Produced by the International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS). To join IAPPS and receive the Crop Protection journal online go to: www.plantprotection.org
Researchers determine groundbreaking new way to identify pesticide resistance: ‘I’m really excited about this study’
Tina Deines
Sun, April 7, 2024 at 12:00 PM CDT·2 min read
Researchers are exploring an exciting new approach that uses genomics to help monitor and identify pesticide resistance in the insects that munch on our crops.
Pest management is important for farmers, but insects often become immune to pesticides, making them less effective. In the new research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, a team of scientists from the University of Maryland (UMD) presents a new strategy that analyzes genomic changes in pests to monitor and identify emerging resistance to specific toxins early on.
They zoned in on one pest in particular: the corn earworm, a crop-destroying caterpillar that has developed widespread resistance to a number of natural toxins bred into corn. They were able to identify resistance to toxins among these caterpillars after just a single generation of exposure. They also identified how common strategies for avoiding resistance could actually be doing the opposite.
“As it currently stands, the evolution of resistance across many pests of agricultural and public health importance is outpacing the rate at which we can discover new technologies to manage them,” said senior author Megan Fritz, an associate professor of entomology at UMD, per Phys.org. “I’m really excited about this study, because we’re developing the framework for use of genomic approaches to monitor and manage resistance in any system.”
The new research is one of many that is helping farmers to produce more successful harvests.
For instance, a team of American and Chinese researchers found a way to genetically engineer plants that can survive heat waves. University of Minnesota scientists are on their way to developing a “Super Grape” that could stave off powdery mildew and reduce the need for fungicide.
These developments in agriculture come at a critically important time — as our planet continues to warm, there are frequent heat waves and droughts, which threaten our food security. Plus, climate change scientists predict that a warming world will drive a surge in certain insect pests that attack our crops, further threatening food security and causing economic losses for those in the agricultural sector.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the coolest innovations improving our lives and saving our planet.
Brazil’s Quiet Revolution: The Rise of Biopesticides in Agriculture
Brazil’s agriculture is witnessing a quiet revolution with the rise of biopesticides. Farmers like Adriano Cruvinel have increased soybean yields by 13% and reduced chemical pesticide use by 76%. As Brazil faces challenges in balancing agricultural advancement and environmental stewardship, the adoption of biopesticides offers a promising path towards sustainable farming.
Brazil’s Quiet Revolution: The Rise of Biopesticides in Agriculture
In the verdant expanses of Brazil, a quiet revolution brews amidst the rows of soy, corn, and cotton that stretch as far as the eye can see. Here, in the world’s largest exporter of these crops, a significant shift toward sustainability is underway. Leading the charge is Adriano Cruvinel, a farmer whose soybean yields have surged by 13% thanks to a bold decision: slashing chemical pesticide use by an astonishing 76% in favor of biopesticides. This move toward natural pest management solutions is not just a personal win for Cruvinel but signals a potential turning point for Brazilian – and possibly global – agriculture. As of February 2024, the adoption of biopesticides is gaining momentum, promising a future where farming works in harmony with nature rather than against it.
The Rise of Biologicals in Brazil’s Agri-Frontiers
The transformation witnessed on Cruvinel’s farm is part of a broader trend sweeping across Brazil. Farmers across the nation are increasingly turning to biopesticides – natural alternatives to chemical pesticides – to bolster crop health and yields. This pivot is driven by the unveiling of innovative biopesticide products, such as FMC’s Onsuva, a fungicide designed to combat major soybean and cotton diseases, and Premio Star, an insecticide effective against a wide array of pests. The introduction of these products, showcased at the Show Rural 2024, marks a significant milestone in Brazil’s journey towards sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, the release of Presence Full, a biological nematocide, and Provilar, a biocide harboring bacillus endospores, underscores the agricultural sector’s commitment to reducing chemical use and enhancing crop safety.
Challenges and Opportunities Ahead
Despite the promising strides made by pioneers like Cruvinel, biopesticides remain in their infancy in Brazil, accounting for just 9% of total pesticide sales. This nascent stage is partly due to the country’s heavy reliance on chemical pesticides, fueled by its status as the world’s top consumer. The recent softening of regulations on agricultural chemicals by Brazilian legislation, met with criticism from environmentalists, further complicates the landscape. Additionally, the controversy surrounding Brazil’s pesticide use has international ramifications, with opponents of the EU-Mercosur trade deal citing concerns over the nation’s pesticide consumption. These challenges highlight the delicate balance Brazil must navigate between agricultural advancement and environmental stewardship.
Experts Weigh In: The Path to Global Adoption
The journey of biopesticides from niche to mainstream is fraught with hurdles, yet experts remain optimistic about their global potential. AgriBusiness Global’s recent interviews with industry players shed light on the critical factors for widespread adoption. Key among these is the demonstration of biopesticides’ efficacy in boosting yields and reducing reliance on chemical alternatives, as evidenced by Cruvinel’s success. Furthermore, the development and marketing of innovative products like Onsuva and Premio Star play a pivotal role in persuading farmers to make the switch. For biopesticides to take root globally, the agricultural sector must embrace these natural solutions, proving that sustainability and productivity can coexist.
ADVERTISEMENT
The narrative unfolding in Brazil’s vast fields is more than a tale of agricultural innovation; it is a testament to the power of sustainable practices in shaping the future of farming. As biopesticides begin to find their footing, bolstered by the success stories of farmers like Cruvinel and the pioneering spirit of companies like FMC, the vision of a greener, more productive agriculture becomes increasingly tangible. Yet, the path forward is not without its obstacles, requiring a concerted effort from all stakeholders to overcome regulatory, environmental, and market challenges. Brazil’s journey with biopesticides not only illuminates the potential for a seismic shift in global agriculture but also serves as a call to action for nations worldwide to consider the legacy they wish to leave on the planet’s agricultural landscape.
‘Dinosaur’ pesticide law clings to life as SA dithers on poisons reform
Some critics suggest that South Africa remains locked in a chemical culture time warp, where pesticides continue to be cast in a ‘heroic’ role, discouraging less toxic products and non- chemical weed and insect control alternatives. (Photo: schmidtlaw.com / Wikipedia)
There are more than 3,000 registered pesticides sprayed across South Africa, several of which are banned or severely restricted in Europe and other countries because of human and environmental safety risks. Despite the government’s promises to reform outdated pesticide policies, public health experts say there has been little movement.
It has been 77 years since the first law to regulate chemical pesticide safety was passed in this country. This was back in the days of King George VI, Jan Smuts and the Union of South Africa.
Since then, South Africa has become the largest consumer of pesticides in Africa, accounting for roughly a third of all farm chemicals used on the continent.
The primary law regulating pesticides dates back to 1947, but there are more than a dozen other laws, with overall administration fragmented between seven different government departments. (Government Gazette and Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)
Here is one example: The current Act still specifies a fine of “£500” for government officials who unlawfully disclose any confidential business affairs of the agricultural industry.
Juxtaposed against this £500 fine (roughly R12,000 at today’s exchange rate), the current version of the Act only permits a maximum penalty of R1,000 for violations of the country’s main pesticide control law.
The Adjustment of Fines Act of 1991 does provide for a retrospective stiffening of fines using a ratio determined by periodic government notices, so the R1,000 fine may now be closer to R80,000.
Nevertheless, the £500 fine crafted to protect industry secrecy and the derisory scale of maximum fines for pesticide law violations, remain on South Africa’s statute book – stark evidence of an outdated legal legacy and powerful influence of vested industry interests in an era where modern agricultural systems seemingly remain addicted to chemical poisons to sustain the growth of food or cash crops.
As evidence continues to pile up about the serious harm to humanity and the environment from the increasing volumes of pesticides sprayed across the world, the government has failed to implement a series of reforms recommended by its own policy document – the “new” Pesticide Management Policy published 14 years ago.
Several pesticides have been shown to increase the risk of cancer and obesity, along with neurological damage to children, kidney and lung disease and other serious health impacts. (Image: Brewer International / Wikipedia)
There has also been a two-decade delay in passing domestic laws to enforce the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty ratified by South Africa in 2002 to limit the global movement of banned or severely restricted pesticides.
It was only in May 2021 that Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy gazetted new Rotterdam domestic regulations, which introduced new penalties of up to R5-million for pesticide manufacturers and distributors who either import or export hazardous chemical and pesticide formulations in contravention of the international treaty obligations.
But in November 2021, Creecy changed her mind and suspended the implementation of the new regulations for 12 months. Following a further series of delays, she has since repealed the original regulations and published a new version that is only due to take effect in mid-June 2024 (barring further delays).
Creecy’s department has rejected claims of any improper influence from the agrochemicals industry in delaying the new Rotterdam domestic regulations and attributed some of the delays to “substantive” objections that included the apparent omission of CAS chemical registry numbers from the published regulations.
Croplife SA, an industry body whose members include agrochemical companies such as BASF, Bayer, Corteva, UPL and Syngenta, says it is also “not of the opinion that Minister Creecy is intentionally delaying the implementation, but rather ensuring that the regulations are free of errors, which is of paramount importance”.
Nevertheless, documents on its website suggest that it is pushing back against international pressure to phase out at least 29 chemical substances linked to greater risks of cancer, genetic damage and other harms to people, animals and the environment.
Members of the Women on Farms Project marched in Worcester on 5 May 2022 demanding an urgent ban on 67 pesticides. (Photo: Ashraf Hendricks)
At a series of workshops last May for farmers, government officials and journalists, senior Croplife leaders said there was a need to “bring the African narrative more firmly into relevant policy discussions” around the European Green Deal – a recent initiative to protect human health and restore damaged ecosystems. This includes plans to reduce use of the most hazardous pesticide types by 50% by 2030.
According to European Health and Food Safety commissioner Stella Kyriakides: “It is time to change course on how we use pesticides in the EU … We need to reduce the use of chemical pesticides to protect our soil, air and food, and ultimately the health of our citizens. For the first time, we will ban the use of pesticides in public gardens and playgrounds, ensuring that we are all far less exposed in our daily lives.”
According to a European Commission “Farm to Fork” policy document, EU scientific advisers have concluded that the current food system in Europe is no longer sustainable.
“This does not mean that pesticides are not needed. There are cases where satisfactory pest control can only be achieved in commercial food production through the use of chemical pesticides. However, chemical pesticides should be used only as a last resort.”
Rather than intensive pesticide use, the European Union promotes pest management systems where toxic chemicals are used only as a last resort. (Image: European Commission 2022)
The commission also cites a World Health Organisation report which estimates that there are about 1 million cases of unintentional pesticide poisonings every year, leading to approximately 20,000 deaths. A more recent review estimated about 385 million cases of unintentional acute pesticide poisonings occur annually worldwide, including around 11,000 fatalities.
Chemically active pesticides were found in up to 30% of European rivers and lakes, and regulators are worried about the increasing impact on the pollination of food crops at a time when up to 10% of bee and butterfly species in Europe are on the verge of extinction, and 33% are in decline.
Croplife SA has made it clear that it will push back against so-called EU “mirror clauses” that would prohibit South African farmers from using certain pesticides if they export products to Europe – even if these pesticides are legally registered in South Africa.
Global pesticide distributors have frequently been accused of double standards, by peddling in African and other developing countries agrochemical products that have been either banned or severely restricted in Europe because of human safety and environmental concerns.
Croplife SA, however, responds that enforcing European policies on local farmers is a “threat to the government’s right to make decisions for its people based on the local conditions and requirements”.
“Products cannot just be ‘dumped’ in South Africa as some activists claim; they must go through a rigorous registration process that considers the local production conditions and environmental impact.”
Croplife insists that the current regulatory framework in South Africa remains “robust” and “very strong” even though the original Act dates back to 1947.
But that is not how several other interest groups view the 1947 pesticides control law.
Precision farming techniques using drones or modifying the flow rate from spray nozzles can significantly reduce pesticide volumes compared to more conventional manual methods. (Photo: iStock)
Prof Leslie London, a senior University of Cape Town (UCT) public health research expert on pesticide hazards, chemical neurotoxicity and farm worker safety, says: “I think what Croplife really mean is that South Africa has a regulatory environment very favourable to industry. It would be laughable to consider it ‘strong’ unless you mean strongly biased to industry.”
He argues that at a time when many developed countries are adopting policies that promote pesticide reduction, South African policy remains largely out of step with international concerns
The primary 1947 law to control pesticides is regulated by the national Agriculture department, via the Registrar for Pesticides. But because this department is also mandated to promote agricultural expansion, Prof London believes this creates a clear conflict of interest concerning independent pesticide regulation.
He also suggests that the national department has done little to promote the Integrated Pest Management philosophy, which encourages farmers to reduce their reliance on chemical pesticides.
These are some of the alternatives proposed to reduce chemically-intensive farming. (Image: European Commission 2022)
In a journal critique published in 2000, Prof London and fellow UCT public health researcher Prof Hanna-Andrea Rother argued that pesticide regulation fines were “grossly inconsistent with the gravity of offences” while inspectorates were hugely understaffed.
Nearly a quarter of a century later, those derisory fines remain unchanged, and Prof London says that though there has been some “tinkering”, the current pesticide regulation model remains more or less unchanged.
He suggests that South Africa is still locked in a “pesticide culture” that sees intensive chemical control of farm pests as the norm, rather than as a last resort.
“This consent is manufactured by many forces, economic and ideological, and can be seen in the nature of pesticide advertising, and discourses surrounding the heroic role pesticides can play in economic development in the new South Africa,” according to the two researchers..
They noted that 100 to 200 cases of pesticide poisoning were reported every year to the Department of Health (mostly farmworkers or rural residents), while other surveys suggested that the true rates were anything between five and 20 times higher.
Several farm workers live in close proximity to crop fields sprayed from the air, potentially exposing them to toxic spray drift via contaminated air and water. (Photo: Professor Leslie London)
To resolve conflicts of interest and the fragmentation of regulation, the two researchers call for a new independent regulatory body to act as guardian of the public interest, separated from the economic motive to promote agricultural production.
Similar proposals for reform have also been made by Advocate Susannah Cowen SC on behalf of the Real Thing natural health products company.
In a legal opinion submitted to the SA Law Reform Commission in 2021, Cowen draws attention to the apparent double standards of South Africa importing hazardous chemicals from countries where these same chemicals are banned.
Cowen (now a judge of the labour court) said: “No amount of tinkering or amendment can render the 1947 Act fit for purpose in a democratic South Africa. It is wholly outdated.”
At the time of the submission, she said there was also no requirement for periodic safety reviews of currently registered pesticides or re-evaluations of old chemicals.
“The State made important reform commitments in the Pesticide Management Policy for South Africa in 2010. However, these commitments have not been realised and very little has been done since 2010 when these commitments were made.” DM
The Department of Agriculture Land Reform and Rural Development responds:
“The (1947) Act may only be amended once its relevance, applicability, suitability and responsiveness is under question, and so far the Act is still potently applicable
“Over the years, the department has phased out or banned many pesticides of concern under the same Act. We will continue to review the pesticides on concern, and where applicable we will phase out or ban them.
“There have been several regulations under the Act which the Minister has made in order to respond to some substantive recommendations which were part of the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy. The regulations relating to agricultural remedy, as published in Government Notice No. R. 3812 of August 2023, are aimed at addressing the recommendations of the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy.
“The latest regulations were published on 25 August 2023, which, among others, are aimed as phasing active ingredients and their pesticides formulations that potentially may cause cancer, genetic mutation and damages to fertility of a human being (including negatively affecting the unborn child); implementation of the Globally Harmonised System of classification and labelling of chemicals; restrictions of sale and use of certain hazardous pesticides, disclosure by agrochemical companies of amounts the of pesticides sold and other measures.
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE)responds:
A spokesperson said the department “categorically rejects [suggestions] that it has taken 20 years to implement the Rotterdam Convention. DFFE has been facilitating the exchange of information for more than 17 years (as far back as 2006).”
Commenting on the reasons for a recent series of notices to suspend, repeal or amend the convention’s domestic regulations, the department said it was compelled by law to undertake public participation when developing regulations.
“There were submissions on substantive matters that were submitted after the finalisation of the (Rotterdam) PIC Regulations that influenced the department to reconsider and opt for the suspension of the PIC Regulations. The department rejects claims or any perceptions of improper influence and maintains that the Batho Pele principles of consultation, courtesy and responsiveness remained at the centre of the department’s decision to suspend the regulations while the specific amendments were being attended to.”
Croplife South Africa responds:
Croplife confirmed that it made submissions to Creecy’s department to correct certain errors in the registration status of chemicals listed in the Rotterdam regulations.
Responding to criticism about the “double standards” of selling pesticides in Africa when they were banned in Europe or other developed nations, Croplife said: “It is quite normal for some countries to have plant protection solutions authorised for local use when they are not registered in other countries. Local climatic conditions, pest occurrence, crops and regulatory procedures differ from country to country. Therefore, products can be registered in one country and not in another.”
The industry group acknowledged that current laws only provide for a R1,000 fine for contraventions of the 1947 Act, but noted the government could impose much more severe sanctions – such as a banning or cancelling sales of certain chemical products.
There had also been “several” amendments since 1947, while specific product registrations were reviewed every three years.
New regulations published in August 2023 also contained a clause that a pesticide registration holder was obliged to inform the registrar of any new data pertaining to environmental or human toxicology
“Act No 36 and its supporting regulations provide a robust regulatory framework for plant protection solutions in South Africa. As with any government department, the Act No 36 of 1947 regulatory team could be more efficient if central Treasury provided greater funding. In this way, the approval and registration process could bring newer technologies to South African farmers more quickly.
“Government still has the overall right to approve or not approve a product. But our opinion remains that the system for product registrations can be more efficient, bringing newer technologies to farmers quicker, by better utilising the fees already paid to government for product registrations”.
KATHMANDU, MAY 02 –
Integrated Pest Management has been adopted by a growing number of organic farms in all districts of Nepal
Arjun Neupane, a farmer in Dhaibung, Rasuwa, owns a farm that’s all organic. His prize produce is tomatoes, and they grow in a plastic-roofed shed that’s surrounded on all sides by marigold plants. The rest of his farmland, used for growing cauliflower and spinach, is spotted with plastic drums that house a slurry of buffalo dung and urine mixed with titepati, neem and sisnu leaves. It’s the employing of slurries of this kind that’s at the heart of a farming method called Integrated Pest Management (IPM)—a method that’s been adopted by a growing number of organic farms in all districts of Nepal.
The IPM philosophy is a simple one: It’s a way of using, as much as possible, plants (mostly those that grow in the wild) and animal waste to keep pest numbers down and fertilise the soil at the same time. The buffalo urine in the slurry, which Neupane ferries by the bucketloads to his vegetable beds, acts as a fertiliser—by adding nutrients such as ammonia in its natural form to the soil—and the plants used in the slurry kill germs and keep away animals such as rodents, with their bitterness. Live plants, too–such as the marigold plants around Neupane’s greenhouse—can be marshalled as a defensive front: in Neupane’s case, they keep at bay the nematodes, a kind of worm, which would otherwise prey on his tomatoes.
IPM took off in the late 90s in Nepal, with the government’s encouraging farmers to make use of the method as an alternative to depending on chemical fertlisers, which are harsher on the soil and whose use over time can lead to the land’s turning effete. The government knew that it had to wean the farmers off chemical fertilisers if they wanted to preserve the farmlands’ soil. The advent of globalisation had by then seen a marked increase in Nepali farmers’ switching to various types of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, which had become readily available in all markets across the country. And the farming sector had transformed from one which primarily used organic fertilisers and biological agents to one that relied increasingly on fertilisers that degraded the soil quality of the farms and which furthermore had untold adverse effects on the environment and in turn on public health.
Most farmers who use only chemical fertilisers are locked in a vicious cycle. The chemical fertilisers produce better yields, and as most other farmers now opt for using chemicals (even as they further degrade their land), they have to keep up if they want to compete in the marketplace. Furthermore, many of them have also taken to using industrial-strength pesticides to keep away pests—such as insects, disease-bearing pathogens, weeds, rodents, and mites—which are the major constraints to increasing agricultural production and which can cause productivity losses of up to 40 percent. This increase in the use of chemical pesticides ends up not only upsetting the natural balance of chemicals of the soils in the fields, but also leads to an increase in the populations of secondary pests.
It was to help those farmers who wanted to get back to using biopesticides that the concept of the IPM approach was pushed by the government. The first phase of IPM farming in Nepal was launched just before the turn of the century by the Department of Plant Resources, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The government was aided in its venture by various developmental partners and together they helped set up the practice for farmers in various districts, including Jhapa, Morang, Bara, Chitwan, Kapilvastu, Bardiya, Banke, Kailali, Ilam, Kavre, Syangja, Surkhet, Dadeldhura, Tanahu, Dhading, Mustang and Manang.
Ironically, the government had to sell the idea as a ‘modern’ method of farming, even though local versions of IPM were what the farmers used to work with before the farmers switched wholesale to chemical fertilisers. Wood ash, for example, has been widely used for pest control in west Nepal for generations. Today, the national IPM Programme seeks to teach the farmers how to find their way back, says Yubak Dhoj GC, a government official and former coordinator at the Plant Protection Directorate. To help farmers make the switch, the government and various non-governmental agencies have set up IPM farmer schools all across Nepal, in which farmers such as Neupane learn the science of using botanical pesticides, which can be made from more than 50 plant species readily available in Nepal: plants such as neem, marigold, titepati, sisnu, garlic and timur are used in IMP to ward off pests such as the cabbage butterfly larvae, hairy caterpillars, cutworms, red ants, termites and aphids.
Today, it is estimated that around 11,000 farmers in 17 districts have completely adopted IPM techniques and that the number is increasing at the rate of more than 10 percent each year. Thus there are quite a few farmers who are getting sold on the idea, but there still remains the challenge of helping the IPM farmers compete with those who still haven’t given up the use of chemical fertilisers. The IPM model requires more man-hours in the field; furthermore, as Neupane, says, it’s difficult for IPM farmers like him to compete with farmers who use chemical fertilisers, andwhose tomatoes look larger, redder and juicier than his.
According to GC, the IPM programme is at a crossroads now. He says the government has to play a larger role in helping farmers such as Neupane. At present, the agricultural produce grown using chemical fertilisers and the IPM methods are competing in the same markets. The government doesn’t have the mechanism in place to certify certain products as being organic. If that were to happen, Neupane thinks that he could sell his tomatoes to hotels in Dhunche, where the tourists who prefer organic produce could seek vegetables like the ones he grows.
In cities like Kathmandu, there are already many farmers who are able to sell their products in the niche markets that the organic farmers, who employ IPM, have carved for themselves. For the farmers outside the Valley, the main draw of IPM farming is that the soil will remain fertile in the long run. These farmer can only compete with those who use chemical fertilisers, says GC, if the government were to provide subsidies and help improve market access for them. “We have been successful in involving the farmers in the IPM approach but have failed to improve the accessibility to the market for their products. Thus it’s still difficult for most of them to benefit from the agriculture practice they are adopting,” says GC.
/bnn/media/member_avatars/RbQbLuh8VN6MSlZqEfTK.png)
/bnn/media/media_files/9f22aefee23ea0ec4f3687d7b67445d3625b5fd0ca0d5a6db0841912db373926.jpg)
Global Plant Protection News 