158
Carl E. Crisp
from current publications, reports, and studies from the two agencies that have
led the way in the application and use of biodegradable, environmentally safe
pesticides for the control of major insect pests in the United States and Canada.
These agencies are the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, through
its Insecticide Evaluation Research Work Unit and Field Evaluation of Chemical
Insecticides Research Work Unit, both of the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Berkeley, California; and the Forestry Service, Canadian
Department of Environment, through its Forest Pest Management Institute, Sault
Ste. Marie, Ontario. Hundreds of cooperators in industry, government, and
academic institutions in Canada and the United States have contributed to this
effort. The close working relationship between the two countries was brought
about by a need to resolve pest problems common to both (Honing, 1976). An
example of this cooperation, which has gained official status, is the Canada-United States Spruce Budworms Program (CANUSA) (CANUSA, 1979; USDA,
1976b). The United States role in CANUSA and all other United States pest control
programs is in accordance with laws and regulations (USDA, 1976b) under
authority of the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of May 22, 1928 (45
Stat. 699), as amended and supplemented (16 U.S.C. 581, 581a-58li, 76 Stat.
579 and 92 Stat. 365-375), and the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.
The Forest and Rangeland Resource Planning Act supersedes the McSweeney-McNary Act.
The implementation of pesticide use, regulation, and management by the
United States has a worldwide impact (NAS, 1978). What it does in legislation,
regulation, management, and application is often adapted by other countries. In
many Third World countries public health considerations and economic capabilities enter judgments to accept or reject new technologies.
The use of an insecticide for operational control of a pest in the United
States depends on whether the EPA has registered it as an approved formulation
in a prescribed application method for that particular pest (Deck, 1975). Under
some conditions states can grant a local use permit. Thus, the risk-benefit analysis
conducted by the EPA ultimately determines if a particular insecticide strategy
can be used (NAS, 1978). Pesticide registration of a particular formulation
depends on many factors not related to efficacy, e.g., carcinogenicity (NAS,
1978). Much of what is reviewed here is the result of efforts directed at sound
scientific data that can be used by industry to make risk-benefit analyses and
to assure that the pesticide will not result in an unreasonable adverse effect on
humans or the environment (NAS, 1978). Determinations are made on a scientific
basis alone (e.g., laboratory screening, small- and large-scale field tests). The
quantification of unreasonable adverse effect is based in part on scientific data,
but to ascertain or agree upon what constitutes an unreasonable environmental
risk is almost impossible because of the widely divergent views between resource
managers of pest management. The goal of forestry insecticide R&D is to provide
Carl E. Crisp
from current publications, reports, and studies from the two agencies that have
led the way in the application and use of biodegradable, environmentally safe
pesticides for the control of major insect pests in the United States and Canada.
These agencies are the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, through
its Insecticide Evaluation Research Work Unit and Field Evaluation of Chemical
Insecticides Research Work Unit, both of the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Berkeley, California; and the Forestry Service, Canadian
Department of Environment, through its Forest Pest Management Institute, Sault
Ste. Marie, Ontario. Hundreds of cooperators in industry, government, and
academic institutions in Canada and the United States have contributed to this
effort. The close working relationship between the two countries was brought
about by a need to resolve pest problems common to both (Honing, 1976). An
example of this cooperation, which has gained official status, is the Canada-United States Spruce Budworms Program (CANUSA) (CANUSA, 1979; USDA,
1976b). The United States role in CANUSA and all other United States pest control
programs is in accordance with laws and regulations (USDA, 1976b) under
authority of the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of May 22, 1928 (45
Stat. 699), as amended and supplemented (16 U.S.C. 581, 581a-58li, 76 Stat.
579 and 92 Stat. 365-375), and the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.
The Forest and Rangeland Resource Planning Act supersedes the McSweeney-McNary Act.
The implementation of pesticide use, regulation, and management by the
United States has a worldwide impact (NAS, 1978). What it does in legislation,
regulation, management, and application is often adapted by other countries. In
many Third World countries public health considerations and economic capabilities enter judgments to accept or reject new technologies.
The use of an insecticide for operational control of a pest in the United
States depends on whether the EPA has registered it as an approved formulation
in a prescribed application method for that particular pest (Deck, 1975). Under
some conditions states can grant a local use permit. Thus, the risk-benefit analysis
conducted by the EPA ultimately determines if a particular insecticide strategy
can be used (NAS, 1978). Pesticide registration of a particular formulation
depends on many factors not related to efficacy, e.g., carcinogenicity (NAS,
1978). Much of what is reviewed here is the result of efforts directed at sound
scientific data that can be used by industry to make risk-benefit analyses and
to assure that the pesticide will not result in an unreasonable adverse effect on
humans or the environment (NAS, 1978). Determinations are made on a scientific
basis alone (e.g., laboratory screening, small- and large-scale field tests). The
quantification of unreasonable adverse effect is based in part on scientific data,
but to ascertain or agree upon what constitutes an unreasonable environmental
risk is almost impossible because of the widely divergent views between resource
managers of pest management. The goal of forestry insecticide R&D is to provide