1. COMMODIT Y PRODUCER S FOOD PROCESSORS CONSUMERS ANNIVERSARY-2013 5 th

2. Core Objective To Facilitate Registration of Sustainable Pest Management Technology for Specialty Crops and Minor Uses Throughout the fifty years, IR-4 has adapted and modified its mission to provide the best service possible to US Specialty crop growers.

3. Specialty Crops Include: Most: Vegetables Fruits Nuts Herbs Spices

4. Specialty Crops Include: Most: Greenhouse Nursery Landscape Christmas Trees

5. are high value/low acreage crops make up about $64 billion in sales Value of Specialty Crops in US Agriculture

6. 1963 Food Program 1970 and 80’s -Ornamental Program -Regional Offices -ARS program -Biopesticide program 1990 – 2000’s -FIFRA 88 -GLPs -FQPA -Reduced risk -Crop group updates -International MRLs -Invasive pests -Public Health Pests Enhanced Activities

7. Deliverables w/Food Crops

8. The IR-4 Research Process and Special Programs IR-4…The Story Continues

9. Grower experiences pest problem Identify Pest Management Solution Stakeholder Involvement

10. Process Starts with a Formal Request for Registration Assistance Request Reviewed by Industry Not Supported Stakeholder Involvement Supported No further Activities Enters Project Priority Setting System

11. Project Priority Setting System (supported projects) Stakeholder Involvement 500 possible projects For workshop Final review before annual workshop Annual Review with Registrant EPA review Red light/green light

12. Requests Prioritized at Food Use Workshop Approved Research Plan for following year Grower, researchers & industry attend Identify top research priorities Use consensus decision making process by growers and researchers only Stakeholder Involvement 500 possible projects 85 Studies 200 remaining projects Web Nomination

13. IR-4 International Activities IR-4 supports US Exports by removing pesticide residues as a trade barrier and is active in the following areas. NAFTA Support Existing Tolerances (US Exports) Leadership – NAFTA, OECD, Codex Research Global residue studies Tomato & Blueberry Capacity building Slide 13

14. Why is IR-4 involved Vision of global network of capable minor use programs that can address grower needs and generate data. –Help establish and mentor these minor use programs (e.g. China, Brazil, Costa Rica) –Partner with other data development groups –Promote lower risk products Capacity Development Slide 14

15. Global network of capable minor use programs working together to solve the MUP –Help establish and mentor these minor use programs –Partner with other data development groups –Address the many unresolved needs. Global Minor Use Foundation IR-4 Vision Slide 15

16. 16 Crop Grouping OVERVIEW AND UPDATE

17. 17 Crop Grouping Basic Concept: Crop Grouping is used to facilitate the establishment of pesticide tolerances for a large number of crops based on residue data from selected representative crops Crop Group: A group of crops that are botanically or taxonomically related. A crop group includes representative crops.

18. 18 Crop Grouping - Definitions Representative Crop(s): Crops in a crop group whose residue data can be used to establish a tolerance on the entire crop group or subgroup. Generally the highest residues and most economically important Crop Subgroup: More closely related crops in a crop group that are divided into smaller groups with one or more representative crops.

19. 19 Crop Grouping - Revisions Why Revise Crop Groups: No new crop groups were developed since 1995 because of regulatory constraints Many orphan crops not included in a crop group US population more diverse with new ethnic foods available Increased globalization of markets, trade Need to facilitate import tolerances Need for international harmonization (Codex) of crop groups, definitions and vocabularies

20. 20 Crop Grouping - Benefits Without Crop Grouping would need to do a separate study for each crop. Fruiting Vegetable CG: Conduct studies on 3 Representative Crops - Tomato, Bell Pepper and Non Bell Pepper - obtain a tolerance on 19 crops – So conduct 3 studies instead of 19 studies. Average cost of a study is $110,000, total savings for this crop group would be over $2.0 Million.

21. 21 Crop Grouping - Benefits Save Research $$$$: Assume each study costs $110K. Approx 300 crops will be added when finish Herbs and Spices = 300 X $110K = Potential $33M in savings just to date… IR-4 Labs can operate more efficiently Growers benefit by obtaining labeled uses more quickly. EPA saves time and personnel in reviewing tolerance petitions. IR-4 Centers operate more efficiently concentrating on only representative crops.

22. 22 Example of ChemSAC Approval CurrentRep Crops:Member Crops (6): Fruiting Veg. (except cucurbits) Tomato, Bell Pepper and one cultivar of non bell pepper Eggplant, Groundcherry, Pepino, Pepper, Tomatillo, Tomato Revised:New Subgroups:Added Crops (+13): Fruiting Veg. (except cucurbits) Tomato 8A Pepper/Eggplant 8B Nonbell pepper/Eggplant 8C African eggplant, Bush tomato, Cocona, Currant tomato, Garden huckleberry, Goji Berry, Martynia, Naranjilla, Okra, Pea eggplant, Roselle, Scarlett eggplant, Sunberry, Tree tomato

23. 23 Additions to Fruiting Vegetables CG Tree Tomato Goji Berry

24. Progress and Accomplishments 19 U.S. crop group petitions have been submitted to the EPA –9 have been published in the Federal Register –5 have been approved by ChemSAC –1 under review by HED Scientist (Herb & Spice) – Legume Vegetable, Leaves of Legume Vegetables, Legume Vegetables and Foliage of Legume Vegetables submitted to EPA Cucurbit Vegetables under IR-4 and ICGCC review

25. 25 Crop Groups – Web Site All Crop Groups, Subgroups, Representative crops and Crop Definitions can be found on the IR-4 Web Site: http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Other/CropGroup.htm

26. Crop Grouping  US, EU and Codex Crop Groups undergoing revision – US/NAFTA Crop Groups being revised based on IR-4 petitions, which are developed from work of EPA/OPP, USDA, International Crop Grouping Consulting Committee (ICGCC) – Codex revising Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds - based on work of ICGCC/EPA/IR-4 – EU revising Crop Groups as part of new Reg (EC) 396/2005 –Others as well, Brazil, India, Taiwan, etc…. –The expectation is to have the Codex be the authority/basis of crop groups.

27. Crop GroupNAFTACodexType (Codex) Berry & Small Fruit Group CodifiedAdoptedFruit Pome Fruit Group CodifiedAdoptedFruit Citrus Fruit Group CodifiedAdoptedFruit Stone Fruit Group CodifiedAdoptedFruit Tropical Fruit Groups Review complete AdoptedFruit Fruit type

28. Crop GroupNAFTACodexType (Codex) Bulb VegetableCodifiedStep 7Vegetable Fruiting VegetableCodifiedStep 7Vegetable Stalk, Stem and Leafy Petiole Review complete Step 7Vegetable Leafy vegetablesReview complete Step 7Vegetable Brassica Head/Stem Vegetable Review complete Step 7Vegetable Root/Tuber Vegetable SubmittedStep 5Vegetable Edible Fungi GroupCodifiedStep 7Vegetable Legume VegetablesSubmittedTo be submittedVegetable Cucurbit VegetableTo be submitted Vegetable Vegetable type

29. Crop GroupNAFTACodexType (Codex) Tree Nut GroupCodifiedStep 7Nuts and Seeds Oilseed GroupCodifiedStep 7Nuts and Seeds Tropical trees and shrubs for Bev and sweets NATo be submittedNuts and Seeds Herbs and SpicesSubmittedStep 7Herbs and Spices Cereal GrainsTo be submitted Grasses Forage/Fodder/ Straw of Cereal Grains To be submitted Grasses Grasses for sugar or syrup To be submitted Grasses Other Commodity Types

30. Publicly funded program that conducts research and submits petitions to EPA requesting establishment of new tolerances IR-4… is the ONLY

31. Major Funding for IR-4 is Provided By: USDA-NIFA Competitive Grant and Hatch Act Funds in cooperation with State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and USDA-ARS Who Pays For It? Additional Support Provided By: USDA-APHIS Commodity & Industry Partners for Special Research Projects

32. Partnerships Make Things Happen Land Grant Universities Land Grant System and In-Kind support is valued at over $18,000,000 annually They provide: Analytical Laboratories Offices Research Farms Infrastructure and Administrative Support Pest Management and Crop Expertise

33. IR-4 National Headquarters Located at Rutgers University in New Jersey Responsible to manage and coordinate the day to day activities of the program Staffed with 28 full time Scientists, Coordinators & Administrative Personnel

34. IR-4 Regional Offices Northeast Region - Cornell University, Geneva, New York Southern Region - University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida North Central Region - Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Western Region - University of California – Davis, California

35. IR-4 Regional Centers Each Regional Center is led by a Regional Director Regional Center Personal responsible for: –Priority Setting and Field Research Management –Analysis of Residue Sample –Quality Assurance of Data

36. IR-4 Regional Centers - Field Coordinates specialty crop and minor use pest management needs from the region Assist in priority setting Places field trials and field research Tracks, monitors, facilitates, and funds research work in the region Coordinates efforts through Headquarters

37. IR-4 Regional Centers - Laboratory Develops and Validates Analytical Methods Analyzes Samples for Pesticide Residue Coordinates Efforts through Headquarters

38. IR-4 Quality Assurance Audits and Monitors Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Compliance in the Region –Field and Laboratory –Critical Phase Audits –Raw Data Audits –Final Report Audits Coordinates Efforts through Headquarters

39. Partnerships Make Things Happen Crop Protection Industry  Partnerships with biopesticide and chemical companies are crucial  Despite reorganizations within the chemical industry, companies continue to work with IR-4 to develop minor crop uses for their products  Alert chemical companies of potential market opportunities  Petition submission information sharing initiatives began in

40. Commodity Liaison Committee (CLC)  Provide direct input to:  Project Management Committee (CLC chair is voting member)  Workshops – Food Use and Ornamental  Provide key interface with House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations staff members  Efforts resulted in IR-4 budget increases for CSREES in FY 2005, 2008 & 2009 and ARS prior to FY 2004  Additional funding increases are needed to provide support for:  Field residue projects  Biopesticide and Ornamental programs  Analytical instrumentation and field equipment used to conduct GLP residue trials Partnerships Make Things Happen

41. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  EPA/IR-4 Technical Working Group: Initiated in 1999, meets quarterly  IR-4 provides agricultural tours for EPA/USDA/NIFA personnel  Explores initiatives to facilitate minor crop tolerances  EPA reviews annual IR-4 residue program and potential new projects prior to the Food Use Workshop  IR-4 served as a leader with the agency on electronic petition submission Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  EPA/IR-4 Technical Working Group: Initiated in 1999, meets quarterly  IR-4 provides agricultural tours for EPA/USDA/NIFA personnel  Explores initiatives to facilitate minor crop tolerances  EPA reviews annual IR-4 residue program and potential new projects prior to the Food Use Workshop  IR-4 served as a leader with the agency on electronic petition submission Partnerships Make Things Happen

42. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  Annual Work Plan coordination  Sabbaticals by Dan Kunkel (2001), and Michael Braverman/BPPD (2002) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  Annual Work Plan coordination  Sabbaticals by Dan Kunkel (2001), and Michael Braverman/BPPD (2002) Partnerships Make Things Happen

43. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)  Part of EPA/IR-4 Technical Working Group since 2001  Partnership between EPA and CDPR facilitated by IR-4 resulted in workshare petitions  Expanded number of IR-4 petitions reviewed  Great support from Senior Management and dedicated team California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)  Part of EPA/IR-4 Technical Working Group since 2001  Partnership between EPA and CDPR facilitated by IR-4 resulted in workshare petitions  Expanded number of IR-4 petitions reviewed  Great support from Senior Management and dedicated team Partnerships Make Things Happen

44. Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Pest Management Centre  Partnership with IR-4 began in 1996  First IR-4 work share petition with EPA was completed in 2002  In 2003, the Canadian government made a major funding commitment to minor crop growers through PMRA and AAFC  IR-4 workshare petitions with PMRA have been approved by NAFTA Technical Working Group Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Pest Management Centre  Partnership with IR-4 began in 1996  First IR-4 work share petition with EPA was completed in 2002  In 2003, the Canadian government made a major funding commitment to minor crop growers through PMRA and AAFC  IR-4 workshare petitions with PMRA have been approved by NAFTA Technical Working Group Partnerships Make Things Happen

45. IR-4 Strategies Track new technology Focus efforts on Reduced Risk products Develop registration strategies with companies Use of representative crops to obtain MRL’s for Crop Groups

46. Track New Technology Track and monitor pipeline and newly registered products Pipeline is not robust but recovering Herbicide development for broadleaf crops is extremely limited

47. IR-4 Reduces Risk Strategy Focus research efforts on Reduced Risk Products Reduced Risk – 1993 EPA Policy to expedite the registration of products that pose less risk to human health and environment Since 2000, over 80% of IR-4 research involved Reduced Risk Products Reduced Risk use patterns for existing product registrations Registration of new, and support for existing, pest control products essential to Integrated Pest Management Registration of biologically - based pest control products

48. Registration Strategy Start research on new chemistries before the first food use tolerance Use representative crops to obtain tolerance for entire Crop Group Use “Super Crop Groups” for reduced risk chemistries to increase efficiencies

49. EPA Regions 1 2 9 3 4 5 6 8 7 10 11 12 13

50. Ornamental Horticulture Program Efficacy and phytotoxicity data development for diseases, pests and weeds: –cultivate new products with reduced environmental footprint Investigate invasive pests Study ways to manage development of resistance Study impact on beneficial organisms

51. Registration Facilitation –Develop efficacy and crop safety data for new active ingredients and updated current labels –Identify key issues where growers do not have sufficient tools –Screen biologically-based and/or conventional tools not currently labeled for use. Invasive Species –Collaborate with scientists nationally and internationally to facilitate research on mitigation and basic biology of exotic invasive species Ornamental Horticulture Program Activities

52. Request Reviewed by Manufacturer Requests & Survey Results Prioritized At Ornamental Horticulture Workshop Field and Lab Research Research Is Completed for Efficacy and Plant Safety Manufacturer Markets Product with New Use on Label Label Approved by EPA Data Submitted to Registrant Who Makes Label Amendment(s) The Process Starts with Requests /Survey Submitted from: Growers, Grower Groups, State/Federal Research & Extension Personnel Stakeholder: Define Pest Problem Identify Pest Management Solution Request Assistance from IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research & Registration Process

53. Ornamental Horticulture Program The Four Steps of IR-4 Step 1: Identify grower needs Step 2: Establish research priorities Step 3: Establish research program Step 4: Communicate research results

54. January April July October Ornamental Horticulture Program: Research Cycle Biennual Workshop Annual National Research Planning Meeting Establish Research Trials Identify Grower Needs Project Request Form Grower/Extension Survey Receive & Summarize Trial Data

55. Ornamental Horticulture Program Website Survey Project request form Protocols Summaries Workshop information Searches

56. 22,000+ Crop Uses 101+ Registered Products 23,245 Studies 30,250 Completed Trials 60 – 70 researchers every year 50% of archived records validated as of 2013 Ornamental Horticulture Program Statistics

57. Ornamental Horticulture Program Invasive Species Q Biotype Whitefly Gladiolus Rust Chili Thrips Chrysanthemum White Rust Shipping of Invasive Arthropods Boxwood Blight Impatiens Downy Mildew Spotted Winged Drosophila Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

58. IR-4 Biopesticide & Organic Support Program

59. Biopesticide Research Formally Established in 1982 Some activities prior to 1982: regulatory assistance w/Bt 1982-1994 Mostly regulatory assistance Some funding of research 1995-2003 Regulatory assistance Early stage research Advance stage research (1999) Pilot Demonstration Program First year was $100,000 program ($80,000 from BPPD) Second and Third Years are $200,000 Program Each Year ($100,000 from BPPD)

60. Future Opportunities for Biopesticide & Organic Support Program Many promising new products, but can biopesticides compete directly with conventional crop protection chemicals? IR-4’s strategy since 2003 has been to encourage research to integrate biopesticides in rotation with conventional materials.

61. Key Areas Downey Mildew-Basil, Cucurbits Greenhouse tomato Thrips Stink bug, Lygus Bacterial Diseases Phermones Biotechnology

62. Public Health Pesticide Program

63. The IR-4 PHP Program completed its first five-year funding cycle in June 2013: 1 year of initial activities by HQ staff + 3 years with a dedicated Program Manager + 1 year Program Manager + Research Assistant. Draft Final Report to funders in the PMC materials file. Public Health Pesticide Update – Funding I

64. Dedicated funding (military + ARS) renewed for 2013 - 2018. New full-time limited-term RA will replace current employee, who starts vet. school. Public Health Pesticide Update – Funding II

65. Approval of all-crops tolerance for the mosquitocide etofenprox. This is first EPA crop tolerance based on modeling data: exposure due to multiple applications percentage of U.S. crops potentially exposed. Supplemental studies: Ground vs. aerial application Foliar degradation Public Health Pesticide Update – EPA Action

66. Public Health Pesticide Update – Regulatory Support Attractive Targeted Sugar Baits (ATSB) vs. mosquitoes and sand flies Negotiate data requirements for novel vector control strategy: Efficacy, Pollinator protection, Degradation / dissipation, Phytotoxicity.

67. Thank You!