FUNGICIDES: AN OVERVIEW OF TKEIR SIGNIFICANCE TO AGRICULTURE AND THEIR PESTICIDE REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BRANCH and PLANT SCIENCES BRANCH BENEFITS AND FIELD STUDIES DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS September 3, 1980 ------- Fungicides: An Overview of Their Significance to Agriculture and Their Pesticide Regulatory Implications By Gary Ballard, EAB Willard Cummings, PSB Mark Luttner, EAB Neil Pelletier, PSB Benefits and Field Studies Division Office of Pesticide Programs September 3, 1980 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Scope 1 Fungicide Market Dimensions 3 Regulatory Implications of RPAR's 9 Suitability of Alternatives 14 Yield/Quality Losses 16 Economic Impacts of Cancellation 17 Health Impacts Related to Fungicide Use 23 IPM Implications 25 New Chemical Outlook 26 Appendix I 30 ------- INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE Fungicides are being impacted more heavily by the RPAR process than any other major class of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. More than 90% of the annual usage of the organic fungicides is accounted for by twelve RPAR and pre-RPAR chemicals. This situation creates a complex regulatory risk/benefit decision making environment under FIFRA. Major substitutions among chemicals would take place depending on which regulatory scenario applies. Almost an unlimited number of regulatory scenarios are possible, each having differing impacts in terms of exposure and risk to human health and the environment and in terms of economic impacts on users and consumers. This report provides an overview of RPAR and non-RPAR fungicides and their importance in various usage sectors, particularly the agricultural sector, heavily impacted by fungicide RPAR's. The report addresses the pesticide regulatory implications of cancellation of pre-RPAR and RPAR chemicals in a general way for the major use site categories of fungicides in agriculture, such as for foliar vegetable treatments, foliar fruit and nut treatments, etc. In each instance, a review is made of the major diseases, the importance of pest damage, the extent of usage and the availability of substitutes, the economic impact of non-availability of the chemicals, the health implications of food or feed product damage from fungal pests and the implications for integrated pest management. These analyses were conducted on the basis of readily available information and are presented primarily in matrix form in order to 'most expeditiously bring issues into focus. ------- The analysis helps provide background on the context of upcoming decisions on individual RPAR's or groupings of KPAR's- It does not provide the detailed analysis necessary to support those individual decisions. Neither does it provide an analysis of the health and environmental issues raised by RPAR triggers/ such as mutagenicity, carcinogenicity etc. Information and estimates for the extent of use, the economic impacts, role of IPM, the list of recommended fungicides, and health effects were derived in part from a 1979 EPA contract study prepared by the American Phytopathological Society (APS), various RPAR EPA/USDA Assessment Team reports and discussions with experts within and outside of the Agency. - 2 - ------- .FUNGICIDE MARKET DIMENSIONS Pesticide usage in. the United States is estimated to reach 1.2 billion pounds active ingredient for 1980. Fungicides, not including petroleum based wood preservatives and sulfur, account for about 120 million pounds active ingredient or about 10% of total pesticide use (Table 1). There are currently as many as 12 fungicides on which regulatory action under the RPAR program may be taken. Several of these 12 have RPAR reviews underway while others are in the pre-RPAR review stage. In total, the RPAR and pre-RPAR chemicals represent about 67 million pounds of the total of about 74 million pounds used as organic fungicides in the U.S. Fungicides also include several inorganic compounds such as the copper compounds. Adding the inorganic compounds, which have plant protection uses as well as wood preservative and some water treatment uses, raises the total fungicide chemical usage to about 145 million pounds (See Table 2)., Total fungicide usage depicted in Table 1 as compared to Tables 2"and 3 does not correspond because of different coverages of wood preservation treatments. This study is concerned primarily with the agricultural uses of fungicides. Table 2 shows that total agricultural sector use including both organic and inorganic compounds is estimated to be about 89 million pounds. The RPAR and pre-RPAR compounds represent almost 60% of this total. Looking only at the organic chemicals, agricultural sector use is about 58 million pounds annually. The RPAR and pre-RPAR compounds account for 52 million pounds or about 90% of all organic fungicides used in the agricultural sector. - 3 - ------- •teble J. \tolune of U.S. Pesticide Active Ingredient Used ty Class and Sector) 1980 Estimates. JVjriculture Ind./Ormn./Govt. ll.ire and Garden Ibtal Herbicides 1,000 Pounds 445,000 82,000 28,000 555,000 V Percent 60 15 5 100 Insecticides *L 1,000 Pounds 306,000 47,000 42,000 395,000 Percent 77 • 12 11 100 Fungicides 1,000 Pounds Percent 50,000 60,000 10,000 120,000 42 50 8 100 Other 3/ 1,000 Pounds 45,000 58,000 2,000 105,000 « Percent 43 55 2 100 Tbtal 1,000 Poun<5s 846,000 247,000 82,000 1,175,000 Percent 72 21 7 100 « -V Inclules plant grtwth regulators. Z' Includes mitlcides and contact narra tic ides. _' Includes rodentlcldes, funigants, and nolluscicides. Source: EPA staff estimates based upon NACA annual surveys, U.S. ITC data, and other sources. ------- Table 2. Prof tie cf Fmgicidal Usage in the U.S. by Pesticide Regulatory Status and Usage Sector, 1980 Annual Usage Chemical Organic a/ Maneb, manoozeb ChLorothalonil Captan Captafol Benomyl Folpet Ferbam Ihiram PCNB Dcdine Dinocap Zineb Nabam Metiram Other organics b/ Inorganic c/ REAR Status RPAR Pre-RPAR Referral RPAR Pre-RPAR RPAR Pre-RPAR Non-RPAR Pre^PAR RPAR Non-RPAR Non-RPAR RPAR RPAR RPAR Non-RPAR Agriculture 16.0 6.0 10.0 6.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 tare & Garden J 1 1 J _ m I_L J. von 3.0 .5 5.0 .5 .5 .5 0.5 Ocmnnercial/Industry/ Government J * •¥• pounds A. x." • 2.0 .5 1.0 .5 .5 .5 .5 0.5 Ibtal 21.0 7.0 16.0 7.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1-5 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Copper sulfate and other copper salts d/ Other inorganics e/ Ibtal Non-RPAR Non-RPAR RPAR Pre-RPAR Non-RPAR Grand Total RPAR Pre-RPAR Non-RPAR Grand Total 30.0 1.5 36.0 15.5 37.5 89.0 40.5 17.4 42.1 100.0 9.0 1.0 .5 10.5 85.7 9.5 4.8 100.0 20.0 20.0 3.5 2.0 40.5 46.0 TV-i v-.— 1-1 .-|l- 7.6 4.4 88.0 100.0 50.0 21.5 49.5 18.5 78.5 145.5 33.3 12.7 54.0 100.0 See notes on next page. ------- a/ Does not include a phenylphenol/ petroleum, creosote, coal tar, pentachlorophenol, trichloraphenol or cu-naphthenates. b/ Includes: anilazime fentin hydroxide Busan 40 glyodin batrizol hexachlophene (RPAR) chlorneb oxytetracycline cydoheximide pannol dizonet piperalin DCNA streptomycin ditalimates TCMTB ethazol thiabenzadole ethoxyguin tricyclazole fenarimol ziram £/ Does not include sulfur or zinc sulfate. d/ Primarily copper sulfate. Includes all pesticidal uses, i.e., uses against fungi, bacteria, algae, etc. o_/ Includes arsenates and other salts of chromium, nickel, cadmium, and other metals. - 6 - ------- The EBDC fungicides included in Table 2 (maneb, mancozeb, metiram/ zineb/ and nabam) (EBDC's also include amobam no longer in production) constitute 27 million pounds active ingredient or 36% of all organic fungicides used in the U.S. For the agricultural sector/ the EBDC's represent 21.5 million pounds active ingredient or 37% of all organic fungicides used in the agricultural sector. Regionally, Table 3 shows that fungicides are most heavily used in the Southeast. This usage corresponds to the climatic conditions of the Southeast (i.e./ warm and humid) which intensifies disease pressure. However as seen in Table 3, all regions are significant consumers of fungicides. Fungicide use is primarily a function of cropping patterns and climate. Vegetable and fruit crops tend to require fungicides in their production. This accounts for such findings as the West is a relatively large consumer of fungicides although climatic conditions would tend to indicate less disease pressure. - 7 - ------- Table 3. Profile of Fungicidal Usage in the U.S. by Pesticide Regulatory Status and Region, 1980 Annual Usge Chemical Organic a/ Maneb, mancozeb Chlorothalonil Captan Captafol Benomyl Folpet Ferbam Thiram PCNB Dodine Dinocap Zineb Nabam Metiram Other organics b/ RPAR Status RPAR Pre-RPAR Referral RPAR Pre-RPAR RPAR Pre-RPAR Non-RPAR Pre-RPAR RPAR Non-RPAR Non-RPAR RPAR RPAR RPAR Non-RPAR Inorganic c/ Copper sulfate and other copper salts d/ Non-RPAR Other inorganics e/ Non-RPAR Total RPAR Pre-RPAR Non-RPAR Grand Total RPAR Pre-RPAR Non-RPAR Grand Total NE 4.00 .50 5.00 1.25 .50 1.00 .20 .40 .20 1.50 .80 .50 .20 .20 .40 1.00 2.50 10.60 3.15 6.40 20.15 52.6 15.6 31.8 100.0 SE 7.50 2.25 3.50 2.00 .50 .30 .20 .50 1.00 .10 .10 1.50 .20 .20 .40 25.00 5.00 14.40 5.05 30.80 50.25 28.7 10.1 61.2 100.0 NC '11* 3.00 .50 3.50 1.25 .75 .20 .20 .40 .50 .50 .40 1.50 .20 .20 .40 11.00 2.50 9.65 2.35 15.00 SC pounds 4.50 2.25 .50 1.25 .50 .30 .20 1.00 .40 .20 .10 .30 .20 .20 .40 1.00 6.50 6.60 4.80 8.40 27.00 19.80 35.7 33.3 8.7 55.6 100.0 24.2 42.5 100.0 W 2.00 1.50 3.50 1.25 .75 .20 .20 .20 .40 .20 .10 .20 .20 .20 .40 12.00 5.00 7.25 3.15 17.90 28.30 25.6 11.1 63.3 100.0 Total 21.0 7.0 16.0 7.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 50.0 21.5 48.50 18.50 78.50 145.50 33.3 12.7 54.0 100.0 See notes on page 6. ------- REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF RPAR'S The possibility of removing some or all chemicals involved in the RPAR process and possibly additional chemicals raises questions of the significance of fungicides in economic terms to the agricultural sector and the economy in general. The general approach taken was to aggregate crops into groups of similar characteristics, similar disease problems, and similar fungicide use practices. This aggregation allowed the analysis to be broken into a manageable number of site groupings given the time and resources available. As with any aggregation, the findings tend to rely on broad averages. This analysis made use of ranges or averages for both extent of treatment estimates and economic impact calculations. Even though the use of averages was necessitated by resource constraints, the overall and relative significance of fungicides is generally portrayed. A general summary of findings is presented in tabular form for nine(9) crop use-site categories (Table 4). These nine categories are an aggregation of more detailed information presented in Appendix I for twenty-two (22) use-site categories. The remainder of this section of the report is a discussion of the information presented in Table 4 and Appendix I, along with implications for regulatory action under FIFRA. - 9 - ------- Kxtent of Current Usage Site KI'AR Non-KPAR Foliar 102-75% of total 10%-20% may be Vegetables acreage treated. treated. Similar 90%-100% of regional break- eastern acreage, down as for 2()%-50% of RPAR's. western acreage. Major vegetables such as tomatoes. potatoes and cucurbits are Intensive sites for RPAR's. Dlsiease Loss Estimates— Solanaceous crops 100% in Southeast 20% In California Beans and Peas 10% East and Midwest Leafy Vegetables 100% in FL 20% in CA Cucurbits 75% In Southeast 15% in other regions Root Crops 20% in FL and midwest 5% In other regions.. fitablllty of . KPJni Alternatives— Equally effective compounds more costly; less effective alternatives Injurious, have narrow spectrum, and require more applications. Economic Impact of RPAR Cancel la t ton Grower level Impacts of 10%- 157. of value of production or up to $500 M. Major shift of nroductlon from humid East to less humid West. Heal ill Impact ' ) l'^^^i~..il c1)1. i cs Kruni Loss of Siin^^viiiciil ;i 1 to All Fungicides Clu-mlra) C.onlml Higher Incidence Resistant of fungal . varieties. fragments in sanitation. processed disease fore- products. Limited casting, modified availability of nlantlng dates. fresli produce In winter season. Reduced nutritional value in processed produce. For potatoes, potential Incidence of glyco- alkolold poisoning with ingestlon of blight Infected tubers. Sweet Corn 100% In Southeast 8% in other regions Fruit and 45%-90% of fruits, 50%-80% of fruit, Disease losses Nuts 20%-60% of nuts. Treatment is more intensive in East. 30%-80% of nuts. Non-RPAR chemicals are very often used In conjunc- tion with RPAR compounds. Non-UPAR alternatives Up to 20%-30% as high as 75%-80% could occur on stone fruits. 100% losses could occur on certain tropical fruits, I.e., papayas. available for most uses but are generally less effective, not as broad spectrum, or are phytotoxlc for certain situations. of current value of production could be lost from yield and quality declines. Reduced availability of of fresh and processed fruit and nuts. Sanitation, resistant var let les, maintenance of tree' vigor. pruning, I rrI gat ion, eradication of alternate disease host, controlling Insect vectors, disease fore- casting. ------- Extent of Site RI'AR Foliar (cont) Grain crops Field and generally not Cereal treated. Other Crops field crops receive some treatments, peanuts being Intensively treated (75%- 90%). Seedbed treatment of tobacco occurs (50%- 70%). . Treatment of soybeans is expanding from 5% treated acreage currently. Oranmentals 20%- 100% of including foliage and Trees and flowering plants Turf treated in Current Usage Non-RPAR Generally not significant. However, peanuts may be treated with sulfur and coppers (10%-20%). Selected ornamentals e.g. roses are commonly treated. Disease Loss Estimates- Peanuts - Losses as high as 75%. Cotton - Heaviest impact in South- west, 50% losses due to rusts. Soybeans - Heaviest impact in South with 10% loss. Cereals - Up to 25% loss due to smuts in localized areas. Tobacco - Average loss of 2% but may be as high as 75% under severe conditions. Highly Important on golf courses. Losses as high as 100% on m Suitability of .. WPAR Alternatives- Major foliar fungi- cides are either RPAR or Pre-RPAR status. Alternatives generally less effective and not broad specturm or phy to toxic. Limited alternatives for most uses are generally less effective, reduced Economic Impact of WAR Cancellation Loss on peanuts could approach ^ $100 M or more. Possible signif- icant loss on tobacco $20-50 million. Loss on soybeans could approach $50 M but is small percentage of crop. Negligible affect on cereal crops except in localized areas. Increased cost of producing nursery stock, loss of aethetic Health Tmnact From Loss of All Fungicides Potential af latoxin poisoning. (Some research indicates cor- coorelatlon between grain and peanut foliar treatments and reduced aflatoxln level in stored commodity.) None apparent. ^^m Strategics ^W>p 1 emcn t a 1 to Chi'mlcal Control Sanitation, disease fore- casting, resistant varieties. Sanitation, disease free transplants, rediicinn nurserles. Turf treatment significant (25%- 757.) for golf courses and athletic fields. Localized treat- ment of high valued trees. Treatment especially significant in Southeast. highly suscepti- ble turf in South. Minor importance on home lawns. Highly Important on certain high value ornamentals (i.e. roses). Losses up to 80%. spectrum, or phytotoxic. Resistance problems for certain disease situations. Value, decreased number of varieties availa- ble, replacement cost for diseased ornamentals. More frequent applications or use of multiple fungicides. humidity, Improved soil drainage, fertilization, irrigation, mowing. ------- TAB Hi Importance of Agricultural Fungicides in the U.g. by Site Category and Regulatory Status Site Extent of Current Usage RPAR Non-RPAR Disease Loss Estimates- Suitability of . RPAR Alternatives- Economic Impact of RPAR Cancellation Health Impact From Loss of All Fungicides IPM Strategies Supplemental to Chemical Control Seed Treat- ments Vegetables Field Crops Cereal Crops Soil Treat- ments Vegetables and Peanuts Over 50% of vegetable seed and 60%-70% of potatoe seed pieces treated. Treatments ,ln all regions. Up to 80% of crops, especially peanuts In SE and SW, corn in all regions. 502-60% of planted acreage. 10%-20% of selected crops (peanuts) in SE and SW. Localized for vegetables. Up to 25% of vegetable seed may be treated. \5%-40% of acreage treated especially sugarbeets in west 10% of corn acreage. 10%-20% of planted acreage. l%-5% of peanut crop in SE and SW. Seed/seedling diseases wide- spread, resulting in reduced stands and plant vigor in all regions. Losses up to 10% on certain vegetable crops. Losses up to 35% on peanuts, 25% on corn, and 10%— 20% on soybeans and cotton. Losses up to 15%. as above Major Importance in Southeast where 25% losses could occur. Seed treatment chemicals are rarely broad spectrum. Heavy relience on combina- tions of fungicides (often RPAR and non-RPAR to control disease complexes) . as above Extremely limited non-RPAR alternatives are generally less effective of reduced spectrum. Higher production costs as a result of replanting and higher seeding None apparent. Sanitation. overseeding , delayed plant ing dates. rates. 5%-25% of corn with value of $1-5 billion could be lost. Up to 10% of soybeans with value of $1 billion. Losses of 5%-15% of .production with value of up to $1 billion could occur. Overall l%-5% of vegetables and peanuts could be impacted. Losses could approach $50 million, Southeast especially impacted. None apparent. Rotation, resistant varieties, sanitation, deep plowing. ------- TAI1I.K Importance of Agr Icul tura I Fungicides in thu U.Sv by Site Category ami Kegu latory Status Kxtent of Current Usage Site RPAR Post-Harvest 40%-502 of Fruit stone fruit, 5%- 30% of pome fruit, 201-100% of other fruit, especially cran- berries and strawberries. Post-harvest rots occur In all regions. Vegetables Significant portion of selected vege- tables such as onions treated. Non-KPAK 40%-50% of stone fruit, limited use on some fruit, 100% of stored grapes treated. Significant portion of selected vege- . tables are treated. — Potential disease losses assuming no fungicide Disease Loss Suitability of . Estimates-' RPAR Alternatives- Fruit losses range Alternatives generally from 3%-5% for more costly and often pears and apricots less effective. UPAR's to 80%, 90% and may be applied pre- 100% for plums, harvest to control lemons, and post-harvest grapes. organisms. Minor importance as above for most vegetables (except those requiring prolonged storage, I.e. , onions) . treatments for most highly Economic Impact of RPAR Cancellation Losses up to 5% might occur, value of loss over $300 H. Availability of out of season fruit would be diminished for consumer. Processed fruit might replace a share of fresh fruit market. Potentially large for stored vegetables such as onions. Reduced shelf life and reduced marketing range could cause multi-million dollar disrup- tions in market. Consumers would 1 *.A «• 1-1 t t- A nave more i.imi.ce(i availability of fresh vegetables. Health Impact IPTF^ii rali-gii-s From Loss of Suppl I'mcnUi 1 to All Funj;l(! ides ChiMiilca 1 Control Possible effects Sanitation, from mycotoxlns refrigeration, wax in processed/ coatings. fresh produce due to microbial contamination. Possible loss in nutritional value. Limited availability of certain fruit in "off season". Possible loss as above in nutritional value. Limited availability of certain vege- tables in "off season". 21 Suitability of RPAR and pre-RPAR alternatives for major diseases of majority of crops in given site. ------- Suitability of Alternatives The use patterns of the RPAR fungicides are extremely diverse; thus, the following generalities should not be considered inclusive. In general, the RPAR compounds are more suitable to their intended purpose than the available alternatives. Also, major disruptions in disease control programs would occur in nearly all major crop groupings if all broad-spectrum RPAR fungicides were cancelled. Cancellations could result in increased severity of certain diseases, increased alternative fungicide usage, increased pest resistance and phytotoxicity. These topics are discussed separately below. Increased disease severity - Several disease conditions exist for which the RPAR chemicals are uniquely suited. Loss of this group of fungicides could result in increased severity of the following diseases (and consequently increased losses) due to the lack of effective broad spectrum alternatives: Early blight (Alternaria), late blight (Phytophthora) and leaf spot diseases on tomatoes, potatoes and other vegetables Blights and mildews of ornamentals Powdery mildew and leaf spot diseases of fruits, and ornamentals Botrytis diseases of fruits, vegetables and ornamentals Seed and soil-borne diseases Post-harvest fruit diseases - 14 - ------- Increased Alternative Fungicide Usage - An increase in overall fungicide usage would occur on many crops due to grower dependence on less effective alternatives which would require more frequent applications. As an extreme example, consider the treatment of mangos with benomyl versus copper fungicides. Seven benomyl applications give better disease control than 40 applications of copper which was used prior to benomyl registration. Increased Pest Resistance - The loss of fungicides, such as EBDC's and captan, would increase the threat from pathogen resistance in the future. Resistance has developed to pesticides (e.g., benomyl) which act against limited sites in the pathogen but seldom develops to multi-site inhibitors such as EBDC's and captan. Without these multi-site inhibitors management of resistant pathogens (e.g. mixing or alternating applications of benomyl with EBDC's) would be increasingly difficult and would further restrict the availability of effective alternatives. Increased Phytotoxicity - Many alternative fungicides are often phytotoxic and not compatible with other pesticides. Sulfur, for example, may cause severe fruit and foliage injury to many crops, especially during periods of high temperatures. Apart from these considerations, there are numerous uses for which no registered alternatives exist. Benomyl, for example, is the only chemical currently available for control of rice blast. Without this chemical, 50% losses can be expected in areas where there is a history of this disease. - 15 - ------- Yield/Quality Losses The possible cancellation of RPAR and pre-RPAR would have varying degrees of effects on both yields and quality depending on crop and region under study. For example, untreated tomatoes in Florida could suffer an effective yield loss of 100% while losses in California might not exceed 20%. Individual vegetable crops could have yield losses varying from 8% to 100% while overall losses on vegetables would fall in the 10-15% range. Similarily on fruit and nut crops, individual losses up to 75%-80% on stone fruit would be expected while overall losses on fruit and nuts would be 20-30%. Quality diminishment would be included in this range of losses. The possible losses on field and cereal crops tend to be lower with losses of 10%-35% possible in individual cases. Overall losses could be in the range of 5%-25% however since much of the field and cereal crops are treated with seed treatment. The importance of fungicides as foliar treatments for field and cereal crops is less significant with certain exceptions such as peanuts and regional treatments of cotton and wheat. • Application of post-harvest treatments of fruit is not directly for improving yields or quality in crop production but is an essential component in the nationwide market of produce. The ability to store and then ship most fruit would be significantly curtailed especially in the - 16 - ------- case of stone fruit and grapes which could suffer 80%-100% losses if stored and shipped without fungicide treatments- Much of the fruit now stored for later marketing would need to be processed to prevent large losses. Even so some spoilage totaling up to 5% of the value of production would still occur. Economic Impacts of Cancellation The widespread use of fungicides for foliar, seed treatment, soil treatment, and post-harvest applications implies that economic impacts from cancelling KPAR or pre-RPAR fungicides would be anticipated to occur in most agricultural subsectors of production. This report provides estimates of the initial one-year impacts of cancellation on the major sites or site groupings where fungicides play a role in production. A major assumption underlying the analysis of economic impacts upon users is that market conditions and relative commodity prices will remain unchanged. That is, it is assumed for example that a given percent decline in production would result in the same percent decrease in the value of production. This would be an unlikely occurrence in the real world if significant portions of fungicides were cancelled. There would be a great deal of interaction both within commodity groups and across commodity groups as the marketplace caused adjustments in relative value to change. The general tendency for food or feed crops is for prices to increase a relatively greater percentage than volume of production declines. The outcome is that consumers would spend more for a smaller quantity of output. - 17 - ------- A matter that could not be specifically addressed at this time is the regional availability of land which affects the possibility of shifting crop production from one region to another. The general tendency is that if fungicides are restricted or not available, then Western states would gain a production advantage due to less disease incidence in generally drier climates. Data are not available at this time to predict the degree to which regional production shifts are likely. Initial User Impacts Economic impacts of cancellations occur as a combined result of effects of yield changes/ quality or grade changes, and production cost impacts. This study focuses on the first two effects. Changes in costs of production tend to be secondary in bringing about impacts as compared to the yield and quality effects. In addition to the yield, quality and cost effects, the significance of economic impacts is related to the extent of pesticide usage, both in relative terms and absolute terms. Based on the estimated combined factors outlined above, the impacts of cancelling RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicide chemicals would have the following values at the grower level: - 18 - ------- $Millions Seed Treatment/Field Crops 2,000 Foliar Treatment/Fruit and Nut 1,600 Seed Treatment/Cereal Crops 1,000 Foliar Treatment/Vegetables 500 Post-harvest Treatment/Fruit 300 Soil Treatment/Vegetables and Peanuts 50 Ornamentals not quantified Post-harvest Treatment/Vegetables not quantified Total 5,650+ The estimated $5.6 billion one year impact can be compared to the total value of all farm marketings of $129 billion in 1979 and the value of crop marketings of $62 billion in that same year. Thus the economic impacts would be nearly equal to 10% of the value of crops marketed in 1979. Another comparison which can be made is that since -1970, EPA has announced or implemented nine major cancellation/suspension proceedings. The estimated first year impact of all of these actions totals about $125 million. The estimated total impact for the long run for these nine actions is $363.24 million. These impacts are small compared to the impacts shown above for fungicides. The Preliminary Benefit Analysis prepared in support of the RPAR the six fungicides collectively named EBDC's indicated that total one year impacts of approximately $150 million could result from their cancellation. The currently proposed regulatory options reduce the - 19 - ------- impact on the agricultural sector to about $62 million, not including requirements for additional protective clothing. Thus the net effect of EBDC cancellation given the availability of other currently registered fungicides would be 1 to 2 percent of the total economic benefit of fungicides. The seemingly minor contribution of the EBDC's to the estimated total benefits of fungicides brings into focus the key regulatory implication of this analysis. Single fungicides or even grouping of fungicides create benefits with respect to the suitability and availability of alternatives. Therefore, as long as alternative chemicals with generally acceptable efficacy are available a single chemical will not appear to have overwhelming benefits attached to its use. As such, a single chemical is not likely to be critical except in possibly individual region/crop/pest combinations. However, the need for chemical disease control requires that some reasonably effective fungicides be available or a large loss in benefits could occur. Reviewing chemicals on a one-by-one basis can give a misleading view of the benefits of any single chemical or group of chemicals. The order in which chemicals are reviewed and potentially removed from the market would alter the apparent benefits from individual chemicals- Benefits are based on the overall need for disease control. Therefore consistent risk/benefit decision-making would require that the parameters of the decision be independent of the order in which decisions on individual chemicals are made. As a practical matter, this requires that comparative benefits and comparative risks should be developed on a site-by-site basis. - 20 - ------- Regional Variation The widespread use of .fungicides would indicate that cancellation of RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides would have significant impact in all regions of the U.S. There would be a tendency for benefits to be relatively higher in coastal regions, especially the Southeast. The possible losses in the Southeast vegetable and fruit producing areas are high relative to the value of the crops produced. On an absolute basis, the value of losses in the Midwest where field and cereal crops dominate would be as high as any other region because of the vastly larger acreages involved. The impact as a percent of the value of crops produced would tend to be lower however than in the Southeast. In the West, relative losses on a percentage basis would be lower as the vegetable and fruit crops as compared to the Southeast and Northeast. However, in many instances the higher yields per acre and hence the higher value of output per acre enjoyed in the West would cause significant losses on a dollar basis should major fungicides be cancelled. - 21 - ------- Consumer Impacts The $5.6 billion estimated impact at the farm level from cancelling all RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides would also cause significant economic impacts for consumers. If the farm level losses were simply passed on to consumers without being absorbed or added to by the marketing chain, the impact would be the equivalent of $25 per capita per year. A more realistic outcome/ given the typical inelasticity of demand for food, would be for prices to increase at a relatively higher rate than physical production declines. The consumer sector in the end would pay more for a smaller volume of food consumed. The agricultural sector as a whole would benefit at the expense of the consumer sector. Furthermore, within the agricultural sector, non- users of fungicides would gain relative to users of fungicides. This outcome would occur as all growers, including those with output unaffected by disease, would receive the higher market price resulting from overall industry decline in output. A rough estimate of the cost to consumers from a decline in farm output can be made using elasticity estimates econometrically derived. Assuming a price elasticity of demand for all food at the farm level at -0.2; a decline in food output of 1% would cause an increase in prices of about 5%. Given the overall decline in quality of food production- at the farm level of 4% ($5.6 billion out of $129 billion using value at unit prices as a proxy for quantity), food prices at the farm level could be - 22 - ------- expected to increase overall by up to 20% ($27 billion) with a complete bar of RPAR's and pre-RPAR's in effect. If only RPAR's were cancelled, the impacts would be in the range of 5 to 10 percent ($6-13 billion) as less impacts would occur on most vegetables and field crops. These estimates, it should be remembered, are based on parameters that were statistically derived and should be judged accordingly. They also assume that farm level impacts are passed on without add-on's. If there were add-on's beyond the farm level, the impacts would be larger. Consumers would also be impacted by an expected decline in quality of produce available and by waste involved in trimming away blemished and infected tissue. Unblemished produce would be expected to command premium prices over other produce. A large part of this impact would relate to aesthetics and to the aversion to consuming blemished and infected produced, but the desire on part of consumers for unblemished food is real nevertheless. a The prices of individual food items may rise to such a level as to inhibit purchases by the lower income segments of consumers. The effect would be to restrict the purchasing options for some people. Health Impacts Related to Fungicide Use Health effects related to the loss of all or selected fungicides are relatively subtle and not readily determinable. The most broad impact would be on nutrition. With reduced availability of fresh produce and shift to processed food (due to loss of post-harvest treatments or use of - 23 - ------- less efficacious field treatments) there would be more dependence of the consumer on processed food and their inherent lower nutritional value. There would also be the nutritional loss due to the lessened availability of fresh winter season vegetables or produce stored over one or more seasons. A more dramatic effect of loss of fungicides involves a potential incidence of human poisioning due to presence of mycotoxins in produce infected with fungi. Although the correlation between pre-rharvest grain and peanut fungicide treatments and reduced aflatoxin levels in the stored commodities has not been conclusively demonstrated, a relationship of pre-harvest treatments and mycotoxins levels0 has been shown for two major food crops. The toxin, patulin, produced by species of Penicillium occur in infected apples and in apple juice (Nat. Acad. Sci. 1973). Due to the occurrence of benomyl tolerant strains of Penicilluim, harvest treatments of benomyl are no longer effective for control and incidence of Penicillium infections and subsequent levels of patulin increased (Burton and Filonow, 1980). Glycoalkaoid mycotoxins produced in late •^ \ \ blight diseased potato tubers have been—reported to cause several human disorders and teratogenesis (Renwick, 1972; Poswillo, Sopher, and Mitchell, 1972). The correlation between effective foliar fungicide treatments for late blight and reduced incidence of blighted tubers has been reported by several workers including Manzer, and Merriam, 1974. Although, at the post-harvest stage, fresh produce is not usually infected with mycotoxin producing fungi, the potential for mycotoxin problems, in the event of loss of fungicides, is unknown (Mirocha, 1980). - 24 - ------- Indirectly related to health effects is impact on food purity standards which set limits on the quantity of fungal fragments in processed food. Reduced fungicidal efficacy would result in high incidence of fungal lesions on produce and higher fungal fragment counts in the processed food. This would obligate changes in tolerance levels for fungal fragments or markedly increase the rate of rejection of contaminated products. IPM Implications While IPM strategies show great promise for dramatically reducing insecticide usage on many crops, the overall prospect for comparable fungicide reduction is less promising. Current IPM practices for plant disease control typically include fungicides as an integral part of the overall strategy. Cultural practices and biological control can bring about disease reduction but are rarely entirely effective by themselves and are often used as supplements to chemical control. Monitoring and forecasting techniques have successfully brought about reductions in frequency of fungicide use, but a certain number.of fungicide applications are still necessary for effective disease control. Genetic resistance remains one of the primary alternatives to fungicide use, but is limited on certain crops due to the lack of suitable host resistance or other factors. While the IPM approach will continue to bring about reductions in total fungicide use, it is unlikely that fungicides will be entirely replaced on most crops. - 25 - ------- NEW CHEMICAL OUTLOOK New Fungicide Materials As expressed in the American Phytopathological Society (APS) contract study for the Environmental Protection Agency/ new product research has been decelerated recently due to the following major reasons: "Many pesticide companies are delaying basic decisions on whether or not to continue investment in new pesticide products until they learn of the outcome of current RPAR's and other recent regulations." "Sharply increased registration costs and the substantial expenses devoted to product defense and reevaluation drain the funding for new product research." "The pesticide industry is now devoting most of its R & D effort to herbicides and insecticides. Under the pressure of higher R & D costs, less money is likely to be invested in products for the limited markets offered for disease control chemical. Presently, very few chemicals potentially useful for plant disease control are within the registration process (APS, 1979). The future trends in number of chemicals submitted for registration depend both on the stringency in setting acceptable levels of risk and on future markets available. The availability of markets is itself affected by regulatory activity such as cancellation of a major fungicide. - 26 - ------- This rather negative prognosis concerning the fungicide market outlook, must be taken within the context that the pesticides industry is a profitable, growing, healthy industry. This has been true for the 1970's and can reasonably be expected to be true for the 1980's. If certain chemicals are taken off the market, this tends to open up markets for new chemicals or new uses of old chemicals. Normally, regulatory actions are taken over a period of time, particularly where major economic impacts are indicated, giving the pesticides producer and user communities time to adjust to change. Possible replacement fungicides or additional fungicides can come from two sources. First, there are fungicides which have been developed in Europe and Japan and used in many areas of the world, but have not been registered for use in the United States. The second source is new product research. There are about 13 compounds in the first category described above, (APS, 1979). The risks involved in the use of these materials is a key question. Should any of these chemicals become available, the economic implications of cancelling RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides would need to be appropriately adjusted. The tendency would be for the expected impacts of loss of RPAR fungicides to be lessened. - 27 - ------- New product research, especially for the development of systemic fungicides, may also produce replacement chemicals. Most fungicides tend to act as protectants while systemic fungicides may have curative properties as well as protectant properties. The curative properties are desirable since completeness of plant coverage and timing of applications become less critical. Several important diseases such as potato blights and downey mildew in some vine crops are particular targets of research into systemics. There again is the issue of whether new chemicals on the horizon might also be found to have RPAR triggers. Several new fungicides within the registration process appear to be especially significant due to their broad spectrum activity. Among these these compounds are Ridomil (Subdue, Metalaxyl) and CGA 64251. Ridomil is active against some major vegetable diseases and CGA 64251 is active against some major fruit diseases. Both Ridomil and CGA 64251 belong to a group which due to their mode of action are known as sterol inhibitors. Due to their mode of action (active against a specific pathogen site), there is much concern among plant pathologists that target fungi will rapidly develop resistance. It has been proposed that resistance can be minimized by using these compounds mixed or alternating in application with fungicides which do not induce resistance. - 28 - ------- PRINCIPAL REFERENCES 1. American Phytopathological Society. Contemporary Control of Plant Diseases With Chemicals. Present Status, Future Prospects, and Proposals for Action. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3914. St. Paul, Minnesota June, 1979. 2. ARS, USDA, Losses In Agriculture. Agricultural Handbook No. 291, 1965. 3. Burton, C.L. and A.B. Filonow, Patulin in Apples Infected with Benomyl-Tolerant Isolates of Penicillium Expansion, Abstracts of Papers APS Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, Minn. August 1980. 4. Manzer, F.E. and D.C. Merriam. Potato, Fungicide and Nematicide Pests Results of 1974. 5. Mirocha, C.J. Dept. of Plant Pathologist, Univ. of Minn, personal communication to E.N. Pelletier, EPA, Washington, D.C. Aug. 26, 1980. r 6. National Academy of Sciences, 1973, Toxicants Occurring Naturally In Foods, Second Edition. 7. Poswillo, D.E., D. Soper, and S. Mitchell. Experimental Inductors of Fetal Malformation with Blighted Potato, Nature 239: 462-464, 1972. 8. Renwick, J.H. Hypothesis: Anencephaly and Spina Bifida are Usually Preventable by Avoidance of a Specific Unidentified Substance in Certain Potato Tubers, Br. J. Prev. Soc. Med. 26: 67-89, 1972. j. 9. USDA/EPA/State Assessment Team of the National Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program Assessment of PCNB Fungicide Uses in Agriculture. Draft Report No. 1., April 30, 1978. 10. USDA/EPA/State Assessment of EBDC Fungicide Uses in Agriculture, Draft Report No. 1, April, 1978. 11. USDA/EPA/State Assessment of Benomyl Fungicide Uses in Agriculture, Draft Report No. 1, March 15, 1978. 12. USDA/EPA/State Assessment of Cadmium Fungicide Uses in Agriculture. Draft Report No. 1, March 16, 1978. 13. USDA/EPA/State Assessment Team of the National Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, Draft Reports of Selected Uses of Captan, Updated. - 29 - ------- APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDES BY CROP SITE GROUPING September, 1980 - 30 - ------- Significance of Fungicides by Crop Site Grouping Explanatory Note Because of the nature of this report, the following summary pages present generalized statements for major agricultural crop groups, minor but locally important crops, diseases, fungicides, and losses are not addressed. The suitability of recommneded fungicides for their use sites is assessed by means of a three digit rating scheme: the first digit refers to efficacy, this quality is ranked on a scale of one to three,' a rank of one indicates a high degree of efficacy, two indicates moderate efficacy and three indicates low efficacy; the second digit refers to spectrum of activity, where on a scale of one to three, a rank of one indicates a broad spectrum of activity, two is a moderate spectrum and three indicates a narrow spectrum; the third digit refers to phytotoxicity where on a scale of one to three, a rank of one indicates no phytotoxicity is usually observed, a rank of two indicates a moderate degree of phytotoxicity is sometimes observed, and three indicates phytotoxicity is often observed. - 31 - ------- Information and estimates for the Extent of Use, the Economic Impact, Role of IPM, the list of recommended fungicides, and Health effects were derived in part from a 1979 EPA contract study prepared by the American Phytopathological Society (APS), various RPAR EPA/USDA Assessment Team reports and discussions with experts within and outside of the Agency. The disease loss estimates are based on crops receiving no fungicide treatments, and have been included to present an overall picture of the importance of fungicides to agricultural production. In reviewing these summary pages, it can be seen that, in general, RPAR compounds are more suitable to their purpose than the non-RPAR compounds. Also, major disruptions in disease control programs would occur in nearly all crop groupings if all RPAR fungicides were cancelled. i It is emphasized that IPM strategies presented are supplemental to chemical control and that these strategies are already implemented by most growers. - 32 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON POME FRUITS (APPLES, PEARS) A. Use; Foliar B. Major Diseases: Scab, powdery mildew, rusts, fire blioht, summer diseases, leaf spots C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAS's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv EBDC's/1-1-1 Captafol/1-2-2 Sulfur/2-1-3 Benomyl/2-1-1 Folpet/1-2-2 * Dodine/2-2-1 Captan/2-2-1 Dinocap/1-3-1 Coppers/3-1-1 Streptomycin/1-3-1 Oxytetracycline/1-3-1 Terramycin/1-3-1 ; Dithiocarbamates/2-1-2 D. Extent of Use: : Apples - Disease pressure is most severe in the North Central, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic states (about 40% of acres). Least problematic in the West (30% of acres) . Region Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated East 200 95 North Central 100 99 West 50 --. 35 OS . 381 80 Pears - Number and severity of diseases greatest in the East (17% of U.S. acres). Major problem in West is fire blicht (80% of acres). Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated 15,000 . 98 56,000 70 75,000 '74 E. Economic Impact of Loss: Crop Current Loss Loss Without Chemicals Apples \. X.$ 50 M .5 -440-M Pears -.-J- 10 M $ 80 M All Pomes >' 60 M $ 520 M Total loss increase without chemicals is $• 460 M or about 50% of current U.S. pome crop value. A redistribution of income from affected to non-affected growers and higher consumer prices would result. F. Health Effects: • None apparent ^- — ' . G. Role of'lPM; Supplemental controls include: tolerant and/or resistant varieties; pruning practices for certain aople diseases, elimination of the alternate host (i.e. cedars) for rust control;. controlling insect vectors that transmit fire blioht; and disease forecasting. EBDC's are adaptable to intergrated mite control programs. - 33 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON STONE FRUITS (PEACHES, NECTARINES, APRICOTS, PLUMS, PRUNES, CHERRIES) A. Use; Foliar B. Major Diseases: Brown rot, leaf curl, shot hole, areen fruit rot, russet scab, rust,.powdery mildew C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability; RPAR's/Suitability .Pre-RPAR' s/Suitability Non-RPAVSuitahility Benomyl/2-2-1 Captafol/1-2-1 Coppers/3-1-3 Captan/1-2-1 Dichlone/2-2-2 NaPCP/3-3-3 Sulfur/2-2-3 Dinocap/1-3-1 Dithiocarhanates/1-2-1 D. Extent of Use; Fungicides are widely used on highly susceptible stone fruits. Crop Region Areas Treated (1,000) % Treated Peaches East West US Nectarines US Apricots US Plums, prunes West US Cherries East West US E. Economic Impact of Loss: Crop Current Loss Peaches Nectarines Acricots Plums, prunes Cherries Total $ $ 5 $ $ 5 5 0 0 3 0 9 .0 .6 .3 .0 .2 .1 M M M M M M 130 85 215 15 30 50 15 63 20 83 Loss Without 5 • S $ • $ ' $ S 115 14 12 8 20 169 85 75 80 100 100 40 45 95 40 75 Chemicals M M M M M M Loss increases without chemicals represent the followinc percentages of crop values: peaches., 45%; nectarines, 45%; apricots, 45%; plums and prunes, 7%; and cherries, 20%. A redistribution of income from affected to non-affected growers and higher consumer prices would result. F. Health Effects: None apparent • G. Role of IPM; Supplemental controls included the use of oeach varieties with resistance to powdery mildew, disease forecasting, and sanitation. - 34 - ------- 'SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE'USE ON CITRUS (ORANGES, LEMONS, GRAPEFRUIT) A. Use; Foliar B. Major Diseases: Brown rot crummosis, greasy spot, melanose, scab C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RP^R's/Suitability 'Non-RPA.R/Suitahility Benorayl/2-2-1 Captafol/1-1-1 Coppers/3-1-3 Oil sprays/2-3-3 D. Extent of Use: Fruit rots are major problems in Arizona and California. Foliar and fruit diseases are important in Florida and Texas. Area Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated FL,TX ' 740-833 80-90 AZ,CA 183-220 50-60 US 923-1,053 70-30 E. Economic Impact of Loss; Crop Current Loss Loss without Chemical FL,TX S 67 M ; $ 172 M AZ,CA $ 6 M " $ 203 M US $ 73 M $ 375 M Total loss increase without chemicals = $ 302 M or 20% of value of U.S. crop. A redistribution of income from affected to non-affected growers and higher retail prices for consumers could be expected. Reduced quality of citrus available for export market. F. Health Effects; None apparent G. Role of IPM: Pruning, mowing or discing, general sanitation, proner irrigation management and maintenance of tree vigor are important aids, but do not control diseases. - 35 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON TROPICAL FRUITS (BANANAS, MANGO, PINEAPPLES, PAPAYA) A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases: Sigatoka disease of bananas; stem-end rots, Phytophthora blight and anthracnose of papaya; root and heart rots C~. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability; RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv EBDC's/1-1-1 Difolantan/1-2-1 Oil sprays/2-2-2 Benomyl/2-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-2-1 Captan/1-2-1 .. • Thiophenate methyl/2-1-1 D; Extent of Use: , . Banana - Mancozeb, oil, and benomyl are major chemicals. Virtually all bananas are treated up to 30 times a year. Central and S. America are the major geographic areas. Mango - Usage undetermined but probably heavy. Primarily use of benomyl, captan, and EBDC's in Florida and Hawaii. Papaya - All acreage treated with fungicides, primarily mancozeb, benomyl and chlorothalonil in Florida and Hawaii. Pineapple - 15% of acreage in Hawaii treated with di.folatan or captan. - E. Economic Impact of Loss; The number and severity of tropical diseases indicates severe economic impact without fungicides with commercial production virtually impossible. Bananas would be reduced from a stable diet item to an expensive luxury. Loss of papayas almost total, $ 5 M. Loss of pineaples, $ 2 M. Reduced suooly of tropical fruit and resulting higher prices to consumers. F. Health Effects; ' • None apparent G. Sole of IPM; Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include sanitation and resistant varieties. - 36 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON SMALL FRUITS (GRAPES, STRAWBERRIES, BLUEBERRIES, CRANBERRIES, BRAMBLES) A. Use; Foliar and soil treatments B. Major Diseases: Foliar/blueberries - bacterial canker and mummyberry; cranberries - Guignardia blight and Lophodermiun twia blight; grapes - powdery mildew; strawberries - powderv mildew, leaf spot, and anthracnose; all small fruits - botrvtis fruit rots and blights. Soil/strawberries - red stele, root rots, Verticillium wilts. C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability; RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPJ\R/Suitabilitv Foliar Benomyl/2-1-1 Captan/2-2-1 EBDC's/1-1-1 Soil D. Extent of Use: Captafol/1-2-1 Methyl bromide/1-1-3 1,3-0/1-3-3 Dichloran/1-3-2 Sulfur/2-3-3 Copners/3-1-3 Biphenyl/1-3-3 Dodine/1-3-2 Ca cyanide/1-3-3 Dithiocarbamates/1-2-1 Chloropicrin/1-1-3 Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated Grapes Blueberries Cranberries Strawberries 570 25 23 39 30 100 100 100 Fungicide use on minor berries and brambles (i.e. blackberries, raspberries) is undetermined, but is probably very intensive. E. Economic Impact of Loss: Crop Current Loss Grapes Blueberries Cranberries Strawberries Total S 56 M 5 6 M $ 2 M $ 45 M S109 M Loss without Chemicals $ 225 M $ 13 M $ 16 M $ 94 M $ 348 M Total loss increases amount to 30% of grape croo value, 18% of blueberry value, 45% of cranberries value, and 50% of strawberry crop value. Losses in minor berries and brambles undetermined but significant. A redistribution of income from affected to non-affected growers and higher retail prices for consumers could be expected. F. Health Effects: None apparent G. Role of IPM; Destruction of crop residues to prevent overwinterina of mummyberry on blueberries, irrigation manaoement and use of registant varieties for red stele of strawberries are supplementary control measures. - 37 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON NUTS (WALNUT.?, ALMONDS, PECANS, FILBENTS) A. Use: . Foliar B. Major Diseases: Brown rot, walnut blioht, shot hole, bacterial canker, scab, downy shot, zonate leaf spot, powdery mildew C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP./Suitabilitv Zirara/2-2-1 Benomyl/2-2-1 Captan/1-2-1 EBDC's/1-2-1 NaPCP/3-3-3 D. Extent of Use; Crop Almonds Pecans Walnuts Area CA South & Southwest CA,OR Coppers/3-1-3 Dichlone/2-2-2 Triphenyltin hydroxide/ 1-1-2 Dodine/2-2-1 Sulfur/2-1-3 Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated 140 410 45 40 60 20 E. Economic Impact of Loss; Crop Almonds Pecans Walnuts Total Current Loss $ 2.0 M $ 3.5 M $ 2.0 M $ 7.5 M Loss without Chemicals $ 8.0 M $ 6.5 M S 6.0 M $20.5 M Loss increases are equivalent to 7%, 9% and 4% of value of almond, pecan, and walnut crops, respectively. A redistribution of income from affected to non-affected -growers an.d higher retail prices for consumers could be expected. F. Health Effects: None apparent G. Role of IPM; Pruning practices and irrigation, methods help reduce incidence of brown rot and shot hole of almonds; sanitation practices help reduce disease incidence on pecans. - 38 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Solanaceous Crops (tomato, potato, pepper, eggplant) A. Use: Foliar and Fruit B. .Major Diseases; Late blight, Early blight, Anthraenose, Leaf spots, Wilts, Bacterial spot, Fruit rots C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability SPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability EBDC/1-1-1 Captan/3-2-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Captafol/2-2-1 Thiram/2-1-1 Non-RPAR/Suitability Coppers/3-1-3 Dithiocarbamates/2-1-1 Dichloran/1-3-1 D. Extent of Use; Majority of acreage (80-100%) treated in East. Treatment in West is less extensive, but significant (50-75%). Similar pattern for number of applications, 8-10 in East and 4-6 applications in West. About 1.2-1.5 million acres treated with RPAR or Pre-RPAR chemicals. 8-10 million acre-treatments in total. . E. Economic Impact of Loss; Expect significant loss in yields and quality in East. Losses of yield and quality in West, but less severe. Overall yield loss would average 10-15% with lower quality on remainder of crop. Value of loss before market adjustments would be $200-300 million. Expect production to tend to shift to West from East. Questionable availability of land in West. F. Health Effects: Higher incidence of fungal fragments in processed products possible incidence of glycoalfcaloid poisioning in humans due to ingestion of late blight infected potato tubers. Limited availability of fresh vegetables in winter seasons. G. Role of I?M; — * Strategies supplemental to chemical controls. Practices include use of resistant varieties, sanitation, and disease forecasting. - 39 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Leafy Vegetables (Lettuce, Spinach, Collards, Cabbage, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Celery, Brussels Sprouts) A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases; Leaf spots. Early blight, late blight, Bottom rot, Downey mildew, Blackleg C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability RPAR' s/Suitability Pre-RPAR* s/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability EBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-2-1 Copper/2-1-3 Captan/2-2-1 Dithiocarbamates/2-1-1 Benomyl/2-2-1 Dichloran/1-3-1 Analazine/2-3-2 D. Extent of Use; Crucifers: 25-100% of 220,000 acres of crucifers might be treated. Major growing areas include NY, TX, PL, CA, WS. Leafy vegetables: 30-40% of acreage treated on average. Geographically up to 100% of acreage treated in South and East. In west about 23% of acreage treated. About 75-100 thousand acres are treated. Applications range from 2-3 for lettuce to 4-5 applications for spinach. E. Economic Impact of Loss; ' • . • Crucifers: Yield loss of 10-30% value of production loss of $35-110 million before market adjustments, in eastern states, esp. FL and NY. New York would have largest impacts. Western states would be impacted to lesser degree. Leafy vegetables: Overall yield loss would range 5-10%. losses in East would be more severe especially Florida (up to 100%). Value of loss would approach 350 million if RPAR and pre-RPAR chemicals were not available. Western states of CA and AZ would be expected to increase share of production, although total production would decline. F. Health Effects; Limited availability of fresh vegetables in winter season. G. Role of IPM; » • ' Strategies supplemental to chemial controls; practices include use of resistant varieties, sanitation, disease forecasting. - 40 - ------- 'SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON SOYBEANS A. Use; Foliar B. Major Diseases: Pod and stem rots C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv Benomyl/2-2-1 Thiabendizole/2-2-1 Copper and Sulfur/3-1-2 D. Extent of Use; 3.5 to 4.0 million acres treated annually (5% to 6% of acreacre) majority of the usage in AR, MS, AL, TN, GA, NC, SC. Benomyl as the major fungicide. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Current losses of $28 M/year, loss without treatment $56 M/year ( 1% of U.S. crop value). . ' F. Health Effects: None apparent G. Role of IPM: Strategies supplemental to chemical control practices include: resistant varieties, sanitation, deep plowing. - 41 - ------- SUMMARY.OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON PEANUTS A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases: Leaf spots, rust, web blotch C. Major Recommended Funoicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP./Suitahilitv ' BBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Copoers/2-1-2 Benomyl/2-2-1 Captafol/1-1-1 Sulfur/3-2-2 Triphenyltin hydroxide/ 1-1-1 D. Extent of Use; About 95% of 1.6 M acres are treated annually in Southeast and Southwest. E.. Economic Impact of Loss; Without fungicides, 20% to 75% loss in production $150 M to $200 M before market adjustment. P.. Health Effects: None apparent G. Role of IPM; Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include disease forecasting, sanitation, resistant varieties. ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Tobacco A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases; Blue mold C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability RPAR' s/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability EBDC/1-1-1 Ridomil/1-1-1 Oithipcarbamates/2-1-1 0. Extent of Dae; 50-70% of plant bed area is treated for disease. Small part of field tobacco may be treated. Treatment may occur in any growing region. S. Economic Impact of Loss; Losses of 2-3% of tobacco production with a value of $50-30 million before market adjustment. Support program adjustment could reduce Industry loss. Localized impacts could still occur. Losses, in severe years as great as 75% in isolated areas. F. Health Effects; None apparent G. Role of IPM; Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include rotation, sanitation, resistant varieties. - 43 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON CEREAL CROPS (WHEAT, BARLEY, OATS, RYE) A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases: Rusts C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability; RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAS'a/Suitability Non-RPAR/quitabilitv EBDC/1-1-1 - Coppers/3-2-2 Sulfur/3-2-1 D. Extent of Use; 250,000 acres treated annually, primarily in NO, SD, MO, MN, IA, about 0.25% of U.S. acres treated. Maneb is the major fungicide. E. Economic Impact of Loss; ' Current losses of $ 0.4 M/year, loss without fungicides $ 5 M/year, equivalent to 0.06% of crop value. No significant impact on grain or livestock markets or to the consumer. F. Health Effects: . None apparent G. Role of IPM; Strategies supplemental to chemical controls; practices include: disease forecasting, sanitation, resistant varieties. - 44 - ------- SUMMARY OF 'SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON ORNAMENTALS (CUT FLOWERS, POTTED PLANTS, FOLIAGE PLANTS, BEDDING PLANTS, TREES) A. Use; Foliage and soil treatments and plant dins B. Major Diseases: Rusts, wilts, blights, powdery mildew, root, stem and corm rots C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP./Suitabilitv EBDC's/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Coppers/3-1-3 Captan/2-2-1 Streptomycin/1-3-1 Benomyl/2-2-1 Oxycarboxin/1-3-1 PCNB/1-3-1 Dinocap/1-3-1 Sulfur/2-1-3 Dichloran/2-2-1 Fenaminosulf/1-2-1 Terrazole/1-3-1 D. Extent of Use; ' 30% to 100% of ornamentals treated depending on soecific crop; significant usage especially for nursery arown everareen and deciduous trees. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Major impact on ornamental production in Southeast, especially FL, Increased cost of nursery stock;, loss of aesthetic value of ornamentals, decreased variety of ornamentals available. Increased costs due to replacement due to loss from uncontrolled diseases. F. Health Effects; None apparent G. Role of IPM; Supplementary cultural controls include sanitation, usino disease-free transplants, reducing humidity, providing adequate soil drainage. '' . ... - 45 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON TURFfiPASS A. Use; Foliar B. Major Diseases: Dollar spot, brown patch, Helminthosnorium diseases,snow molds, pythium blight, rusts C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv EDBC's/1-2-1 Chlorothalonil/1-l-r Anilazine/2-1-1 Benomyl/2-2-1 Terrazole/2-3-1 Cadmiums/2-3-1 Chloroneb/1-3-1 PCNB/2-2-2 Improdione/1-3-1 Thiophanate- Thiophanate-ethyl/2-2-1 methy1/2-2-1 Cycloheximide/1-2-2 : Mercuries/1-3-2 D. Extent of Use: : . .Treatment of 75% to 100% of high value areas such as oolf courses and recreation areas. Minor usage for home lawns. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Impact largely aesthetic, major disruption in use of turf areas, and localized impact on property values due to reduced aesthetic appeal. .; s P. Health Effects; None apparent G. Role of IPM; .Various supplementary cultural controls are practiced by turf managers. These include: fertilization, drainage, irriaation, mowing, resistant varieties. - 46 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON FRUIT CROPS FOR POST HARVEST DISEASES A. Use; Post harvest treatments B. Major Diseases; Post harvest fruit rots C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitabilitv Non-RPAP/Suitahilitv Benomy1/2-1-1 Captan/2-2-1 Thiabendazole/2-1-1 Biphenyl/2-1-1 NaOPP/2-2-1 2-Aminobutane/2-l-l Dichloran/1-3-1 Chlorine/2-1-1 Sulfur dioxide/1-3-2 D. Extent of Dse; Fruit Crop Apple Pear Cherry Peach Plum, Prune Nectarine Apricot Grapes Pineapple Citrus E. Economic Imoact of Loss: % Treated 30 5 100 40 100 100 10 100 20 90 Fruit Crop Apple Pear Cherry Peach Plum, Prune Nectarine Apricot Grapes Pineapple Citrus Total Current Loss Loss Without Chemicals 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .6 .3 .0 .7 .0 M M M M M M M M M M $22.1 M $ $ $ $ '. - •$ $ $ $ $ 70. 3. 50. 45. 40. 15. 1. 75. 7. 40. $346. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 M M M M M M M M M M M Increase in known fruit losses = $ 325 M. This is equivalent to 5% of the total U.S. fruit and nut value ($6 B). Losses would cut fresh fruit supplies and raise prices sharply. Production of processed fruit would increase. Consumer expenditures shift from fresh to processed fruit. Higher fresh fruit prices- at retail, lower prices for processed fruits. Met imoact^unknown. Disruption of export market for countries reauirina specific treatments. . _ F. Health Effects: Possible nutritional losses. Possible effects from raycotoxins in processed/fresh produce due to microbial contamination. . G. Role of IPM: Sanitation and refrigeration are supplementary controls for reducing post harvest fruit rots. - 47 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Vegetables A. Use: Seed and seed niece treatment B. Major Diseases; Pre and post-harvest damping off, seed piece rots C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Captan/1-1-1 Thiram/2-1-1 •EDBC/1-1-1 Non-RPAR/Suitability Thiob«ndazole/2-2-1 Streptomycin/2-3-2 D. Extent of Ose; A majority of (>75%) of vegetable seed and about 60-75% of potato seed-pieces are treated. Treatment occurs in all growing regions to some extent. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Reduced stand and plant vigor leading to yield reduction probably up to 10% for some crops. F. Health Effects: None apparent G. Role of ISM; Strategies are supplemental to chemical control; practices include combinations of .fungicides and combinations with insecticides, sanitation, seed bed drainage, overseeding, delayed planting dates. - 48 - ------- -SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON FIELD CROP? (PEANUTS, COTTON, RICE, CORN, SOYBEANS, SUGARBEETS) AND CERFAL CROPS A. Use; Seed treatment B. Major Diseases; Field crops - pre and post emeroence damoincr off; Cereal crops - smuts, seedling diseases C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:— RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv PCNB/1-3-1 Hexachlorobenzene/1-3-1 Terrazole/2-3-1 Captan/2-3-1 Thiram/2-2-1 Carboxin/2-3-1 EBDC/2-2-1 Dichloran/2-3-1 D. Extent of Use; 75% to 100% of field and cereal crop acreage is olanted with treated seed. All geographic regions rely on use of treated seed. : E. Economic Impact of Loss; Yield losses averaging 5% to 35% of various crops could occur as a result of reduced stands and loss of plant victor. P. Health Effects; None apparent G. Role of IPM; Strategies supplemental to chemical control practices include combinations of fungicides and combinations with insecticides, sanitation, overseeding, delayed planting dates. - For increased efficacy and spectrum, fungicide combinations . are used. - 49 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON VEGETABLES AMD PEANUTS (TOMATO, POTATO, PEPPER, EGGPLANT, CRUCIFERS, BF.ANS). A. Use; Soil Treatment B. Major Diseases: Southern blight, stem canker, black scurf, wire stem (vegetables), southern blight (peanuts) C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability: RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP/Suitabilitv PCNB/1-2-1 • Carboxin/2-2-1 EBDC/3-1-1 D. Extent of Use; Limited to localized regions in particular, the Southeast. Treated acreage can range from 10% to 20% of planted acreacie. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Loss of production could average 10% to 25%. Overall loss could average 1% to 5%, $ 50 M or more before market adjustment. Impact would be localized with heaviest impact in Southeast. F. Health Effects: None apparent G. Role of IPM: i Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include . rotation, resistant varieties, sanitation* deep plowing. - 50 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Root Crops (onion, carrots, beets, turnips) A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases; Leaf spots, Downey mildew, Neckrot, Blast C. Malor Recommended Fungicides and Suitability RPAR' 3/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability EBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Captan/2-2-1 Non-RPAR/Suitability Anilazine/2-2-1 Coppers/2-1-3 Dithiocarbamates/2-1-1 D. Extent of Use; About 25-35% of the 250,000 acres of root crops are-treated annually. Applications range from 3-4 in Southwest and West to 3-10 in Upper Midwest. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Overall loss of up to 5% of production with value of about $12 million before market adjustment. Losses could occur to some extent in all major growing areas. . P. Health Effects: . None apparent. G. Sola of IPM: ~~ Strategies as supplement to chemical control; practices include resistant varieties, disease forecasting, sanitation. - 51 - ------- SUMMARY OP SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Cucurbits A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases; Downy mildew, Leaf spots, Anthracnose, Gummy stem blight, Powdery mildew • C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR* s/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability BBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Dinocap/1-3-2 Benomyl/2-2-1 Analazine/1-3-2 Dichloran/1-3-1 0. Extent of Uses . About 40-50% of 550,000 acres of cucurbits receive foliar treatment with fungicides. Major growing areas include Southeast, Upper Midwest, Southwest and West* Disease pressure and need for treatment increases in going from West to East. Treated acreage receives an 3-7 applications with highest number in Southeast. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Average production losses of 10-15% might occur. Value of production affected would total $50-75 million before market adjustments. Losses would be more severe in Southeast and less severe in Southwest and West. Economic advantage would tend to shift westward to extent land would be available. ?. Health Effects; Higher incidence of fungal fragments in processed products Limited availability of fresh vegetables G. Role of IPM; Strategies supplemental to chemical controls, practices include use of resistant varieties, sanitation, and disease forecasting. - 52 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Sweet Corn A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases; Helrainthosporium leaf blights/ Stalk and ear rots C. Ma-jor Recommended Fungicides and Suitability RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability EBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-2-1 Captan/2-2-1 ' '. D. Extent of Use; About 40-50% of 170,000 acres of fresh market sweet corn and a. negligible portion of 500,000 acres of processing market sweet corn are treated. Treated acreage is primarily in Florida and other coastal states. E. Economic Impact of Loss; Overall loss would be about 6-8% of fresh market production with a value of $7-10 million. Florida growers would be heavily impacted. Other areas less heavily impacted. Winter, spring, and fall season supply would be severely reduced. F. Health Effects; Limited availability of fresh produce. • G. Role of IPM; Strategies are supplemental to chemical controls, practices include modified planting dates, resistant varieties. - 53 - ------- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE OH Beans and Peas A. Use: Foliar B. Major Diseases; Bacterial blights, Bust, Powdery mildew. Leaf spots, Downy mildew, Storage . C. Ma-jor Recommended Fungicides and Suitability RPAR* a/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability EBDC/1-2-1 Chlorothalonil/2-2-1 Coppers/2-1-3 Benomy1/2-3-1 Sulfur/3-2-3 Captan/2-3-1 Dithiocarbamates/1-2-1 D. Extent of Use; About 30-40% of the 540,000 acres of beans treated. Major growing states include WI, OR, NY, MI, MD, and FL. Coastal and southern regions rely more on fungicides with 60-90% of acreage treated. Upper Midwest and Northwest are less dependent on fungicides. B. Economic Impact of Loss; Production losses of 8-12% valued at $15-25 million before market adjustment. Losses would be most severe in coastal and southern regions. Fresh market production would be more severely impacted than processing market production. 6. Health Effects; Higher incidence of fungal fragments in processed food. Limited availability of fresh produce. Role of IPM; Strategies are supplementary to chemical controls; practices include sanitation, crop rotation, resistant varieties, disease forecasting. ------- |