Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management. 1986. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Actions and Proposed Policies for Resistance Management by Agncultural Chemical Manufacturers CHARLES J. DELP Agricultural chemical manufacturers (industryJ work indepen- dently and cooperate with each other and with academic and gov- ernment institutions to study resistance and to develop and implement effective management strategies. lutra-industrial organizations fa- cilitate cooperative resistance management activities. Industry does not support congressional legislation to broaden U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA' regulatory responsibilities to include re- sistance management, pesticide taxes to support regulations, or a resistance research foundation created with industry assessments. Industry does support research, monitoring, and educational activ- ities in-house and in cooperation with other organizations for resis- tance management. INTRODUCTION Agricultural chemical manufacturers (industry) are aware of the conse- quences of resistance to pest-control chemicals and are prepared to initiate actions to manage resistance to the chemicals they market. The efficacy of their products is a critical concern, thus, industry commits substantial re- sources for research, monitoring, and development of resistance management practices. In recent years intercompany cooperative actions have helped in- dustry respond to resistance management needs worldwide. INDUSTRY ACTIONS Companies with long-term commitments to crop protection are making major contributions to the understanding of resistance management. They 388
ACTIONS AND PROPOSED PO~CIES 389 work independently and in cooperation with academic and government in- stitutions. For example, Ciba-Geigy pioneered work in which Dittrich (1981) provided a leadership role in practical resistance research on agriculturally important arthropods, developing monitoring programs and management strategies. With herbicides, Ciba-Geigy has supported research into triazine resistance since the early 1970s (LeBaron, 19831. Its support helped deter- mine the mode of resistance and has advanced the understanding of the photosynthetic process. This research may even result in the development of crop plants that are resistant to herbicides. Urech and Staub (1985) report on Ciba-Geigy's recent contributions on fungicide resistance. ICI has been working to unravel the population dynamics of cereal powdery mildew strains, and Ruscoe (in press) initiated joint industry actions to deal with potential pyrethroid problems. Du Font has been researching benomyl resistance and monitoring meth- omyl sensitivity since the early 1970s. In 1981 Leeper headed an insecticide resistance management group in its research division. Monitoring is the cornerstone of the program, which also includes research into areas such as insect chemistry and toxicology, population genetics, and the potential use of synergists. Other companies, such as Bayer, BASE, and Sumitomo, have ongoing in-house resistance research programs that at times amount to as much as 10 percent of the research program and provide grants of $10,000 to $30,000 to sponsor outside programs. Industry has resources to facilitate practical solutions a worldwide com- munications network; cooperative research and development contracts; and a broad research base in biology, genetics, biochemistry, neurophysiology, toxicology, and the like. Industry also has an excellent record of sponsoring educational activities for which speakers, teachers, and funds for symposia and training courses have been contributed. For example, 22 companies and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAG) are supporting a series of resistance courses for the Third World. The latest, in Malaysia, was such a success that another is planned for Central America. Industry scientists are on the faculty of these courses. An increasing number of papers by industry scientists are being published, and efforts are being made for joint industry publications. There is an impressive amount of data available that could help researchers put their results into a broader context. INTRA-INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Companies contributing individually to resistance management recognize the problems of insufficient or inaccurate information resulting from con- flicting methods, conclusions, and management strategies. Cooperation is needed not only with academia and government but with each other. The
390 MANAGEMENT OF RESISTANCE TO PESTICIDES best resistance management efforts can be nullified by the actions of one uninformed or irresponsible company or agency. Although the antitrust im- plications and competitive traditions make intercompany collaboration dif- ficult, significant results have been achieved during the past five years. In November 1979 ICI approached nine companies that develop and market photostable pyrethroid insecticides. These companies set up a technical li- aison on pyrethroid resistance, the Pyrethroid Efficacy Group (PEG), which has contributed significantly to resistance management. For example, PEG helped the government of the United Kingdom deal with the problem of pyrethroid-resistant houseflies by withdrawing pyrethroids from animal houses. Industry also cooperated through PEG to prevent the use of pyrethroids on noncotton crops in Egypt, thus interrupting exposure of Spodoptera through- out the year. In Australia cooperative action by industry, government, and growers successfully implemented restrictive strategies of pyrethroid use on cotton to manage Heliothis resistance in 1984. Industry did not fully agree on the above measures, however, and some companies are reluctant to con- tinue to cooperate if results do not support long-term economic benefits or if the scientific basis of a strategy becomes questionable (Davies, 19841. The Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) was developed be- cause industry scientists knew cooperative industrial action was needed. FRAC is a steering committee organized into working groups for each fun- gicide type. Working groups are guided to (1) include senior scientists from companies with a related "at risk" fungicide; (2) establish trust, pool in- formation, define problems, and assess risks; (3) agree on monitoring meth- ods and verify field resistance; (4) verify resistance reports and potential remedies; and (5) encourage resistance research and communication. Some of the actions of the FRAC working groups follow. Acylalanines Four companies agreed on the risks of resistance and on a management strategy based on prepacked mixtures with fungicides having a different mode of action. The companies solicit the support of extension and advisory agen- cies to help restrict the use to two to four applications per season and no curative use (Urech and Staub, 19851. Benzimidazoles Individual companies had done much of the management work on ben- zimidazoles before FRAC was organized. After FRAC, research was focused on resistance in the cereal eyespot pathogen in Europe (Delp, 1984; Wade and Delp, 19851. Representatives of at least four companies sponsored meet- ings, research programs, and monitoring surveys and agreed with advisory
ACTIONS AND PROPOSED PONCIES 391 officers that (1) a benzimidazole should not be used where resistant strains had caused a disease-control failure; (2) a mixture of a benzimidazole plus prochloraz would be recommended for fields with a high risk of eyespot disease or where a benzimidazole had been used for several years; and (3) a benzimidazole may provide cost-effective yield improvements in fields with resistance or poor eyespot control. Dicarboximides The working group of 11 companies, cooperating with officials in France, Germany, and Switzerland, conducted monitoring and research studies re- sulting in joint agreements to limit the recommended use of dicarboximides to control Botrytis on vines to two applications (bunch-closing and maturing of berries) in intensive disease areas. C14-Demethylation inhibitors (DMl) The responsibility of this group (composed of senior scientists from five companies, with a potential of eight more) is to anticipate field resistance problems and to implement preventive strategies to avoid abuse. They co- operate with, and have commissioned many special studies through, uni- versities and governments. Improved monitoring methods and accumulated research data are designed to lead to clear management recommendations. The International Group of National Associations of Agrochemical Prod- ucts (GIFAP), which sponsors FRAC, recently created an Insecticide Re- sistance Action Committee (IRAC) of which PEG is a part. The working groups of IRAC are for major crops such as cotton, fruit, rice, field crops, vegetables, animal health, and vector control. This industry committee, with objectives similar to FRAC, is conducting a worldwide industry survey of resistance problems to classify economically relevant and verified cases of field resistance according to their regional importance. INDUSTRY POLICIES Most companies support the following policies for managing resistance: · Conduct research, monitoring, and education activities in support of products · Provide financial support to outside research, monitoring, and educa- tional facilities for pesticide resistance management · Strengthen commitments to organizations such as FRAC, IRAC, GIFAP, and national associations · Support special educational and management activities in the Third World
392 MANAGEMENT OF RESISTANCE TO PESTICIDES Industry does not support congressional legislation to broaden EPA reg- ulatory responsibilities to include resistance management, pesticide taxes to support government regulations, or a resistance research foundation created with industry assessments. CONCLUSION As evidenced by its cooperative and voluntary programs, industry is not only concerned but it is active in resistance management, and industry is ready to work with all the groups involved (Urech, 19851. Industry can give not only products and financial support but technical resources, organizational skills, data bases, and motivation to prolong the effectiveness of pest-control agents. REFERENCES Davies, R. A. H. 1984. Insecticide resistance: An industry viewpoint. Pp. 593-600 in Proc. 1984 Br. Crop Prot. Conf., Vol. 2. Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham. Delp, C. J. 1984. Industry's response to fungicide resistance. Crop Prot. 3:3-8. Dittrich, V. 1981. The role of industry in coping with insecticide resistance. Pp. 249-253 in Proc. Symp. 9th Int. Congr. Plant Prot., T. Kommedahl, ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess. LeBaron, H. M. 1983. Herbicide resistance in plants An overview. Weeds Today 14:4-6. Ruscoe, C. N. E. In press. Pesticide resistance: Strategies and cooperation in the agrochemical industry. In Rational Pesticide Use, K. J. Brent and R. K. Atkin, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Urech, P. A. 1985. Management of fungicide resistance in practice. Proc. EPPO Symp. Fungic. Resist. EPPO Bull. 15:571-576. Oxford: Blackwell. Urech, P. A., and T. Staub. 1985. Resistance strategies for acylalanine fungicides. Proc. EPPO Symp. Fungic. Resist. EPPO Bull. 15:539-543. Oxford: Blackwell. Wade, M., and C. J. Delp. 1985. Aims and activities of industry's fungicide resistance action committee (FRAC). Proc. EPPO Symp. Fungic. Resist. EPPO Bull. 15:577-583. Oxford: Black- well.