Vol45no1qxp

Inside this issue...

NewsletterVol. 45 No. 1 Winter 2014

34568

101114

New Product Corner

Congratulations Doug Buhler

Global IR-4 Work

Pest Management Solutions for Specialty Crops and Minor Uses

RNAi Biotehnology Update

Sugar Baits for Vector Control

AmericanHort Launched

FDA Revises Parts of FSMA

Geraniums orPelargoniums?

On Pointwith PresidentObamaIt was on Friday evening, one weekbefore the actual event, when IR-4’sNorth Central Region (NCR)Administrative Adviser, DougBuhler “got the call” that MichiganState University (MSU) would behosting President Obama for aspecial event. The event, he learneda few days later, was the signing ofthe Farm Bill.

The Farm Bill is of particularimportance to specialty cropgrowers and IR-4. The law contains language that reflects IR-4’s currentmission to support specialty cropsand minor uses. The Farm Bill alsoauthorizes IR-4 work in theinternational arena. Thisinternational work will help U.S.growers export their goods byremoving trade barriers caused byresidues of pesticides in specialtycrops and minor agricultural uses.

MSU faculty members have had agood deal of input throughout theFarm Bill process. Senator DebbieStabenow, is a graduate of theuniversity and is currentlyChairwoman of the SenateCommittee on Agriculture,Nutrition and Forestry. This made

good reason for MSU to host thesigning of such a significant piece oflegislation.

The day after “the call”, an advanceteam of White House staffersarrived to discuss the visit with aplanning team from MSU. Doug,who is the director of MSU’s AgBioResearch, became the researchprogram point person for thePresident’s visit. Doug showed theadvance team the facilities and tookthem outside in the snow andexplained how some of the farmequipment is used. They selectedthe equipment that would be ondisplay in the staging area for thesigning, and plans were wellunderway.

Then the Secret Service arrived andmost of the plans were scrapped."We learned quickly that you don'tnegotiate with the Secret Service,"said Doug. "They're very

continued on page 4

IR-4 has had an acute problem ofovercapacity of facilities and staff torun residue field trials in EPA DataRegion 2 for the last several years.We have too many high quality fieldresearch directors in the region andnot enough work and associatedfunds to maintain all the sites at fullcapacity.

To solve this problem, IR-4 HQ,IR-4 Southern Region and NorthCarolina State Universityadministration are partnering on aunique plan of “sharing” NC FieldResearch Director, Roger Batts,among the IR-4 units. SinceDecember 2013, Roger has beenworking about 50% of his time forIR-4 Headquarters. He will betrained to become an off-site StudyDirector. Roger will also continueto lead the North Carolina’s IR-4Field Research Center as Directorwith a much reduced field trialworkload (approx. 12 field trials for2014). Roger will continue to be anemployee of NC State University,managing field trials and studies outof his existing IR-4 office on theRaleigh campus.

We hope that the reduced fieldtrials workload in NC will allowother Region 2 Field ResearchCenters to obtain enough resourcesto sustain operations. Furthermore,Roger’s new responsibilities willpartially backfill the anticipated gapin study directors capacityassociated with the recentresignation announcement byJohannes Corley.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 2Vol 45 No 1

Dear Friends,

Greetings from the snowy East Coast U.S. where wehave been hit hard by Old Man Winter forcing IR-4Headquarters to close or truncate many work days.Regrettably, these shutdowns have impacted manyaspects of normal IR-4 work flow.

Funding updateCongress approved and the President signed a funding law for the restof federal fiscal year 2014 that restored IR-4 funding through USDA’sNational Institute of Food and Agriculture to the 2012 level of$11.916 million. This funding restoration and a similar one inUSDA-ARS, while extremely helpful, does not fully address thecurrent funding shortfalls associated with demand for IR-4 services.The funding restoration may not address the deep cuts that certainUSDA-ARS sites experienced during sequestration.

We did get some good news through the signing of the 2014 FarmBill, where the law contains language that reflects IR-4’s currentmission support specialty crops and minor uses. The Farm Bill alsoauthorizes IR-4 to work in the international arena to help U.S. growersexport their goods by removing trade barriers caused by residues ofpesticides in specialty crops and minor agricultural uses. On behalf ofthe IR-4 Project I want to thank the members of the IR-4 CommodityLiaison Committee and Minor Crop Farmers Alliance for their supportin the restoration of IR-4 funding and Farm Bill reauthorization.

Several of us at IR-4 Headquarters have been spending significant timegoing through all the thoughtful comments that were submitted inassociation with the IR-4 Strategic Planning survey. There were 550individual responses with comments on multiple questions. We areprogressing with our goal to release a draft strategic plan for reviewand comment in spring 2014 and finalization later this summer.

The new Strategic Plan is only one step of the process required tosupport the reauthorization of NRSP-4 (IR-4) by the State AgriculturalExperimental Stations. IR-4 will be subject to a comprehensive projectaccomplishment/project direction review by USDA later this year. IR-4will submit a future Project Statement outlining directions noted in theStrategic Plan. Needless to say, we are expecting several very busymonths.

In closing, I want to thank and acknowledge Drs. Monte Johnson andSally Schneider on their tremendous support and service to IR-4.Monte and Sally served as the National Program Leaders for IR-4activities within USDA-NIFA and USDA-ARS, respectively. Monteretired from USDA-NIFA at the end of the year while Sally hasreceived a promotion to Associate Administrator within USDA-ARS.Congratulations to both as they enter new phases of their lives.

All the best,Jerry

Executive Director Notes

NewAssignment— by IR-4 Executive Director,Jerry Baron

*See labels for specific use patternsand other general directions foruse.

pg 3Vol 45 No 1

New Product Corner

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TOLFENPYRAD (Insecticide –Nichino America, Inc.)Introduction: Unconditionalregistration of the new activeingredient (AI) tolfenpyrad wasgranted by the EPA in November2013 for its first uses on foodcrops. First non-food uses onornamental horticulture plantsgrown in greenhouses (marketedunder trade name Hachi-Hachi bySePRO Corp.) were registered in2010. This new food use chemicalregistration provides growers with anew pest management tool for useagainst various insect and mitepests, as well as for fungicidalsuppression activity against certaindiseases. Tolfenpyrad is abroad-spectrum pyrazole classifiedin Group 21A by the InsecticideResistance Action Committee(IRAC), and it acts by impairingenergy metabolism in target pests.

Other global registrations: Japan,Dominican Republic, Taiwan,Thailand, UAE, Indonesia, SaudiArabia, China, Malaysia, Jordan

US food use tradenames/formulations: APTA™ andBEXAR™ Insecticides (both 1.31lb AI/gal) and TORAC™Insecticide (1.29 lb AI/gal)

US labeled crops*:APTA™ and BEXAR™ Insecticides– citrus (crop group 10-10); stonefruit (crop group 12-12); tree nut(crop group 14-12); also on theBEXAR™ label - grapes (raisin,table, wine – only CA, OR, WA)

TORAC™ Insecticide – cotton(only in AZ, CA, NM); leafyvegetables (crop group 4); potato(only west of the Mississippi River)

Labeled food use pest spectrum:control or suppression of insects(thrips, psyllids, aphids, mealybugs, soft seales, lepidoptera,Colorado potato beetle, fleabeetles, cherry fruit fly, spottedwing drosophila, katydid), mites(Tetranychids, Eriophiids,Tarsonemids) and certain diseases(powdery, and downy mildews)

Ongoing IR-4 residue projects(PR#): 2010 – avocado (10427),blueberry (10380); 2011 – onion,crop group 3-07 (09657 and09551), GH tomato (10634);2012 – strawberry (10869); 2013– GH cucumber (10842); 2014 -caneberry (11263)

Other researchable IR-4 databaserequests: succulent shelled bean(11299), coffee (10892), hops(10913)

SULFOXAFLOR (Insecticide - DowAgroSciences LLC)Introduction: Unconditionalregistrations of the new AIsulfoxaflor was granted by the EPAin May 2013. Regulatory scientistsfrom EPA and counterpart agenciesin Canada and Australia conducteda global joint review of the dossier.This new chemical registrationprovides growers with a new pestmanagement tool for use againstpiercing/sucking/sap-feedinginsects. Belonging to a novel classof chemistry (sulfoximines),sulfoxaflor was classified as a Group4C insecticide by IRAC.

Other global registrations:Australia, Canada, China,Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia,Israel, Panama, South Korea,Thailand, Vietnam; more country

registrations are expected in thenear future

US trade names/formulations:Closer® SC (2.0 lb AI/gal) andTransform® WG (50% AI)

US labeled crops*:Closer® SC – Brassica leafyvegetables (crop group 5); citrus(crop group 10); cucurbitvegetables (crop group 9); fruitingvegetables (crop group 8) and okra;leafy vegetables (crop group 4) andwatercress; leaves of root and tubervegetables (crop group 2); pomefruit (crop group 11); small fruitvine-climbing except fuzzy kiwifruit(crop subgroup 13-07F); lowgrowing berries (crop subgroup13-07G); stone fruit (crop group12); tree nut (crop group 14) andpistachio

Transform® WG – barley, triticaleand wheat; canola (rapeseed),oilseed crop subgroup 20A; cotton;root and tuber vegetables (cropgroup 1); soybean; succulent,edible-podded and dry beans

Labeled pest spectrum: for controlor suppression of aphids,fleahoppers, plant bugs, mealybugs,stink bugs, whiteflies, certain scalesand certain psyllids

Ongoing IR-4 residue projects(PR#): 2013 – sunflower (11095,covering safflower [11269] andother crop subgroup 20B crops);2014 - artichoke (10858),asparagus (11321), blueberry(11290), caneberry (11279)

Other researchable IR-4 databaserequests: hops (10912)

This new section of the IR-4 Newsletter called ‘New Product Corner’ wassuggested by grower stakeholders as a way for IR-4 to help inform specialtycrop growers about new pest management tools recently registered by EPA.This is for informational purposes only as IR-4 does not endorse a particularproduct or registrant.

Doug was also credited forrecognizing the importance of keyresearch and extension positions toindustry, and working to hire newscientists during financially difficulttimes.

Since 1970, the MSHSDistinguished Service Award hasrecognized those giving dedicatedservice toward improvement of theMichigan fruit industry. The MVCgives the Master Farmer AssociateAward to an individual who, whilenot directly involved with farming,has had a significant impact on thewell-being of the vegetable industryin Michigan.

The expo organizers put together aYouTube video highlighting Doug’sresearch and career. The video canbe viewed online athttp://bit.ly/awarddb.

the Master Farmer AssociateAward. Both organizationsrecognized his strong commitmentto serve the needs and listen to theconcerns of industry stakeholders.Doug has served in a number ofleadership positions at MSU,among them chairperson of theDepartment of Crop and SoilSciences, interim state leader foragriculture programs in MSUExtension, and most recentlyinterim dean for CANR.He has been on the leadership team

for MSU ProjectGREEEN (GeneratingResearch and Extensionto meet Economic andEnvironmental Needs)for many years. Theawards credited him forhelping develop thisinitiative into “anoutstanding example ofcooperation betweenindustry stakeholdersand the university.”

Personalities in the News

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 4Vol 45 No 1

Doug Buhler, director of MichiganState University AgBioResearch andsenior associate dean for researchfor the College of Agriculture andNatural Resources (CANR),received two awards on Dec. 11,2013, during the Great Lakes Fruit,Vegetable and Farm Market EXPOannual banquet in Grand Rapids.The Michigan State HorticulturalSociety (MSHS) honored Dr. Buhlerwith the Distinguished ServiceAward, and the Michigan VegetableCouncil (MVC) honored him with

Congratulations Doug!

professional and very clear on howthings will proceed while thePresident is on campus. We allknew our roles.”

On Friday, February 7, 2014, thePresident, accompanied by SenatorStabenow, Agriculture SecretaryTom Vilsak and MSU President LouAnna K. Simon, toured MSU’sBiotechnology Institute (MBI). MBIwas chosen because of its state ofthe art facilities where research toaddress real world problems isconducted. MBI is also the home ofIR-4’s North Central Regionlaboratory and office.

A short time later, President Obamasigned the 2014 Farm Bill in frontof 500 invited guests. IR-4 wasrepresented by the NCR’s analyticallaboratory student helper, ChrisLaMarche, who interned withSenator Stabenow in the summer of2013 and was personally invited tothe signing.

Though his time with the Presidentwas brief, Doug says he will neverforget the moment he was eye toeye with President Obama andshook his hand and says he feels“honored to have been the pointperson for this momentous event.”

On Point continued from page 1

Dont forget to follow us.www.facebook.com/IR4Project,www.facebook.com/IR4OrnHortand

@IR4_Project and @IR4Project.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 5Vol 45 No 1

Geraniums and pelargoniumsare often confused with eachother. It is very easy to do sincethe flower widely grown as abedding plant and in containersis known as ‘geranium’, but itsLatin genera name isPelargonium sp. The genusGeranium contains 422 speciesof flowering annual, biennial andperennial plants and are foundin temperate regions. Severalspecies are cultivated forhorticulture and pharmaceuticaluses, but the vast majority of‘geraniums’ sold in the U.S. areactually ‘pelargoniums’.

Pelargoniumsare one of thetop annualornamentalhorticulturecrops in theU.S with over$134 millionwholesale

value annually (USDA NASS,Floriculture Crops 2012Summary, April 2013).Pelargoniums readily germinatefrom seed and easily root fromcuttings; both avenues ofpropagation are available withcutting production morecommon.

Pelargoniums were firstcultivated before 1600 andPelargonium triste, a native ofSouth Africa, was probablybrought to the botanical gardenin Leiden, Netherlands ontrading ships. John Tradescant

purchased seeds in Paris andintroduced them to England in1631. Pelargoniums are nativeto south, east, and northeastAfrica, Asia, St. Helena, Tristanda Cunha, Madagascar, Australiaand New Zealand. There are270 species worldwide with thehighest diversity occurring insouthern Africa with 219species. Approximately 20species are the progenitors ofthousands of modernpelargonium cultivars.

Ivy-leaved pelargoniums are trailing cultivars with P. peltatumas the main contributing species.Regal pelargoniums are knownas P. x domesticum and areprimarily derived from P.cucullatum and P. grandiflorum.Zonal pelargoniums, known as P.x hortorum and bred primarilyfrom P. zonale and P. inquinans,are highly sought after with over500 cultivars. Scented leafpelargoniums are derivatives of anumber of species.

Disease and pest problems canplague pelargoniums. A few ofthe concerning pathogensinclude Botrytis, Pythium, andXanthomonas. IR-4 hassponsored research on each ofthese diseases as well as ongeranium rust. Xanthomonasleaf spot on pelargonium was amodel system to study theimpact of potential bactericides.Out of this research, copperbased products consistentlyexhibited good efficacy, while

Geraniums? Pelargoniums?What’s the Difference?

Spotlight on Ornamentalsthere were a few other productswith promise including Citrex,Firewall, and Insimmo.

IR-4 has alsosponsoredresearch ongeranium withplant growthregulators (PGRs)to enhance shelflife and cropsafety to ensure little if any injuryoccurs with application. ThePGR studies were designed tostudy whether PGRs may helpovercome shipping stress, andenhance shelf quality and displaylife. Products containing 6-BA(Fascination, Maxcel, Exilis Plus)caused no to moderate injurywhich affected plant quality andshelf life of various cultivars. Ingeneral, ivy leaf cultivars like‘Tutti Frutti’ were more sensitivethan zonal cultivars like ‘Tango’.The GA4 + 7 products(NovaGib and Provide) generallywere not phytotoxic and hadpositive effects in some studies;however, they increasedpeduncle length at 100 ppmwhich may be unacceptable.

Pelargonium is a very popularplant and IR-4 has conductedmany studies on pelargoniumthroughout the years. In additionto pest and pathogen studies onPelargonium, crop safety studieshave also been conducted on 11fungicides, 8 herbicides, and 4insecticides. As the need arises,IR-4 will continue conductingresearch on this popular plant.

PhotoPelargoniumtriste.Anonymousfromcactusblog.net

Photo byCristiPalmer

RNAi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 6Vol 45 No 1

Most people have heard ofgenetically modified crops and theuse of biotechnology for crop pestmanagement. The most common ofthese technologies is the use ofgenetic material from Bacillusthuringiensis (Bt) to code for theproduction of a protein in plantswhich controls certain insects.Because of the history of

biotechnology coming through themicroorganism Bt, these productsare considered to be biopesticides.These are commonly referred to asPlant Incorporated Protectants(PIPs) and are regulated in EPA’sBiopesticide and PollutionPrevention Division¹. A newer formof biotechnology basedbiopesticides is RNAi technology.

How can this technology be used?

The term RNAi stands for RNAinterference because it interferes orsilences processes such as proteinsynthesis. Without certain proteins,pests may not develop, certainprocesses cannot continue and sothe process or the organism fails to

Biotechnoloy Update- RNAi as a NewTechnology for Pest Management— by Michael Braverman, Biopesticide and Organic Support Program Manager

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 7Vol 45 No 1

function or reproduce. There are many potential applications of thistechnology such as controllinginsects, diseases and nematodes,insect transmitted diseases andreversing pesticide resistance. Justlike one’s genetic makeup, thistechnology is highly specific. Oneof the newer approaches to RNAibased technology has been deliveryof dsRNA through feeding insects.IR-4 first met with EPA about RNAitechnology in 2008 with acompany called Beeologics whichdeveloped the dsRNA of IsraeliAcute Paralysis Virus of honeybees.This technology was more closelyaligned with the FDA regulatoryframework and was partnered withIR-4’s sister program IR-7.

How does it work?

RNAi is the name of the processbut it is double stranded RNA thatdoes the work. All plants andanimals contain RNA which is partof the genetic system which servesseveral functions depending on thelife stage. RNA is normally singlestranded, not double stranded. Oneof the main functions of RNA is inprotein synthesis which involvesseveral steps. A single strand ofmessenger RNA (mRNA) is madeoff of the template provided byDNA. The mRNA then causesamino acids to form chains in theexact order to produce a certainprotein. RNAi interferes betweenthese two processes by interferingwith or cutting up the target mRNA(see graphic for further details).The result is that the proteins arenot formed and unmodified genesare only interfered with or silenced.

While most currentbiotechnological traits involveincorporating specific geneticmaterial into the plants genome,some RNAi based technology canbe incorporated into plants or

sprayed onto plants and it does notmodify the plant genome itself. RNAiis also referred to as doublestranded RNA (dsRNA) technologysince the interference is actuallyinitiated due to the presence ofdsRNA and it is the dsRNA that isapplied or functions. This isachieved through the application ofdouble stranded RNA. Although thetechnology is new, humans consumeRNA every time they eat a plant.

Other biotechnology efforts.

IR-4’s biopesticide program hasalready successfully assisted in theregistration of HoneySweet Plum, aUSDA discovery which utilized aviral coat protein for resistance toplum pox virus. For several yearsHawaii has been growing papayaswhich are resistant to papayaringspot virus. The University ofFlorida has developed a similartechnology incorporating resistanceinto papaya varieties suited togrowing in Florida. In both of thesecases there are simply no pesticidesavailable that can be sprayed onplants to control viruses.

Actually, IR4’s history ofinvolvement of biotechnology goesback to 1999 with some initialdevelopment of biotechnology basedweed management in vegetables.Some of the newer areas ofbiotechnology projects very recentlyinitiated involve disease managementin tree nuts and ornamentals. Mostbiotechnology traits have beendelivered through transformation viaAgrobacterium, selection oftransformed cells and regenerationthrough tissue culture. A newertechnology being assisted by IR-4involves the delivery of traits throughthe priming of seeds. The currentfocus is for management of Fusariumcrown rot on tomato in cooperationwith Morflora’s TraitUP technology².

How is RNAi technology regulatedby EPA?

EPA’s Biopesticide and PollutionPrevention Division has a longhistory of regulating transgeniccrops that are Plant IncorporatedProtectants. EPA does not have anexisting set of regulations for RNAitechnology, but they are in theprocess of being formed. EPArecently held a Science AdvisoryMeeting to discuss the formation ofregulations for RNAi technology.The regulations are likely to besimilar to those currently used forPlant Incorporated Protectants(Genetically Modified Crops). Theremay be greater emphasis onenvironmental fate since some aresprayed onto plants or may bemobile within insects or otherorganisms although data indicatesthat RNA is rapidly degraded. RNAitechnology regulation may be basedon the way in which they aredelivered and their intended activityand specificity. Overall humanhealth impacts from insect or plantdisease organism-targeted dsRNAis of less concern in humans due toRNA specificity and enzymes in ourblood and stomach which rapidlydegrade RNA.

¹EPA history of regulation forgenetically modified crops.www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/index.htm

²MorFlora Agrowww.morflora.com//userfiles/file/Morflora-Wins-Agrow-Awards.pdf

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 8Vol 45 No 1

Feature

Global Capacity Development, R—by Dan Kunkel, Michael Braverman, Edith

IR-4 involvement in internationalharmonization of pesticide residuescontinues to expand as these needsare consistently communicated byour stakeholders. The 2014 FarmBill states that IR-4 should “assistin removing trade barriers causedby residues of pesticides registeredfor minor agricultural use and foruse on domestically grown specialtycrops”. This recommendation wasalso noted by several stakeholdersin the recent IR-4 strategic plansurvey. The needs of U.S. specialtycrop growers are better served withresolving international MRL tradebarriers as well as our traditionaltask of establishing U.S. tolerences.

There are great opportunities forpartnerships by working with otherpublically funded global minor useprograms. Working cooperatively,IR-4 can leverage other countries’contributions of research data tobetter harmonize pesticidestandards, thus providing moreopportunity for U.S. specialty cropgrowers to export their produce.For example, IR-4 has been workingin cooperation with Canada for 15years on a number of projects thathave led to tolerances for both

countries. The cooperation savesIR-4 an estimated $500,000 peryear, which allows funding for otherU.S. grower priorities. IR-4 hasalso initiated formal partnershipswith New Zealand, Brazil andCosta Rica. These cooperativeresearch programs will benefit USgrowers in a similar way as thepartnership with Canada. Specialtycrops are also very important toAsia, Africa and Latin America.IR-4 is working with these countriesand hope this collaboration willprovide valuable partnerships incontributing data to solve minoruse issues.

A key action item identified at thefirst Global Minor Use Summit in2007, was to support greatercapacity development in areas ofneed. This included the promotionof lower risk pesticides, along withincreased coordination andcooperation to assist developingcountries in generating pesticideresidue data. Over the course ofthe five years that followed the firstsummit, the USDA took the lead

and provided resources for anumber of meetings and workshopsto increase communication andcoordination within the threeregions of Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica. The second Minor UseSummit further endorsed this workand at approximately the same time(March 2012), specific grants weresecured to initiate further trainingmodules and residue studies inthese regions. The residue projectschosen focused specifically onnewer reduced risk products(azoxystrobin, spinetoram, andpyriproxyfen) on tropical fruits as acrop group, especially the inediblepeel CODEX subgroup 6B.

These products are also importantto the United States because IR-4had helped secure access to theseproducts on tropical fruits, largelyby using extrapolation from existingdata on other crops such as pome,stone and citrus fruits thatprecluded data to support CodexMaximum Residue Limits (MRLs).

The final expectation for theseglobal projects would be to helpgenerate data that could besubmitted to the Joint Meeting onPesticide Residues (JMPR) andultimately establish Codex MRLs.

The objective of these projects is toenhance the capacity ofparticipating nations in Asia, Africaand Latin America to meetpesticide-related requirements.Based on international (Codex)standards, this cooperation will alsoincrease opportunities forinternational trade of U.S. grownspecialty crop exports.

All three of the regions

The StandardsDevelopment (STDF) is a glpartnership thdeveloping cobuilding their implement intesanitary and p(SPS) standardguidelines andrecommendatmeans to imprhuman, animahealth status again or maintamarkets.

Residue Data Generation ProjectLurvey, IR-4, and Jason Sandahl, USDA-FAS

s and TradeFacilityobal

hat supportsountries incapacity toernational

phytosanitaryds,dions as arove theiral and plantand ability toain access to

pg 9Vol 45 No 1

Feature

participating in this project havenow received funding fromStandards Trade DevelopmentFacility (STDF) and USDA ForeignAgriculture Service (USDA-FAS),which also provides support forIR-4’s contributions to each of theprojects. This objective is beingachieved by collaborative residuedata generation that incorporatesall technical aspects of thesestudies. This work will furtherdevelop expertise in these nationsto conduct field and laboratorypesticide residue studies underGood Laboratory Practices andsupport their ability to provide datato local authorities and Codex forproduct registrations, particularlyon lower risk products. Work in thethree regions is progressing and isin various stages, with thecommitment to start makingsubmissions to JMPR in 2015.

Regional updates.Each region has received funding tosupport three years of work. Thefirst year covers training forconducting GLP field trials,

establishing committees to provideadministrative and technicalsupport, as well as theresponsibility for making projectselections. The second yearencompasses the initiation of thestudies with actual GLP field trialsand analytical work. In the finalyear, data would be collated intoreports. At the end of the threeyear grant period, submissionswould be made to the JMPR andlocal regulatory authorities. Thusfar, training has involved nearly 200field scientists and nearly 100chemists.

The first region to start work wasthe Association of South East AsianNations (ASEAN). Trainingworkshops were held in a numberof different countries in thepreceding years and in May 2012,the first field treatments were madein Malaysia involving pyriproxyfenon mango. This study wasperformed in cooperation withSingapore who conducted thelaboratory analysis. By January2013, the second study was

initiated in Thailand for spinetoramon mango. Other studies will startsoon and include pyriproxyfen onpapaya in the Philippines and apre-mix of azoxystrobin anddifenconazole on dragon fruit. Anadditional study in Thailand willinvolve spinetoram on longan orlychee. In addition to field training,laboratory workshops on GLPmethod validation have beenconducted in Malaysia, Singapore,and Thailand. For those studies inprogress, some samples are alreadybeing analyzed for residues, and itis anticipated that by December of2015, several reports will be readyfor submission to JMPR.

In Africa and Latin America,extensive GLP training has takenplace and the appropriatecommittees have been established.They have also selected projectsand are in the process of initiatingstudies with field trial applicationsplanned in the coming months. It isexpected that the Latin Americanproject will have the firstapplications of pyriproxyfenscheduled for bananas in CostaRica late this winter, pineapples inPanama this spring and avocados in

ASEANMichael Braverman, IR-4Elizabeth Culbert, IR-4

WA State Lab. Wayne Jiang, IR-4 MSU lab.Jason Sandahl, USDA-FASDavid Grist, USDA-FASElizabeth Johnson, USDA-FASMiguel Gonzalez, USDA-FASCaitrin Martin, USDA-FAS

List of IR-4 and other US participants

Latin AmericaEdith Lurvey, IR-4Dan Kunkel, IR-4Debra Edwards, consultant

coordination of administrative and technical committees

Amy Wang, consultant - fieldMilena Ramirez,

consultant - LabJason Sandahl, USDA-FASDavid Grist, USDA-FASElizabeth Johnson, USDA-FAS

AFRICAMichael Braverman, IR-4Joe Defrancesco, IR-4

field trainingDan Kunkel, IR-4Debra Edwards, consultant

coordination of administrative and technical committees

Jason Sandahl, USDA-FASDavid Grist, USDA-FASElizabeth Johnson, USDA-FA

continued on page 12

Public Health Pesticides

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 10Vol 45 No 1

What do mosquitoes eat? If you’vebeen bitten recently by a mosquito,the answer seems obvious – theyfeed on us! But when we realizethat only female mosquitoes takeblood meals, and only a few timesduring their lives, it looks like theanswer must be wider. In fact, feed-ing behavior by mosquitoes isrelatively complex, and recent workon this topic is beginning to pointtoward a range of potentially usefulnew mosquito control strategies. Inparticular, the concept of mixingfeeding attractants with sugar and apesticide is reaching maturity, andattractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB)products are now beginning toenter the vector control market,both in the U.S. and globally. IR-4is working closely with inventors,product developers, and regulatorsto help bring these new tools tohouseholds and organized vectorcontrol programs.

ATSB works by exploiting the“sweet tooth” of adult mosquitoes,which feed often on plant sugars tosatisfy their energy needs. Verysoon after emerging from theirpupal cases, both male and femalemosquitoes seek sugar, and theycontinue to feed frequently on plantnectars and other sugar sources for

the rest of their lives (see Foster &Hancock 1994 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8965081). This observa-tion led to several novelexperimental approaches to mos-quito surveillance and control,including sugar baits used to dis-tribute biopesticides (Bacillussphaericus) to oviposition sites, andsugar-baited traps. The most pro-ductive results were from YosefSchlein, Rue-De Xue, and GunterMuller, who sprayed mixtures ofsugar and food dye, both with andwithout a gut toxin (boric acid), onflowering plants and then countedthe local mosquitoes. The dyeswere visible in the guts of mosqui-toes exposed to both toxic andnon-toxic sugar solutions, but thereally exciting observation was arapid and prolonged crash in popu-lations where boric acid wasincluded with the sugar.

While it was encouraging that mos-quitoes could be killed with toxicsugar baits, it was impractical torely on flowering plants for attract-ing the mosquitoes, as flowers maynot occur when and where mos-quito control is needed. Therefore,these researchers began to look forthe cues that bring sugar-seekingmosquitoes to plants, with the hopethat effective and stable attractantscould be added to the sugar andtoxicant, resulting in effective at-tract-and-kill products. Flowerswere the first targets, as mosqui-toes had been seen eating floralnectars, but it soon became clearthat some tropical fruits, wine,brown sugar, and mixtures of thesewere all effective, and potentiallymuch more effective mosquito at-

tractants than flowers.

While many of the most effectivefruit-based attractants spoiled rap-idly, this team eventually discoveredand patented a shelf-stable attrac-tant, and the stage was set forproduct development. In the lastthree years, a use patent for theconcept has been issued in the U.S.and other countries, an ATSB sta-tion was registered with EPA, and a25(b) foliar spray product based onmicroencapsulated garlic oil hasbeen launched for both the house-

Attractive Toxic Sugar Baits for VectorControl — by Karl Malamud-Roam, IR-4 Public Health Pesticide Program Manager

Culex mosquitoes feeding on flower nectar

Over-ripe nectarine attracts sugar-seekingCulex mosquito

Mosquitoes aftereating dyedsugar bait

Attractive toxic sugar baitsprayed on vegetation,with male Anopheles(malaria mosquito)

continued on page 13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 11Vol 45 No 1

New Association

AmericanHort, the horticultureindustry’s new trade association,formally began with theconsolidation on December 31,2013 of the Nursery & LandscapeAssociation and OFA – TheAssociation of HorticultureProfessionals. The more thantwo-year effort to bring the groupstogether was initiated by thevolunteer leadership of the legacyorganizations in order to bettermeet the needs of the industry andthe respective memberships.

The mission of AmericanHort is tounite, promote, and advance theindustry through advocacy,collaboration, connectivity,education, market development andresearch. The vision developed bythe new board of directors is to be

a leading and unifying organizationfor the horticulture industry inorder to cultivate successfulbusinesses, and for the industry toenhance lives through the benefitsof plants.

The new organization will representthe whole of the plant industry,including breeders, greenhouse andnursery growers, garden centerretailers, distributors, interior andexterior landscapers, florists,students, educators, researchers,manufacturers, and all of those whoare part of the industry supplychain. AmericanHort will have itsprimary office in Columbus, Ohio,and an office in Washington, DC tofacilitate government relations andresearch activities, including themanagement of the Horticultural

AmericanHort FormallyLaunched January 1National Trade Association to Serve Horticulture Industry

Research Institute. AmericanHortwill also continue to manageAmerica in Bloom, the industry’scommunity beautification initiative.

AmericanHort’s Regulatory &Legislative Affairs Director, JoeBischoff will represent theorganization as a new member onthe IR-4 Commodity LiaisonCommittee. He stated, “For over35 years, IR-4 has been a trustedpartner serving the Americanhorticulture industry by bringingneeded treatments to nursery andfloriculture growers who wouldotherwise not have access to them.With the formation ofAmericanHort we look forward tobroadening our collaboration withIR-4 and, together, finding new andmore efficient ways to address ourindustry’s plant pest and diseaseconcerns.”

IR-4 welcomes Joe and wishesAmericanHort all the best in its newventure.

The IR-4 Newsletter Vol 45 No. 1

The IR-4 Newsletter is published quarterly for distribution to cooperators in our partnerState/Federal/Industry research units, State and Federal officials, commodity groups, andprivate citizens. Material from the IR-4 Newsletter may be reproduced with credit to thepublication. Major funding for IR-4 is provided by USDA-NIFA and USDA-ARS in co-operation with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. New Jersey AgriculturalExperiment Station Publication No.P-27200-14-01, supported by state, US Hatch Act,and other USDA funds.

Editor: Sherrilynn NovackIR-4 Public Relations and Communication Manager, 732.932.9575 x 4632, [email protected]

Newsletter Committee:Northeast Regional Field Coordinator, Edith Lurvey, 315.787.2308. North Central Regional Director, Bob Hollingworth, 517.432.7718. Western Regional Assistant Field Coordinator, Stephen Flanagan, 541.688.3155. Southern Regional Field Coordinator, Michelle Samuel-Foo, 352-392-1978 ext 406 Southern Region Program Assistant/Quality Assurance Support Robin Federline 352.392.1978 x 424. Commodity Liaison Committee member, Mike Bledsoe, 407-493-3933 of VillageFarms.

IR-4 HQ, 732.932.9575Assistant Director, Van Starner x 4621Ornamental Horticulture Manager, Cristi Palmer x 4629Technical Coordinator/Entomology, Ken Samoil x 4614Research Analyst, Kathryn Homa x 4604

Welcome New CLC Members

IR-4 welcomes new CommodityLiaison Committee Members

Joe BischoffAmericanHort

Maximillian Merrill andDennis Nuxoll

Western Growers Association

Terry HumfeldCranberry Institute

Paul SchlegelAmerican Farm Bureau

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 12Vol 45 No 1

IR-4’s International Work

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GlobalStudiesPeru will start in May. Additionalfield and lab training will beassociated with each of theseevents, and should allow the labanalysis to follow shortly aftersamples are harvested from thesestudies. The other Latin Americancountries conducting studies areColombia, Guatemala and Bolivia.Studies expected in Africa willinclude work primarily withbananas, papaya, pineapple,passion fruit, guava, date and palm.Countries include Ghana, Senegal,Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.These studies should begin later in2014. Other studies will beinitiated in Morocco, and Egypt,but are not part of the STDFgrants.

It is also important to note thatsome of the regions are conductingsimilar studiessuch as spinetoramon bananas in Uganda, and Bolivia.Hopefully when these studies arecomplete it will further supportIR-4’s work to collate global datasets to help ease regional datarequirements, while still providing arobust regulatory data package.

It is IR-4’s vision, that at the end ofthese capacity building projects,there will be a global network ofcapable minor use programs thatcan partner, when appropriate, withIR-4 to address domestic andinternational grower needs. Michael

Bravermanproviding somefinal tips beforethe mango trialstarted inThailand

Joe Defrancescoproviding trainingduring a workshopin Ghana, 2014.

Setting up pineapple trials inGhana, Michael Bravermanexplains plot layout.

Harvestingpineapples inPanama.

continued from page 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 13Vol 45 No 1

hold and organized vector controlmarket.

The potential for this “new para-digm” in vector control seems verypromising. Not only has data beenpresented on efficacy vs. all majorgenera of disease vector and nui-sance mosquitoes in the U.S., butfield trials in Mali have shownpromise against the major malariavector mosquitoes, and preliminarywork shows potential vs. sand flies.Since the mosquitoes come to theATSB and eat the product, propo-

nents expect minimal impact tonon-target species, as most re-spond to different attractants. Inparticular, recent data has shownthat honey bees and other pollina-tors ingest very little of the sugarbait, apparently because of their re-liance on visual rather thanolfactory cues for finding food.

The IR-4 Public Health PesticidesProgram has worked over the lastyear with ATSB developers to helpensure that their U.S. activitiesmeet regulatory requirements. Weare also exploring with them someadditional ways to turn mosquitoes’taste for sugar into effective vectorcontrol tools.

Wall-hung ATSB station in Mali

Baitscontinued from page 10

Multi-country group live GLP training, Thailand & 9 other ASEAN countries, January of 2013

International Capacity Building

Information Exchange

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 14Vol 45 No 1

Reprinted with permission February2014, Volume 48 Number 2

FDA will draft what it calls“significant” revisions to part of theFood Safety Modernization Act(FSMA), and launch an additionalcomment period for those revisionsnext summer. Michael Taylor, FDAdeputy commissioner for foods andveterinary medicine, said Dec. 19that the agency was reacting tocomments from the produceindustry during meetings across thecountry and as part of the officialcomment period for two of theFSMA rules first published inJanuary 2013, covering freshproduce safety and preventivecontrols for eliminating pathogens.

“Based on our discussions withfarmers, the research communityand other input we have received,we have learned a great deal, andour thinking has evolved. Everyoneshares the goal of ensuring producesafety, but, as we said at thebeginning of the process, the newsafety standards must be flexibleenough to accommodatereasonably the great diversity of theproduce sector, and they must bepractical to implement,” Taylorsaid.

FDA will go back to the drawingboard and make what it calls“significant changes” in these areas:• Water quality standards andtesting• Standards for using raw manureand compost• Provisions affecting mixed-usefacilities• Procedures for withdrawing the

qualified exemption for certainfarms

“We have heard the concern thatthese provisions, as proposed,would not fully achieve our goal ofimplementing the law in a way thatimproves public health protectionswhile minimizing undue burdens onfarmers and other food producers,”Taylor said.

FDA said it plans to publish therevised proposed rule changes in“early summer” 2014. The agencywill seek additional comments onlyon the portions of the proposedrules that have been revised, citingthe court order that requires FSMAto be finalized by 2015.

“There may be other revisions tothe proposed rules; the scope ofthe revised proposals, on which wewill seek further comment, will bedetermined after we complete ourinitial review of written comments.We believe that this additional stepto seek further input on revised

sections of the proposed rules thatneed significant adjustment iscritical to fulfilling our continuingcommitment to getting these rulesright,” Taylor said.

Produce organizations hailed FDA’sdecision to redraft some of theFSMA provisions.

“PMA is commending FDA forlistening to and acknowledgingsignificant concerns raised byproduce stakeholders about theproposals issued in January 2013,”said Meg Miller, director of publicrelations for the Produce MarketingAssociation. “FDA is taking stepsto provide stakeholders with a newopportunity to review and providecomment on revised proposedproduce and preventive control ruleprovisions that raised significantconcern in the producecommunity.”

David Gombas, senior vicepresident of food safety andtechnology for the United FreshProduce Association, also praisedthe FDA action.

“We are encouraged that FDA tookseriously the extensive input theyreceived from produce farmers andothers in the agricultural sectorwith respect to the proposedProduce Safety and PreventiveControls rules,” Gombas said. “Weappreciate FDA’s willingness torethink these provisions andpropose requirements that aremore science- and risk- based. It iscritical that FDA gets these FSMArules right, and we believe this is astep in the right direction.”

FDA to Revise Parts of Food SafetyAct —by Lee Dean, Editorial Director Vegetable Grower News

“It is critical that FDA gets these

FSMA rules right,and we believe this is

a step in the rightdirection.”

— David Gombas, United Fresh Produce

Association

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 15Vol 45 No 1

Federal Register: Nov 1, 2013FomesafenTrade Name: ReflexCrops: Lima bean (succulent),Cantaloupe, Cucumber, Pea(succulent), Pumpkin, Soybean(succulent), Squash (summer andwinter), WatermelonPR#: 06202, 09536, 09537,08083, 09115, 10287, 09538,08945, 09689

Federal Register: Nov 8, 2013BoscalidTrade Name: Endura, PristineCrops: Globe artichoke, Lowgrowing berry except cranberrysubgroup 13-07G, Bushberrysubgroup 13-07B, Caneberrysubgroup 13-07A, Belgian endive,Bulb vegetable subgroup 3-07,Citrus fruit group 10-10, Pomefruit group 11-10, Smallvine-climbing fruit except fuzzykiwifruit subgroup 13-07F, Fruitingvegetable group 8-10, Oilseedgroup 20, Persimmon, TurnipgreensPR#: 09689, 10565, 10563,10562, A8662, 10560, 10566,10567, 10564, 10561, 10568,09093, 09423

Federal Register: Nov 15, 2013TebuconazoleTrade Name: FolicurCrops: Barley, Cucurbit vegetablegroup 9, Fruiting vegetable group10PR#: A6513, A5091, 10960

Federal Register: Nov 20, 2013FenpropathrinTrade Name: DanitolCrops: Barley, Low growing berrysubgroup 13-07G, Bushberrysubgroup 13-07B, Citrus fruitgroup 10-10, Pome fruit group

11-10, Small vine-climbing fruitexcept fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup13-07F, Fruiting vegetable group8-10PR#: 07667, 11035, 11033,11031, 11032, 11034, 11030

Federal Register: Nov 27, 2013EtofenproxTrade Name: Notapplicable—public health usesCrops: All food and feedcommodities (indirect orinadvertent residues fromnon-agricultural applications)PR#: B10315

Federal Register: Nov 27, 2013MetaldehydeTrade Name: Deadline Crops: Grass (grown for seed),Leaf petioles subgroup 4B, Mint,Taro (wetland), Corn (field andsweet), Soybean (regionalregistration only), Caneberrysubgroup 13-07A, Bushberrysubgroup 13-07B, Low growingberry subgroup 13-07GPR#: 06267, 09421, 09611,07574, 09655, A9821, 10778,10779, 10780

Federal Register: Dec 11, 2013FlonicamidTrade Name: BeleafCrops: Alfalfa, Fruiting vegetablegroup 8-10, Pome fruit group11-10, Stone fruit group 12-12,MintPR#: 09943, 11196, 11197,11198, 09358

Federal Register: Dec 20, 2013MandipropamidTrade Name: RevusCrops: Basil, Snap bean, Ginseng,Small vine-climbing fruit except

fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F,Bulb onion subgroup 3-07A,Green onion subgroup 3-07B,Fruiting vegetable group 8-10PR#: 10124, 10324, 10061,11192, 11193, 11194, 10485

Federal Register: Dec 27, 2013IndoxacarbTrade Name: Avaunt, StewardCrops: Bean (dry and succulent),Cowpea (forage and hay), Lowgrowing berry except strawberrysubgroup 13-07H, Smallvine-climbing fruit except fuzzykiwifruit subgroup 13-07FPR#: 09969, 08574, 10340,10339

No new tolerances from IR-4submissions were established inJanuary.

IR-4 wishes tothank MonteJohnson andwish him muchsuccess in hisretirementfromUSDA-NIFAthis pastDecember.

Monte provided national leadershipfor state and federal activities aimedat developing a greaterunderstanding of the toxicologicalconsequences of human exposureto pesticides and the effects ofpesticide residues in foods and theenvironment. He providedadministrative oversight andnational leadership for IR-4 since2005.

Retirement

IR-4 Successes Nov. 2013 - Jan. 2014

The trade names listed below are provided as a means to identify the chemical for which atolerance has been established. A trade name listed here may not be the name of the prod-uct on which the new food use(s) will be registered. Only labeled products may be used ona food crop. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regulations and examine acurrent product label before applying any chemical.

IR-4 Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey500 College Road EastSuite 201 WPrinceton, NJ 08540

NON-PROFITUS POSTAGE

PAIDNEW BRUNSWICK, NJ

PERMIT NO. 157

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey •University of California •Cornell University•University of Florida •Michigan State University

Major funding for IR-4 is provided by Special Research Grants andHatch Act Funds from USDA-NIFA , in cooperation with the StateAgricultural Experiment Stations, and USDA-ARS.

EventsUnited States Department of AgricultureNational Institute of Food and Agriculture

Save the

Dates

Boxwood Blight SummitARS Building 3

May 13Beltsville, MD

Contact: Cristi Palmer [email protected]

American Boxwood Society SymposiumMay 13-16

College Park, MDContact: Cristi Palmer

[email protected]

IUPAC ConferenceAugust 13-16, 2014

San Francisco, CA

2014 Food Use & Biopesticide WorkshopsSeptember 9-10, 2014

The JW Marriott Atlanta Buckhead, 3300 Lenox Road NE,

Atlanta, GA 30326-1333Contact: Van Starner

[email protected],edu

8th International IPM SymposiumMarch 23–26, 2015Salt Lake City Utah

XXV International Congress of EntomologySeptember 25-30, 2016

Orlando, Florida