Western Region Pesticide Risk Reduction through Professional Development for Western State IPM Programs

Western Pesticide Risk Reduction Project

Meeting Summary

July 26-27th, 2017

Meeting sponsored by USDA Western SARE PDP Program

Present at the meeting were:

7/26: Cheryl Wilen, Emily Sims, Joy Newton, Karey Windbiel-Rojas, Ashley Bennett, Jim Farrar, Matt Baur, Peter Ellsworth, Al Fournier, Frank Peairs, Bob Nowierski, Lisa Blecker, Tunyalee Martin, Ronda Hirnyck, Diane Alston, John Connet, Fabiola Estrada, Katie Murray, Paul Jepson

7/27: Cheryl Wilen, Emily Sims, Joy Newton, Karey Windbiel-Rojas, Ashley Bennett, Jim Farrar, Matt Baur, Peter Ellsworth, Al Fournier, Frank Peairs, Bob Nowierski, Lisa Blecker, Tunyalee Martin, Ronda Hirnyck, Diane Alston, Naomi Peter, Katie Murray, Paul Jepson

Local hosting was by Cheryl Wilen to whom we all offer thanks: it's going to be hard to follow her example and the location, food and seamless organization!

This meeting was our first engagement as a working group and it was intended to provide all of us with practice in collective processes and decision-making around this complex topic. This is without doubt, the most expert group of IPM specialists that is convening anywhere at present, and the scope and extent of our programs is immense. We all accept that the complex scientific and social challenges of pesticide hazard and risk management will take time to be resolved. We are carrying out this project in parallel with all of our individual and collective responsibilities, and we will strive to focus on topics, information and processes that best meet our individual and collective needs.

The meeting began on the afternoon of July 26^th with a discussion of the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN)/IPPC Lists for Pesticide Management (attached to email). This offered the group background and information on both the risk mitigation and highly hazardous pesticide lists, how they came about, what lies behind them, and the current employment of these lists within standards and certification programs across nearly 50 countries.

Our group will use these lists and analyses in different ways to the SAN, as we have discussed in our telephone calls, but they represent a unique classification system that has been validated by extensive peer review, and there are a number of applications that can be developed from them by us. They are being adapted for an extension publication at present.

A brief review of the lists was followed by a discussion of the 5 Highly Hazardous Pesticide (HHP) case studies that were selected for the workshop (see more information on these case studies in attached “Case Studies” document). The active ingredients we discussed were linuron, phorate, methomyl, paraquat, and dichlorvos.

The second day started with small group discussions regarding the case studies, beginning by identifying the questions that we would need to answer before engaging in risk communication about these products. Our small groups came up with these ideas, among others:

• Are there residues on edible produce?
• Can the pesticide in question be transported into surface and groundwater?
• Is the product on a groundwater protection list, and are detections reported in surface or groundwater?
• Are there specific soil or pesticide characteristics that might contribute to off-site losses?
• How can losses, including drift, be limited?
• Is it possible to mitigate risks by reducing the application rate?
• What are other practices that might limit risks?
• Can best practices for use of products be defined?
• What are the alternative products?
• What are the specific human health effects?
• What are the acute AND chronic human health risks?
• Are human health risks mitigated by closed-application systems and other engineering approaches to risk management?
• What are the non-target effects on birds, beneficial insects, mammals, etc.?
• How can both benefits and risks be reported?
• Are there health or environmental incident records?

The group also discussed the need to be able to communicate risks to a broad range of stakeholders, not just farmers—e.g. consumers, sales reps, applicators, consultants, etc.

The second part of the group exercise sought explanations of how each group would engage in risk communication about their respective products. Each case-study group presented an outline of how they would address hazards and risks to an example stakeholder audience. The expertise and experience of the group was very much reinforced by this exercise, and we proposed that future calls and meetings would continue to provide opportunities for case studies, and constructive feedback.

We also distributed a draft “decision guide,” which outlines considerations for thinking through an HHP use in the context of IPM, potential alternatives, and possible mitigations, as well as some key information needs and education points (see attached “Decision Guide” document).

The case studies were as follows (these notes summarize what was discussed in the workshop, and additional notes that were distributed to participants are attached:

• Dichlorvos, a vapor-active OP in strip formulation for domestic and for professional use. The concerns relate to exposure of users who may not adequately follow label instructions. There is also evidence for misuse, and preventative uses that may extend exposure – for example pest control professionals bagging clothes with professional-use-only strips without adequate instructions for handling by homeowners.
• Methomyl, a highly toxic carbamate, particularly via oral exposure. It is used in onions to control the thrips vectors of IYSV. There are alternatives but methomyl is effective and inexpensive, and can be used early season as part of a resistance rotation. It is also toxic to beneficial insects, birds, and mammals.
• Phorate, a highly toxic OP is a candidate for use against wheat stem sawfly in Colorado. WSSF in winter wheat has inflicted up to 25% yield losses, worth ~$350 million a year. Solid-stemmed, resistant wheat is not available in Colorado. There are possible options in the medium term including winter wheat trap cropping in spring wheat field margins, and also planting of alternative crops such as winter triticale. Braconid wasps are parasitoids in 0-50% of stems. Alternative, foliar sprays would act as egg-laying inhibitors, and would need to be persistent and act rapidly. Use of 20% AI phorate granules poses a risk to birds , but ‘lock-and-load’ packaging in smart boxes reduces operator exposure. Phorate might be viewed as a transitional chemistry, but growers reacted negatively to it because of their experience with it in grasshopper control in the 1970s. Montana has a 24c registration for 5 years. It might also be used in a targeted way in margins only to limit risks and protect beneficial insect populations, including beetles.
• Linuron, a highly hazardous herbicide with both chronic and acute human health impacts. This chemical is not toxic to umbelliferous crops, where tillage as a weed suppression measure causes damage. There are few alternatives. Carrots can be planted within rotations as a weed management step. It has niche uses over small areas, and crop production may be dependent upon retaining use of this AI. It is on a ground water protection list because of prior records, and there is evidence for food chain effects. Options for risk management may include use of BMPs, and reduced application rates.
• Paraquat, a uniquely toxic herbicide which has no antidote. Important in crops such as nuts that are ground harvested, in winegrapes where there are concerns about glyphosate residues, and in seed crops where it is a burn down agent. Diquat may be an alternative, or glufosinate. Although there may be toxicity to certain wildlife and beneficial insects, and also to applicators, the main concerns with paraquat relate to its use internationally for suicide.

In outlining approaches to risk communication, individual groups discussed issues such as:

• Knowing your audience is critical: the message may need to be fine-tuned and adapted for farm workers, pesticide handlers, or applicators, PCAs/consultants, or farmers.
• Different approaches to setting up the conversation— how to present the range of information from benefits (including efficacy), risk and toxicity data, to alternatives, and how to discuss trade-offs.
• Discussing risk of non-target impacts vs risks posed by pests, and weighing the risks and benefits with an audience.
• Being specific about toxicity risks and data—including epidemiological data and specific exposure risks.
• Moving into mitigation strategies in cases where uses are unavoidable; ways to minimize risks (e.g. drip vs furrow irrigation; border vs whole field treatments; worker protection and limitation of critical exposure pathways)
• Thinking of ways to encourage questions from the audience

We then had some discussion about different approaches to risk communication, and both Paul Jepson and Bob Nowierski walked us through graphical representation tools for risk communication and decision-making (see attached photos -“Paul” and “Bob”).

The final part of our day was spent discussing challenges with the subject, and ideas for moving forward. The group provided the following thoughts:

• More information is needed by some regarding the lists and how they were derived to increase confidence in the classification system.
• Additional information is needed to understand toxicology data and the nature of specific risks.
• This has helped to advance the idea of engaging audiences on risk mitigation/communication and brought new thought processes and ideas to IPM that weren’t there previously.
• It’s up to us to “be the voice” for science; if we don’t, who will?
• This group has the potential to offer a research-based unbiased source of pesticide toxicity information, and “safety in numbers” in putting this information to good use should this be helpful.
• More understanding is desired to be able to tease out the various risks posed by different AIs—bystander, off-target, dietary, etc.
• Incorporating graphics such as Paul’s decision-graphic would be very helpful in education and web communication.
• Understanding is needed regarding the mechanisms of risk.
• This information could be very useful to IR-4/the IPM Criteria document; also to authors of IPM guidelines.

It was suggested that we establish a Western Region technical committee around pesticide risk reduction, and Bob Nowierski volunteered to be the NIFA representative for this (Paul has already initiated this process). There was also encouragement to apply for a larger grant that could take these ideas further. We will pursue both of these ideas.

We will continue our monthly calls beginning with our next call in late August/early September, date TBD. It was suggested that for some of our future call topics, a short podcast or video could be sent out ahead of the call, so that people could review this before the call and engage in more discussion and Q and A during the call.

Ideas for future calls that came from comments throughout meeting:

• EPA risk assessment: findings, and understanding the risk assessment documents as a source of risk information that we can make use of.
• Toxicology 101
• Recording a demonstration extension talk
• Risk communication literature review
• Uncertainty analysis
• How to prioritize identification of “alternatives to HHPs” in our respective programs—with funding toward research and extension in this area
• Tracking outcomes
• Science Policy forum article

Meeting Summary

May 18th, 2018

Meeting sponsored by USDA Western SARE PDP Program

Present at the meeting were:

Peter Ellsworth, Al Fournier, Frank Peairs, Dawn Gouge, Mike Wierda, Cheryl Wilen, Karey Windbiel-Rojas, Marion Murray, Jim Farrar, Alex Latchininsky, Matt Baur, Tunyalee Martin, Diane Alston, John Connet, Naomi Pier, Doug Walsh, Katie Murray, Paul Jepson, Bob Nowierski (remote connection)

This was our second annual work group meeting, following the first in July of 2017. Based on our professional development curriculum topics on pesticide risk and hazard over the last year, workgroup members were asked to prepare risk communication projects that could be delivered to the group via a 10-15 minute presentation. The projects were intended to addresses some aspect of risk communication that would help deliver some of the new learning on pesticide risks, hazard, and risk communication to stakeholder audiences. The presentations were also designed to prompt group discussion and feedback regarding content, materials, methods of delivery, etc.

We had individual risk communication presentations from seven workgroup members: Diane, Peter, Dawn, Naomi, Frank, Matt, and Alex.

Diane’s talk focused on pollinator risks and was targeted toward specialty crop growers. Peter’s talk presented the group with new materials he has developed for use with the cotton industry- it included a table with natural enemy risks highlighted as green, yellow, red. Dawn’s talk was designed for a more public/urban audience, to communicate the relative risks of various products for residential use against cockroaches. Naomi designed a two-page handout that defines “risk”, for distribution to the general public and stakeholder audiences. Frank presented a talk he is refining that presents the risks vs benefits on the use of phorate in CO wheat. Matt discussed ways that we could work with PSEP programs to insert more information on pesticide risk and hazard. Finally, Alex gave a talk on his work with grasshopper management, demonstrating the ways he has introduced and discussed risks vs benefits of pesticide use to successfully reduce risks.

All of these talks elicited discussion. With Diane, we talked about making use of information shared by Andony Melathopoulos in the WERA-1017 tour on pathways of exposure to pollinators. With Peter, we discussed ways of translating complex information into decision support.  With Dawn, we saw scope for addressing formulation hazards – something we can add to our group agenda and address rapidly. With Naomi, we delved into the definitions and translation of risk and vulnerability concepts for lay audiences. With Matt we explored pathways for cooperation and integration with PSEP programs. With Frank, we discussed procedures for factoring risk-benefit data within the pesticide regulatory system, and farmer education. With Alex, we discussed education and scaling up experimental data to achieve efficacy and reduced risk across large scales.

We discussed evaluation, and focused on the ways we can track our impacts. We first deployed a short survey to learn about the ways each member currently evaluates programming related to pesticide risks. We then discussed methods for evaluating the work of our group, including the impacts that reach our stakeholders. We will work on developing common evaluation questions, and a process for reporting back.

In the afternoon, Paul gave a presentation on the principles of risk communication, followed by a presentation by Katie on 1) EPA terms and definitions (navigating EPA’s Expobox https://www.epa.gov/expobox), and 2) navigating the regulations.gov website to find risk assessment data for products of interest.

Finally, we had a debrief from the day: what did we learn, new questions, ideas for next steps/future calls (a few members not listed here had to leave early to catch flights):

Doug – the work of the group is really important. We often have a limited ability to engage audiences on this topic, with short timeframes. A publication is needed and could be a collective effort.

Alex –the work is extremely important, and having material sources of information would be valuable – tools for extension to use.

Tunyalee –inspired by the meeting, will create a series of blog posts for UCIPM on pesticide risks. Considering a training for other faculty on EPA risk assessment.

Jim – interested in using pictograms, and finding a way of sharing understanding of risk assessment information.

Al – appreciated the day, interested in the dynamic between the end user expectations on risk communication and our capacity to deliver effectively. We need to know more about our audiences. Risk perception is a topic to explore further.

John – working on infographics on IPM principles and would like these to be used as general extension materials, will ask members of the group to vet these. Intimidated by toxicology, so this group is helpful in that sense.

Marion – challenge is how to incorporate this info given the short talks usually given. Marion is the Western SARE PDP coordinator and would like to pursue a training on this topic.

Mike – wants to push PSEP more toward the arena of risk communication and education, and is willing to play a role in this.

Naomi – Interested in pursuing risk communication as it relates to topics such as resistance management.

Dawn – will be doing things very differently in the future to help stakeholders make more informed decisions. 

Peter – wants to get the tools out as quickly as possible, and to identify and mitigate the remaining risks.

Bob – wants to ensure that the public gets a complete picture of pesticide risks. thinks this group will have a legacy impact. J

Evaluation for Pesticide Risk Communication work group

Notes from Al

Audiences for Evaluation:

• Extension Educators
• End-users

What Educators Do:

• Increase knowledge about:
  • Risk
  • Hazard
  • Risk assessment process of EPA
• Learn new skills:
  • Use tools & resources associated with understanding / mitigating pesticide risk
    • How to read a Risk Assessment
    • How to navigate Regulations.gov
  • Gain Confidence / competency in:
    • Risk communication
    • Risk education program design
  • Change behaviors:
    • Make design changes Extension programs [?]
  • Educate end users about risk
    • Change the way they communicate about pesticides and pesticide risk
    • Revise publications, presentations, websites, etc.
    • Change pesticide use recommendations (document the difference in risk between new and old products * number of people reached to estimate potential impact)
    • Open ended
      • How many (and what types) of people did you educate about risk?
      • In what ways?
      • On what specific topics?
      • How well received was the information? Any resistance or challenges?

What End-users do:

• Increase knowledge about:
  • Risk
  • Hazard
  • Risk assessment process of EPA
  • Learn that there are risks even to labeled use of registered pesticides
• Learn new skills:
  • Learn that there are different pesticide choices with varying levels of risk
  • Learn how to evaluate their options, e.g., how to use decision support tools
• Change behaviors:
  • Adopt decision support tools (can ask about specific ones, aggregate data on them)
  • Choose pesticides that have lower levels of risks associate with them
  • Choose reduced risk pesticides in place of broad spectrum pesticides
  • Communicate with peers, family and friends about reducing pesticide risk

The classification system for highly hazardous pesticides and pesticides requiring mitigation of risks to bystanders, aquatic life, terrestrial wildlife, and pollinators was distributed and discussed at the Irvine and Portland workshops, and a draft extension publication was reviewed in early 2019 during conference calls.  (see reports above, and teleconference summaries). It was also outlined in a very well attended meeting at the International IPM Symposium in Baltimore, Maryland, March 2018 (see summary at foot of this section]

This system now forms the basis for our pesticide review process, and the development of novel extension hazard and risk-based extension communication tools.

The system was used in formulation of a chapter on hazard elimination and risk reduction in a Fall Armyworm IPM manual for Africa - this uses the pesticide risk classification system, and the chapter acknowledges the role of the workgroup in discussing and reviewing this application of the tools that we are implementing as part of this program. This system is now in use by USAID, and the UN FAO, and one goal for our workgroup is to become a consultative, expert body on the role of pesticide risk management in IPM systems. 

It is also now used within IPM Strategic Planning processes, under the auspices of the Regional IPM Centers. 

See: 

Jepson, P.C., Murray, K., Bach, O., Kachigamba, D., Ndeithi, F., Kibaki Miano, J., McCracken, T., Onyango, D., Nthegna, I, Agboka, K., Byantwala, S., DeGroote, H. (2018) Pesticide hazard and risk management, and compatibility with IPM, pp 29-44. In Prasanna, B.M., Huesing, J.E., Eddy, R., Preschke, V.M. Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management, First Edition. Available at: https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/fall-armyworm-africa-guide-integrated-pest-management-first-edition

US/International workgroup meeting

International IPM Symposium

Baltimore, Maryland

March 21^st, 2018

Tools and processes for the transition towards lower-risk pesticide programs in IPM systems

Organizers, Paul Jepson and Katie Murray, Oregon State University, and workgroup members. 

This was a moderated panel, with 5-minute presentations to prompt discussion with audience members.

Moderators: Katie Murray and Paul Jepson

Panelists will include:

Paul Jepson: Integrated Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University [Pesticide hazard classification systems, risk assessment and risk communication]

Joseph Huesing: USAID lead entomologist Fall Armyworm Taskforce [Application of pesticide risk management tools to fall armyworm management]

Robert Nowierski : USDA NIFA (WERA 1017 represetative: [Collaborative pesticide risk management programs across Western US IPM extension]

Katie Murray: Integrated Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University and Western IPM Center: [Farmer consultation, engagement and feedback to extension, research and policy]

The most recent version of the Food and Agriculture Organization’s International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management formally acknowledges the central role of IPM in reducing pesticide risks to better protect human and ecological health and achieve lasting transformation to more sustainable practices. Reducing pesticide risks is also among the goals of the National IPM Roadmap. IPM Extension programs are essential to progress in risk reduction and provide an essential component of risk management by contributing to safe and effective use, and employment of alternatives to pesticides. Successful efforts in hazard elimination and risk reduction must address multiple pathways, including decision-support in pesticide selection to encourage use of low and reduced-risk products, risk mitigation education for higher risk products, and encouraging the phase-out of highly hazardous pesticides in order to best protect human health and safety and preserve ecological services.

The panelists all have direct experience in addressing hazard elimination and risk reduction through research, extension, regulatory processes and marketplace mechanisms, and they represent the main pathways via which risk reduction can be achieved. All are active in IPM and engage with farmers directly. A group of State IPM Coordinators in the Western USA are partnering in a regional collaborative effort and a representative from this group of over 20 extension educators will also participate in the panel.

The session is intended to inspire positive and practical follow-up by participants, and to enable follow-up in other US regions and developing countries. 

21 calls have been conducted between September 2016, and April 2019.

Months and year of calls, [numbers attending], and brief topic descriptions are: 

Sept 16 [16] The need for risk-based extension programing

Jan 17 [16] Highly Hazardous Pesticide (HHP) Classification 

Feb 17 [14] HHP Classification contd. 

March 17 [18] The WHO pesticide classification system

May 17 [13] Chronic risk criteria 

Jun 17 [9] HHP use in Western States

August 17 [14] Linuron hazards use in AZ

Oct 17 [7] Chlopyrifos risks and use patterns in the W USA

Dec 17 [16] Christmas Tree pesticide hazards and risks; Fall Armyworm in Africa - HHP use

Feb 18 [12] State by state experience with using HHP and risk classifications (AZ, CA, NV, OR)

Mar 18 [13] Risk communication

Apr 18 [11] Planning for the year ahead

Jun 18 [7] REACH tables and access to hazard information within the GHS system

Aug 18 [12] HHP use in the West, state by state analysis process

Sept 18 [10] HHP registration in US: results of analysis

Oct 18 [11] Selection of materials for state by state case studies

Dec 18 [7] Publication planning

Jan 19 [10] Risk communication, HHP project discussion

Mar 19 [13] Risk management and IPM, HHP project discussion

Apr 19 [8] HHP project discussion, review pesticide risk management publication, and planning for annual meeting