Master Presentation - morning

SCEPTRE Conference
Tuesday 24th February 2015
Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough
Programme
The SCEPTRE project –
Aims, Overview and Outcomes
Tim O’Neill, ADAS
Background
• Key actives lost or under threat – legislation (PPPR, SUD,
WFD)
• Hazard criteria: EDs, candidates for substitution list (cfs),
re-entry intervals…
• Dramatic decline in R&D spend in Europe by companies
• Food security
Registration timelines for a new pesticide
Listed on
Annex 1
AI dossier
submitted
Year 1
Year 2
Product
approved
Year 3
Year 4
0-6
12
3
5
Completeness
check
Evaluation
4
1
EFSA
review
2
Peer
review
5
EFSA
vote
7
3
1
2
- Months for process
ʻTimeoutsʼ of 3, 6 and 5 months permitted to supply
missing/ additional data as required.
Zonal
product
application
Zonal product
evaluation
Country
evaluation
Product
listing
Aims
• Gap filling
• Sustainable IPM systems
– Biopesticides
– Integration of conventional pesticides and
biopesticides
– Integration with predators and parasites
– Alternative measures (weeds)
Sceptre consortium members
H & H Duncalfe
Overview - SCEPTRE experiments
Sector
Field veg
2011
2012
2013
2014
Totals
D
4
6
4
4
18
P
6
13
10
5
34
W
1
3
7
11
22
11
22
21
20
74
D
1
2
2
4
9
P
2
2
2
2
8
W
3
4
3
4
14
6
8
7
10
31
D
4
2
3
2
11
P
3
4
2
2
11
7
6
5
4
22
2
3
3
2
10
26
39
36
36
137
FV Total
Soft fruit
SF Total
Protected
edible
PE Total
Top fruit
Grand Total
D
Overview - Products tested: 2011-2014
Novel products tested
Biological
Crop Group
Totals
Pesticidal
Category
Totals
Total
bio
Chemical
TOTAL
products
micro-org
botanical
salt/other
total unique products for FV
23
10
7
40
58
98
total unique products for PE
25
8
2
35
39
74
total unique products for SF
11
12
3
26
38
64
total unique products for TF
10
2
5
17
14
31
total unique products - herbicides
0
3
2
5
20
25
total unique products - fungicides
23
7
10
40
50
90
total unique products - insecticides
15
7
0
22
22
44
38
17
12
67
92
159
Overview – Example results from crop trials
Field veg
- Diseases
- Pests
- Weeds
Soft fruit
- Diseases
- Pests
- Weeds
Protected
edible
- Diseases
Top fruit
- Diseases
- Pests
Field vegetables
1. Brassica – control of powdery mildew
(ADAS)
Cassiopeia
Talius
Serenade
2. Cabbage root fly control
(Warwick Crop Centre)
• High pest level
• Useful reductions
from
conventional
insecticides
3. Alternatives to linuron weed control
- umbelliferous crops (Allium & Brassica Centre)
Carrot, parsnip, coriander, flat-leaved parsley, celery and celeriac.
Sandy silt loam soil,10 weed species + groundsel, 170-390 weeds/m2.
Evaluation of FVS-191 potential linuron alternative pre- and post-weed emergence,
Benfluralin soil-incorporated,
and Gamit, Defy, Goltix Flowable, Sencorex Flow,
Stomp Aqua, Anthem. 3 replicates.
Outcomes – Potential new products for
FV diseases and pests
Crop
Target pest
Pesticides
Brassica
Alternaria
Cas
Sig
28
06
43
47
Downy mildew
Cas
Sig
26
47
-
-
Powdery mildew
25a
28
89
90
11+
40+90
Ring spot
Cas
10
25a
Ser
43
90
Leek
Rust
Cas
31
118
Ser
47
105
Spring onion
Downy mildew
Cas
181
197
-
-
-
Brassica
Aphid
50
59
60
69
92
130
Caterpillar
48
143
-
Lep
64
130
Cabbage root fly
50
55
198
130
-
-
Carrot
Aphid
50
54
75
-
-
-
Lettuce
Aphid
50
59
60
130
-
-
Leek
Thrips
48
50
54
62
130
-
Bold – equal to reference product
Not bold – some reduction compared with UT
Biopesticides
Cas- Cassiopeia; Sig-Signum
Ser- Serenade; Lep- Lepinox
Outcomes – Potential new products for
FV weed control
Crop
Pre- weed emergence
Post- weed emergence
Drilled
Bulb onion
164
165
166
Carrot
Ben
05
164
Leek
164
165
166
Parsnip
Ben
05
166
Cauliflower
105
165
166
Celery
Ben
05
166
Courgette
Ben
165
166
Lettuce
(05)
166
-
105
166
76
05
76
05
105
166
191
-
-
-
-
76
05
166
190
05
190
(05)
(123)
166
191
191
166
Transplanted
No solutions identified for baby leaf spinach, rocket, swede,
mizuna. See report for full details, including weed species
controlled. Ben-benfluralin; ( )-slight damage
166
191
Outcomes – Alternatives for weed control
(Allium & Brassica Centre)
Band sprays for
row crops
Electric weeder
for row crops
Soft fruit
4a. Conventional fungicide for control of powdery
mildew in strawberry (East Malling Research)
% leaf area mildewed
Excellent control from 4 products
Untreated
UTC
37
47
STR-37
Sys
87
177
STR-118
25a
17
STR-88
Talius
158
118
88
Tal
STR-77
77
4b. Biofungicides for control of powdery
mildew in strawberry (East Malling Research)
% leaf area mildewed
• 2 biofungicides
comparable to
Systhane 20EW
Systhane
Untreated
UTC
43
90
203
Ser
40
188
STR-06
181
11+
105
Sys
06
5. Raspberry aphids – Integration of
insecticides, bioinsecticides and BCAs
(James Hutton Institute)
Treatment
Spray timing % reduction of:
Potato aphid
(week)
2
3
4
5
1. Water
Large raspberry aphid
(wk 2)
(wk 6)
Adults Nymphs
Adults
Nymphs
-
-
-
-
0
46
71
control
2. Calypso (C)
 
-
 50
3. RAS-59 (C)
 -
 -
32
77
100
97
4. RAS-50 (C)
 
-
63
54
0
6
5. RAS-62 (B)
 
  46
47
66
41
6. RAS-130 (B)
 -
 -
51
46
73
-
39
Significant reductions (P <0.05) are shown in bold.
Note that lack of efficacy of RAS-50 against large raspberry aphid
is probably associated with spray timing.
• Good integration with BCAs (parasitoid wasps)
6. Electrical weed control - in
blackcurrants (ADAS)
Dock
Thistle
Treated
Untreated
Outcomes – Potential new products
for SF diseases, pests and weeds
Crop
Target
Pesticides
Biopesticides
Strawberry
Crown rot
Cas
-
-
40
Pre
-
Powdery mildew
Tal
77
118
06
105
11+
Soft rots (Mucor)
Sig
Thi
77
-
-
-
Raspberry
Aphid
50
59
-
51
62
130
Strawberry
Lygus
Ste
59
149
53
-
-
Strawberry
Weeds
165
-
-
-
-
-
Runners
124
-
-
109
-
-
Cas-Cassiopeia; Pre-Prestop; Sig- Signum; Ste-Steward; Tal-Talius; Thi-Thianosan DG
Bold – equal to reference product
Not bold – some reduction compared with UTC
Protected edibles
7. Cucumber powdery mildew
(Stockbridge Technology Centre)
10
14
Ser AQ10
06
105
Tal 25 Std
rd
77
St
an
da
08
re
at
20
ed
12
-C
U
C11
SF
20
5
12
-C
U
CSF
08
20
12
-C
U
CSF
77
20
12
-C
U
CSF
10
20
12
-C
U
CSF
14
20
12
-C
U
CSF
88
20
12
-C
U
C25
Unt 115
SF
% Powdery Mildew
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Un
t
‘Novel’ conventionals
worked well and appeared
better than the standard.
Biological products
variable, but 105 gave
>80% control.
Conventional fungicides
Biofungicides
15
10
5
Std = Systhane/Nimrod; Ser-Serenade; Tal-Talius
154
SF
20
12
-C
UC
-1
54
0
90
UC
-9
20
12
-C
SF
UC
-1
05
6
20
12
-C
SF
20
12
-C
UC
-0
34
SF
20
12
-C
UC
-1
UC
-3
SF
SF
20
12
-C
re
at
ed
Unt
8
0
Un
t
% Powdery Mildew
20
8. Control of WFT in peppers
(Stockbridge Technology Centre)
Insecticide: 200
Bioinsecticides: 62, 130, 209
(Means are displayed with SEs and arrows depict treatment timings)
• Standard did not perform well
• The novel conventional (200) performed better
(against nymphs), though biopesticides did not
Outcomes – Potential new products
for PE diseases and pests
Crop
Disease
Cucumber
Phomopsis
37
139
175
-
-
-
Powdery mildew
8
25a
77
90
105
154
Pythium
46
139
183
-
-
-
Tomato
Botrytis
31
77
118
-
-
-
Pepper
Aphid
NT
NT
NT
130
62
-
WFT
48
50
200
Nat
01
62
Spider mite
131
-
-
Nat
01
62
Whitefly
54
106
-
01
62
130
Tomato
Pesticides
Bold – equal to reference product
Not bold – some reduction compared with UTC
Nat-Naturalis L
Biopesticides
Tree fruit
9. Control of apple powdery mildew
**
(East Malling Research)
10 sprays from 22 May to 28 July; sprays 1, 2 and 10
conventional fungicides; sprays 3-9 biofungicides
Outcomes – Potential new products
for TF diseases
Crop
Disease
Apple
Powdery mildew
Pear
Fungicides
Biofungicides
17
25a
32
Ser
80
90
Tal
77
118
105
157
160
99
168
Nxy
Botrytis
None tested
Bold – equal to reference product
Not bold – some reduction compared with UTC
Ser-Serenade ASO; Tal-Talius; Nxy - Nexy
Pipeline product registrations for edible
horticultural crops
Sector
Number of products:
Label type
Pesticide type
Conventional Biopesticide
On label
EAMU
FV
13
3
9
12
SF
7
2
4
6
PE
10
3
6
7
TF
1
1
0
2
Total
21
5
15
21
Total of submitted and planned applications to CRD
SCEPTRE product use registrations in
the pipeline*
Number of unique product x crop uses
Conventional
Biopesticide
Total
Fungicides
5 + (16)
1 + (5)
6 + (21)
Insecticides
6 + (11)
0 + (9)
6 + (20)
Herbicides
0 + (17)
0 + (0)
0 + (17)
Total
11 + (44)
1 + (14)
12 + (58)
*Applications submitted to CRD and (planned)
Registrations during project life
•
•
•
•
Wing P for weeds in lettuce
Serenade ASO for botrytis – additional crops
Steward for capsid in outdoor strawberry
Cassiopeia for downy mildew on bulb
onions
Conclusions
SCEPTRE project
• Earlier evaluation of new products for horticultural crops
• Many new actives and several new modes-of-action
• Large knowledge bank on product performance and crop
safety
• HDC working closely with companies and CRD to secure
labels and EAMUs
Future challenges
• IPM will be more complex, more technical
• Need for greater information exchange
• Adaptation to emerging P & D
Further information
Contacts
• Experiment leaders
• Tim O’Neill, ADAS
• Bolette Palle-Neve, HDC
Thank you for your attention
SCEPTRE Conference
Tuesday 24th February 2015
Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough
SCEPTRE Conference
Biorational products: can we expand the armoury?
www.biorationale.co.uk
[email protected]
Biological control agents - role in food security
In last 40 years farmable land per person has halved
30 - 40% of crops are lost before harvest and > 10% after harvest
Source: UN World Food Programme and the FAO
"The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2006" report.
IPM – Sustainable Use Directive 2009/128/EC
“On the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of this Directive,
implementation of the principles of integrated pest management is obligatory
and the subsidiarity principle applies to the way the principles for integrated
pest management are implemented. Member States should describe in their
National Action Plan how they ensure the implementation of the principles of
integrated pest management, with priority given wherever possible to nonchemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management.”
‘integrated pest management’ means careful consideration of all available plant
protection methods and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that
discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and keep the
use of plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that
are economically and ecologically justified and reduce or minimise risks to
human health and the environment. ‘Integrated pest management’ emphasises
the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agroecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.
‘non-chemical methods’ means alternative methods to chemical pesticides for
plant protection and pest management, based on agronomic techniques such
as those referred to in point 1 of Annex III, or physical, mechanical or
biological pest control methods.
EU Registration – Low Risk
Low-risk active substances
“1. An active substance complying with the criteria provided for in
Article 4 shall be approved for a period not exceeding 15 years by
way of derogation from Article 5, where it is considered a low-risk
active substance and where it may be expected that plant protection
products containing that substance will pose only a low risk to human
and animal health and the environment as provided for in Article
47(1).”
Plant Protection Product Registration EU timelines
1107/2009
A.S. Dossier Submission
Completeness check
Rapporteur evaluation
DAR completed
EFSA comment on DAR
EFSA peer review
Standing committee vote
Positive List (Annex I)
Application - zonal product
Zonal evaluation
Country evaluation
Product approval
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
123456789 1 1 1123456789 1 1 1123456789 1 1 1123456789 1 1 1
0 1 2
0 1 2
0 1 2
0 1 2
Biological control agents – biopesticides - biorationals
•
Crop protection products derived from the flora and fauna
•
No fixed global or EU definition
Macroorganisms
Natural enemies, nematodes
Semio-chemicals
Pheromones, SCLP’s
Botanicals
Plant derived compounds
Microbials
Bacteria, fungi, viruses
Biopesticides – EU active substances
Updated May 2009*
Target
Insect
Fungi
Weeds
Nematodes
Other
Micro-organism Bt
4
-
-
-
-
Micro-organism non-Bt
9
20
0
1
0
Botanical
0
0
0
0
2
27
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
40
20
0
1
2
Pheromone
Other
Total
63
Updated October 2014*
Insect
Fungi
Weeds
Nematodes
Other
9
-
-
-
-
11 (2)
24 (9)
-
2
-
5 (2)
7
1
1
7
28 (2)
-
-
-
-
Other
8
1
1
0
0
Total
61 (6)
32 (9)
2
3
7
Micro-organism Bt
Micro-organism non-Bt
Botanical
Semio-chemical
* Definition of biopesticide not fixed so approximate numbers only
Figures in bracket = pending
106 (15) = 121
Biopesticide markets
3.5
3
$ billion
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2007
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Year
• Market annual growth: biopesticides 15%, conventional chemical pesticides 3%
• Global market = $1.3 billion in 2011. To reach $3.2 billion by 2017
Biorationals – benefits to farmers and growers
• Efficacy – killing target pest
• Efficacy - yield and quality
improvement
• Host specificity
• Use in IPM programmes
• Useful for resistance management
• Useful for residue management
• Growers - crop management
• Worker safety
• Favourable environmental footprint
• Use in organic production
Biopesticides – effectiveness
Efficacy – based on active substance (biological) characteristics
• Biorationals usually work by POPULATION MANAGEMENT
– often programme approach with repeat applications
• For micro-organisms the relationship between dose and effect –
not constant, likely to depend on other species in the community
• Biorationals usually have several effects on pest/disease:
 kill
 pest/disease suppression
 plant defence stimulation
 competition
Biopesticides – improvements
• Product – quality &
improved formulations
• Effectiveness: mostly 40-70%
•
CONSISTENCY
• LIMITATIONS
• Environmental robustness
Baculoviruses
80-90%
Microbial Biopesticide application
Biopesticide – synergy with plant protection products
Effect of permethrin on fungal virulence to Anopheles gambiae - mean % mortality
when exposed to permethrin (P), fungus (F) or both (F+P) on day 0. (Farenhorst et
al, 2010).
= uninfected
= Beauveria bassiana infected
= Metarhizium anisopliae infected
IPM – sustainable crop protection
Nema
todes
Fungi
Bact.
Agroecosystem
Monitoring
Insect
Macroorganisms
IPM
IPM
Microorgs
Virus
Phero
mones
Biopesticides
Semiochems
Crop
botany
Synthetic
Chemical
pesticides
Botanicals
Biopesticide – systemic activity
•Beauveria bassiana – insect pathogenic fungus
• Many reports of endophytic activity in range of
crops – coffee, cotton, tomato, trees
• Activity against plant pathogens and potentially
against insects
Botanical biopesticides
Orange
Clove
Cymbopogon sp.
Thyme
Garlic
Spearmint
Tagetes sp.
Micro-organism biopesticides
Cydia pomonella granulosis virus
Trichoderma harzianum
Pasteuria penetrans
Fusarium oxysporum
Isaria fumosoroseus
Bacillus subtilis
Clonostachys rosea Coniothyrium minitans
Bacillus thuringiensis
Bacillus firmus
Gliocladium catenulatum Lecanicillium lecanii
Metarhizium anisopliae Ampelomyces quisqualis
Trichoderma asperellum Beauveria bassiana
Where are new biorational products coming from?
Photograph: Danny Beath - Scrubs Wildflower Meadow
Kew Royal Botanic Gardens UK
Biopesticides – new actives and products in the EU
Potential products for UK? (from EU Annex I lists)
• Trichoderma spp. for disease management – 13 species and strain
• Bacillus subtilis/amyloliquefaciens for foliar and root diseases - 5 strains
• Beauveria bassiana for insect pest control – 2 new strains
• Bacillus firmus - Flocter for free-living nematodes
• Aureobasidium pullulans - Boni-protect for post harvest diseases
• Granulosis viruses for lepidoptera pests
• Semio-chemicals for lepidoptera pests (27 active substances)
• Extract of Reyonoutria sp. plant extract for foliar diseases
• Terpenoid blend QRD 460 terpene blend for insect pests
• Azadirachtin (NeemAzal) plant extract for insect pests
• Orange oil (Prev-Am) terpene for insect pests and foliar diseases
Biopesticides – new uses
• Developing products for new groups –
weeds, nematodes
• Developing active for new target pests –
aphids, rust, septoria, blight, resurgent
pests
• Developing products for new areas –
broad acre field crops, bio-fuel crops,
storage, post harvest
Biorationals – new active substances
• Focus on compounds produced by micro-organisms
–
–
–
–
–
Non-viable micro-organisms and spent media
Biofactories – manipulation of growing conditions during fermentation
Biofactories – combination of substances form different fermentation processes
Biofactories – genetic manipulation of micro-organism to tailor compounds produced
Biofactories – gene transfer of specific genes into new host
• Development of novel micro-organisms and uses
–
–
–
–
Exploring the biota of countries with unique habitats e.g. New Zealand, China, Asia
Exploring the biota of unusual habitats e.g. dry habitats such as deserts
Mining micro-organism culture collections for new species
Endophytes to stimulate plants to defend themselves
• Development of novel botanicals
–
–
–
Reassessment of botanicals from traditional know-how
Improvements in manufacture and optimisation
Examination of seed banks and botanical gardens
Biorationals – plant interactions
•
•
•
•
Production of alarm compounds to attract
predators and parasites of pest herbivores –
phytohormone stimulation
Stimulation of new biosynthesis of
phytochemicals – terpenoids, phenylpropanoids
and fatty-acid derived green leaf volatiles
Stimulation of plant defense mechanisms –
jasmonic acid and salicylic acid.
Potentially improve ability of plant to withstand
environmental stresses.
• Effect of sugars (e.g. PURE project)
•
Induction in roots, shoots and leaves –
treatment of seeds, soil and foliar
Modern crop protection - biology and ecology ?
To advance and create the next Green Revolution is it time to move from an era
of chemistry to an era of agro-ecology?
IPM – Sustainable Use Directive 2009/128/EC
“On the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of this Directive,
implementation of the principles of integrated pest management is obligatory
and the subsidiarity principle applies to the way the principles for integrated
pest management are implemented. Member States should describe in their
National Action Plan how they ensure the implementation of the principles of
integrated pest management, with priority given wherever possible to nonchemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management.”
‘integrated pest management’ means careful consideration of all available plant
protection methods and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that
discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and keep the
use of plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that
are economically and ecologically justified and reduce or minimise risks to
human health and the environment. ‘Integrated pest management’ emphasises
the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agroecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.
‘non-chemical methods’ means alternative methods to chemical pesticides for
plant protection and pest management, based on agronomic techniques such
as those referred to in point 1 of Annex III, or physical, mechanical or
biological pest control methods.
Crop Protection –agro-ecosystem approach
Macroorganism
Plant
variety
Biopesticide
Chemical
Pesticide
Soil
Treat
Seed
Treat
Biorationals and the future of crop protection
Agro-ecology
Complex
Exciting
Thank you for your attention
[email protected]
SCEPTRE Conference
Tuesday 24th February 2015
Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough
DEVELOPMENT OF PPP’S FOR THE EU
MARKET AND HOW SCEPTRE WORKED
FOR MANUFACTURERS
24TH FEBRUARY 2015
Janet Williams
Regulatory Affairs Manager
Bayer CropScience
Outline
New Compound Discovery
Regulatory Issues
Endocrine Disruption
Candidates for Substitution
Comparative Assessment
SCEPTRE
Why are new Crop Protection
compounds needed?
 Pests, weeds and diseases can often develop resistance due to long-term
usage and/or poor user stewardship – some key UK examples;
Alopecurus (black-grass) in cereals
Myzus persicae (aphids) in arable, fruit and vegetable crops
Septoria (leaf blotch) in wheat
 Compounds/Active Substances/Products may be lost during regulatory
reviews or withdrawn for economic reasons
 To combat new pest, weed and disease problems which may arise
Product Usage for black-grass control
UK Black-grass Herbicide Life Cycles
IPU
Mesosulfuron
Fenoxaprop
Clodinafop
Flupyrsulfuron
Flufenacet
How long before
the next new grassweed MOA?
Time
Bayer CropScience R&D Process
Project Approval
Decision
Initial Field
Screening
HF
Hit
Factory
Lead
Finding
Phase 0
PreProject
Phase 1
Phase 2
Lead
Optimisation
Profiling
exploration
Selection
Full Project Commercial
Phase 3
Phase 4
Full Development Marketing/Sales
to Registration
Cost of Development: ca 300m Euros per compound
Time from Discovery to Launch: 10 – 12 years minimum
More and more compounds have to be
synthesised and screened for one success
1 : 11.000
‘Success Rate’ reflects the increasing
regulatory requirements and safety
standards on evaluation
1 : 20.000
1 : 38.000
1 : 46.000
?
19601969
19701979
19801989
19901999
1 : >>150,000
20002010…
Fields of Innovation in the Crop Protection Industry
- Bayer CropScience as an Example
= Core competencies
= New approaches
Herbicides, fungicides,
insecticides, seed
treatments
Classical
and modern
breeding
technologies
AS
innovation,
novel modes
of action
Breeding
excellence
Services
Diagnostics tools,
forecast systems,
consulting
Trait
innovation
Future
growth
areas
Plant health, crop quality
and nutritional uptake;
Biological control agents
Complementary approach of CP chemistry, trait innovations
and breeding aiming at solutions in line with future market needs
Targets for BCS New Compound Developments
• Herbicides
• Fungicides
• Insecticides
• Nematicides
• Molluscicides
• Seed Treatments
• Phytotonics
• Safeners
• Biologicals
Compound Identification and Optimisation
Virtual screening
Test Libraries
Target based HTBS
Lead Structures
Vivo Screen
Research Projects
Chemical
synthesis
In vivo HTS
Development Projects
Miniaturisation of Biological Screening
‘Automated and miniaturised’
a process predominantly for
new chemistry
‘Classical’
Greenhouse Screening –
still the decisive process for
more advanced chemistry
Initial Field Research Screening Investigations
World-wide Field Testing
Crop Protection Compound R&D Process
Year
CHEMISTRY
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Costs in €
Process
development
Synthesis
Active ingredient
Synthesis
optimisation
Pilot plant
production
~ 80
million
Production
Formulation/Packaging
Formulation
BIOLOGY
Research
Laboratory/
Greenhouse
Screening trials
Field trials for
Development and Registration
Development
TOXICOLOGY
Mammals
Acute, sub-chronic, chronic toxicity/
mutagenicity/carcinogenicity/teratogenicity/reproduction
Official
evaluation
of
registration
documents/
registration/
first sales
Algae/daphnies/fish/birds/
micro-organisms/bees/non-target organisms
Environment
ENVIRONMENT
Metabolism
Plants/animals/soil/water and air
Plants/animals/soil/water and air
Residues
Substances
Optimisation
of
application
>>150.000
500
10
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
~ 90
million
~ 130
million
~ 300
million
Patent Life Considerations and Return on
Investment
• To ensure we protect new compound discoveries from competitors
we file for Patents at a very early stage of development
• Patents are granted for a period of 20 years
• As it can take 10 – 12 years to first get to market we must maximise
our sales after launch and before generic companies can enter with
their ‘me too’ products with very limited investment
Endocrine Disruption
• Endocrine Active Substances are widely available in the
environment; biological systems deal with them; only
Endocrine Disruptors are bad
• e.g. Milk, Coffee, Vitamin D, Soyabeans etc
• Reason for AS currently ‘linked’ to ED due to large data
package already available on pesticides. Any possible ED
effect is already covered in the risk assessment. Some further
testing & evaluation might be needed to see if this is adverse
at the concentrations available in the environment (including
safety factors)
Endocrine Disruption
• Definition of an Endocrine Disruptor to be developed; draft
due by Commission by Dec 13 = delayed
• Once definition in place; studies need to be conducted &
evaluated - actual impact some way off yet
• Issues with implementation of the 1107/2009 Temporary
definition – once an AS is ‘labelled’ as ED it will be difficult to
turn the tide
ED Public Consultation
• Pressure (e.g. UK CRD Impact Assessments) forced the
Commission to conduct a public consultation
• EU Public consultation 16 Oct 2014 to 16 Jan 2015
• A lot of NFU/CPA activity to mobilise farmers/growers to
comment with focus on effects of loss of triazoles
• Commission now evaluating 27,100 responses – full feedback
of IA expected by end 2015 (25,000 were NGO template)
• Criteria not expected until 2Q 2017
Candidates for Substitution
1107/2009 Article 24 deadline was Dec 13
List of 77 voted at EU Standing Committee (SCOPAFF) in Jan 15
Awaiting OJ publication
All approved AS in the EU have already passed through the
most stringent pesticide regulatory system in the world
The listing of an AS does not question the safety, it only means
that a Comparative Assessment will need to be conducted
Proper communication on the purpose of the list essential to
avoid becoming a blacklist
4-Layer process to PPP authorisation
PPP CA&S
4. Products containing a ‘Candidate for
Substitution’ will be subject to Comparative
Assessment and their uses may be
Substituted
PPP Risk
Assessment
AS Risk assessment
AS Hazard Cut-Off Criteria
3. All products containing AS passing
the risk criteria are evaluated against
risk criteria
2. Active substances passing
hazard cut-off criteria evaluated
against risk criteria
1. Active substances
evaluated against hazard
cut-off criteria
Comparative Assessment
Member States View
 What is the aim of Comparative Assessment and Substitution?
 ‘To reduce risks from the use of PPP by gradually, when possible and with
minimal economic and practical disadvantages for agriculture, replacing
products containing substances of concern by methods or products of lesser
concern in order to benefit the protection of human health and the
environment.’
 Many MS want a minimized workload involving sharing of evaluations
 Using a Step-by-Step approach
 Many MS believe that there will be no major negative impact
 Uses and/or PPP’s substituted will probably be few
 UK Regulatory Update Nov 15
 Will apply for submissions from 1 Aug 15
Comparative Assessment
Step-by-Step approach
For a crop and pest/disease/weed combination: compare Candidate product with Alternative's
no
alternative
1a Alternative (chemical or
non-chemical) and
1b Sufficient experience
Stop CA
CA can continue from any of these criteria
2
Efficacy
3
Chemical
Diversity
5
4
Minor
Uses
no similar
effects
risk for
resistance
important
Stop CA
Stop CA
Stop CA
6
Human
Practicality
Health &
and
Environmental
Economic
risk
feasibility
not practical
and not feasible
Stop CA
no significant
difference in
risk
Stop CA
If all criteria met
= Substitution
Step by step approach:
 Alternative needs to be significantly better
6
Human
Health &
Environmental
risk
from all human health aspects
Better Risk assessment for:
Acute consumer
Chronic consumer
Operators and re-entry workers
Bystanders and residence
Alternative needs to be significantly better
from all environmental aspects
Better Risk Assessment for all species
e.g.; Birds, Bees, Fish, earthworms, Nontarget arthropods, Non-target plants etc.
Use of environmental mitigation measures
Avoid Bird and Mammal breeding season
Avoid flowering periods for pollinators
Use of Buffer zones to off-crop areas
Use of Buffer zones to water
Use of Vegetative Filter/Buffer Strips
Use of unsprayed headlands
Use of Low Drift Technology/Nozzles
Restrictions on drained soils
All can be used to make the Candidate Product/Use as ‘safe’ as
the Alternative
Consequences
Complex
High workload for Industry and Member States
Longer timelines
Increased cost
No improvement in safety as all already pass hazard cut-off
criteria and risk assessments
How SCEPTRE worked for manufacturers
 Widely supported – BASF, Bayer, Belchim, Dow, Du Pont, Koppert and
Syngenta
 AHDB/HDC identify a market gap or potential market gap
 Manufacturers identify potential control products (new and existing) with
available/planned metabolism & residue data and provided samples for
testing
 Year 1 = 76 chemicals, 57 biopesticides and 23 botanical pesticides
 Year 2 = 48 chemicals, 15 micro-organisms, 10 botanical pesticides & 6 simple
salts
 Year 3 = 52 chemicals, 21 micro-organisms, 7 botanical pesticides and 3 others
 Support for applications to CRD for Specific Off-Label Approval (SOLA) or
Extension of Authorisation for Minor Use (EAMU)
How SCEPTRE worked for Bayer CropScience
- Vegetables
• Infinito
• Onion (downy mildew); EAMU planned
• New Product 6
• Brassica (Alternaria); On-label EAMU being investigated
• New Product 62
• Potential EAMU’s on Brassica (aphid); and Leek (moth & thrips)
• Potential on-label on Tomato (aphids & whitefly) and Pepper (WFT)
• Existing Product 75
• Carrot (aphid); On-label planned
• New Product 77
• On-label EAMU’s planned on Tomato (Botrytis) and Cucumber (powdery
mildew)
How SCEPTRE worked for Bayer CropScience
- Top/Soft Fruit
• New Product 62
• EAMU planned on Raspberry (large aphid)
• New Product 77
• On-label EAMU planned on Raspberry (spur blight)
• On-label use planned on Strawberry (soft rot)
• New Product 178
• Potential EAMU on Pear (post-harvest; botrytis)
Summary
Cost of research and registration
Endocrine Disruption – Full criteria probably 2017; effect later
Candidates for Substitution and Comparative Assessment -
The listing of an AS does NOT mean revocations – what it
means is that CA will have to be conducted at some stage –
that may lead to some substitutions - likely source of
confusion
SCEPTRE - many new uses planned – takes time to get
through the regulatory system – be patient!
THANK YOU AND
QUESTIONS?
SCEPTRE Conference
Tuesday 24th February 2015
Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough
Working Towards a Global Regulatory
Program for Minor Uses.
Thanks for bringing your frustration to my attention.
Minor Use Pesticide Problem
The IR-4 Project
Established in 1963 by the United States
Department of Agriculture to provide a
solution to the “Minor Use Problem”.
USDA
CSRS
USDA
ARS
SAES
IR-4
Consumers
AGRICHEMICALS
INDUSTRY
EPA
Research Objective 1
Food Crop Program
•
•
•
•
•
Initial objective, remains “Signature” objective
Mostly Guideline Magnitude of Residue studies
Some efficacy & crop safety
Crop Grouping Expansion
Harmonization of MRLs and international activities
Slide 101
Research Objective 2
IR-4 Ornamental Program
• Predominantly crop safety testing and efficacy,
including invasive pests allowing industry to expand
registrations (Open Labels)
Research Objective 3
Biopesticide & Organic Support Program
• Develop data to support biopesticide
registrations with emphasis on
integration of biopesticide into
conventional systems
– Resistance Management
– Residue Management
• Support for organic markets
• Plant incorporated protectants
Research Objective 4
Public Health Pesticides
• Expand registrations for existing PHP
• Facilitate registrations for new technology and
novel pesticides
• Register products outside US to protect
deployed US military personnel
International Harmonization
Major Export Flows which drive need for
harmonized MRLs
Russian Fed
Europe
NAFTA
Asia
Africa
S. America
Aus/NZ
MRL Reality for Grower-Exporter
.02
3.5
1.0
5.0
.05
.01
3.0
0.6
.04
MRL Harmonization: Grower-Exporter’s
Ideal World
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Why have MRLs become more of an issue?
With the increased international trade:
• there has been an increased amount
of testing by importing countries.
• more governments setting their own
MRL standards / less use of global
(Codex) process
• show their populace that they are protective
The lack of harmony/lack of MRLs is constraining the use
of new plant protection materials, which is a hurdle to
international trade
IR-4’s International Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Canada
Support Existing Tolerances
IR-4 Leadership
Capacity building
Research
NAFTA “Win-Win” Model
•
•
•
•
Cooperative research with Canada started in
1996/Major funding and expansion in 2003
Mutual projects conducted jointly on both sides of
the border – Seamless process
Reduced data needs of each country (zoning)
Supported by EPA/PMRA joint reviews and
workshare – SUCCESS!
IR-4’s International Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Canada
Support Existing Tolerances
IR-4 Leadership
Capacity building
Research
IR-4’s International Activities
Support Existing Tolerances
• Mine IR-4 archives for data & submit reports
to international bodies (Over 100 reports
submitted to JMPR, EFSA, & other Reg.
Authorities)
• Supplement existing data with new data that
meet international requirements
• Run new IR-4 domestic research programs
with “eye” on international data
requirements
IR-4’s International Activities
• Canada
• Support Existing Tolerances
• IR-4 Leadership
• Global Minor Use Summits
• Codex (e.g. Crop Groups)
• OECD
• Capacity building
• Research
2nd Global Minor Use Summit
• Global needs database and data sharing database
– Global Workshop SEPTEMBER 20-22, CHICAGO, U.S.
– Encourage Import MRLs – white paper/survey?
– Efficacy data – EPPO guidance etc.
• Capacity development
– Training and data generation
– JMPR support
– USDA-FAS – global data development project
• Communication
–
–
–
–
Website – updates (www.gmup.org)
Incentives
Value of Codex Standards
Risk/Benefit assessment communication
Crop Group Enhancements
Multiyear Joint Project lead by IR-4 involving EPA,
Canada, International Crop Grouping Consultants
Committee (ICGCC) & Codex to evaluate Crops
Groups/extrapolation:
– Harmonization of Crop Groups/extrapolation is a goal to
support global trade
– International input in developing crop groupings/add new
crops to existing groups and/or new groups/subgroups
Fruit type
Crop Group
NAFTA
Codex
Type (Codex)
Berry & Small
Codified
Fruit Group
Pome Fruit Group Codified
Adopted
Fruit
Adopted
Fruit
Citrus Fruit Group Codified
Adopted
Fruit
Stone Fruit Group Codified
Adopted
Fruit
Tropical Fruit
Groups
Adopted
Fruit
Review
complete
Vegetable type
Crop Group
NAFTA
Codex
Type (Codex)
Bulb Vegetable
Codified
Step 7
Vegetable
Fruiting Vegetable
Codified
Step 7
Vegetable
Stalk, Stem and Leafy
Petiole
Review complete
Step 7
Vegetable
Leafy vegetables
Review complete
Step 7
Vegetable
Brassica Head/Stem
Vegetable
Review complete
Step 7
Vegetable
Root/Tuber Vegetable
Submitted
Step 5
Vegetable
Edible Fungi Group
Codified
Step 7
Vegetable
Legume Vegetables
Submitted
To be submitted
Vegetable
Cucurbit Vegetable
To be submitted
To be submitted
Vegetable
Other Commodity Types
Crop Group
NAFTA
Codex
Type (Codex)
Tree Nut Group
Codified
Step 7
Nuts and Seeds
Oilseed Group
Codified
Step 7
Nuts and Seeds
Tropical trees and
shrubs for Bev and
sweets
NA
To be submitted
Nuts and Seeds
Herbs and Spices
Submitted
Step 7
Herbs and Spices
Cereal Grains
To be submitted
To be submitted
Grasses
Forage/Fodder/ Straw
of Cereal Grains
To be submitted
To be submitted
Grasses
Grasses for sugar or
syrup
To be submitted
To be submitted
Grasses
IR-4’s International Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Canada
Support Existing Tolerances
IR-4 Leadership
Capacity building
Research
Funding from STDF
*contributions from
manufacturers, USDA, FAO,
others
Tropical Fruit Residue Study
Asia
Latin America
Project
Coordination
Africa
US, others???
JMPR joint
submission
Capacity Development
Why is IR-4 Involved
Vision of global network of capable minor use
programs/regional hubs
– Help establish and mentor these minor use
programs
– Partner with other data development groups
IR-4’s International Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Canada
Support Existing Tolerances
IR-4 Leadership
Capacity building
Research
• Global residue studies
• Tomato
• Blueberry
Global Tomato Study*
• The purpose of the Global Residue study is to compare
residues of 4 chemicals on tomato across a wide variety of
geographical and environmental zones.
• In order to minimize differences:
– Identical spray equipment
– Test substances were pre-measured
– A training video on how to conduct the study was posted on YouTube.
• Samples included a time zero sample to measure variability
other than the environment and samples were taken at 24
and 72 hours after application.
*funded by USDA TASC grant.
GLOBAL RESIDUE STUDY-Tomato
enGLOBAL RESIDUE STUDY
27 sites in 22 countries.
CONCLUSIONS
• Calculated MRLs were similar (difference 0.1
ppm or less) across all climatic zones and
continents compared to the overall
MRL(Complete data set).
• Is being analyzed statistically across sample
times, climate, etc.
• Publication being prepared
Slide 128
SILVANTO
Blueberry Global Residue Project Status (IR-4 & PMC)
 Study conducted under one protocol (one GAP), IR-4 is the Sponsor and Study Director.
 All samples analyzed by Bayer Crop Science Laboratory
 Study submitted for Global Joint Review Fall 2012.
 REGISTERED January 2015
_______________________________________________________
• LOWBUSH Blueberry:
–
–
3 trials in Nova Scotia (one decline)
1 trial in Maine
• HIGHBUSH Blueberry:
–
–
–
–
–
2 trials in New Jersey
3 trials in Michigan (one decline)
2 trials in North Carolina
1 trial in Oregon
1 trial in Quebec
• European trials
–
–
–
–
–
1 trial in Spain - decline
1 trial in Denmark
2 trials in the U.K. – decline
1 trial in Italy - decline
Note:2 trials using “protected” crop.
• Other Sites (HIGHBUSH)
–
–
–
3 trials in Australia
2 trials in New Zealand
3 trials in Chile (one decline)
26 total field sites in 9 countries
Analysis Using the OECD MRL Calculator
NAFTA sites only
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
13 field trials
Lowest residue 0.290 ppm
Highest residue
2.59 ppm
Median residue
0.834 ppm
Mean residue
0.912 ppm
SD
0.630
Unrounded MRL
3.431 ppm
Rounded MRL
4 ppm
Global data (all sites)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
26 field trials
Lowest residue 0.193 ppm
Highest residue
2.59 ppm
Median residue
0.867 ppm
Mean residue
0.974 ppm
SD
0.632
Unrounded MRL
3.504 ppm
Rounded MRL
4 ppm
Zoning (Kopper-Geiger climate map)
What’s Next?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Short-term
Global Needs Database
Chicago Workshop, identify priorities
Identify solutions
Find resources to conduct global studies.
Intermediate-term
Next Global Minor Use Summit
Global Minor Use Foundation
Who Benefits from IR-4
• Growers of specialty crops/specialty uses-Have tools
to protect crops
• Food Processors/Food Industry-Keep supply chain
open
• Society-Consistent supply of affordable and SAFE
fruits & vegetables, ornamentals to enhance
environment,
– IR-4 adds $7.2 BILLION/annually to the gross
domestic product & support >104,000 jobs
Thank
You!
Slide 136
SCEPTRE Conference
Tuesday 24th February 2015
Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough
HDC SCEPTRE Conference
24 February 2015, Peterborough, UK
EU activities to support
speciality crops
-
Minor Uses, Basic substances and
Low Risk Substances
Jeroen Meeussen
European Commission
DG SANTE (Health and Food Safety Directorate-General)
Unit Pesticides and Biocides
• Minor Uses
• Low Risk Substances
• Basic Substances
Placing on the market of
plant protection products
Regulation
1107/2009
+
• Replaced Directive
91/414/EEC
• Fully applicable since
14/6/2011
• Increased harmonisation
and enhanced protection
Approval
SUBSTANCE A
Approved at
Community level
One decision applying to all
28 Member States
Authorisation
Plant protection
products
(formulations)
containing the
substance A
Authorised at
national level
Minor Uses (definition)
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009:
Use of a plant protection product in a particular Member State
on plants or plant products which are:
(a) not widely grown in that Member State,
• or
(b) widely grown to meet an exceptional plant
protection need
 Representing 22% of the value of EU total agricultural
production; 3% of the cultivated area
Minor Uses
Lack of sufficient market potential can lead to:
• Illegal uses with consequences for human
health and the environment;
• Loss of crop production with its economic
impact on agriculture.
•
Report on Minor Uses
Article 51(9):
• "By 14 December 2011, the Commission shall
present a report to the European Parliament and
the Council on the establishment of a European
fund for minor uses, accompanied, if appropriate,
by a legislative proposal".
• Report was adopted on 18 February 2014.
•
Report on Minor Uses
Key-messages:
• Commission will assist in the creation of
an independent coordination facility
("Technical Secretariat") on minor uses
which is co-funded by the Commission;
• Commission will support an ERANET on
Integrated Pest Management with specific
reference to minor uses.
Report on Minor Uses
Report was presented to AGRI-Council on 19 May
2014:
• Strong support for the Report was expressed;
• A majority supported COM in identifying 'option 3'
(co-funding of Coordination Facility) as the better
solution;
• The details of the secretariat should be further
discussed at technical level.
Expert-meeting on Minor Uses
Expert-meeting with COM, MS and stakeholders was
organised on 1 July 2014 to discuss a draft outline of
the Coordination Facility:
• Operational issues: organisation and structure;
• Financial arrangements;
• Location and facilities.
Coordination Facility (1)
• Co-funded by the Commission: grant of
€350,000/year.
• This activity is led by DG SANTE.
• Budget has been allocated in the Financial
Decision (OJ 18 November 2014).
Coordination Facility (2)
Tasks of 'technical secretariat':
• sharing of information and experience gained at
national level;
• coordination of minor use work between Member
States and stakeholders;
• creation and maintenance of a data base on
minor uses;
• stimulation of harmonisation (e.g. crop group and
pest group definitions, development of guidance).
IPM ERANET
• ERANETs are research coordination instruments
whereby Member States can coordinate their
national research activities.
• To find EU-viable solutions with a focus on IPM-
practices, low risk substances and biopesticides.
• IPM ERANET has started early 2014 and involves
32 partners.
• This activity is led by DG RTD.
 Coordination between CF and IPM-Eranet will be
imperative.
Current status
• Adoption of the report by COM on 18 February
2014;
• Report has been presented to AGRI-Council in May
2014;
• Publication of the Financial Decision in November
2014;
• Proposal from interested party in final evaluation
phase;
• Start of the technical secretariat mid 2015.
Low Risk Substances
Low risk substances and products
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009
o favours the inclusion of low risk substances in PPP and
o facilitates their placing on the market
Incentives and facilitated market access
o Approval up to 15 years
o Data protection up to 13 years
o Low risk PPP: Member States to decide in 120 days
o Separate listing in Part D of the Annex to Regulation
(EU) No 540/2011
o Allowed to be mentioned in advertising
Low Risk Criteria – Annex II, point 5 (1)
• An active substance shall not be considered of low risk
where it is or has to be classified in accordance with
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as at least one of the
following:
o — carcinogenic,
o — mutagenic,
o — toxic to reproduction,
o — sensitising chemicals,
o — very toxic or toxic,
o — explosive,
o — corrosive.
Low Risk Criteria - Annex II, point 5 (2)
•
•
•
•
•
It shall also not be considered as of low risk if:
— persistent (half-life in soil is more than 60 days),
— bioconcentration factor is higher than 100,
— it is deemed to be an endocrine disrupter, or
— it has neurotoxic or immunotoxic effects.
• New criteria can be set
Annex II, point 5
EU-expert group on "low risk" (1)
Expert group of EU-Member States, Commission,
Growers Organisations, NGOs and Industry.
3
o
o
o
Subgroups to discuss:
Possible decision schemes and/or criteria for low risk;
Active Substances essential to Organic Farming;
New incentives to Industry.
EU-expert group on "low risk" (2)
Points for discussion:
o Different criteria for AS and PPP.
o Develop guidance.
o Differentiate between groups of active substances (e.g.
chemicals, micro-organisms, semiochemicals).
o Are main substances essential for Organic Farming covered?
o New incentives related to fees, priority setting, accelerated
process, no authorisation expiry date.
Aim: draft proposal by mid 2015.
Basic Substances
Criteria for identification of basic substances
Article 23(1)
o not a substance of concern;
o not inherent capacity to cause endocrine
disrupting, neurotoxic or immunotoxic effects;
o not predominantly used for plant protection
purposes but useful in plant protection;
● not placed on the market as a
Plant Protection Product!
Basic Substances and their products
Derogations
o A basic substance shall be approved for an unlimited
period.
o No authorisation is needed for products containing
exclusively one or more basic substances.
o The label on the product may indicate that the basic
substances it contains are approved under Article 23 of
Regulation 1107/2009.
Work in progress
o
o
o
o
Working document on approval of basic substances
(SANCO/10363/2012 – rev. 9).
Around 20 substances currently in the system.
3 substances have been approved (Equisetum, chitosan and
sucrose); listed in Part C of the Annex to Reg. (EU) No
540/2011.
New applications are announced.
Conclusions
• COM will establish a Coordination Facility for minor uses in
order to ensure that diversification of agriculture and
horticulture is not jeopardised by the lack of availability of
PPPs.
• COM facilitates the placing on the market of low-risk PPPs
containing active substances that present less of a risk to
human health and the environment.
• COM facilitates the approval of basic substances which are
not predominantly used as plant protection products, but
may be of value for plant protection.
SCEPTRE Conference
Tuesday 24th February 2015
Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough
HDC Crop Protection
What Next?
IMPRESS
Jon Knight
Head of Research & Knowledge Transfer
Sustainable Crop and Environment Protection
- Targeted Research for Edibles
SCEPTRE
Needs driven
• Threatened loss of actives - 91/414/EEC
• Future threats to actives
Sustainable Use Directive
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
Comparative Assessment
Water Framework Directive
• Food security
• Cost of CPP Development & Registration
Actives threatened
Reason
Changing
approvals
Herbicides
Fungicides Insecticides Molluscicides
6
11
2
-
Water
Quality
14
3
3
1
Annex 1
review
5
9
1
1
Including
Herbicides: pendimethalin, glufosinate ammonium, asulam
Fungicides: mancozeb, chlorothalonil
Insecticides/ molluscicides : bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, metaldehyde
Consortium
H & H Duncalfe
Value for money
• Compared to stand-alone projects,
SCEPTRE’s cost per unit was similar.
BUT
• SCEPTRE has been successful in
attracting in-kind contributions from
external sources.
20% saving to levy payers
Value for money
• Levy contribution
SCEPTRE ~ 40% of funding came from HDC
levy funds
Stand-alone projects 98% came from HDC
levy funds
• SCEPTRE represents much better value
for the levy payer i.e. ~ 60% saving
• Value for money for partners too
Delivery
• Four registrations during project life
• Pipeline product registrations
15 on label
21 EAMU
• Will continue to deliver over the next few
years
SCEPTRE Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Industry driven and shaped
Tactical gap-filling - Proactive not Reactive
Cross-sector applicability
Speedier evaluation of minor use products
Substantial database for future use
Effective partnership between HDC and
companies to deliver labels and EAMUs
Future Challenges
• Continued loss of actives
• IPM will require greater knowledge and its
application
• Exchange of information between
countries
• Responding to new and changing Pest
and disease threats
What next?
To Maintain or Enhance the
Competitiveness and Sustainability
of UK Horticultural Businesses
HDC has 5 priority areas
• Provide answers to crop-specific problems
identified by growers
• Identify & develop larger projects that address the
emerging big issues for horticulture
• Develop co-funding opportunities
• Knowledge transfer-identifying key R&D
messages,
• Communicating with levy payers
Crop Protection Thematic Priorities
• Industry need:
To control pests, diseases and weeds
effectively & sustainably
• HDC Strategic Priority:
To develop IPM systems for major pests
and diseases together with associated
diagnostic tests and precision
management tools.
Control of pests, diseases and
weeds by:
• Optimised use of PPPs
• Development of Plant Resistance/Tolerance
• Development of methods of pest behaviour manipulation
(Pheromones, semiochemicals etc.)
• Use of naturally occurring or introduced biological control agents
• Cultivations, rotation or other agronomic control measures
• Optimised management through in-field scanning, sensing,
diagnostics and precision systems.
• Effective and resilient pesticide resistance management
strategies
• Effective and resilient control measures and strategies to control
invasive diseases, pests and weeds.
HDC – Functional organisation
Production Groups
Thematic Groups
Central
Comms
Crop
Protection
Field Crops
(Cheryl Brewster)
Protected &
Perennial
Crops
HDC Crop
Sector Panels,
HDC Board
etc.
(tbc)
Resource
Management
(James Holmes)
(Debbie Wilson)
Info
& Impact
This is about
servicing the needs
of our clients:
• Levy payers
• Panels
• HDC Board
• HDC Associates
• Other AHDB
sectors
Proactive
Reactive
IMPRESS
Integrated Management of Pests in Resilient Sustainable Systems
What is IMPRESS?
• The future – both for the industry and HDC
• A programme to future proof horticulture
• Managing project consortia involving public/private
investment (eg SCEPTRE funding model)
• A vehicle for panels to leverage funding on major
issues and manage long term programmes of work
including extension work
What is IMPRESS?
• Includes minor uses programmes for new PPPs
(continuing the work of SCEPTRE)
• Central management of all efficacy testing
• Exploring synergies for IPM systems
• Measurement of impacts
• Focus on forward looking proactive work – to derisk the future
Linking project budgets….
(commissioned &
funded via SF Panel)
Thrips on soft fruit
Strawberry pest
programme
Thematic
programme (e.g.
insecticide
efficacy)
(commissioned by
Crop Protection Team,
& funded via HDC
Board)
Where two programmes overlap,
there is no need to spend the
money twice (projects do not have
to start at the same time)
What IMPRESS is NOT
• Replacement for SCEPTRE
• Not as narrowly focussed as SCEPTRE:
• Not taking away the panel process
CROP PROTECTION R&D
SCEPTRE Replacement
Generating EAMUs
Precision Tools & Diagnostics
Liaising with CP Industry
Global Horizon Scanning
KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE - Measurement Metrics
Crop Protection Tools - IPM
• Major diseases pests or issues with cross
sector concern
• Not just looking at pets in isolation (Thrips,
Aphids, Botrytis or Pythium historic
strategy)
• Looking at complete IPM strategies across
all of crop and sustainable outcomes
• Biologicals – preventative and synergies
PRECISION TECHNOLOGY
• Precision technology – Eye spot
• Diagnostic tools - prediction forecasting
(pest and weather)
• Cost Benefit Analysis needs to be
standard operating procedure when
considering programmes of work
• Post Harvest Technologies – How far do
we go?
HORIZON SCANNING
• Biological introduction of non endemic
beneficials – possibilities and practices
• Water conservation– new extraction rules on
horizon
• Future Threats - Risk Assessment - Emerging
Risks System - Industry Stakeholder Groups
Inclusion (Use of Plant Health Risk register)
HORIZON SCANNING
• Liaison/Networking with EU and Global
research facilities/organisations and industry
groups
• MOUs for sharing of information and research
outcomes
• Look to identify world leaders in specific areas
of research and include them in projects if
appropriate
Knowledge Exchange
• Mode of KE and relevance
• Publication v Practical (Field days) and
risks of electronic age
• Focus blocks –practising IPM GAP
• Training delivery e.g. training in application
of bio pesticides
• Measurement of success - Measuring
innovation and impact at an early stage
Summary
• A collaborative programme across
industry, government and AHDB with full
engagement of R&D providers
• Forward looking but with the ability to react
when required
• Utilising all the expertise available globally
when required
Horticulture is a fast-changing World
HDC is changing with it
SCEPTRE Conference
Tuesday 24th February 2015
Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough
Thank you for attending