DOCSLIB.ORG

How to Reduce the Risk of Pesticide Resistance in Cherry Pests in Oregon C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EM 8951 • September 2008 • $15.00 How to Reduce the Risk of Pesticide Resistance in Cherry Pests in Oregon C. Kaiser, A.N. Azarenko, L. Long, and R.A. Spotts Pesticides—including insecticides, acaricides, Insecticide and acaricide resistance fungicides, and bactericides—are essential for grow- According to the Insecticide Resistance Action ing healthy crops with reliable yields and quality. In Committee (IRAC), resistance to insecticides is “a many instances, pesticides have become less effective heritable change in the sensitivity of a pest population as target organisms have developed resistance. The that is reflected in the repeated failure of a product to first record of resistance dates to 1897, when orchard- achieve the expected level of control when used accord- ists began having problems controlling San Jose scale ing to the label recommendation for that pest species.” (Quadraspidiotus perniciosus [Comstock]) and codling When a chemical is used continuously, insecticide moth (Cydia pomonella [L.]). Since then, pesticide resistance may lead to reduced insect control. The resistance has become a worldwide threat to com- typical response is to reapply the insecticide; when mercial agriculture. By the end of 2006, there were that fails, the dosage is raised, and the interval between 645 specific cases of agricultural insecticide resistance, applications is reduced. These strategies work only as affecting 316 compounds. long as it takes for complete resistance to be expressed There has also been a gradual increase in the occur- across the entire insect population. The product is rence of fungicide resistance since 1960. Fungicide then abandoned, and another class of products with resistance usually develops rapidly compared to insecti- increased efficacy is used. The cycle repeats, and crop cide resistance. However, poor disease control can also losses amount to millions of dollars internationally. result from factors such as incorrect disease identifica- Not only does resistance lead to increased costs of tion, adverse weather conditions, and poor application production, but in some cases secondary or minor pests technique or timing. Always consider these possible have become major pests as predator populations are causes before concluding that poor control is the result reduced by pesticide use. Furthermore, resistance to of resistance. a specific compound also confers cross resistance to Timely action to prevent resistance development other chemically related compounds that share a com- will ensure that horticultural industries gain maximum mon target site and mode of action within the pest. benefit from effective pesticides for as long as possible. The coordinated use of two insecticides typically This publication suggests strategies to prevent resis- is more diverse than using a single pesticide. However, tance development. It also provides detailed informa- improper application of two insecticides in one study tion on insecticides and fungicides currently registered resulted in resistance to both pesticides when a single for use on cherries in Oregon, including information resistance would have arisen if only one pesticide had regarding the pests for which each product is legally been used. registered, mode of action, chemical groupings, and classification. Extension personnel, field consultants, and growers should use this information to reduce the risk of resistance to insecticides and fungicides. Clive Kaiser, Extension faculty (horticulture), Umatilla County; Anita Nina Azarenko, Department of Horticulture; Lynn Long, Extension faculty (horticulture), Wasco County; and Robert A. Spotts, Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center; all of Oregon State University. Insecticide and acaricide resistance has occurred Classifications used by IRAC (www.irac-online. across the entire spectrum of arthropods, including org/) are used in this publication (Chart 1), and IRAC’s Diptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, Heteroptera, cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. Coleoptera, and Acarina. Insect pests of cherries with Strategies for preventing insecticide and documented resistance to insecticides include the black acaricide resistance cherry aphid, green peach aphid, European red mite, McDaniel spider mite, obliquebanded leafroller, west- • When planting new blocks, consider cultivars with ern flower thrips, and many others. early-maturing fruit that may escape insect pest Some pesticides are more prone to resistance problems. This strategy is especially useful in early- problems than others. Chemistries implicated include production areas such as Milton-Freewater and may carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids. How- also confer a market advantage. ever, other products such as endosulfan and Bacillus • Integrate chemicals with other control methods; thuringiensis (Bt), widely used in Oregon for insect e.g., cultural and biological control. control in cherry orchards, are not immune from resis- • Before you spray, make sure that pest population tance buildup. Two recent studies found that insects can levels are high enough to justify control. Use appro- develop resistance to crystalline toxins produced by priate local economic thresholds. Contact your local the Bt bacterium. This is cause for concern due to the OSU Extension agent to obtain threshold levels. increased worldwide reliance on this product. • Understand the specific pest’s life cycle and the To avoid pesticide resistance, growers need to phenological model for each pest (http://ippc2.orst. understand insecticide and acaricide modes of action edu/cgi-bin/ddmodel.pl). When controlling larval and how different chemical groups target pests. They stages, target younger larval instars, if possible, also need a clear understanding of how to use an effec- because these stages usually are much more effec- tive multiple-pesticide strategy. tively controlled by insecticides than older stages. Cherry insecticide and acaracide tables • Where possible, select insecticides and other pest Chemicals currently registered for use on cher- management tools that preserve beneficial insects. ries in Oregon appear in Charts 1 and 2. Chart 1 lists For a natural-enemy-impact guide for tree fruit cherry pests of major concern to growers in Oregon, pesticides, see EM 8203-E, Pest Management Guide along with all active ingredients (and most of the com- for Tree Fruits in the Mid-Columbia Area. Remem- mon trade names) registered for use on these pests. ber, when you kill natural enemies, you inherit their Restricted-entry intervals (REI) and preharvest inter- job. vals (PHI) are included. These restrictions change fre- • Use products at recommended doses. Lower quently and may vary among similar products. Check (sublethal) doses quickly select populations with the latest information concerning label requirements average levels of tolerance, while doses that are too and restrictions before selecting and applying a product. high may impose excessive selection pressures. For up-to-date information, see the Washington State • Make sure spray equipment is properly calibrated http://ext. University Pesticide Notification Network ( at least annually. Follow recommendations for water wsu.edu/pnn/ ). volumes, spray pressures, and optimal temperatures. Chart 2 lists active ingredients alphabetically, • Observe spray intervals on label recommendations. together with all currently registered trade names. Chart 2 details the chemical class, mode of action, • Alternate products from different IRAC mode of IRAC main group and primary site of action, and action groups to which there is no locally known chemical subgroup or exemplifying active ingredient cross resistance. When making multiple applica- for each compound. tions per year or growing season, alternate products Product trade names currently registered by the from different mode of action classes, preferably Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) are shown in rotations of at least three. Utilize the WSU IPM in bold in Chart 2. Products listed by OMRI change Decision Aid website (http://entomology.tfrec.wsu. frequently, and organic growers are advised to check edu/das/). the latest information concerning label registrations before selecting and applying a product (http://www. omri.org/). 2 • In the event of a control failure, do not reapply the organisms. This, coupled with the implementation of an same insecticide. Choose a pesticide with a differ- effective multiple-pesticide spray program, is impera- ent mode of action and to which there is no locally tive if pest resistance is to be avoided. known cross resistance. Cherry fungicide and bactericide tables • Insecticide mixtures (cocktails) may offer a short- Chemicals currently registered for use on cherries term solution to resistance problems. However, in Oregon appear in Cherry Charts 3 and 4. Chart 3 each component must have a different insecticidal lists cherry diseases of major concern to growers in mode of action and must be used at its full rate. Oregon, along with all fungicidal and bactericidal • If in doubt, consult a local Extension agent or active ingredients (and most of the common trade agricultural adviser for up-to-date spray recommen- names) registered for use on these diseases. Restricted- dations and advice on Integrated Pest Management entry intervals (REI) and preharvest intervals (PHI) are (IPM) and Insecticide Resistance Management included. These restrictions change frequently and may (IRM) programs. vary among similar products. Check the latest
Recommended publications
  • Pesticide Resistance Management an Insect Perspective

    Pesticide Resistance Management an Insect Perspective

    PesticidePesticide ResistanceResistance ManagementManagement AnAn InsectInsect PerspectivePerspective FrankFrank Zalom,Zalom, Dept.Dept. ofof Entomology,Entomology, UCUC DavisDavis NickNick Toscano,Toscano, DeptDept ofof Entomology,Entomology, UCUC RiversideRiverside FrankFrank Byrne,Byrne, DeptDept ofof Entomology,Entomology, UCUC RiversideRiverside InsecticideInsecticide resistanceresistance isis duedue toto aa geneticgenetic traittrait aa pestpest inheritsinherits thatthat allowsallows itit toto survivesurvive anan applicationapplication thatthat mostmost otherother individualsindividuals inin thethe populationpopulation cannotcannot survive.survive. TheThe survivorsurvivor thenthen passespasses thethe genesgenes forfor resistanceresistance onon toto thethe nextnext generation.generation. X TheThe moremore thethe insecticideinsecticide isis used,used, thethe moremore quicklyquickly susceptiblesusceptible individualsindividuals areare eliminatedeliminated andand thethe fasterfaster thethe proportionproportion ofof resistantresistant individualsindividuals increasesincreases inin thethe population.population. X X X X X X IncreasingIncreasing pesticidepesticide ratesrates ResistanceResistance MechanismsMechanisms InsecticideInsecticide avoidanceavoidance behaviorsbehaviors -- • InsectsInsects maymay changechange theirtheir behaviorbehavior inin orderorder toto avoidavoid thethe pesticide.pesticide. BiochemicalBiochemical mechanismsmechanisms -- • ResistantResistant insectsinsects possesposses enzymesenzymes thatthat breakbreak downdown
  • Sound Management of Pesticides and Diagnosis and Treatment Of

    Sound Management of Pesticides and Diagnosis and Treatment Of

    * Revision of the“IPCS - Multilevel Course on the Safe Use of Pesticides and on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Presticide Poisoning, 1994” © World Health Organization 2006 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgement Part I. Overview 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives 2. Overview of the resource tool 2.1 Moduledescription 2.2 Training levels 2.3 Visual aids 2.4 Informationsources 3. Using the resource tool 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Training trainers 3.2.1 Organizational aspects 3.2.2 Coordinator’s preparation 3.2.3 Selection of participants 3.2.4 Before training trainers 3.2.5 Specimen module 3.3 Trainers 3.3.1 Trainer preparation 3.3.2 Selection of participants 3.3.3 Organizational aspects 3.3.4 Before a course 4.
  • Fungicide Resistance Action Committee's (FRAC) Classification Scheme of Fungicides According to Mode of Action1

    Fungicide Resistance Action Committee's (FRAC) Classification Scheme of Fungicides According to Mode of Action1

    PI-94 Fungicide Resistance Action Committee's (FRAC) Classification Scheme of Fungicides According to Mode of Action1 Frederick M. Fishel2 This guide addresses resistance to pesticides and large populations with a rapid rate of reproduction. describes the Fungicide Resistance Action Weeds were the last category of pests to show Committee's (FRAC) classification of fungicides and resistance because they only reproduce, at most, once bactericides registered for use in Florida by their per year. By contrast, insects reproduce with multiple modes of action. A cross reference of common names generations in a single year, and some bacteria and for active ingredients -- with corresponding examples fungi reproduce several times in a single hour. of their trade names -- is also provided. Where large populations exist, great genetic Fungicide-resistant plant pathogens are not new. diversity exists within the population. Within these Although the first confirmation of fungicide large populations, there will be several individuals resistance was in 1960, there were few subsequent that are tolerant of chemical-control measures, incidences up until 1970. Since then, there have been perhaps only one in a million or billion. Pests more incidences, especially with the introduction of typically become resistant when the same pesticide is systemic fungicides. Also of concern has been the used repeatedly within a single year or for several shortening amount of time taken for resistance to consecutive years. Some researchers believe selection emerge, sometimes within two years of a new pressure forces pests to mutate. However, there are commercial fungicide introduction. more likely reasons for resistance: Fungicide resistance is not unique to plant • There were always a few of the resistant types pathogens.
  • Insecticide Resistance Management and the Importance of Sustainable Practices

    Insecticide Resistance Management and the Importance of Sustainable Practices

    INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES ESA Position Statement on Insecticide Resistance Management Approved on July 30, 2020 Valid through July 30, 2024 Insect and other arthropod pests can have a devastating global impact on the welfare of humanity, posing threats to food security, public health, and beyond. In the U.S., an estimated $22.9 billion in crop yield losses due to arthropod pests are prevented by spending $1.2 billion per year on insecticides and their application.¹ Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that insect-transmitted diseases are responsible for more than 17 percent of all infectious diseases. Malaria kills more than 400,000 people every year and sickens 219 million.2 More than 3.9 billion individuals are at risk of contracting dengue fever, with an estimated 96 million cases per year and 40,000 deaths.2 Insecticide use is a critical tool for mitigating these crop and human-health threats when alternative management strategies are not adequate for providing sufficient protection. Unfortunately, repeated exposure of targeted insect pest populations to insecticides with the same biochemical mode of action—the specific biological pathway targeted by that chemical—can rapidly lead to evolution of resistance that reduces their effectiveness. According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management, resistance is “any heritable decrease in sensitivity to a chemical within a pest population.”3 Similar to the development of anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, this means that pest populations often harbor unknown genes that give the insects an ability to survive exposure to an insecticide.
  • Resistance Management: a Critical Role for Biopesticides

    Resistance Management: a Critical Role for Biopesticides

    Certis USA for CAPCA Adviser Resistance Management: A Critical Role for Biopesticides By Mike Dimock, Ph.D., Certis USA Vice President of Field Development & Technical Support and Scott Ockey, Certis USA Field Development Manager-Western USA BIOPESTICIDES are becoming critical components of resistance management programs. Most biopesticides, BENEFITS OF BIOPESTICIDES particularly microbial products, have multiple modes of action—they don’t target a single site or gene. Even if 0LNH'LPRFN3K'SRLQWVRXWWKHIROORZLQJ a pest is resistant to a single mode of action, it is highly EHQHÀWVWRXVLQJELRSHVWLFLGHVIRUUHVLVWDQFH unlikely it will have cross resistance to a biopesticide management: that has multiple modes of action or target sites. For this reason, biopesticides are valuable for helping us reduce or eliminate the development of resistance to pesticides. •0RVWDUHH[HPSWIURPUHVLGXHWROHUDQFHVRGRQ·W Resistance Development: A Brief Review SRVHDQLVVXHZLWK0D[LPXP5HVLGXH/LPLWV Weeds, insect pests and disease-causing fungi 05/V LQH[SRUWFURSV and bacteria are living organisms capable of evolving in response to selection. And one source of selection can be •6SHFLÀFLW\²PRVWELRSHVWLFLGHVSUHVHQWORZHU the pesticides used to control them. Most pest populations include a few individuals ULVNVIURPZRUNHUH[SRVXUHDQGHQYLURQPHQWDO with heritable traits that make them more able to survive issues. exposure to certain types of pesticide active ingredients. For example, a genetic mutation resulting in a slight change to •0RVWKDYHPXOWLSOHPRGHVRIDFWLRQUDWKHUWKDQ an enzyme that is the target of a particular active ingredient (AI) might make individuals expressing the altered enzyme attacking a single target site as is more typical of no longer susceptible to that AI. Application of pesticides conventional chemical pesticides. This puts them containing that AI acts as a selective agent favoring those DWORZHUULVNRIUHVLVWDQFHGHYHORSPHQW individuals (and their offspring) over individuals lacking the mutant genes for resistance to that mode of action.
  • Death in Small Doses: Cambodia's Pesticides Problems and Solutions

    Death in Small Doses: Cambodia's Pesticides Problems and Solutions

    DEATH IN SMALL DOSES Cambodia’s pesticide problems and solutions A report by the Environmental Justice Foundation Contents Acronyms used in this report APCPA Asia-Pacific Crop Protection Association Executive Summary ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations CEDAC Centre d’Etude et de Developpement Introduction - Agricole Cambodgien CIAP Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project Global Pesticide Production and Use - CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation CTBS Community Trap Barrier System An Overview of Cambodian Agriculture - DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, a persistent organic insecticide Pesticide Use in Cambodia - FAO The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation FFS Farmer Field Schools Pesticides and Cambodian Law GDP Gross Domestic Product IPM Integrated Pest Management Cambodia’s Pesticide Problem: Causes - IRRI International Rice Research Institute IUCN International Union for the Conservation Cambodia’s Pesticide Problem: Dangers - of Nature LD50 Lethal Dose 50 - NGO Non-Governmental Organisation Alternatives & Solutions in Cambodian Agriculture PIC The Prior Informed Consent procedure of the Rotterdam Convention Conclusions and Recommendations - POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants RGC Royal Government of Cambodia Glossary UNEP The United Nations Environment Programme WHO World Health Organisation References WFP World Food Programme Acknowledgements This report was written, edited and produced by the Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Foundation is Foundation (Sylviane Nguyen-Vaucheret, Dr Mike Shanahan, Juliette a London-based non-governmental Williams and Steve Trent). Printed on % post-consumer waste paper. organisation. More information about EJF’s work and pdf versions of this Design by Dan Brown ([email protected]). report can be found at We wish to thank the following individuals who allowed us to use their images to www.ejfoundation.org.
  • Reducing and Eliminating the Use of Persistent Organic Pesticides

    Reducing and Eliminating the Use of Persistent Organic Pesticides

    Reducing and Eliminating the use of Persistent Organic Pesticides Guidance on alternative strategies for sustainable pest and vector management Johan Mörner, Robert Bos and Marjon Fredrix Geneva, 2002 1 Alternatives to POPs pesticides - a guidance document About the authors Johan Mörner (M.Sc. Agronomy of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) has 15 years of experience working with pest management research in Sweden and eight years managing projects on IPM, pesticide safety and alternative control methods in East and southern Africa. He currently works as a consultant on pest and pesticide management issues both in Sweden and abroad. Robert Bos (M.Sc. Medical Biology/M.Sc. Immunology, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands) joined the World Health Organization in 1981 on assignment in Costa Rica before transferring to the Secretariat of the WHO/FAO/UNEP Panel of Experts on Environmental Management for Vector Control (PEEM) at WHO head- quarters. In his current position of scientist in the Water, Sanitation and Health Unit of WHO he combines responsibilities for PEEM work and for the broader health agenda associated with water resources development and management. Marjon Fredrix (M.Sc. in Tropical Agronomy, Wageningen University, the Nether- lands) presently works for the Global IPM Facility at FAO in Rome. Between 1987 and 1998 she worked for FAO in Algeria, the Philippines and Viet Nam. From 1992 to 1998 she was technical officer for the FAO Intercountry Programme for IPM in South and Southeast Asia, based in Viet Nam. In this period over 300 000 farmers participated in over 11 000 Farmer Field Schools that were organized by the Vietnam IPM programme.
  • The Hidden and External Costs of Pesticide Use Denis Bourguet, Thomas Guillemaud

    The Hidden and External Costs of Pesticide Use Denis Bourguet, Thomas Guillemaud

    The hidden and external costs of pesticide use Denis Bourguet, Thomas Guillemaud To cite this version: Denis Bourguet, Thomas Guillemaud. The hidden and external costs of pesticide use. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 19, Springer International Publishing, pp.35-120, 2016, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 978-3-319-26776-0. 10.1007/978-3-319-26777-7_2. hal-01303109 HAL Id: hal-01303109 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01303109 Submitted on 22 Jul 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Chapter 2 The Hidden and External Costs of Pesticide Use Denis Bourguet and Thomas Guillemaud Abstract A fair evaluation of the net benefi ts provided by pesticides is essential to feed the current debate on their benefi ts and adverse consequences. Pesticides pro- vide many benefi ts by killing agricultural and human pests. However, they also entail several types of costs, including internal costs due to the purchase and appli- cation of pesticides, and various other costs due to the impact of treatments on human health and the environment. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of these costs and their evaluation. We defi ne four categories of costs: regulatory costs, human health costs, environmental costs and defensive expenditures.
  • Biopesticides As Promising Alternatives to Chemical Pesticides: a Review of Their Current and Future Status

    Biopesticides As Promising Alternatives to Chemical Pesticides: a Review of Their Current and Future Status

    OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences Review Biopesticides as Promising Alternatives to Chemical Pesticides: A Review of Their Current and Future Status Lukmanul Hakim Samada and Usman Sumo Friend Tambunan Bioinformatics and Biomedicals Research Group, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, 16424, Indonesia Article history Abstract: Biopesticides are living organisms or natural products that Received: 20-12-2019 control agricultural pests including bacteria, fungi, weeds, viruses and Revised: 23-03-2020 insects. Biopesticides can be classified into different categories, such as Accepted: 14-04-2020 microbial pesticides, plant-incorporated protectants and biochemicals. Corresponding Author: Biopesticides are a crucial component of integrated pest management Usman Sumo Friend programs for pest control, which lead to more natural alternatives to Tambunan chemical pesticides that are eco-friendly and safer. Since the emergence of Bioinformatics and biopesticides for potential pest management, numerous products have been Biomedicals Research Group, released and some of them dominate the market. This review paper will Department of Chemistry, discuss the current status, future prospect and challenges associated with Faculty of Mathematics and the use of biopesticides in pest control. Natural Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, 16424, Indonesia Keywords: Biopesticides, Pests, Integrated Pest Management, Eco- Email: [email protected] Friendly Introduction Biopesticides allow for a sustainable approach for improved crop production, which should increase their Agricultural pests, such as bacteria, weeds, insects use and popularity in the coming years (Mishra et al., and fungi can lower the yield and quality of crop 2015). Moreover, opinions about biopesticide use have production. The primary method used since the 1960s to begun to change because of the recent recognition of the control pests has been the intensive application of environmental consequences of chemical pesticides.
  • Quick Tests for Pesticide Resistance in Spider Mites

    Quick Tests for Pesticide Resistance in Spider Mites

    resistance in spider mites Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell 0 Jeffrey Granett 0 Timothy J. Dennehy Thestrawberry mite, two-spotted spi- atively few cotton fields: 10 to 30 percent cide would be most effective. The rapid der mite, and Pacific mite are the domi- of those randomly sampled during 1982- bioassay can also be used after an acari- nant spider mite pests of cotton in Califor- 85. If resistance becomes widespread be- cide application to distinguish between nia's San Joaquin Valley. The damage cause of mismanagement of these acari- loss of efficacy due to field failure and they cause ranges from stippling of leaves cides, however, and they are replaced that resulting from other factors. Finally, to defoliation, influencing plant growth with broader spectrum acaricides that temporarily avoiding the use of a problem and production. kill natural enemies, the excellent inte- acaricide gives susceptible mites a Three acaricides that allow beneficial grated pest management program pres- chance to survive and interbreed with re- insects and mites to survive are currently ently used in San Joaquin Valley cotton sistant mites, resulting in a lower fre- registered for control of spider mites in will be disrupted. It is therefore impor- quency of resistant individuals in the next cotton. One of them, sulfur, is effective tant to implement resistance manage- generation. only against the strawberry mite, Tetran- ment practices quickly for both dicofol Several areas of research had to be ychus turkestani Ugarov and Nikolski. and propargite. completed in developing the rapid bio- The other two, dicofol (Kelthane) and pro- In the past, acaricide resistance was assay.
  • Sensitive Determination of Mixtures of Neonicotinoid And

    Sensitive Determination of Mixtures of Neonicotinoid And

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Sussex Research Online Sensitive determination of mixtures of neonicotinoid and fungicide residues in pollen and single bumblebees using a scaled down QuEChERS method for exposure assessment Article (Submitted Version) David, Arthur, Botías, Cristina, Abdul-Sada, Alaa, Goulson, Dave and Hill, Elizabeth M (2015) Sensitive determination of mixtures of neonicotinoid and fungicide residues in pollen and single bumblebees using a scaled down QuEChERS method for exposure assessment. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 407 (26). pp. 8151-8162. ISSN 1618-2642 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/57914/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way.
  • No. 902, Neohesperidin Dihydrochalcone

    No. 902, Neohesperidin Dihydrochalcone

    GRAS Notice (GRN) No. 902 https://www.fda.gov/food/generally-recognized-safe-gras/gras-notice-inventory Al AIBMR Life Sciences, Inc. December 17, 2019 Susan Carlson, PhD Division Director Division of Biotechnology and GRAS Notice Review Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services 5001 Campus Drive College Park, MD 207 40 Dear Dr. Carlson: In accordance with regulation 21 CFR Part 170 Subpart E (Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Notice), on behalf ofHealthTech BioActives, S.L.U. (the notifier), the undersigned, Kayla Preece, submits, for FDA review, the enclosed notice that neohesperidin dihydrochalcone is GRAS for use in foods. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice, please contact me at 253-286-2888 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Kayla Preece (agent of the notifier) Scientific and Regulatory Consultant AIBMR Life Sciences, Inc. ("AIBMR") JAN 8 2020 OFFICE OF , FOOD ADDITIVE SAF~fY Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone GRAS 2 #902 Notice to US Food and Drug Administration of the Conclusion that the Intended Use of Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone is Generally Recognized as Safe Submitted by the Notifier: HealthTech BioActives, S.L.U. Ctra. Beniel a Zeneta, 143-145 El Raiguero-La Villa 30130 Beniel (Murcia) Spain Prepared by the Agent of the Notifier: AIBMR Life Sciences, Inc. 2800 E. Madison, Suite 202 Seattle WA 98112 � December 17, 2019 ��(C �'¥7�(Q) JAN 8 2020 OFFICE OF FOOD ADDITIVE SAFETY ~• ,.1BMR Life Sciences, Inc. Table of Contents Part 1: Signed Statements and Certification ............................................................ 6 1.1 Submission of GRAS Notice .........................................................................