166
Carl E. Crisp
the full cooperation of the manufacturer of the pesticide under study. Thus, the
field efficacy and environmental data can be evaluated early to determine if
industry is interested in expanding its current pesticide registration to include
the new use or to seek registrations for a particular forestry application.
The role of industry in the development of forest insecticides differs considerably from that in agriculture. Insecticide manufacturers carry the primary
responsibility for insecticide R&D (Ospenson, 1977; Peck, 1966; Rumker et al.,
1970), including EPA registration (Deck, 1975). Some of the important tasks
in the registration process are compliance with environmental guidelines (Kenaga, 1972), chemistry and development of tolerances (Benvenue and Kawano,
1971), interactions that produce insecticide-stimulated or insecticide-inhibited
metabolism of another insecticide (Conney and Bums, 1972), and toxicology of
mutagenic-teratogenic-
the National Academy of Sciences reports (1975a-c).
Industrial R&D in insecticides is directed primarily at agricultural and public
health applications rather than forestry application. Industry has limited resources
to develop the forestry market, since it is a small portion of the total market.
Forestry users account for less than 1 % of the total insecticide use. Furthermore,
many forest defoliators may be cyclical in their outbreaks or they may last 10-15
years. They may warrant spraying every year, only once or twice in 10 years,
or perhaps only once during the rotation of a stand. In contrast to agriculture,
where multiple applications are made every year, forestry normally has two or
more applications, except in the United States, where one application per year
is a more normal frequency. These limited application practices do not provide
an attractive market.
If forestry is to have insecticides for use in pest management, most of the
burden for the R&D effort must be the responsibility of scientists representing
public resource management agencies. Thus, forestry's responsibility is secondary to industry and encompasses the following categories: toxicology, environmental chemistry (persistence, penetration, and translocation in plants; development of residue analysis methods for forest substrates; water analysis;
photodegradation; phytopersistence), fish and wildlife safety, and impact on
other nontarget animals (aquatic insects, vertebrate fauna, and especially impact
on parasites and predators).
Before an insecticide is submitted to the EPA for registration, industrial
data supporting an existing registration in agriculture is amended with the supplementary data from the forestry sponsored research. Additional studies may
be conducted to answer questions about any uncertainty determined to exist by
the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (NAS, 1978).
The lack of data to support a registration application may not be due to the
unavailability of an insecticide, but to the unwillingness of industry to market
Carl E. Crisp
the full cooperation of the manufacturer of the pesticide under study. Thus, the
field efficacy and environmental data can be evaluated early to determine if
industry is interested in expanding its current pesticide registration to include
the new use or to seek registrations for a particular forestry application.
The role of industry in the development of forest insecticides differs considerably from that in agriculture. Insecticide manufacturers carry the primary
responsibility for insecticide R&D (Ospenson, 1977; Peck, 1966; Rumker et al.,
1970), including EPA registration (Deck, 1975). Some of the important tasks
in the registration process are compliance with environmental guidelines (Kenaga, 1972), chemistry and development of tolerances (Benvenue and Kawano,
1971), interactions that produce insecticide-stimulated or insecticide-inhibited
metabolism of another insecticide (Conney and Bums, 1972), and toxicology of
mutagenic-teratogenic-
the National Academy of Sciences reports (1975a-c).
Industrial R&D in insecticides is directed primarily at agricultural and public
health applications rather than forestry application. Industry has limited resources
to develop the forestry market, since it is a small portion of the total market.
Forestry users account for less than 1 % of the total insecticide use. Furthermore,
many forest defoliators may be cyclical in their outbreaks or they may last 10-15
years. They may warrant spraying every year, only once or twice in 10 years,
or perhaps only once during the rotation of a stand. In contrast to agriculture,
where multiple applications are made every year, forestry normally has two or
more applications, except in the United States, where one application per year
is a more normal frequency. These limited application practices do not provide
an attractive market.
If forestry is to have insecticides for use in pest management, most of the
burden for the R&D effort must be the responsibility of scientists representing
public resource management agencies. Thus, forestry's responsibility is secondary to industry and encompasses the following categories: toxicology, environmental chemistry (persistence, penetration, and translocation in plants; development of residue analysis methods for forest substrates; water analysis;
photodegradation; phytopersistence), fish and wildlife safety, and impact on
other nontarget animals (aquatic insects, vertebrate fauna, and especially impact
on parasites and predators).
Before an insecticide is submitted to the EPA for registration, industrial
data supporting an existing registration in agriculture is amended with the supplementary data from the forestry sponsored research. Additional studies may
be conducted to answer questions about any uncertainty determined to exist by
the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (NAS, 1978).
The lack of data to support a registration application may not be due to the
unavailability of an insecticide, but to the unwillingness of industry to market