Developing a risk indicator to comparatively assess environmental risks posed by microbial and conventional pest control agents

Abstract

Selected biological control agents and conventional pesticides were used to critically review the applicability of a newly developed Risk Indicator (RI) system. Five basic components are proposed for the calculation of the overall environmental risk score: persistence of the active ingredient, dispersal potential, range of non-target organisms that are affected, and direct and indirect effects on the ecosystem. Several risk measurement systems were reviewed; risk categories in the proposed system were modified from a model developed for classical biocontrol agents. Additionally, one new category was included, to assess the risks to vertebrate non-target species. Besides a detailed discussion of the new RI model, the suitability of the model was demonstrated by calculating the risk scores for 17 selected products. It became obvious that the environmental risk score varied greatly within the assessed chemical products, and also within the group of biological products. The use pattern greatly influenced the estimated environmental risk posed by any given product. The overall environmental risk score varied between a very low risk score of 24 (Coniothyrium minitans, soil application) and a near maximum risk score of 4275 (high risk reference DDT, foliar spray). The proposed model can be used to communicate environmental risk and to design lower risk integrated pest management strategies. It is suggested that the proposed RI system may serve to define low risk and reduced risk pesticides. Yet, it remains debatable whether the RI will be useful in determining acceptability of data waivers for regulatory purposes.

Keywords:

• plant protection
• microbial biocontrol agents
• environmental risk
• risk indicator
• registration
• comparative risk assessment

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Commission, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme (QoL), Key Action 1 on Food, Nutrition and Health, QLK1-2001-01391 and Specific Support Action, SSPE-022709. We also wish to thank Brian Belliveau (Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Canada), Leslie Cass (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Anita Fjelsted (Danish Ministry of the Environment), Stefan Jaronski (USDA ARS Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory), Mark Goettel (Lethbridge Research Centre), Olaf Strauch (University of Kiel), Stefan Hutwimmer (University Innsbruck) and three anonymous reviewers, for their helpful discussion and kindly reviewing the manuscript.

Notes

†This article reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the position of the Pest Management Centre or of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.