Summary of ABSTC and US EPA Meeting Regarding Agency Proposed Changes to the 

Corn Rootworm Resistance Management Program

MEETING LOCATION: DATE:

US EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, March 31st, 2015

2777 S. Crystal Drive,

Arlington, VA 22202

ATTENDEES:

Kimberly Nesci, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person

Alan Reynolds, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person

Jeannette Martinez, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person

Mike Mendelsohn, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person

ShaRon Carlisle, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person

Bill Chism, US EPA/OPP/BEAD – in person

Jonathan Becker, US EPA/OPP/BEAD – in person

Tony Burd, Syngenta/ABSTC – in person

Dave Guyer, Syngenta/ABSTC – in person

Graham Head, Monsanto/ABSTC – in person

Jeff Bookout, Monsanto/ABSTC – in person

Christina Lawrence, Monsanto/ABSTC – in person

Nick Storer, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC – in person

Mark Kimm, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC – in person

Clint Pilcher, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – in person

Michael Smith, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – in person

Elizabeth Owens, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – via phone

Matthew Caroll, Monsanto/ABSTC – via phone 

Isaac Oyediran, Syngenta/ABSTC – via phone 

Jamie Staley, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – via phone 

AGENDA:

 Introductions

 Mission/purpose of ABSTC and meeting rationales

 Discussion on EPA proposals, ABSTC recommendations and reasoning

1. IPM approach to CRW resistance management

2. Proactive strategies to detect unexpected damage (UXD) in Bt corn fields

3. Annual monitoring of CRW populations

4. Resistance confirmation process (bioassays)

5. Remedial action plans

 Action items/next steps

SUMMARY OF MEETING

Representatives of US EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and member companies of the Agricultural 

Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee (ABSTC) that hold corn rootworm PIP registrations discussed

the five key elements of the Agency’s proposal to make changes to the corn rootworm resistance management 

program and ABSTC’s docket submission (letter dated February 13, 2015). ABSTC’s docket comment reflects 

their perspective and experience with CRW IRM. In this meeting, ABSTC acted as agents of the CRW PIP 

registrants.
1. IPM approach

ABSTC member companies highlighted their efforts towards implementing best management practices (BMPs) 

in cases of unexpected damage as a result of corn rootworm feeding. Companies further informed US EPA 

about the release of additional education materials to grower communities and planned training sessions with 

independent crop consultants [http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0805-

0008]. EPA understands that ABSTC and the National Corn Grower Associations (NCGA) engage in collaborative 

efforts to reach growers about the need to use BMPs with corn rootworm resistance management. ABSTC and 

EPA agreed on the need for proactive, up front measures to address corn rootworm resistance. EPA and ABSTC 

discussed concerns in the docket comments about limited availability of non-CRW Bt seed to growers which 

restricts accessibility for more diverse IPM tools and EPA’s proposal regarding the use of SAIs with CRW Bt 

seed. EPA discussed the need for measures to assess the success of the proactive IPM initiatives.

2. Proactive scouting 

Scouting has historically been done and will continue to be conducted by growers. ABSTC member companies 

discussed that other entities can be involved in scouting as well.

3. Removal of random monitoring

All parties agreed that random insect sampling for resistance monitoring was less effective than focusing on 

collecting populations from UXD sites. This would allow biotech companies to divert their resources to other 

aspects of corn rootworm resistance management.

4. Resistance confirmation process

ABSTC member companies continue to work on improving the methodology of the diet bioassays and 

proposed to use this approach along with an on-plant assay methodology (single on-plant or sub-lethal 

seedling assay) to measure a significant decrease in susceptibility of populations. EPA and ABSTC agreed on 

the common goal: to have a good diagnostic tool to accurately detect resistance.

5. Remedial action plans 

The discussion focused on the extent of the remedial action area for UXD sites. EPA continued to emphasize 

the need for additional empirical dispersal data as well as modeling analyses. 

Action Items

 EPA to look at the timing of USDA NASS corn surveys to see if these data might be available to evaluate 

the success of IPM measures.

 ABSTC to consider ways to measure the effectiveness of their proactive IPM approach.

 EPA to review docket comments

 ABSTC and EPA to meet again in early May