Food Quality Protection Act launches search for pest management alternatives
AuthorRobert A. Van Steenwyk
Author AffiliationsR. A. Van Steenwyk is Cooperative Extension Entomologist, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, UC Berkeley; and F.G. Zalom is Entomologist, Agricultural Experiment Station, and Cooperative Extension Entomologist, Department of Entomology, UC Davis. We gratefully acknowledge the California Department of Food and Agriculture for financial support in the development of the base document, and in publication of this special issue. We also thank the many UC Cooperative Extension Specialists and Farm Advisors who provided technical expertise in the development of alternative scenarios for the specific crops studied.
Hilgardia 59(1):7-10. DOI:10.3733/ca.v059n01p7. January 2005.
Insecticides have long been important tools for California farmers to combat agricultural pests. By 1995, organophosphate (OP) insecticides such as chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, methamidophos, phosmet and diazinon accounted for an estimated 34% of worldwide insecticide sales, and they are widely credited with allowing large yield increases in commercial agriculture. The U.S. Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), signed into law in 1996, established a new human health-based standard that “reasonable certainty of no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.” When the FQPA was passed, 49 OP pesticides were registered for use in pest control in the United States; since then, many uses have been canceled and others are expected to be lost, with particular significance for California growers. A number of alternative pest-control products and strategies are available, with varying degrees of effectiveness and cost. Research and development of control measures to replace OP insecticides must be pursued to maintain an economically viable state agricultural industry.
Byrd DM. Goodbye pesticides?. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 Regulation. 1997. 20(4):57-62.
Carson RL. Silent Spring.. 1962. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 378p.
Casida J, Quistad G. Golden age of pesticide research: Past, present, or future?. Ann Rev Entomol. 1998. 43:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.1
Metcalfe M, McWilliams B, Hueth R, et al. The Economic Impact of Organophosphates in California Agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Sacramento, CA. 41 p + app 2002. www.cdfa.ca.gov/publications.htm
National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.. 1993. Washington, DC: Nat Acad Pr. 386p.
Stern VM, Smith RF, van den Bosch R, Hagen KS. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia. 1959. 29(2):81-101.
[US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. 1996. Washington, DC: www.epa.gov/op-pfead1/fqpa
US EPA. Revised OP Cumulative Risk Assessment.. 2002. Washington, DC: www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
Also in this issue:Aphelopus albopictus Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Dryinidae): Abundance, Parasitism, and Distribution in Relation to Leafhopper Hosts in Grapes
Environmental laws elicit evolution in pest management
Letters: January-March 2005
Science briefs: January-March 2005
Managing resistance is critical to future use of pyrethroids and neonicotinoids
Pheromone mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests
Biological and cultural controls … Nonpesticide alternatives can suppress crop pests
Various novel insecticides are less toxic to humans, more specific to key pests
Microorganisms and their byproducts, nematodes, oils and particle films have important agricultural uses
Costs of 2001 methyl bromide rules estimated for California strawberry industry