Environmental and economic concerns surrounding restrictions on glyphosate use in corn

Since the commercialization of transgenic glyphosate-tolerant (GT) crops in the mid-1990s, glyphosate has become the dominant herbicide to control weeds in corn, soybean, and other crops in the United States and elsewhere. However, recent public concerns over its potential carcinogenicity in humans have generated calls for glyphosate-restricting policies. Should a policy to restrict glyphosate use, such as a glyphosate tax, be implemented? The decision involves two types of tradeoffs: human health and environmental (HH-E) impacts versus market economic impacts, and the use of glyphosate versus alternative herbicides, where the alternatives potentially have more serious adverse HH-E effects. Accounting for farmers' weed management choices, we provide empirical evaluation of the HH-E welfare and market economic welfare effects of a glyphosate use restriction policy on US corn production. Under a glyphosate tax, farmers would substitute glyphosate for a combination of other herbicides. Should a 10% glyphosate tax be imposed, then the most conservative welfare estimate is a net HH-E welfare gain with a monetized value of US$6 million per annum but also a net market economic loss of US$98 million per annum in the United States, which translates into a net loss in social welfare. This result of overall welfare loss is robust to a wide range of tax rates considered, from 10 to 50%, and to multiple scenarios of glyphosate's HH-E effects, which are the primary sources of uncertainties about glyphosate's effects.

Protocols for Robust Herbicide Resistance Testing in Different Weed Species

Robust protocols to test putative herbicide resistant weed populations at whole plant level are essential to confirm the resistance status. The presented protocols, based on whole-plant bioassays performed in a greenhouse, can be readily adapted to a wide range of weed species and herbicides through appropriate variants. Seed samples from plants that survived a field herbicide treatment are collected and stored dry at low temperature until used. Germination methods differ according to weed species and seed dormancy type. Seedlings at similar growth stage are transplanted and maintained in the greenhouse under appropriate conditions until plants have reached the right growth stage for herbicide treatment. Accuracy is required to prepare the herbicide solution to avoid unverifiable mistakes. Other critical steps such as the application volume and spray speed are also evaluated. The advantages of this protocol, compared to others based on whole plant bioassays using one herbicide dose, are related to the higher reliability and the possibility of inferring the resistance level. Quicker and less expensive in vivo or in vitro diagnostic screening tests have been proposed (Petri dish bioassays, spectrophotometric tests), but they provide only qualitative information and their widespread use is hindered by the laborious set-up that some species may require. For routine resistance testing, the proposed whole plant bioassay can be applied at only one herbicide dose, so reducing the costs.

Resistance risk assessment within herbicide authorisation--a call for sensitivity data

In most European countries, the risk of herbicide resistance is assessed as part of the authorisation of herbicides in accordance with EPPO Standard PP 1/213(2). Because the susceptibility of weed populations to a certain herbicide may vary greatly, one part of resistance risk assessment is the testing for sensitivity variation among different populations of target weed species with a high resistance risk. This paper emphasises the importance of sensitivity data provision with regard to the recent EU Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and outlines the main technical requirements for sensitivity data. A useful principle is that sensitivity data should be provided for all herbicides with a high resistance risk regardless of whether resistance has already evolved against the herbicidal substance. Methodical details regarding the generation of sensitivity data are discussed, together with remaining questions that will need to be addressed if a harmonised assessment of herbicide resistance risk is to be achieved.

A survey of California public school districts' ant and weed management practices and a review of their use of IPM

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency encourages school officials to adopt integrated pest management (IPM) to reduce children's exposure to potentially harmful pesticides. In California, the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 (HSA) establishes right-to-know requirements for pesticide use in public schools; requires school districts to designate an IPM coordinator; and requires the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to collect pesticide-use information from pest control businesses, conduct IPM training workshops, and promote least-toxic pest management practices. DPR periodically surveys school districts statewide to measure compliance with the HSA and the use of least-toxic management practices compatible with IPM and to guide DPR's training and outreach efforts. Results from three surveys, conducted in 2001, 2002, and 2004, show that an increasing number of districts use ant management practices compatible with IPM; however, fewer districts use IPM-compatible weed management practices. DPR's California School IPM program plans to develop technical materials and to conduct training workshops that will provide districts with more information about how to use an IPM program to prevent and manage weeds.

Integrated weed management (IWM): will it reduce herbicide use?

The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (2009/128/EC), part of the EU Thematic Strategy for Pesticides, requires Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to be actively promoted. A key objective is to give greater priority to non-chemical methods of plant protection to reduce the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. Integrated Weed Management (IWM) can be considered part of IPM, and many non-chemical methods are available. For example, a recent review of methods for control of Alopecurus myosuroides (black-grass) in winter wheat found the following mean annual levels of control: ploughing 67%; delayed drilling 37%; fallowing 70%; higher seed rates 30%; competitive cultivars 27%. In comparison with herbicides these efficacy levels are mediocre, and A. myosuroides would be classified as resistant (R) or moderately resistant (MR) to all these methods if the criteria used by the Chemicals Regulation Directorate in the UK for assigning ratings to herbicide efficacy were used. It is, therefore, not surprising that farmers are reluctant to embrace IWM and continue to place greater.reliance on herbicides as a more reliable and cost effective method of weed control. While non-chemical methods will not replace herbicides on most farms, reduced reliance on herbicides will be necessary both for practical (increasing resistance, lack of new herbicides) and political reasons (complying with EU legislation). Farmers will use nonchemical control methods when they have a major weed problem, and have no alternative, but they must be encouraged to adopt IWM at an earlier stage. Research into IWM must be relevant and practical, and not simply conducted as some sort of 'academic' exercise. More effective knowledge transfer is vital, and this is a challenge due to the decline in independent, state funded, advisory services in many European countries. The question arises; is it possible to achieve reductions in pesticide use by simply promoting non-chemical methods of weed control, or will statutory limits on pesticides be needed to achieve this goal?