UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

SEP 07 20ft 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Spinosad (110003) 

FROM: 

THRU: 

David Brassard, Entomologist 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Jihad Alsadek, Economist J ~ A-. ft~ Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Derek Berwald, Economist kk- n-J tM r \ 0 

Economic Analysis Branch " J) L/''-0 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

Arnet Jones, Chief /:J dJ. '\, \A'Z~~- Biological Analysis Branch ~~ 

Diann Sims, Chief M"-'.II''--'~-~ Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Timothy Kiely, Chief Q1 

Economic Analysis Branch 

Biological and Economic Anal is Division 

TO: Wilhelmena Livingston, Chemical Review Manager 

Anne Overstreet, Team Leader 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 4 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Product Review Panel date: August 31, 2011 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this document is to convey usage information and a broad overview of the pest 

management roles of pesticides that are beginning to undergo registration review. The 

anticipated audience consists of the team of EPA staff currently evaluating the registration status 

of spino sad (110003), and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data 

already provided in the "Usage and Label Use Data Packages" that are also provided to 

1 
Registration Review teams by BEAD. The document is based on infonnation and data available 

to BEAD as of August 24,2011. 

Spinosad is a biologically derived insecticide produced via fennentation culture of the 

Actinomycete, Saccharopolyspora spinosa, a bacterial organism isolated from soil. Spinosad is 

comprised ofspinosyn A and spinosyn D in roughly a 4:1 ratio (Racke et aI., 2011). 

Spinosad is a broad-spectrum insecticide that kills insects via contact with the insect cuticle 

and/or dietary exposure. Insecticides exhibiting these routes of exposure leading to lethality were 

historically described as contact and stomach poisons. Spinosad's insecticidal mode of action is 

attributed to allosteric modulation of the insect's nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. This 

mteraction generates an acetylcholine-induced inward current that causes widespread neuronal 

excitation resulting in involuntary muscle contractions, tremors, and eventually death (EPA 

2009, Racke et aI., 2011). Foliar applications of spino sad are not highly systemic in plants 

although some movement into leaf tissue has been demonstrated (Cornell University, 2005). 

Spinosad was first registered in the U.s. in 1997 and is labeled for the control oflepidopterous 

pests, Colorado potato beetles, serpentine leafminers, fleas, fruit flies, house flies, fire ants, 

mosquito larvae, sawfly larvae, stable flies, and thrips (EPA, 2009; NPIRS, 2011). 

Spino sad is pennitted for use in organic agficultural production (USDA National Organic 

Program, 2002). 

USE SITES 

Agricultural Use Sites 

Spinosad is registered for use on numerous agricultural crops including field, forage, fiber and 

cereal crops as well as fruit, nut, and vegetable crops. 

Non-Agricultural Use Sites 

Spino sad is registered for use on a wide variety of ornamental trees, shrubs, lawns and 

herbaceous plants. Spino sad is also registered for use on livestock and poultry and their 

premises, pet kennels, domestic dwellings, aquatic sites, uncultivated agricultural and nonagricultural areas, wide area mosquito larvae control, food handling establishments, industrial 

areas, and refuse and solid waste sites. 

COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Spinosad is fonnulated as a dust, granular, pelleted/tableted, impregnated material, water 

dispersible granules, emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, soluble concentrate, and as 

a ready-to-use solution. 

2 
USAGE 

Agricultural 

Based on private market pesticide usage data from 2006-2010, the annual total agricultural usage 

averaged approximately 100,000 pounds active ingredient for a million and half treated acres. 

The average application rate of spinosad is 0.07 lbs. a.i. per acre. The average a.i. rate for cotton 

is 0.06 lbs. a.i. per acre, 0.08 lbs. a.i. per acre for lettuce, 0.10 lbs. a.i. per acre for apples, and 

0.11 lbs. a.i. per acre for oranges 

From 2006-2010, the crops with the most use in terms of total pounds of active ingredient 

applied are lettuce (16%), oranges (14%), apples (7%), and peppers (5%). The crops with most 

total area treated (TAT) are lettuce (16%), oranges (11 %), and cherries (9%). 

On average, the states with the most agricultural usage in terms of pounds a.i. applied are 

California (60%), Arizona (11 %), Washington (10%), and Florida (5%). 

Proprietary Data, 2006-2010. 

USE TRENDS 

Figure 1 provides usage data for 2006-2010. During this period, use on apples, lettuce, oranges, 

peppers, and other crops was declining. BEAD believes these declines were due to the 2007 

registration and subsequent adoption by growers of spinetoram. 

Figure 1 Spinosad Agricultural Usage Data (2006-2010) 

90,000 ..,...--------------

PoundsA.I. 

o 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Years 

• Apples 

• lettuce 

Oranges 

• Peppers 

• Other 

"Other crops" with significant usage of spino sad includes cherries, spinach, broccoli, table 

grapes, and strawberries (4% each); onions, cotton, tobacco, and celery (3% each); almonds, 

3 
lemons, tomatoes, cabbage, peanuts, sweet com, and potatoes (2% each); and wine grapes, 

cauliflower, carrots, pears, watermelons, cantaloupes, peaches, cucumbers, and beans (1 % each). 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2006-2010 

Figure 2 provides usage trends, in terms of pounds applied, for the largest agricultural markets 

for spinosad. The use of spino sad on apples, broccoli, cotton, lettuce, oranges, and other crops 

fluctuated during 1998-2010. The use of spino sad on cotton rose steadily from 1998 to 2002 

and declined precipitously from 2003 to 2010. Bollgard II cotton, which was introduced in 2003, 

is believed to be the cause of spinosad's decline in usage on cotton. The data provided in this 

section is for preliminary scoping purposes only, because the data have not been analyzed. 

Figure 2 Spinosad Agricultural Usage Data (1998-2010) 

90,000 ..,..------------------.----

• Apples 

PoundsA.I. • Broccoli 

• Cotton 

• Lettuce 

• Oranges 

• Other 

19981~99 20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 

Years 

"Other crops" with significant usage of spino sad includes peppers (4%); tomatoes, spinach, 

celery, and cabbage (3% each); almonds, cherries, tobacco, strawberries, cauliflower, and lemons 

(2% each); table grapes, onions, potatoes, sweet com, cantaloupes, peanuts, beans, watermelons, 

cucumbers, carrots, and peaches (1 % each). 

Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2010 

The registrant anticipates that the use of spinosad will continue to decrease in the future due to 

its displacement in the market by spinetoram (Racke et al., 2011) 

Spinosad Non-Agricultural Use 

Segment/Site 2002 (Lbs. A.I.) 2004 (Lbs. A. I. ) 2006 (Lbs. A.I.) AVG 

Golf Courses - <500 - <500 

Landscape Contractors - <500 <500 <500 

Institutional Turf - 1,000 - 1,000 

Nurseries/Greenhouses 4,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 

Data are not aVaIlable 

4 
Source: Kline and 'Company, Inc., 2002-2006 

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO SPINO SAD 

According to the Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database (APRD, 2011), there have been 14 

reports of resistance on 6 insect species on 13 crops for spinosad in the u.S. The insects reported 

to exhibit localized resistance to spinosad are American serpentine leaf miner, Colorado potato 

beetle, diamond-back moth, house fly, olive fruit fly, and tobacco budworm. All of the reported 

pests have a history of developing resistance to many insecticides. Examination of the APRD 

(2011) database led BEAD to conclude that this level of resistance reporting is typical of many 

insecticides and is probably indicative of occasional events of localized resistance. These 

findings, coupled with spinosad's unique mode of action, suggest that spinosad may be an 

important component in integrated resistance management programs. 

Spinosad is approved for use in organic agricultural production and may be an important 

component in organic farming integrated pest management programs. 

HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR SPINOSAD 

In the last five years, spino sad has been the subject of several section 18 requests. In 2005, both 

Colorado and Utah requested a Section 18 exemption to allow use of spinosad to control thrips in 

onions. In both cases, the request was a result of increased resistance to pyrethroid insecticides 

by thrips, reducing their effectiveness. The primary alternative pesticide that still maintained 

effectiveness against thrips in onions was methomyl. There was concern that methomyl would 

also lose effectiveness over time, leaving onion growers without effective control. The BEAD 

conclusion was that there was an urgent and non-routine situation that justified an exemption in 

Utah, but not in Colorado (Chiri and Faulkner, 2005; Mallampalli and Faulkner, 2005). Utah 

submitted another request for spino sad in 2008, but later withdrew their request (Cook and 

Donaldson, 2008). Spinosad received a Section 3 registration on onions in 2008 and the 

existence of these Section 18 exemption requests suggests' that this use pattern may be important 

in the management of thrips on onions. 

There was also a quarantine exemption request in 2006 by the us Department of Agriculture to 

apply spinosad to control the emerald ash borer on woodlots in Michigan, where use of an 

effective alternative, diflubenzuron, is not allowed. BEAD supported the emergency quarantine 

exemption in this case (Atwood, 2006). There are few alternatives for controlling the emerald 

ash borer, an invasive pest that is highly destructive to ash trees. 

5 
DATA NEEDS RELEVANT TO BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON SPINOSAD 

Obtaining additional information on the following items would improve future BEAD 

assessments of the importance of Spino sad and may be required as part of the registration review 

of this pesticide. 

• Usage data for the following non-agricultural sites: livestock, domestic dwellings, food 

handling establishments, and industrial areas. 

• Data on the extent of spinosad use in organic agricultural production systems. 

REFERENCES 

APRD. 2011. Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database. Michigan State University. 

http://www. pesticideresistance.orgl 

Atwood, Don. BEAD'S Review of Request for a Quarantine Exemption for the Use of Spinosad 

on Woodlots to Control Emerald Ash Borer, ID#: 06DA05, Barcode #: 3291 20, Case #: 

3671 92, June 07, 2006. 

Chiri, Angel, and John Faulkner, Review of a Request for Emergency Exemption of Spinosad in 

Colorado for Use on Onions to Control Thrips. (05C006) (DP# 313663), March 9,2005. 

Cornell University. 2005. Spino sad Material fact Sheet. Organic Resource Guide. p. 140-146. 

http://web. pppmb.cals.comell.eduiresourceguide/pdf/mfs 13. pdf 

Dow. 2011. Spinosad Overview. Dow AgroSciences LLC. 

http://www.dowagro.com/turf/prod/spinosad.htm 

EPA 2009. EPA fact Sheet for Spinetoram. 

http://www.epa.gov /opprdOO 1 /factsheets/spinetoram. pdf 

Proprietary Data, 1998-2010. 

Kline and Co., 1999-2006. 

Mallampalli, Nikhil and John Faulkner, Review of an emergency exemption request for the use 

of spino sad for control of thrips in onions in Utah (05-UT-09; DP # 315999), July 13, 

2005. 

NPIRS. 2011. National Pesticide Information and -Retrieval System. http://npirs.ceris.purdue.edu 

Racke, K.D. et al. 2011. Spinosad and Spinetoram: Information to Support EPA's Registration 

Review. Dow AgroSciences LLC 

6 
USDA National Organic Program. 2002. National Organic Standards Board Technical Advisory 

Panel Review: Spinosad. 

http://www.parapro.comldocuments/usda national organics board review. pdf 

7