British and European community regulations and registration requirements for non-pesticidal co-formulants in pesticides and for adjuvants

Pesticides in Great Britain are subject to legislation that requires them to be approved by Ministers. Specific data for non-pesticidal co-formulants are not generally required but are encompassed within the requirements for the formulated pesticide in which they are present. Adjuvants, substances without significant pesticidal properties which enhance the effectiveness of a pesticide when added to that pesticide, can be used with pesticides only in accordance with the approval of that pesticide or as varied by lists of authorised adjuvants published by Ministers. Data must be supplied for adjuvants to appear on this list. National legislation on pesticides is soon to be amended to take account of a European Community Directive which seeks to harmonise registration requirements throughout the Community. It is as yet unclear how this will affect registration of co-formulants and adjuvants.     

Biopesticides – towards increased consumer safety in the European Union

The introduction of new food safety regulations in the European Union has resulted in the withdrawal of many synthetic active substances used in plant protection products, in light of their potential or actual harmful effect on human and animal health, as well as on the environment. Alternatives to these compounds are being developed – naturally occurring pesticides, also referred to as biopesticides. The use of biopesticides in crop protection leads to decreased levels of pesticide residues in foods, and as a result to lower risk levels for the consumer. Biologically active agents defined as biopesticides are varied, and therefore application of the same environmental and consumer safety criteria to all of them is impossible. This presents serious complications in the approval of these pesticides as active plant protection products and in their registration. It needs to be stressed that, in the registration procedure of the European Union, biopesticides are subject to the same regulations as synthetic active substances. This situation has resulted in the need to introduce numerous new provisions in the legislation, as well as the preparation of new guidelines facilitating the registration of biopesticides. These activities aim to promote naturally originating pesticides. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry     

Botanical Pesticides and Their Mode of Action

Pest management is facing economic and ecological challenge worldwide due to human and environmental hazards caused by majority of the synthetic pesticide chemicals. Identification of novel effective insecticidal compounds is essential to combat increasing resistance rates. Botanical pesticides have long been touted as attractive alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides for pest management because botanicals reputedly pose little threat to the environment or to human health. The body of scientific literature documenting bioactivity of plant derivatives to arthropod pests continues to expand, yet only a handful of botanicals are currently used in agriculture in the industrialized world, and there are few prospects for commercial development of new botanical products. Pyrethrum and neem are well established commercially, pesticides based on plant essential oils have entered the marketplace, and the use of rotenone appears to be waning. A number of plant substances have been considered for use as pest antifeedants, repellents and toxicants, but apart from some natural mosquito repellents, a little commercial success has ensued for plant substances that modify arthropod behavior. Several factors appear to limit the success of botanicals, most notably regulatory barriers and the availability of competing products (newer synthetics and fermentation products) that are cost-effective and relatively safe compared with their predecessors. In the context of agricultural pest management, botanical pesticides are best suited for use in organic food production in industrialized countries but can play a much greater role in the production and postharvest protection of food in developing countries. Botanicals have been in use for a long time for pest control. The compounds offer many environmental advantages. However, their uses during the 20th century have been rather marginal compared with other bio-control methods of pests and pathogens. Improvement in the understanding of plant allelochemical mechanisms of activity offer new prospects for using these substances in crop protection. I’m trying in this article to present different kinds of botanical pesticides came from different recourses and their mode of actions as well as I will try to examine the reasons behind their limited use (disadvantages) and the actual crop protection developments involving biopesticides of plant origin for organic or traditional agricultures to keep our environment clean and safer for humankind and animals.     

Risk assessment to honey bees: a scheme developed in France for non-sprayed systemic compounds

BACKGROUND: Directive 91/414/EEC envisages that the systemic properties of active substances, if any, are taken into account in evaluating the risk posed to the environment by plant protection products. Among others, honey bees may be exposed to substances via this route, which may pose problems when substances with high toxicity are ingested through pollen or nectar. The guidance documents in support of the risk assessment to bees within the framework of Directive 91/414/EEC do not provide detailed technical guidance on how to proceed in a risk assessment for substances with systemic properties. RESULTS: A stepwise approach aiming specifically to assess the risk posed by non-sprayed systemic substances to bees is therefore proposed. This approach first identifies substances with systemic properties, which should be quantified in plant material as pollen and nectar. Exposure estimates calculated for different categories of bees (e.g. foraging bees), based on expected concentrations of the product in pollen or nectar, may be compared with several toxicity endpoints for acute or chronic effects on adults and/or larvae with a toxicity/exposure ratio, which is a measurement of potential risks. CONCLUSION: Such a ratio is proposed to be used as a trigger for any further refined assessment that would focus on the measurement of effects at the colony level.     

A process to provide harmonised criteria for the selection of indicators for pesticide risk reduction within the framework of the sustainable use directive

In October 2009, the Council of the European Union adopted the Directive on Sustainable Use of Pesticides (EU 128/2009/EC). This directive establishes a framework to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risk and impacts of pesticide use on both human health and the environment, and promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques. These risks thus need to be assessed using appropriate risk indicators. The OPERA Research Centre organised an expert working group and has had several consultations with stakeholders in order to identify a common way of thinking in evaluating and identifying the factors that should be considered in selecting each indicator. Harmonised criteria have been suggested to allow the selection of the most appropriate indicators, focusing on the use phase of pesticide, as requested by the sustainable use directive. The proposed methodology has led to a sharing of perspectives and knowledge between the experts involved, and some principles have been identified to help national regulatory institutions to estimate general trends in pesticide risk reduction .     

给农业插上科技的翅膀：植保无人机低容量喷雾技术助力农药减施增效

十三五期间以植保无人机低容量施药技术为代表的现代航空植保产业发展迅速。科研协作研究与大量田间试验示范表明,采用植保无人机施药技术能够提高靶标作物上药液沉积量并减少农药流失,实现精准减量施药;同时能够解决地面机具无法作业时的病虫害防治问题。航空植保技术实现了人机分离作业,避免了农药中毒,降低了劳动强度,极大地提高了作业效率,达到减少农药使用量、提高农药利用率的目的。以水稻为对象,综述植保无人机在农药减量、水稻病虫害防效、技术简易性、农药利用率提升、水稻增产以及成本效益提升等发面发挥的作用。航空植保产业的迅速发展加快了植保无人机智能精准控制系统质量的提升和新技术的研发步伐,且植保无人机的普及性提出了飞防药剂、助剂和施药飘移风险控制技术研发的迫切需求,基于此进一步梳理总结了植保无人机低容量喷雾技术在农药减施增效中的作用和未来发展方向。     

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     

Basic substances: an opportunity for approval of low‐concern substances under EU pesticide regulation

Plant extracts and byproducts furnish various alternative products for crop protection and are traditionally used by farmers. However, the cost and timeframe for their registration as active substances are prohibitive for small companies and farmers' associations with the new Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. However, there is now a possibility of registering light compounds as ‘basic substances’, a new category described in Article 23 and in ‘Whereas/Recital 18’. We developed a regulatory expertise on the approval of such products within the framework of the PPP regulation. A Draft Assessment Report in one volume was established, later transformed by EC Directorate into a Basic Substance Application Template, and subsequently used by the EC as a matrix for the corresponding Guidelines for applicants (SANCO 10363/2012 rev. 9). Here we provide further tools, consisting of methodological, linguistic and strategic recommendations in order to constitute a Basic Substance Application (BSA) and proceed to its registration. While the use of alternative agents for crop protection is increasing both in organic and conventional agriculture, these usages are still considered as ‘minor uses’. Our approach and tools are valuable to non‐PPP specialised applicants for simplifying and facilitating their submission of the BSA. © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry     

Problems of implementing compulsory integrated pest management

Compulsory integrated pest management poses a number of challenges and issues for debate. Some of are discussed with reference to European Union requirements set out in Annex III of Directive 128/2009. Requirements on the use of plant protection products bring with them problems with dose reduction in the light of a resistance prevention strategy, the lack of threshold levels, the necessity of chemical treatments and the limited availability of effective products of biological origin. Use of preventive measures of pest control faces barriers related to profitability and a lack of knowledge on the part of farmers. Challenges to control the system, as well as the fact that some legally enforced rules are not suitable for all crops, seem also to be an issue. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry     

Plant Protection and Production in Modern Society1

Many currently existing agricultural production techniques have been developed in total reliance on effective chemical pest control. Today, however, it is becoming clear that chemical pest control has a number of limitations, and its ever increasing costs may well make it a limiting factor in agricultural production. This has already occurred in a number of cotton growing areas. The need for increased world food production will require improved pest control methods. If no special precautions are taken, we will undoubtedly end up in many other crops with a situation similar to that of cotton. In view of the reduced availability of new pesticides, those currently available should be used in the optimal way. At the present time, the integrated pest control approach is the best means of accomplishing this. The introduction of such programs will require official support through legislation or technical assistance. In the future, various new developments in pest control are to be expected. Greater reliance will be placed on the use of computer science. Further effort will be needed in areas such as crop loss assessment, stored product pests, technical assistance to farmers and pesticide selectivity. Closer international collaboration on plant quarantine matters and pesticide registration are essential for the future of pest control.     

International plant protection; the role of FAO

Plant protection has many international aspects; it is also quickly changing, especially in relation to sustainability. FAO’s activities in plant protection are grouped in four major thrusts: plant quarantine, pesticide management, integrated pest management and migratory pest control. The International Plant Protection Convention defines the FAO’s activities in plant quarantine, while, in response to the GATT Uruguay Round, harmonization of plant quarantine is also being undertaken. Pesticide management activities address the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and standard setting on pesticide residues. Integrated Pest Management is the core of the plant protection programme, together with international coordination of migratory pest control. All these activities are complemented by technical assistance programmes, including assistance with the establishment of plant protection services.FAO’s activities remain a compromise between what member countries see as desirable and what is affordable. Long term commitment is required to achieve result. New functions in quarantine and pesticide management have been taken up, but the international assessment of pesticides needs urgent attention. The paradigm change away from pesticide use will require further international cooperation. Substantial research and a new control system is needed for locust control.     

农药环境影响指数(EIQ)在农作物病虫害防治工作中的应用

贯彻绿色植保理念,必须科学地监测和最大限度地减少农药对人类健康和生态环境的负面影响。本文介绍了农药环境影响指数(EIQ),讨论了其在农作物病虫害防治工作中应用与局限性。     

Pesticide exposure assessment for surface waters in the EU. Part 1: Some comments on the current procedure

In 2001, the European Commission introduced a risk assessment project known as FOCUS (FOrum for the Coordination of pesticide fate models and their USe) for the surface water risk assessment of active substances in the European Union. Even for the national authorisation of plant protection products (PPPs), the vast majority of EU member states still refer to the four runoff and six drainage scenarios selected by the FOCUS Surface Water Workgroup. However, our study, as well as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), has stated the need for various improvements. Current developments in pesticide exposure assessment mainly relate to two processes. Firstly, predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) of pesticides are calculated by introducing model input variables such as weather conditions, soil properties and substance fate parameters that have a probabilistic nature. Secondly, spatially distributed PECs for soil–climate scenarios are derived on the basis of an analysis of geodata. Such approaches facilitate the calculation of a spatiotemporal cumulative distribution function (CDF) of PECs for a given area of interest and are subsequently used to determine an exposure concentration endpoint as a given percentile of the CDF. For national PPP authorisation, we propose that, in the future, exposure endpoints should be determined from the overall known statistical PEC population for an area of interest, and derived for soil and climate conditions specific to the particular member state. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry     

Towards the construction of a resistance risk evaluation scheme

Pesticide resistance management needs an indication of the risk of resistance developing in pests against pesticide applications. This paper describes an evaluation system for the ranking of these risks. The term pests includes all organisms which are causing economic damage in agriculture, including weeds and plant pathogens. The system distinguishes six broad risk categories. It is based on expert judgement of answers to a maximum of ten questions on crop husbandry, pest biology and pest control. The system has been developed for registration purposes in The Netherlands, and is currently being discussed within the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO). ©1997 SCI     

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     

Biological control and plant health in the UK1

The protected crop environment has long been recognized as offering particularly good opportunities for the application of biological control and this is reflected in the predominance of integrated pest management programmes and the wide range of biological control agents available. The introduction of new pest species of quarantine concern can often occur in glasshouse crops, as a result of international trade in plant material, and can have a highly disruptive impact upon well established, integrated pest management programmes. The use of biological control agents against quarantine pests is discussed, including both the use of exotic species and those established in the UK. The relevant legislation in the UK is outlined in relation to the introduction of non-native species, including both plant protection and conservation interests. Environmental safety aspects such as the impact of such introductions on non-target species and issues of quality control to prevent the introduction of contaminants are noted as of particular plant health interest.     

Pesticide usage in some vegetable crops in Great Britain: real on-farm applications

The last decade has seen an increasing requirement throughout the United Kingdom (UK) for accurate, timely information on pesticide usage on fresh produce such as vegetables to satisfy government legislation and provide data as part of the registration and review process of pesticides. These data, collected by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair's Pesticide Usage Survey Group (PUSG), provide information on current and past usage patterns and allow the impact of use on the environment, operator and consumer to be more accurately assessed from actual usage patterns rather than worst-case scenarios. Surveys of commercially grown carrot, Brussels sprouts and onion crops in Great Britain were undertaken at regular intervals between 1986 and 1999, using fully stratified samples of growers. Only on Brussels sprouts was there a significant decline in pesticide use over this period, but the frequency of treatments increased on all three crops, reflecting the recent introduction of more active molecules and lower dose rates. The implications for growers of EU Directive 91/44 are discussed if active ingredients are lost because they fail to achieve Annex 1 listing.     

农药雾滴雾化沉积飘失研究进展

农药、植保机械与施药技术为植物化学保护的三大支柱,其中施药技术是连接农药学科和植保机械学科的关键环节,是农药从研发到田间应用的“最后一公里”。农药科学使用并不是一个简单的选择农药和施药量的药物学问题,而是涉及作物学、植物保护学、农业工程学、气象学等多学科交叉的系统工程。本文就农药雾滴雾化与运动特性、沉积与分布状态、流失与飘失行为,以及害虫行为与农药雾滴雾化运动和沉积分布关系等方面的研究进展展开综述,总结该方面的理论与实践经验,可为提高植保机械水平与施药质量、提高农药利用率与防治效果、减轻农药负面影响、提高粮食与食品安全提供参考。     

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of accidental insect pest introduction into Switzerland and its implications for plant protection1

The purpose of this study is to assess the characteristics of accidental introduction of pest organisms into Switzerland by means of international plant trade, and to discuss its consequences for the development of plant protection strategies. We found substantial levels of infestation in samples of all producing countries included in the study. Since the use of synthetic pesticides is the main basis of pest control in the ornamental industry, the results of this study indicate that chemical pest control has reached a limit above which no further reduction of pest population levels is possible. The increased pesticide tolerance of many arthropod pests is mainly due to increased levels of resistance to pesticides caused by their excessive use. Therefore, alternative methods supplementing pesticide use are required to develop an optimal pest management strategy for the future. It is proposed that, in the Swiss ornamental production industry, pest monitoring should be the first step in this direction.     

EPPO Council Colloquium on 'Mutual recognition - theory and practice', Clermont-Ferrand (FR) 1999–09-16

The purpose of the 1999 EPPO Council Colloquium was to analyse what, in the context of registration of plant protection products, is 'mutual recognition' as proposed in EU Directive 91/414 and to understand how it is working in practice. Because few active substances are yet included in Annex I of this Directive, and because the criteria for comparability of agricultural practices, plant health and environmental conditions have yet to be worked out in practice, EU Member States do not currently find themselves obliged under the Directive to recognize authorizations given in other countries. However, Member States are working out voluntary systems of recognition for their mutual benefit. Thus, countries such as Germany and Austria, which are perceived as comparable and face no linguistic difficulties in exchanging data, are developing a voluntary system, and a general flow-chart is proposed that could be more generally used. From The Netherlands comes a proposal to use voluntary recognition to solve the problem of minor-use authorizations. EPPO's role in developing guidelines for many aspects of registration is stressed, with new possibilities in the area of assessment of comparability. Non-EU countries have more flexible possibilities for mutual recognition, based on their knowledge of other countries' systems, how they follow EPPO standards and to what extent their systems are modelled on the EU Directive.