, uniform rules for registration of plant protection products have been in force. Currently, 36 microorganisms marked up to the strain are approved for use in pest control in the Community. The decision concerning market placement of plant protection products containing approved microorganisms is issued for each member state separately. The approaches to market placement of other products with microorganisms differ within the EU, ranging from a complete lack of requirements to long and costly registration procedures. © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry     

Biologically active substances from higher plants: Status and future potential

Plant breeding and selection, husbandry techniques and crop protection technology, including agrochemicals, have all made substantial contributions to the present-day level of crop productivity. However, yield losses due to disease, pests and weeds must continue to be minimized in order to meet the food supply demands from an ever growing population. Appropriate synthetic chemicals are becoming increasingly difficult to discover and develop due to stricter requirements on efficacy, selectivity, toxicology and general environmental impact. Consequently, there is a growing interest in understanding and utilising natural mechanisms as the basis for crop protection products. Plants themselves are a rich source of biologically active substances which could potentially be harnessed to modify crop growth or to protect crops against disease and pests. This review describes briefly the current status of understanding relative to plant–plant (herbicide and plant growth substances), plant–fungal (fungicide) and plant–insect (insecticide) interactions. Future prospects are considered in relation to directed synthesis, cell culture, microbial pesticides and plant genetic engineering. The opinion expressed is optimistic and suggests that science today can be utilised to secure the food supply of tomorrow. However, utilising either natural products or molecular biology may require an improved understanding of crop physiology and new developments in agronomy. Therefore, the time-frame for major impact of the ‘new’ technologies on crop productivity may be longer than is commonly predicted.     

Microbiological tests of the effects of plant protection products in soil: experience and proposals to improve ecotoxicological significance

One objective of ecotoxicological testing of plant protection products within authorization procedures is to assess, under standardized conditions, potential risks for soil microorganisms. This is only possible if some essential conditions are considered. In the past 10 years, experience has been obtained, either from authorization procedures or ecotoxicological research, which may stimulate discussion of existing or planned test methods. This includes applied microbiological test parameters (e.g. sensitivity, significance), design of the tests (e.g. dosage, mode of application, reference compounds, soils, ecological conditions, incubation time) as well as the interpretation of results. The size of tests is necessarily reduced in routine authorization procedures as compared with those within ecotoxicological research and these tests must therefore be optimized and updated to reach sufficient efficiency. From our experience, the combination of biomass-related microbial activities (e.g. substrate-induced respiration, dehydrogenase activity) with nitrogen transformation (mineralization followed by nitrification) is especially useful to identify dose-dependent effects.     

Erhebungen zur Anwendung von chemischen Pflanzenschutzmitteln in Zuckerrüben

Freely available information on the actual use of chemical plant protection products (PPPs) in agriculture is highly necessary for a number of scientific questions and political discussions. Therefore, since 2000, regular surveys on the use of PPPs have been carried out for the most important agricultural and horticultural crops in Germany (NEPTUN projects). In 2011, they were adjusted to legal framework changes. Since then they are known as PAPA surveys with “PAPA” being an abbreviation for Panel Pesticide Applications. For each crop a network of farms was built up. In each network, the PPP application data are collected annually, anonymized and forwarded to the Julius Kühn-Institute (JKI).All surveys and analyses based on the panel refer to the Federal Republic of Germany. The participating farms are distributed throughout Germany proportionally to the production area per crop.In sugar beet cultivation the results of PAPA surveys show that the plant protection intensity has increased slightly in recent years comparing the PAPA results with the years 2005 to 2010. There are diverse reasons for this development. Difficult-to-control weeds occurred on an increasing acreage in recent years. At the same time, an early appearance of foliar diseases (approximately beginning of July) combined with warm and humid weather during the following weeks leads to the development of the main pathogen causing leaf spot diseases in sugar beet (Cercospora beticola) in many regions. A continuing development of leaf spots increases the need for repeated fungicide applications. A high infestation with aphids was the dominating reason for increased insecticide applications in some years. Additional influences on the treatment index are due to changes in the authorization of PPPs.     

Pesticidal compounds from higher plants

Higher plants offer an excellent source of biologically active natural products. Over the centuries numerous plants have been exploited as sources of insecticides, but nowadays traditional botanical insecticides play only a minor role in world agriculture. Nevertheless, plant natural products still have enormous potential to inspire and influence modern agrochemical research. Few plant natural products will ever reach the market as products per se, but others will provide lead structures for programmes of synthetic chemistry and hopefully follow the success story of the synthetic pyrethroids. Structurally complex compounds, which are not amenable to synthetic chemistry programmes, may also have a role to play by validating new modes of action for pesticides. Examples are presented of compounds exhibiting insecticidal, fungicidal and herbicidal effects. Consideration is also given to the development of screening programmes to detect new compounds with interesting biological properties. Careful experimental design and thorough recording of procedures and data are crucial to success. Badly designed programmes afford only weakly active compounds or show effects which cannot be reproduced at a later date. Natural product chemistry, whether based on higher plants, micro-organisms or other sources, is a very difficult science, but there is little doubt that dedicated research will eventually be rewarded with exciting new lead structures for industrial application.     

国内外杀虫绿僵菌制剂的登记现状与剂型技术进展

生物农药在植物保护工作中日益受到重视。绿僵菌是重要的昆虫病原真菌,作为真菌杀虫剂已被成功应用于蝗虫、金龟子、象甲等多种害虫的田间防治。近40年来,已有83个绿僵菌产品在13个国家或地区获得注册,制剂研究与加工技术方面取得了新进展,可湿性粉剂、悬浮剂等传统剂型质量得到改善,超低容量剂、浸渍剂等新剂型可适应特殊应用环境,产品的防治对象涵盖范围更广。本文就国内外绿僵菌产品注册登记情况、制剂类型特性及制剂技术的载体、助剂和加工过程等主要因素进行综述,以期为我国真菌生物农药的科研、应用及产业发展提供基础依据。     

Control of soil-borne pathogens with living bacteria and fungi: Status and outlook

This review addresses some of the current problems with soil-borne pathogens and their economic importance in comparison to the total plant protection market- Possible opportunities for biological control solutions in view of the various constraints of western agricultural production are discussed. More specifically, we address the scientific, economic and conceptual hurdles which have slowed down the development of biocontrol agents. In addition, examples of biological control of soil-borne pathogens which have already reached the market or are likely to be exploited commercially within the next few years are presented. Finally, we speculate on certain developments which might become important for the further commercial development of biological control products.     

proPlant expert.com – an online consultation system on crop protection in cereals,rape, potatoes and sugarbeet*

The internet‐based system proPlant expert.com assists farmers in making field‐specific decisions on fungicide and growth regulator application in cereals, insecticide and growth regulator application in rape, and fungicide application in potatoes and sugarbeet. Any consultation is based on both agricultural data and weather reports drawn from official meteorological services. Together with information on the infestation level, the system processes this data to develop a recommendation on the application of a specific plant protection product, if necessary. Farmers and consultancies have been using the service in Germany and other European countries since 2001. Before starting the service in other countries, parts of the software had to be altered to meet the specific requirements of our partners outside Germany.     

RNA interference technology in crop protection against arthropod pests,pathogens and nematodes

Scientists have made significant progress in understanding and unraveling several aspects of double‐stranded RNA (dsRNA)‐mediated gene silencing during the last two decades. Now that the RNA interference (RNAi) mechanism is well understood, it is time to consider how to apply the acquired knowledge to agriculture and crop protection. Some RNAi‐based products are already available for farmers and more are expected to reach the market soon. Tailor‐made dsRNA as an active ingredient for biopesticide formulations is considered a raw material that can be used for diverse purposes, from pest control and bee protection against viruses to pesticide resistance management. The RNAi mechanism works at the messenger RNA (mRNA) level, exploiting a sequence‐dependent mode of action, which makes it unique in potency and selectivity compared with conventional agrochemicals. Furthermore, the use of RNAi in crop protection can be achieved by employing plant‐incorporated protectants through plant transformation, but also by non‐transformative strategies such as the use of formulations of sprayable RNAs as direct control agents, resistance factor repressors or developmental disruptors. In this review, RNAi is presented in an agricultural context (discussing products that have been launched on the market or will soon be available), and we go beyond the classical presentation of successful examples of RNAi in pest‐insect control and comprehensively explore its potential for the control of plant pathogens, nematodes and mites, and to fight against diseases and parasites in beneficial insects. Moreover, we also discuss its use as a repressor for the management of pesticide‐resistant weeds and insects. Finally, this review reports on the advances in non‐transformative dsRNA delivery and the production costs of dsRNA, and discusses environmental considerations. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry     

Regulation and use of biological control agents in Hungary

A wide range of biological control agents (BCAs) have been authorized and used in Hungary for the control of pests (including pathogens). BCAs are key elements of both integrated pest management and organic farming for different crops. Authorization of BCAs depends on the type of ‘active substance’. Micro‐organisms can be authorized under the EU Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 as plant protection products (PPP), while macro‐organisms are not within its scope. Plant protection tools (traps, mating disruption) are registered at a national level in Hungary, although mass traps and mating disruption pheromones are considered to be PPP. Plant extracts can be authorized as PPP, but some of them can be approved as a ‘basic substance’ and in this case they do not need further authorization. In Hungary, the vast majority of macro‐organisms used as BCAs have been mainly used in greenhouses and polytunnels for the control of thrips, whiteflies, aphids, leaf mining flies, phytophagous mites and lepidopteran pests in vegetable and ornamental crops. Recently a non‐indigenous chalcid wasp, Torymus sinensis, has been successfully introduced for the control of the oriental chestnut gall wasp, Dryocosmus kuriphilus, on chestnut (Castanea sativa) on different sites.     

Detection of a related difference in efficacy of azadirachtin treatments for the control of whiteflies on Gerbera jamesonii by testing for interactions in generalised linear models

BACKGROUND: Within a project cluster, systemical effects of two neem treatments (Neem Azal? U and Neem Pellet) on the number of Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westw.) in Gerbera jamesonii Flori Line Maxi were investigated. In order to minimise adverse ecological effects of a product, a new plant protection product can be declared as superior to a reference if it shows the same or a higher effect at a lower dosage. RESULTS: Based on a negative binomial model, the efficacy of the two treatments is compared by applying a user‐defined interaction contrast in a multiple‐contrast test framework. The corresponding calculation of simultaneous confidence intervals for the ratio of model parameters provides conclusions about statistical significance and biological relevance. The validity of the approach is shown by a small simulation study. As a result of the experiment, besides a significant difference between two negative control treatments, no significant difference between the efficiency of the two neem treatments (Neem Azal? U and Neem Pellet) could be detected. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous confidence intervals for linear combinations of parameters of generalised linear models provide a useful way to compare the efficiency of two plant protection products. The results for the azadirachtin experiment indicate that large differences between any application effects of either Neem Azal? U or Neem Pellet cannot be expected. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry     

Guidance on resistance risk evaluation

Evaluation of the risks of the development of resistance by pests to plant protection products is part of the (re)-registration process and is the subject of an EPPO standard. This standard indicates data requirements and the factors to be considered in evaluating resistance risk, but it does not show in detail how all these factors interrelate and should be considered in their relationships. This paper presents a decision scheme approach, providing guidance in the evaluation of the available evidence. It may also be of assistance in judging the need for optional data as indicated in the EPPO standard. The decision scheme is an aid for qualitative evaluation of resistance risks of applications of plant protection products by means of risk ranking. It recognizes six risk categories, which may overlap to some extent and should not be interpreted as absolute values. Expert judgement is called for in answering the questions of the evaluation key, which is also presented in three different flow charts. Expert judgement means, in this case only, that the evaluation should not be done in a'tick-box manner', and does not imply that evaluation is for only the super-specialist on resistance. The evaluation always concerns a given plant protection product used in a given way. It is not possible to use this guidance document for active substances only.