Worst First:
High-Risk Insecticide Uses, Children's Foods and Safer Alternatives

Prepared by Consumers Union Washington, D.C.
September, 1998
This report is also available in pdf format
Return to Index

Suppose EPA took our advice and swiftly eliminated the Worst 40 insecticide uses on high consumption childrenís foods, identified in Chapter 2. Would agriculture collapse? Would consumers find wormy apples in stores, as the cost of protecting kids from insecticide residues in their foods? No, not at all.

The fact is that most growers of the nine crops on which the Worst 40 insecticide uses occur already get by without using these high-risk chemicals, or are already using them in ways that tend to minimize the risk of dietary exposure. Table 2.4 shows that about half of the Worst 40 uses leave residues in 10 percent or less of tested samples of the crop, and only one of the 40 uses, azinphos-methyl on apples, produces residues in more than half the samples the government tests.

Why? On-farm pest management is a complex art, and control of particular insect pests rarely depends on single chemicals. Growers have a veritable arsenal of both chemical and non-chemical weapons to use against insects that attack their crops. While the high-risk OP and carbamate insecticides are considered "products of choice" by many growers, because they kill so many different pests and are fast-acting and low in cost, their use on many crops has been declining for a decade or more, for several reasons.

One of the most prominent reasons farmers turn to new methods of insect control is resistance, the well-documented development of "immunity" to specific insecticides by the target pests. Many pest populations are resistant to many of the carbamates and OPs. Farmers also may choose lower-risk alternatives in the interest of worker safety, and to a degree, in response to consumer demands for safer foods. And the market for pest-control products continues to offer new, safer options.

Growers can draw on five basic categories of insect pest-management "weapons:"

1.  High Risk OP and Carbamate Uses ñ All uses of high-risk OPs and carbamates on these nine crops, including the worst 40 identified in Chapter 2.
   
   
2. Conventional Alternatives ñ Insecticides currently registered and used in recent years to manage the same insect pests that are targets of the "Worst 40" uses. These include the lower-risk OPs and carbamates shown in Table 2.3, as well as several synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, which are generally much less toxic to mammals than the high-risk OPs and carbamates.

    

3. Reduced-Risk Alternatives ñ Insecticides that typically pose significantly lower risks per acre treated, because of low application rates and/or low-toxicity. Most are quite selective (they affect just the target pest and closely related species and so have fewer side effects than the synthetic pyrethroids). This category includes insect growth regulators (IGRs) like tebufenozide, fenoxycarb and pyripoxyfen; nicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid and thiamethoxam; new aphicides pymetrozine and pirimicarb; and the miticides pyridaben and abamectin.

    

4. BioBased Alternatives -- Biologically-based insecticides and natural control products like horticultural oils, sulfur and pyrethrins. These alternatives include commercial preparations of naturally occurring bacterial and viral insecticides like Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), Nuclear Polyhedrosis Viruses, and Beauveria bassiana; pheromone products used in mating disruption and pheromone-based "Attract and Kill" feeding stations and traps; and natural biopesticides such as azadirachtin (neem) and the concentrated fermentation product spinosad, a very promising new bioinsecticide.

    

5. BioIPM Practices ñ Tactics suitable for incorporation in biointensive Integrated Pest Management systems that rely predominantly on preventing pest problems by manipulating relationships between plants, beneficial organisms and pests. BioIPM Practices include planting resistant varieties, cultural practices to avoid introduction of pathogens or eliminate habitat needed by pests, crop rotation, soil fertility and irrigation management, building and maintaining populations of natural enemies of insect pests (known as beneficials), and measures to block or disrupt reproduction.

We examined alternatives for the Worst 40 insecticide uses on the nine crops we surveyed and identified 10 to 15 alternatives that farmers can choose instead of using the high-risk OPs and carbamates on each crop. In a typical case, the choices include four or five Conventional Alternatives, two to four Reduced Risk Alternatives, three or four BioBased Alternatives, and two to four BioIPM Practices. Control of the pest problems that result in the Worst 40 uses truly presents growers with a "multiple choice" pest-management challenge.

Some important caveats need to be stated. Pest management is more complicated than simply substituting one chemical, or one technique, for another. Some of the alternative insecticides pose non-health risks that in some circumstances can be significant. For example, synthetic pyrethroids harm a wide range of beneficials and can trigger severe outbreaks of mites and other secondary pests. Switching to a new strategy to manage a chronic crop pest often requires learning new techniques of timing and application methods to minimize impacts on beneficials. It requires added attention to weather, growing conditions, the status of pest populations and their natural enemies. The transition may take some time. Sometimes, growers who elect not to use a high-risk OP or carbamate may need to use several alternatives in combination, to achieve equally effective pest control.

New reduced-risk insecticides can be effective substitutes for certain high-risk applications in some crops, especially when they are used in conjunction with a BioBased product like Bt or mating disruption. Imidacloprid (Admire) has proven very effective in controlling aphids and the Colorado potato beetle on potato farms, and has markedly lessened reliance on several OPs and carbamates. It has also made a big difference in tomato production. The biopesticide spinosad is proving effective in controlling a number of insect species, and in some cases is a one-for-one substitute for application of an OP or carbamate.

In some cases, adoption of alternatives may require more applications of insecticides than using the high-risk chemicals did. Sometimes alternative systems will include lower-risk OPs and carbamates that we identify in some crops as a high-risk use because of the prevalence of residues. But while pounds of insecticides applied may go up, risk will go down markedly, because of the vastly lower toxicity of the alternatives that replace the hazardous OPs and carbamates. Similarly, while many of the alternatives are cost-competitive with the high-risk insecticide uses, some are more expensive. Replacement of the Worst 40 uses could in some cases lead to slightly higher short-term costs for pest management. We believe, however, that any effect on consumer prices would be minimal, and that consumers would willingly absorb such slight increases in food costs in return for the accompanying reduction in risks from insecticide residues.

In the sections that follow, we examine the choices available for each of the nine crops and Worst 40 uses. In each major producing state in which one of the nine are grown, we first did a pesticide use profile, based on reports from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) of USDA. We then consulted with a wide array of pest management experts knowledgeable about that crop, and asked them about pest management methods now in use, including some that might be used more widely if EPA were to restrict the Worst 40 uses that apply to the crop in question. Our contacts included agricultural extension staff, academic and government scientists, private pest-management consultants and others. Appendix A provides notes on sources of data that we gathered on each of the nine crops.

We found many good alternative pest-management choices, as weíll detail below. We also found some surprising good news: For six of our Worst 40 insecticide-food combinations, the most recent NASS pesticide use reports show no use of that insecticide on that crop. (In the NASS surveys, if a chemical is used on less than 1 percent of harvested acres, it is reported as "no use.") In other words, U.S. growers already have essentially eliminated six of the Worst 40 uses. The six uses are: aldicarb on peaches; oxamyl on pears; azinphos-methyl and formetanate hydrochloride on grapes; acephate on peas; and chlorpyrifos on tomatoes.

Recall that our criteria for choosing the Worst 40 included frequency of detection of residues in foods that kids eat in quantity. How can there be residues, if growers are not using the chemical? A likely answer is that residues from some of these six uses occur in imported food samples, which make up a significant share of the market for some of our nine crops. That means if EPA sets much lower tolerances for these six uses, it will reduce risk for American consumers without imposing new costs on at least the vast majority of American farmers.

Here, now, are the crop-by-crop case studies. For each crop, we summarize the crop-specific insecticide uses that are on our Worst 40 list, and briefly describe the national production profile for the crop, the cropís current pesticide-use profile and major insect pest problems. (More detailed discussions of each crop will be available soon on our project web site.) We then summarize alternatives available to growers for managing the pests that require the cropís high-risk insecticide uses. Summaries are presented in tables. The Worst 40 uses, and the pest problems that they are used to control, are highlighted in bold type in the tables.

APPLES

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses:

azinphos-methyl

chlorpyrifos

methyl parathion

dimethoate

carbaryl

oxamyl

  

Production Profile: Five states account for 70 percent of the 460,000 apple-bearing acres in 1995: Washington, California, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania (Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, NASS 1998).

Pesticide Use Profile: Large differences in pesticide use exist in different apple- producing regions because of different pest and climatic conditions. Overall, 94 percent of apple acreage surveyed by USDA in 1995 were treated with an OP, an average of 5.9 times per acre. Seventy-five percent of the acres were treated with a carbamate, an average of 3.0 times. Azinphos-methyl appears to be the most widely applied insecticides in these families in the five major states.

The average apple acre in California was treated with OPs or carbamates only four times, while the average Pennsylvania acre was treated 12.5 times. The difference reflects, in part, the alternate row spraying technique favored on Pennsylvania apple farms (alternate rows are skipped in each application and lower rates are used per acre, but orchards are sprayed more often). In terms of pounds applied, Washington and Michigan growers applied the most OPs and carbamates, roughly 7 pounds per acre, while Pennsylvania growers applied only 3.9 pounds per acre (Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1995 Fruits Summary, NASS 1996).

Pest Profile: Pest problems driving OP and carbamate use on apples differ by region. In the West, codling moth, leafrollers and leafminers, aphids, and San Jose scale are the most serious apple pests. In the East, the leafroller, tufted apple budmoth, European red mite, plum curculio, apple maggot and oriental fruit moth are more likely to cause serious damage. Some insects migrate into orchards as adults and can cause serious damage. Species posing periodic problems include lygus, stinkbugs, and in the Northwest, the recently resurgent cutworm Lacanobia subjuncta.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: For nearly all apple insects driving high-risk OP and carbamate use in the top five apple producing states, we found ample, markedly safer alternatives. The one exception is plum curculio management in some New England states and Michigan. On most farms in these states, the only viable alternative to azinphos-methyl in recent years has been the lower-risk OP phosmet, use of which reduces risk but less significantly than desirable.

Apple insect pest management alternatives are listed by category in Table 3.1, below. Since Apples is the first of our nine case studies, we will discuss some identified alternatives in detail here. As we move through the case studies, readers will note that many of the same pests attack more than one of our nine crops, and the same insecticides are used to combat them, injecting an element of repetition into the alternative profiles for many of the Worst 40 uses. We will present these details but once; with only slight modifications, the descriptions of alternatives to, say, azinphos-methyl use for codling moth control, would be essentially the same for pears as they are for apples. In later cases, the tables will largely suffice.

As Table 3.1 shows, the Conventional Alternatives available to apple growers to help manage each of the target pests are likely to include some lower-risk OPs and carbamates, as well as one or two synthetic pyrethroids. But future use of two chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticidesómethoxychlor and endosulfanóis in doubt, since both are endocrine disruptors, and the environmental persistence of these insecticides enhances the risk that they will leave residues in foods.

The IGR tebufenozide (Confirm), introduced to wide commercial use in 1998, is a key new tool to augment other BioBased alternatives. If used in conjunction with phosmet at a lower application rate as an alternative to azinphos-methyl, this IGR offers a lower-risk approach for plum curculio control; it can provide an adequate level of control with reduced risk.

Plum curculio and another eastern insect pest, apple maggot, are two problems for which alternatives are thinnest. Some growers are experimenting in New England with novel trapping methods and field-edge systems in managing apple maggots. Research is underway at several Land Grant Universities to find better alternatives to control the plum curculio. This is why we foresee the need for continued use of several lower-risk OP and carbamates in eastern apple IPM programs.

Table 3.1. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Apple Production

	High-Risk OP/Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
APPLE PESTS
Codling Moth	Azinphos-methyl Methyl Parathion Carbaryl	Esfenvalerate Phosmet Malathion Methomyl	Fenoxycarb+ Tebufenozide+ Other IGRs DPX-MP062+	Spinosad Codling Moth Pheromone   Bt Narrow range Oils	Mating Disruption Release of Trichogramma platneri
Leafrollers/ Leafminers	Chlorpyrifos Methyl Parathion Dimethoate Carbaryl Oxamyl	Esfenvalerate Permethrin Phosmet Methomyl Endosulfan* Fenbutatin-oxide Malathion	Abamectin Imidacloprid Tebufenozide+ Fenoxycarb+ Pyriproxyfen+ Buprofezin+	Spinosad   Bt Sprayable pheromones Narrow range Oils	Mating Disruption+ Culture of non-pest leafroller species to build natural enemies
Plum Curculio (Eastern States)	Methyl Parathion Azinphos-methyl	Esfenvalerate Permethrin Phosmet Malathion Methoxychlor*	?	?	?
Apple Maggot (Eastern States)	Chlorpyrifos Methyl Parathion Carbaryl Diazinon Formetanate HCL	Phosmet Esfenvalerate Methoxychlor*	Imidacloprid IGRs+	Attract and Kill Systems	Trap crops and border sprays+
Oriental Fruit Moth (OFM)	Chlorpyrifos Methyl Parathion	Esfenvalerate Phosmet	DPX-MP062+	Bt OFM Pheromone	Mating Disruption Braconid wasps++
Mites	Dimethoate Oxamyl Carbaryl Methidathion Diazinon Formetanate HCL	Dicofol Endosulfan* Fenbutatin-oxide	Abamectin Pyridaben Clofentezine Hexythiazox Fenazaquin+	Horticultural Oils	Release of predacious mites
Lygus and Stinkbugs	Chlorpyrifos Methyl Parathion Azinphos-methyl Dimethoate Oxamyl Carbaryl Formetanate HCL	Esfenvalerate Malathion Methomyl Endosulfan* Fipronil+		Pyrethrins Rotenone Attract and Kill Systems	Suppress weed hosts Trap crops and border sprays+

* Endosulfan and methoxychlor are endocrine disruptors. Future apple uses are in doubt.

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

++ The most common species that is effective is Macrocentrus ancylivorus (Mahr 1998).

Two or more tactics/products may be required to replace high-risk uses of OPs and carbamates in orchards with dense pest populations. For example, tebufenozide (Confirm) has not provided acceptable control when used alone in Washington State orchards with severe codling moth or leafroller problems. But used in conjunction with mating disruption or an application of Bt, the "combination of tactics provided excellent protection of the crop at all locations [tested]," according to Washington State University (WSU) entomologist Jay Brunner (Brunner 1998).

Several new alternatives are available or soon to gain full registration for control of the two pests driving most insecticide use in western apple orchardsócodling moth and leafrollers. WSU trials with fenoxycarb (Comply) and spinosad (Success, SpinTor) have had promising results. In his January 1998 review of new chemistry, Brunner states that fenoxycarb "should be an ideal tool to use in IPM systems as a highly selective control against [moth pests] while preserving natural enemies." About spinosad, Brunner reports it "has been shown to provide excellent control of leafrollers and leafminer." Grower interest in alternatives is heightened by WSU data confirming that the effectiveness of both methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos is slipping, and that other high-risk insecticides, including azinphos-methyl, diazinon, dimethoate, and oxamyl, provide "poor or no control" of leafrollers.

PEARS

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses:

azinphos-methyl

methyl parathion

phosmet

carbaryl

oxamyl

Production Profile: Three states, California, Washington, and Oregon, accounted for 92 percent of the 70,000 pear-bearing acres in 1995.

Pesticide Use Profile: Ninety percent of the pear acres surveyed by USDA in 1995 were treated with one or more OPs, and 20 percent received one or more carbamate applications. The average pear acre was treated 3.1 times with OPs and carbamates were applied an average of 1.7 times. Because most pear production is within three western states, pest problems are similar, and state-to-state differences in pesticide use are small. Azinphos-methyl is the dominant OP used on pears. Eighty percent of the acreage surveyed by USDA in 1995 was treated with azinphos-methyl, an average of 2.6 times per year. Eight other OPs and carbamates were applied on from three to 16 percent of acres surveyed (Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1995 Fruits Summary, NASS 1996).

Table 3.2. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Pear Production

	High-Risk OP/Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
PEAR PESTS
Codling Moth	Azinphos-methyl Methyl Parathion Phosmet Carbaryl Chlorpyrifos	Esfenvalerate Malathion Methomyl	Fenoxycarb+ Tebufenozide Pyripoxyfen+ Buprofezin+ Diflubenzuron+ DPX-MP062+	Spinosad+ Neem   Bt Oils Granulosis virus Pheromones -- Isomate C+, Checkmate CM Sirene CM	Mating Disruption Release of Trichogramma platneri
Leafrollers/ Leafminers	Azinphos-methyl Methyl Parathion Phosmet   Oxamyl Carbaryl Dimethoate Diazinon	Esfenvalerate Permethrin Methomyl Endosulfan* Fenbutatin- oxide Malathion	Abamectin Spinosad+ Imidacloprid Tebufenozide+ Fenoxycarb+ Pyriproxyfen+ Buprofezin+	Spinosad   Bt	Mating Disruption+ Augment, preserve populations of parasites by avoiding broad spectrum sprays
San Jose Scale and Pear Pyslla	Oxamyl Methyl Parathion Carbaryl Dimethoate Diazinon Chlorpyrifos	Esfenvalerate Permethrin Amitraz Endosulfan* Oxythioquinox	Abamectin Fenoxycarb+ Other IGRs+	Spinosad+ Pyridaben Horticultural Azadirachtin Insecticidal Soaps Oils	Plant resistant rootstock Maintain beneficials
Lygus and Stinkbugs	Methyl Parathion Azinphos-methyl Carbaryl Oxamyl Chlorpyrifos Dimethoate Formetanate HCL	Esfenvalerate Malathion Methomyl Endosulfan* Fipronil+		Pyrethrins Rotenone Attract and Kill Systems	Trap crops and border sprays+ Reduce weed hosts

* Endosulfan is an endocrine disruptor. Future pear use is in doubt.

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

__________________________________________________________________

Pest Profile: Pests driving OP and carbamate use on pears include: codling moth, San Jose scale, grape mealybug, pear psylla, leafrollers, and mites. Codling moth and the pesticides used to control it are responsible for the lionís share of childrenís pesticide exposure from pears.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: Pear growers have many options that would allow them to eliminate or significantly reduce their OP and carbamate use. As Table 3.2 shows, most of the key pests of pears and high-risk insecticides used against them are the same as described in the Apples case study, and many of the same alternatives apply to both crops.

PEACHES

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses:

azinphos-methyl

chlorpyrifos

diazinon

methyl parathion

phosmet

formetanate hydrochloride

aldicarb

carbaryl

 

Production Profile: Four states, California, New Jersey, Georgia and South Carolina accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 170,000 peach acres nationally in 1995. California alone accounts for 35 percent of all bearing acres (Noncitrus Fruits Summary, NASS 1998).

Pesticide Use Profile: Use of OPs and carbamates on peaches is high compared to that on other fruit crops. Nationally, 81 percent of peach acres were treated with an OP an average 4.6 times in 1995, and 29 percent of acres were treated an average 2.3 times with a carbamate. On average, 2.9 pounds of insecticides from these two families were applied per acre in the top four states in 1995, with higher use rates in eastern states and lower rates in California. Methyl parathion is the most widely used insecticide in peach production; roughly half the acres surveyed by USDA in 1995 were treated with this high-risk chemical.

Pest Profile: Pests driving OP and carbamate use on peaches include peach twig borer and San Jose scale, omnivorous leaf roller in the West and plum curculio, oriental fruit moth, rose chafer and various boring insects in the East.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: Peach growers have a wide range of available and emerging alternatives. As Table 3.3 shows, many of the pests, high-risk insecticide uses and pest-management alternatives are the same for peaches as those described earlier for apples. As for apples, pest problems and the importance of individual alternatives vary from region to region and state to state.

Table 3.3. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Peach Production

 

	High-Risk OP/Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
PEACH PESTS
Peach Twig Borer (PTB)	Methyl Parathion Diazinon Chlorpyrifos Phosmet Carbaryl Methidathion	Esfenvalerate Permethrin Endosulfan*	Fenoxycarb Tebufenozide Other IGRs+ DPX-MP062+	Bt PTB Pheromone Spinosad Narrow range oil	Mating Disruption Predacious mites*** Sustain chalcid wasps
Scale Species	Chlorpyrifos Diazinon   Carbaryl Formetanate HCL Methidathion Ethion	Malathion	Pyripoxyfen+ Buprofezin+ Diofenalen+ Sulfur	Spinosad Narrow range oil   Beauvaria Bassiana+	?
Omnivorous Leaf Roller (OLR)	Phosmet Diazinon	Esfenvalerate Permethrin	Tebufenozide Other IGRs+	Bt OLR Pheromone Spinosad	Mating Disruption
Oriental Fruit Moth (OFM)	Azinphos-methyl Diazinon   Phosmet Carbaryl	Methomyl Esfenvalerate	DPX-MP062+ Fenoxycarb	OFM Pheromone Spinosad	Mating Disruption
Plum Curculio	Azinphos-methyl Methyl Parathion Diazinon   Phosmet	Esfenvalerate	?	?	?
Rose Chafer	Methyl Parathion	Esfenvalerate Endosulfan	?	?	?

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

* Endosulfan is an endocrine disruptor. Future use is in doubt.

*** An important predacious mite being used in peach orchards is Galendroma occidentalis, applied at 2,000 per acre (personal communication, Tom Branson, Sierra Ag, see Appendix A for more details).

 _________________________________________________________________

 GRAPES

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses:

 

azinphos-methyl

chlorpyrifos

dimethoate

formetanate hydrochloride

carbaryl

methomyl

 

Production Profile: Five states accounted for nearly all of the nationís 754,000 grape-bearing acres in 1995, and California alone accounted for 86 percent. Most of the remaining acres are in Washington, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania (Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, NASS 1998).

Pesticide Use Profile: Grape producers rely less on OP and carbamate insecticides than growers of the other four fruit crops in our survey. In 1995, only 18 and 20 percent, respectively, of grape acres surveyed by USDA were treated with one or more organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Each acre was treated 1.3 and 1.4 times, on average. Insecticide use varies regionally: Less than 20 percent of western grape acreage was treated with an OP or carbamate, but nearly 60 percent of the acres in the three eastern grape-producing states were treated with carbaryl, a typically lower-risk carbamate. But in the case of grapes, we identify carbaryl as a "high-risk" use because residues have been found in over 5 percent of samples tested in recent years (one of the criteria set forth in Chapter 2). The most widely used high-risk insecticide on grapes in California in 1997 was methomyl, which was applied on about 7 percent of acres.

Pest Profile: Pests driving OP and carbamate use on grapes include: Grape berrymoth, grape skeletonizer, mealybugs, omnivorous leafrollers, leafminers, leafhoppers, thrips and mites.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: Grape producers have many pest control options. The diversity of choices and the relatively mild pest problems in western vineyards, where IPM is extensively used, mean most growers are already relying primarily on safer alternatives, not high-risk OPs and carbamates. Table 3.4 displays the available choices.

Table 3.4. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Grape Production

	High-Risk OP/Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
GRAPE PESTS
Grape Berrymoth	Azinphos-methyl Chlorpyrifos Carbaryl Methomyl Methyl Parathion Diazinon	Phosmet	Tebufenozide+ DPX-MP062+	Spinosad   Bt Pheromones	Mating Disruption
Omnivorous Leafrollers	Carbaryl Methomyl Diazinon	Cryolite Phosmet	Tebufenozide Imidacloprid	Bt Pheromones	Cultural Practices (removal of basal leaves)
Grape Skeletonizer	Azinphos-methyl Methomyl	Phosmet Cryolite	IGRs+	Granulosis virus	Release of Parasites**
Grape Mealybug	Chlorpyrifos Dimethoate Azinphos-methyl Methyl Parathion Naled	Phosmet Malathion	IGRs+	Spinosad Neem Narrow range oil   Bt+	Release of parasitic wasps++
Leafhoppers Leafminers	Dimethoate Methomyl Carbaryl Diazinon Naled	Phosmet Endosulfan* Cryolite	Imidacloprid	Spinosad Insecticidal soaps Pyrethrins   Bt	Augment lacewing, minute pirate bug, other beneficial insect populations Remove weed hosts

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

* Endosulfan is an endocrine disruptor. Future use is in doubt.

** The two species are Aoanteles harrisinae and Amedoria miselia (Grape Crop Guide, see Appendix A).

_____________________________________________________________

Oranges

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses:

methidathion

chlorpyrifos

carbaryl

 

Production Profile: Two states, Florida and California, accounted for 95 percent of the nationís orange-producing acreage in 1995. Florida produces oranges primarily for processing (into juice), while most of Californiaís oranges are consumed fresh (Citrus Fruits: 1997 Summary, NASS 1997).

Pesticide Use Profile: Thirty-five percent of orange-bearing acres in 1995 were treated with one or more OPs an average of 1.8 times, and 21 percent were treated with one or more carbamates an average of 1.5 times. OP and carbamates reliance is substantially lower in Florida than in California where cosmetic standards for fresh oranges drive most insecticide use. The average acre in Florida is treated with less than one pound of OPs and carbamates, predominantly at planting or early in the season, reducing the likelihood of residues (C. Mellinger, personal communication). Meanwhile, the average orange acre in California is treated with 4.9 pounds of OPs and carbamates, mostly during the growing season. For example, chlorpyrifos was applied to about half the California orange acres at a rate of 4.8 pounds per acre per year, while in Florida, just 7 percent of acres were treated with chlorpyrifos at a rate of 1.7 pounds per acre per year (Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1995 Fruits Summary, NASS 1996).

Our analysis was largely completed before USDA released pesticide use data for 1997, but the most recent figures show some changes in use patterns for high-risk insecticides on oranges. Chlorpyrifos use in California almost doubled between 1995 and 1997, in part because acres treated with dimethoate, another high-risk OP, declined sharply. In Florida there were across-the-board reductions in high-risk OP and carbamate use between 1995 and 1997. The difference in trends in the two states reflects the sensitivity of fresh-market growers to damage from California red scale, an insect that can cause minor blemishing on the peels of oranges.

Pest Profile: Pests driving OP and carbamate use on oranges include California red scale, citrus leafminer, brown citrus aphid, thrips and in some years, ants.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: Several lower-risk alternatives are already in use on much of the orange acreage in Florida and California, and can be drawn upon more widely as high-risk insecticides are phased out. Table 3.5 summarizes these alternatives.

The recent registration of pyripoxyfen will provide California growers a key new tool in managing scale. Other IGRs are also in the development pipeline that show promise in managing citrus pests. We also expect that carbaryl can remain an important insecticide in helping growers manage resistance to pyripoxyfen and other IGRs, as well as in dealing with unexpected outbreaks, assuming EPA structures a series of label changes designed to reduce the frequency and levels of residues. With a well-structured set of label changes, EPA could convert this high-risk use to one posing very modest dietary risk.

Table 3.5. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Orange Production

	High-Risk OP/Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
ORANGE PESTS
Brown Citrus Aphid	Chlorpyrifos Carbaryl Diazinon Dimethoate Disulfoton Aldicarb	Fenbutatin Oxide Cyfluthrin	Pymetrozine+ Imidacloprid+ Pyridaben+	Horticultural oil Pyrethrins/ Rotenone Insecticidal Soaps	Maintain beneficials
Scale Species	Chlorpyrifos Methidathion Carbaryl Azinphos-methyl Formetanate HCL Ethion	Malathion	Pyripoxyfen Diofenalen+ Sulfur	Spinosad Narrow range Oil   Beauvaria Bassiana+	Release of parasitic wasps++ Control ants
Citrus Thrips	Methidathion Carbaryl Dimethoate Formetanate HCL	Cyfluthrin Fipronil+	Chlorfenapyr Abamectin Pyridaben+	Spinosad Sulfur Sabadilla   Beauvaria Bassiana+	Predatory Mites Avoid broad spectrum sprays
Ants	Chlorpyrifos Carbaryl Formetanate HCL		?	Pyrethrins Polybutenes on tree trunks	Skirt prune trees Apply sticky materials

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

_____________________________________________________________

GREEN BEANS

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses: methyl parathion

methamidophos

dimethoate

acephate

carbaryl

 

Production Profile: Nearly three-quarters of the 304,000 acres of green beans nationwide in 1996 was planted for the processing market. Four statesóWisconsin, Oregon, Michigan and New Yorkóaccount for 60 percent of the processing bean acreage, with Wisconsin dominating production. Two states, California and Florida, account for over half of the acreage devoted to the fresh market (Vegetables: 1997 Summary, NASS 1998).

Pesticide Use Profile: Sixty-six percent and 33 percent of processing green bean acreage surveyed by USDA in 1996 was treated with at least one OP or at least one carbamate, respectively. OPs were applied an average of 1.8 times per acre and carbamates an average of 1.1 times per acre. OPs dominate insecticide use in the top four states surveyed, accounting for 86 percent of the acre treatments. Nearly one-third of the processing crop surveyed was treated with methyl parathion in 1996. In Wisconsin, where most beans are grown for processing, methyl parathion accounted for half of all the insecticide treatments, acephate for 42 percent, and dimethoate for the remainder. Less toxic OPs tend to be applied to beans produced for the fresh market (Vegetables, 1996 Summary, NASS, July 1997).

Pest Profile: Insects driving OP and carbamate use on green beans included thrips, European corn borer, leafhoppers, aphids, fleabeetles, worms, and stinkbugs.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: Table 3.6 displays an array of alternatives available for control of these pest problems on green beans. Emerging BioBased alternatives such as spinosad offer great promise for effective control of several major pests on green beans, especially if used in combination with other methods to assure good season-long control and to avoid the emergence of resistance.

Table 3.6. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used on Green Beans

	High-Risk OP/ Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
GREEN BEAN PESTS
Thrips	Acephate Methyl Parathion Disulfoton	Methomyl	Thiamethoxam+ Pyridaben+	Spinosad Azadirachtin Pyrethrins Horticultural Oil Insecticidal Soaps	Crop rotation
European Corn Borer	Acephate Methyl Parathion Dimethoate Carbaryl	Bifenthrin Esfenvalerate Fipronil+ Methomyl	DPX-MP062+	Spinosad Pyrethrins   Bt	Pheromone Trap Cropping Crop rotation
Leafhoppers Leafminers	Acephate Methyl Parathion Dimethoate Carbaryl Naled Diazinon Disulfoton Aldicarb	Bifenthrin Esfenvalerate Methomyl Malathion Endosulfan*	Pymetrozine+ Imidacloprid	Pyrethrins Azadirachtin   Bt Insecticidal Soaps Horticultural Oil Rotenone	Augment, preserve populations of parasites by avoiding broad spectrum sprays Crop rotation
Aphids	Acephate Methyl Parathion Dimethoate Carbaryl Diazinon Naled Disulfoton	Bifenthrin Esfenvalerate Permethrin Methomyl	Pymetrozine+ Imidacloprid	Horticultural oil Pyrethrins Insecticidal Soaps Rotenone	Release of lacewings, other beneficials Crop rotation
Bean beetles	Methyl Parathion Acephate Azinphos-methyl Dimethoate Carbaryl Diazinon Disulfoton	Malathion Bifenthrin Esfenvalerate Endosulfan*	?	Pyrethrins Azadirachtin Rotenone	Alter timing of planting Crop rotation
Worms	Acephate Methyl Parathion Carbaryl Diazinon Chlorpyrifos	Methomyl Esfenvalerate Endosulfan* Fipronil+	Tebufenozide Other IGRs+ Pyridaben DPX-MP062+	Spinosad Azadirachtin   Bt Pyrethrins	Crop rotation Residue management

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

* Endosulfan is an endocrine disruptor. Future use is in doubt.

_____________________________________________________________

PEAS

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses: dimethoate acephate

Production Profile: Four states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington account for 80 percent of all acreage planted for peas. Minnesota and Wisconsin together, account for over half of the national acreage.

Pesticide Use Profile: Pea producers appear to rely less on OPs and carbamates than growers of other vegetable crops consumed in quantity by children do. Pea growers in Minnesota and Wisconsin reported no use of OPs or carbamates; all reported use of these insecticides in 1996 was applied to Oregon and Washington acreage. Growers there apply the chemicals, on average, just once per growing season. Half the acreage in Washington and Oregon was treated with dimethoate.

Pest Profile: One pestóaphidsódrives most use of high risk OPs and carbamates on peas. "Worms" (a generic term often used to describe larvae of Lepidopteran insects, the moths and butterflies) are minor pests of peas.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: Table 3.7 displays a range of alternatives for managing this comparatively small cluster of pest problems.

Table 3.7. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Pea Production

	High-Risk OP/ Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
PEA PESTS
Aphids	Acephate Dimethoate Diazinon Methyl Parathion	Esfenvalerate Methomyl Malathion Bifenthrin+	Pymetrozine Imidacloprid	Spinosad Horticultural oil Pyrethrins Insecticidal Soaps	Crop rotation Avoid fungicide sprays that damage fungi
Lepidopteran Pests/Worms	Acephate Dimethoate Methyl Parathion	Esfenvalerate Methomyl Carbaryl Bifenthrin+	Tebufenozide+ Pyripoxyfen+ Other IGRs+ Imidacloprid DPX-MP062+	Spinosad   Bt	Crop rotation Residue management

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

__________________________________________________________________

Potatoes

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses: methamidophos

aldicarb

Production Profile: Six states account for 80 percent of the acreage planted to fall potatoes. Idaho is the industry leader, accounting for about one-third of all acreage. Washington, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine also account for significant shares of national production.

Pesticide Use Profile: OPs and carbamates were used on 52 percent and 50 percent respectively of the fall potato acres surveyed by USDA in 1997. OPs were applied an average 1.6 times and carbamates, 1.3 times. Methamidophos, azinphos-methyl, dimethoate, phorate, carbofuran, and aldicarb are the predominant insecticides of these families used in potato production

Since the edible portion of a potato crop remains below the ground until harvest, pesticides applied during the growing season rarely leave residues in the food as consumed. An exception is systemic pesticides (which are taken up by plants and transported into all growing tissue). Aldicarb is a systemic insecticide 

Aldicarb, the most acutely toxic pesticide on the market, is used on a small but growing percentage of potato acreage. Growers in Idaho applied, on average, 2.6 pounds of aldicarb per acre on 11 percent of planted acreage in 1997, an increase from only 1 percent in 1996. Washington potato producers applied aldicarb to 28 percent of acres planted in 1997, up from 18 percent in 1996.

Insecticide use trends vary markedly among potato-producing states. The intensity of use is rising in Idaho, is falling in Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Maine, and is stable in other states. Wisconsin growers, in particular, have significantly reduced reliance on high-risk OPs and carbamates. In just two years, Wisconsin growers phased out use of three high-risk insecticidesóazinphos-methyl, carbofuran and oxamylóand reduced methamidophos use by 75 percent. During the same period, use of high-risk insecticides in Idaho increased substantially.

Pest Profile: Major pests driving OP and carbamate use in the major potato production areas are the green peach aphid and the Colorado potato beetle, two pests that have grown resistant to several OP and carbamates in many producing regions, heightening interest in IPM and new insecticides. Wire worms and nematodes, non-insect pests, also account for some use of high-risk OPs in western states.

Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates: Integrated pest management, combining cultural practices such as soil nutrient management, weed control, applications of microbial bioinsecticides, and use of lower risk chemicals, has already been adopted by many potato producers. The preferred lower-risk insecticide imidacloprid (Admire) has made a major difference, reducing reliance on methamidophos in managing the green peach aphid and reducing use of several high-risk insecticides applied for Colorado potato beetle. Resistance to this new chemical has become a concern, and growers will continue to need an array of alternatives. Table 3.8 displays the major alternatives currently available for potato insect control.

Table 3.8. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Potato Production

	High-Risk OP/ Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
POTATO PESTS
Green Peach Aphid	Methamidophos Azinphos-methyl Carbofuran Diazinon Dimethoate	Methomyl Malathion Esfenvalerate Permethrin Endosulfan*	Pymetrozine Imidacloprid Abamectin Pirimicarb+	Spinosad Horticultural oil Pyrethrins	Crop rotation Managing nutrients to deter aphid feeding Release of Aphelinus asychis++
Colorado Potato Beetle	Aldicarb Methamidophos Azinphos-methyl Diazinon Disulfoton Carbofuran Phorate Fonofos	Carbaryl Endosulfan* Fipronil+	Imidacloprid Tebufenozide+ Methoxyfenozide+ DPX-MP062+	Beauvaria Bassiana Spinosad   Bt Pyrethrins	Crop rotation Landscape management Barriers to Beetle movement Microbes that alter freezing temperature**

* Endosulfan is an endocrine disruptor. Future use is in doubt.

Spinosad is now registered for potato use as a primary control for aphids and a supplemental tool in Colorado potato beetle management. Fipronil, another new active ingredient with a novel mode of action, showed the best early season control of Colorado potato beetle of any insecticide tested by the University of Washington in 1997 trials (Long 1998). Thiomethoxam, another nicotinoid, is also likely to be valuable used in rotation with other insecticides in managing this major pest.

Tomatoes

"Worst 40" Insecticide uses: azinphos-methyl

chlorpyrifos

methamidophos

Production Profile: Two states, Florida and California, account for more than half of the 128,000 acres planted for fresh market tomatoes. California alone accounts for 92 percent of the 345,000 tomato acres planted for processing nationally. Our analysis focuses on fresh tomatoes, but pest problems and management alternatives for processing tomato producers are similar.

Pesticide Use Profile: In USDAís 1996 survey, 55 percent of the fresh tomato acres were treated with one or more OPs, and 59 percent were treated with one or more carbamates. OPs were applied an average of 3.8 times, carbamates 2.8 times per acre. Methamidophos was used on 47 and 66 percent of fresh tomato acres in Florida and California in 1996, respectively. Late-season applications account for the relatively high frequency of methamidophos residue detection on tomatoes. Azinphos-methyl was applied to 14 percent of fresh tomato acres in New Jersey, but no use was reported in the major tomato producing states.

 Chlorpyrifos residues were found in about 10 percent of tomatoes tested by the PDP in 1996. Most of the residues are very likely in imported tomatoes. USDA reported no use of chlorpyrifos on tomatoes in 1996. USDAís 1994 vegetable survey found extensive chlorpyrifos use on Florida tomatoes. It appears, therefore, that in this case a substantial shift away from a high-risk insecticide in the U.S. was not matched by at least some foreign growers.

Table 3.9. Alternatives to High-Risk OPs and Carbamates Used in Tomato Production

 

	High-RiskOP/ Carbamate Uses	Conventional Alternatives	Reduced Risk Alternatives	BioBased Alternatives	BioIPM Practices
TOMATO PESTS
Aphids	Methamidophos Diazinon Dimethoate Oxamyl	Endosulfan* Lindane Esfenvalerate Cyfluthrin Cyhalotrin Malathion Methomyl Fipronil+	Imidacloprid Pymetrozine+ Fenoxycarb+	Spinosad Horticultural oil Pyrethrins Rotenone Insecticidal Soaps	Maintain predators Reflective mulches Avoid damage to beneficial fungi Crop rotation
Whiteflies	Azinphos-methyl Methamidophos Oxamyl	Permethrin Esfenvalerate Cyfluthrin Cyhalotrin Malathion Endosulfan* Methomyl Fipronil+	Imidacloprid Pyridaben+ Thiomethoxam+	Spinosad   Beauvaria Bassiana Insecticidal Soaps Azadirachtin Pyrethrins	Reflective mulches Enhance populations of predacious wasps Plant away from alternative hosts
Lepidopteran Pests/Worms	Methamidophos Chlorpyrifos Azinphos-methyl Diazinon	Fenpropathrin Carbaryl Methomyl Endosulfan* Esfenvalerate Cyfluthrin Cyhalotrin Permethrin	Imidacloprid Chlorfenapyr Tebufenozide Emamectin benzoate Thiomethoxam+ DPX-MP062+	Spinosad   Bt Azadirachtin NPV Tomato Pinworm Pheromone Pyrethrins	Mating Disruption Release of parasitic wasps++ Tillage to destroy residues Crop rotation
Leafminer	Azinphos-methyl Dimethoate Diazinon Acephate Oxamyl	Bifenthrin Cyromazine Esfenvalerate Cyfluthrin Cyhalotrin Permethrin Carbaryl Methomyl Malathion Endosulfan*	Abamectin Emamectin benzoate Chlorfenapyr Tebufenozide+ Thiomethoxam+	Spinosad Pyrethrins Horticultural Oils	Crop rotation Build populations of non-damaging species
Mites	Oxamyl Disulfoton	Dicofol Malathion Endosulfan*	Abamectin Pyridaben Fenazaquin+	Sulfur Horticultural Oils
Thrips	Methamidophos Chlorpryifos Azinphos-methyl Oxamyl	Esfenvalerate Permethrin Cyfluthrin Malathion	Imidacloprid	Spinosad   Bt Sulfur Pyrethrins Horticultural Oils Insecticidal Soaps

* Endosulfan is an endocrine disruptor. Future use is in doubt.

+ Tactic or use not yet labeled and/or under development.

++ For Tomato fruitworm, the dominant parasite is Trichogramma pretiosum (see Appendix A for details).

Pest Profile: In Florida, leafminers and whiteflies can spread damaging viral diseases. Lepidopteran pests, such as armyworms also can trigger the need for OP and carbamate applications. In California, aphids drive most OP and carbamate use. Secondary pests include mites and thrips.

Alternatives to High-Risk OP and Carbamates: Reliance on high-risk OPs and carbamates on tomatoes has been declining for a number of years as growers have attempted to lessen secondary pest problems induced by broad-spectrum insecticide use and manage resistance. A number of sophisticated, multitactic pest management systems have developed. Viable reduced risk alternatives are not only registered for use on fresh tomatoes, but they are already in use in most tomato operations. Some important new products have also recently come onto the market. Accordingly, the decline in use of high-risk OPs and carbamates on tomatoes should continue. The range of current alternatives is displayed in Table 3.9.

Biologically-based, multitactic pest management systems are available to control nearly all insect pests in the nine crops we studied, and a growing percentage of growers are adapting them to their unique operations. These IPM systems minimize the need for high-risk OP and carbamate uses through tactics like mating disruption, applications of IGRs, and targeted applications of biopesticides like Bt or spinosad. Where pest problems are already severe or becoming so, these tactics are generally augmented with changes in cultural and BioIPM practices that diversify or enhance populations of beneficials.

Farmers are developing and adopting such systems because they are more resilient and effective. Managed well, they reduce the risk of resistance and lessen the need for costly and hazardous applications of high-risk chemicals. But the alternatives are typically more complicated than those based on OP or carbamate use; they strive to spread the burden of managing insects across a number of sometimes-redundant practices and tactics.

Overall, there is a positive trend away from broad-spectrum insecticides, and a healthy pace of innovation. USDAís 1997 fruit and 1996 vegetable pesticide use data show that reliance on high-risk OPs and carbamates is approaching zero in more than a third of our Worst 40 crop-insecticide combinations; as noted earlier, no use was reported in six cases.

But some pesticide companies are fighting hard to preserve or expand market share by aggressive defense of their products and by further lowering the already typically modest price of certain high-risk OP and carbamate products. The recent comeback of aldicarb use on potatoes and the marked upward trends in methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos use on key crops since 1995 are signs of this sobering trend. Patterns of increasing OP and carbamate use accentuate the need for EPA to move forward and implement the FQPA. If progress stalls, OP and carbamate risks might well rise in at least a few of the crops studied, including potatoes, pears and apples.

No heroic assumptions are required to identify ample alternatives to the Worst 40 food-insecticide combinations for nearly all the crops and insects we surveyed. The only major exceptions are plum curculio management in eastern apple and peach production, and control of some invading adult insects in certain circumstances on other crops. The alternatives now available to manage these pests reduce the risks associated with high-risk OP and carbamate insecticide use much less dramatically than in most other cases.

Prospects are brightest for growers dealing with aphids, mites, and most of the Lepidopteran pestsótypically the toughest insect pests facing fruit and vegetable farmers. In 1999 most growers will have several valuable new options that were not available when the FQPA was passed in 1996. Many more will be available in the next five to 10 years. By integrating two, three or more new products and tactics into their IPM systems, many growers are having a relatively easy time phasing out most high-risk OP and carbamate use, and generally can do so incrementally over a three-to-five-year period without jeopardizing crop yields, quality, or profitability. Most of the farmers who have made the transition are glad to be rid of disruptive high-risk insecticides.

The FQPA provides an opportunity and an incentive for growers to build on the success that many have already achieved, to share experiences with safer insect pest management systems, and to accelerate progress away from dependence on the high-risk OP and carbamate insecticides. The sooner this transition is completed, the better off farmers and children will both be.