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 ofthis document is to convey usage information and a broad overview ofthe pest managementroles ofpesticides that are beginningto undergo registrationreview. The anticipated audience consists ofthe team ofEPA staffcurrently evaluating the registration status ofspinosad (110003), and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data already provided inthe "Usage and Label Use DataPackages" that are also provided to 1Registration Review teams by BEAD. The document is based oninfonnation and data available to BEAD as ofAugust 24,2011. Spinosad is a biologically derived insecticide produced viafennentation culture ofthe 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 ofexposure leading to lethality were historically described as contact and stomachpoisons. Spinosad's insecticidal mode ofaction is attributedto allosteric modulation ofthe 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 ofspinosad are not highly systemic inplants although some movement into leaftissue 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). Spinosad is pennittedfor use in organic agficultural production (USDA National Organic Program, 2002). USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Spinosad is registered for use onnumerous agricultural crops including field, forage, fiber and cereal crops as well as fruit, nut, and vegetable crops. Non-Agricultural Use Sites Spinosad is registered for use on a wide variety ofornamental trees, shrubs, lawns and herbaceous plants. Spinosad is also registered for use on livestock andpoultry 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 onprivate marketpesticide usage data from 2006-2010, the annual total agricultural usage averaged approximately 100,000 pounds active ingredient for a million and halftreated acres. The average application rate ofspinosad 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 interms oftotal pounds ofactive ingredient applied are lettuce (16%), oranges (14%), apples (7%), and peppers (5%). The crops withmost total areatreated (TAT) are lettuce (16%), oranges (11%), and cherries (9%). On average, the states with the most agricultural usage in terms ofpounds a.i. applied are California (60%), Arizona (11%), Washington (10%), and Florida (5%). Proprietary Data, 2006-2010. 

### USE TRENDS Figure 1provides usage data for 2006-2010. Duringthis 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 ofspinetoram. Figure 

### 1 SpinosadAgriculturalUsage Data (2006-2010) 90,000 ..,...--------------

PoundsA.I.



## o 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years • Apples • lettuce

Oranges • Peppers • Other

"Other crops" with significant usage ofspinosad includes cherries, spinach, broccoli, table grapes, and strawberries (4% each); onions, cotton, tobacco, and celery (3% each); almonds,

3lemons, 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 ofpounds applied, for the largest agricultural markets for spinosad. The use ofspinosad on apples, broccoli, cotton, lettuce, oranges, and other crops fluctuated during 1998-2010. The use ofspinosad on cottonrose 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 ofspinosad's decline in usage on cotton. The dataprovided in this section is for preliminary scopingpurposes only, because the data have notbeen 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 ofspinosadincludes 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 ofspinosad will continue to decrease in the future due to its displacement inthe marketby spinetoram (Racke et al., 2011) SpinosadNon-Agricultural Use Segment/Site 2002 (Lbs. A.I.) 2004 (Lbs. A.I.) 2006 (Lbs. A.I.) AVG GolfCourses 

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

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO SPINOSAD According to the Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database (APRD, 2011), there have been 14 reports ofresistance on 6 insect species on 13 crops for spinosad in the u.S. The insects reported to exhibitlocalized resistance to spinosad are American serpentine leafminer, Colorado potato beetle, diamond-back moth, house fly, olive fruit fly, and tobacco budworm. All ofthe reported pests have a history ofdeveloping resistance to many insecticides. Examination ofthe APRD (2011) database led BEAD to conclude that this level ofresistance reporting is typical ofmany insecticides and is probably indicative ofoccasional events oflocalized resistance. These findings, coupled with spinosad's unique mode ofaction, suggest that spinosad maybe an important component in integrated resistance managementprograms. Spinosad is approved for use in organic agricultural production and maybe an important component in organic farming integrated pestmanagementprograms. HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR SPINOSAD In the last five years, spinosad has beenthe subject ofseveral section 18 requests. In 2005, both Colorado and Utah requested a Section 18 exemptionto allow use ofspinosad to control thrips in onions. Inboth cases, the request was a result ofincreased 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 overtime, leaving onion growers without effective control. The BEAD conclusion was that there was an urgent and non-routine situation thatjustified an exemption in Utah, but not in Colorado (Chiri and Faulkner, 2005; Mallampalli and Faulkner, 2005). Utah submitted another request for spinosad in 2008, but later withdrewtheir request (Cook and Donaldson, 2008). Spinosad received a Section 3 registration ononions in 2008 and the existence ofthese Section 18 exemption requests suggests'that this use pattern maybe important in the management ofthrips on onions. There was also a quarantine exemption request in 2006 bythe us Department ofAgriculture to apply spinosad to control the emerald ashborer on woodlots in Michigan, where use ofan effective alternative, diflubenzuron, is not allowed. BEAD supported the emergency quarantine exemption inthis case (Atwood, 2006). There are few alternatives for controlling the emerald ash borer, an invasive pestthat is highly destructive to ash trees.



### 5DATA NEEDS RELEVANT TO BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON SPINOSAD Obtaining additional information onthe following items would improve future BEAD assessments ofthe importance ofSpinosad and may be required as part ofthe registration review ofthis pesticide. • Usage data for the following non-agricultural sites: livestock, domestic dwellings, food handling establishments, and industrial areas. • Dataonthe extent ofspinosad 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 ofRequest for a Quarantine Exemption for the Use ofSpinosad onWoodlots to Control Emerald Ash Borer, ID#: 06DA05, Barcode #: 3291 20, Case #: 3671 92, June 07, 2006. Chiri, Angel, and John Faulkner, Review ofa Request for Emergency Exemption ofSpinosad in Colorado for Use on Onions to Control Thrips. (05C006) (DP# 313663), March 9,2005. Cornell University. 2005. Spinosad Material fact Sheet. Organic Resource Guide. p. 140-146. http://web.pppmb.cals.comell.eduiresourceguide/pdf/mfs13.pdf Dow. 2011. Spinosad Overview. DowAgroSciences 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 ofan emergency exemptionrequest for the use ofspinosad for control ofthrips 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. DowAgroSciences LLC

6USDA National Organic Program. 2002. National Organic Standards Board Technical Advisory Panel Review: Spinosad. http://www.parapro.comldocuments/usda national organics board review.pdf

7