Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

STUDY TITLE

Supplement 1 to Public Interest Finding for Tolfenpyrad to Support First Food Crop Uses  

(MRID No. 48953809)

DATA REQUIREMENT

No guideline

PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENT

Provide additional information per EPA request

AUTHORS

James Adams, Ph.D.

Julie Kozlowski

Marie Maks

Allison Walston

SPONSOR

Nichino America, Inc.

4550 New Linden Hill Road

Suite 501

Wilmington, DE  19808

REPORT DATE

July 23, 2013

STUDY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

TOL‐GEN‐19

Supplement 1

Page 1 of 497


Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement of No Data Confidentiality Claims....................................................................................2

Good Laboratory Practice Compliance Statement............................................................................3

Public Interest Finding .......................................................................................................................7

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................8

Note on Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms.............................................................................................10

PRZM/EXAMS Modeling ....................................................................................................................10

Criteria 1: Tolfenpyrad Targets Pests on Several Minor Use Crops...................................................11

Criteria 2: Tolfenpyrad Targets Niche Pests on Major Crops ............................................................16

Criteria 3: Tolfenpyrad Controls Pests That are Identified as Critical by the Federal Government

National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) as Called for in Homeland Security

Presidential Directive #9 (HSPD‐9)....................................................................................20

Criteria 4: Tolfenpyrad Controls Pests that are Identified as Critical by the USDA APHIS Plant

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Program Pests.............................................................21

Criteria 5: Tolfenpyrad is a Replacement for Carbamates and Organophosphates for Insect

Control...............................................................................................................................24

Criteria 6: Section 18 Emergency Exemptions...................................................................................29

Summary  ...........................................................................................................................................30

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.  Crops and tolerances recommended per EPA Memorandum, dated 12 April 2012,

“Tolfenpyrad‐Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment Evaluating the First Food

Uses on Multiple Commodities” .......................................................................................8

Table 2.  Recommended Pests Targeted for Control on Minor Use Crops with Tolfenpyrad...........11

Table 3.  Comparative product efficacy by % disease control in cucurbits.......................................12

Table 4.  Comparative product efficacy by % reduction in pepper weevil‐damaged fruit................12

Table 5.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in fruiting vegetables for thrips.....................13

Table 6.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in pepper for broad mite...............................13

Table 7.  Comparative product efficacy in broccoli/cabbage for control of Diamondback moth

(DBM).................................................................................................................................13

Table 8.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in lettuce for thrips........................................14

Table 9.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Pears for pear psylla (PP)...........................14

Table 10.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Stone fruit (cherry) for cherry fruit fly ....15

Table 11.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Tree nuts (pecan) for aphids...................15

Table 12.  Recommended Pests Targeted for Control with Tolfenpyrad on Major Crops................16

Table 13.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in citrus for Asian citrus psyllid (ACP)..........17

Table 14.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in citrus for citricola scale............................17

Table 15.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in cotton for aphids.....................................18

Table 16.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Grapes for control of Vine Mealybug

(VMB) and Grape Leafhopper (GLH) .................................................................................18

Page 4 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Table 17.  Comparative product efficacy by % control of Plum Curculio on Apple...........................19

Table 18.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in potato for potato psyllid .........................19

Table 19.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in potato for control of Colorado potato

beetle (CPB).......................................................................................................................19

Table 20.  Comparative product efficacy by % mortality in laboratory bioassays for spotted wing

Drosophila (SWD) ..............................................................................................................21

Table 21.  Comparative product efficacy by % reduction in feeding and % control in grape for

Japanese beetle (JB) ..........................................................................................................22

Table 22.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in potato for aphids.....................................23

Table 23.  Personal Protective Equipment for tolfenpyrad compared to carbamates .....................25

Table 24.  Re‐entry Intervals for tolfenpyrad and carbamates based on the current registered

label ...................................................................................................................................25

Table 25.  Personal Protective Equipment for tolfenpyrad compared to organophosphates..........26

Table 26.  Re‐entry Intervals for tolfenpyrad and organophosphates based on the current

registered label..................................................................................................................26

Table 27.  Re‐entry Intervals for tolfenpyrad and pyrethroids based on the current registered

label ...................................................................................................................................27

Table 28.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in lettuce and peppers for thrips ................28

APPENDIX 1

TRIAL EFFICACY REFERENCES

NAI 2012‐0041 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of downy mildew in cucumber.............................................36

NAI 2011‐0071 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of powdery mildew squash...................................................63

NAI 2010‐0221 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of down mildew squash........................................................65

NAI 2011‐0024 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of Pepper weevil, 2011 ...................................................73

NAI 2010‐0046 ~ Control of pepper weevil with tolfenpyrad ...........................................................75

NAI 2010‐0069 ~ Control of pepper weevil with tolfenpyrad ...........................................................80

NAI 2011‐0229 ~ Control of thrips with tolfenpyrad on peppers .....................................................84

NAI 2013‐0020 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in tomato ..........................................................95

NAI 2011‐0062 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of broad mites on pepper ...............................................98

NAI 2011‐0214 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of Diamondback moth on cabbage.......................................106

NAI 2011‐0009 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of Diamondback moth on cabbage.......................................108

NAI 2010‐0034 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of Diamondback moth in cabbage........................................112

NAI 2010‐0144 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in head lettuce..................................................119

NAI 2012‐0335 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in head lettuce..................................................135

NAI 2011‐0135 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in lettuce...........................................................191

NAI 2012‐0204 ~ Dormant pear psylla adult slide dip bioassays ......................................................209

NAI 2012‐0028 ~ Bexar15SC for control of pear psylla on pear........................................................212

NAI 2012‐0204 ~ Dormant pear psylla egg dip bioassays .................................................................221

NAI 2009‐0059 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of cherry fruit fly in cherry ..............................................224

NAI 2011‐0011 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of cherry fruit fly in cherry ..............................................227

Page 5 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

NAI 2012‐0024 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of cherry fruit fly in cherry ..............................................230

NAI 2011‐0007 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of aphids in pecans..........................................................233

NAI 2012‐0276 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of several aphid species in pecan....................................237

NAI 2010‐0119 ~ Efficacy of Tolfenpyrad for control of Asian citrus psyllid in oranges...................245

NAI 2010‐0176 ~ Evaluation of Tolfenpyrad for Asian Citrus Psyllid, August 2010 ..........................250

NAI 2011‐0065 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of Asian Citrus Psyllid, 2011 ............................................252

NAI 2011‐0108 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of citrus thrips in citrus ...................................................255

NAI 2011‐0122 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of citricola scale in citrus.................................................262

NAI 2010‐0283 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of citricola scale in citrus.................................................263

NAI 2008‐0114 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of cotton aphid................................................................270

NAI 2009‐0161 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of cotton aphid................................................................274

NAI 2012‐0234 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of vine mealybug in grape...............................................288

NAI 2011‐0133 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of vine mealybug in grape...............................................306

NAI 2010‐0129 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of grape leafhopper ........................................................319

NAI 2010‐0042 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of plum curculio in apple ......................................................327

NAI 2009‐0130 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of plum curculio in apple ......................................................337

NAI 2011‐0143 ~ Tolfenpyrad control of plum curculio in apple ......................................................342

NAI 2008‐0223 ~ Potato psyllid control in potato.............................................................................346

NAI 2010‐0032 ~ Potato psyllid control in potato.............................................................................353

NAI 2011‐0156 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of Colorado potato beetle...............................................359

NAI 2011‐0172 ~ Tolfenpyrad for managing Colorado potato beetle on potatoes..........................368

NAI 2010‐0062 ~ Tolfenpyrad for control of Colorado potato beetle...............................................371

NAI 2011‐0305 ~ Effect of Tolfenpyrad on Spotted Wing Drosophila Drosophila suzukii

(Matsumura) in Laboratory Bioassays...............................................................................379

NAI 2011‐0036 ~ Efficacy of Tolfenpyrad EC against Spotted‐wing drosophila on strawberry ........384

NAI 2009‐0123 ~ Grape Berry Moth Control in ‘Niagara’ Grape.......................................................386

NAI 2012‐0013 ~ PHL Control in ‘Chancellor’ Grape .........................................................................389

NAI 2011‐0017 ~ Aphid Potato Nichino 2010....................................................................................392

NAI 2011‐0184 ~ Nichino GPA Pot 2011............................................................................................402

NAI 2012‐0196 ~ Evaluate the efficacy of Torac 15EC on flower thrips in lettuce in the Salinas

Valley .................................................................................................................................407

NAI 2012‐0018 ~ Efficacy of Tolfenpyrad for control of Western Flower Thrips in lettuce..............426

NAI 2011‐0229 ~ Thrips control in north Florida peppers, 2011.......................................................488

   

Page 6 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

PUBLIC INTEREST FINDING

This Public Interest Finding (PIF) document combines Nichino America’s earlier PIF (MRID No.

48953809) with additional efficacy citations and comments to provide a more robust

document.  We have deleted comparison data with azinphos‐methyl and all but one citation for

endosulfan, since both chemicals have been cancelled by the EPA in the past year.  We have

added recent efficacy data on cotton, grapes, and tomatoes, and focused on pests of economic

importance in view of those scenarios with exceedances in the risk quotients (RQs) modeled by

the EPA using PRZM/EXAMS in the draft June 2013 tolfenpyrad ecorisk document.1

Nichino is offering herein a PIF document to confirm that the following criteria are met for the

registration of tolfenpyrad to be in the Public Interest:

1) Tolfenpyrad tolerances are proposed on several minor crops, including pear, cherry,

peach, pecan, squash, pepper, lettuce, and cabbage.  Efficacy data to support these

selected uses are included in this volume.

2) Tolfenpyrad targets niche pests on major crops, including oranges, cotton, apples and

potatoes.  Efficacy data to support these selected uses are included in this volume.

3) Tolfenpyrad controls pests that are identified as critical by the Federal government

National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) as called for in Homeland Security

Presidential Directive #9 (HSPD‐9).  

4) Tolfenpyrad controls pests that are identified as critical by the USDA APHIS Plant

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Program Pests.

The pests that tolfenpyrad controls are of agriculture economic significance because of their

difficulty to control, with wide‐spread economic losses in the US.  

In addition to the criteria listed above, other important factors contribute to a PIF for

tolfenpyrad:

  

5) Tolfenpyrad is a replacement for carbamates, organophosphates and pyrethroids for

insect control.  In this context, tolfenpyrad provides an improved alternative based on

worker and environmental safety and resistance management.   

6) Section 18 Emergency Exemptions.

  

The pests that tolfenpyrad controls are not of public health significance and therefore this

criterion will not be addressed in this PIF document.   

Page 7 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

INTRODUCTION

Tolfenpyrad is a foliar contact insecticide and proprietary to Nihon Nohyaku Company, Ltd.  

Tokyo, Japan.  Nichino America, Inc., a subsidiary of Nihon Nohyaku, has developed tolfenpyrad

for use in a wide range of crops in the U.S.  

Tolfenpyrad TGAI and 15% EC were registered by the EPA for non‐food crop, greenhouse use in

July 2010.  Nichino submitted an application for crop uses with an additional formulation, the

15% SC, to the EPA in September 2010.  Nichino is seeking the following crops and MRLs for

tolfenpyrad (Table 1).

Table 1.  Crops and tolerances recommended per EPA Memorandum, dated 12 April 2012,

“Tolfenpyrad‐Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment Evaluating the First Food Uses on

Multiple Commodities”2

CROPS MRLs

Almond, hulls 6.0 ppm

Vegetable,  leafy, except Brassica, group 4 30 ppm

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A 5.0 ppm

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B 40 ppm

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8‐10 0.7 ppm

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.7 ppm

Fruit, citrus,  group 10‐10 1.5 ppm

Citrus,  pulp dried 8.0 ppm

Citrus,  oil 70 ppm

Fruit, pome, group 11‐10 0.7 ppm

Apple, wet pomace 2.5 ppm

Fruit, stone, group 12 2.0 ppm

Plum, prune 3.0 ppm

Persimmon 2.0 ppm

Pomegranate 2.0 ppm

Potato 0.01 ppm

Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 ppm

Pistachio 0.05 ppm

Grape 2.0 ppm

Grape, raisin 6 ppm

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.7 ppm

Page 8 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Cotton, gin byproducts 15 ppm

Tea 30 ppm

Milk 0.03 ppm

Cattle, fat 0.01 ppm

Goat, fat 0.01 ppm

Horse, fat 0.01 ppm

Sheep, fat 0.01 ppm

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.35 ppm

Goat, meat byproducts 0.35 ppm

Horse, meat byproducts 0.35 ppm

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.35 ppm

Cattle, meat 0.01 ppm

Goat, meat 0.01 ppm

Horse, meat 0.01 ppm

Sheep, meat 0.01 ppm

Tolfenpyrad has broad‐spectrum activity against several economically important insect pests of

vegetables, fruits, nuts, vines, and row crops.  Tolfenpyrad is active on Hemiptera,

Thysanoptera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, Orthoptera, Eriophyid mites, and Tarsonemid

mites.  Tolfenpyrad also has fungicidal activity against certain species of powdery mildew and

downy mildew.

Tolfenpyrad has been classified by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) under

Group 21A, which are the Mitochondrial Complex I Electron Transport Inhibitors (METI) and by

the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) under Group 39, which is a pyrazole‐MET1.

The site of action is Complex I (NADH dehydrogenase) in the mitochondrial electron transport

chain.  Tolfenpyrad works by inhibiting cellular respiration in the mitochondrion, similarly to

strobilurin fungicides (FRAC Group 11, Quinone outside inhibitors), SDHI fungicides (FRAC

Group 7, Succinate dehydrogenase inhibitors) and IRAC Groups 12, 13, 20 and 25 insecticides.

As a result, tolfenpyrad causes rapid cessation of feeding and death of the insect pest usually

within 24‐48 hours.   

   

Page 9 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

NOTE ON TOXICITY TO AQUATIC ORGANISMS  

Tolfenpyrad exhibits a relatively high degree of acute toxicity to certain species of fish,

specifically trout.  However, tolfenpyrad tightly binds to the soil.  Therefore the inclusion of

buffer zones and vegetative buffer strips between the area of application and any fish‐bearing

body of water will reduce the environmental concentration and therefore risk to aquatic

organisms.     

PRZM/EXAMS MODELING

Nichino America is proposing the registration of several minor and major use crops, as listed

above in Table 1.  Initial modeling of the expected environmental concentration of tolfenpyrad

on the primary crop scenarios resulted in relatively high Risk Quotients (RQ) for acute toxicity in

freshwater fish, specifically trout.  In order to decrease RQ levels, additional scenarios were run.  

For ground and airblast application methods, a 15 foot vegetative filter strip plus a 15 foot

buffer zone were included in subsequent PRZM/EXAMS modeling scenarios.  For aerial

applications, a 150 foot buffer was implemented.  The mitigation measures resulted in a

significant reduction of RQs for acute and chronic exposure, as much as an order of magnitude.  

Details on the refined PRZM/EXAMS VFSMOD are described in Supplement 1 to TOL‐GEN‐20.

  

Page 10 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

CRITERIA 1

Tolfenpyrad Targets Pests on Several Minor Use Crops

EFFICACY

Trial results demonstrate that tolfenpyrad is an excellent alternative molecule that controls

niche pests, critical pests, and pests that are of agricultural economic significance; it has

powerful broad spectrum activity compared to other registered chemicals; and superior

comparative efficacy to older chemistries that are a continuing concern to the EPA.  A range of

pests that tolfenpyrad controls on minor use crops are described in Table 2 and following are

summary tables of efficacy for several important crops.    

Table 2.  Recommended Pests Targeted for Control on Minor Use Crops with Tolfenpyrad

CROP PESTS

Cucurbits (cucumber, squash) aphids

melon worms

powdery mildew

downy mildew

thrips

Fruiting vegetables (pepper, tomato) pepper weevils

thrips

broad mites

pepper/tomato psyllid

aphids

Brassicas (broccoli, cabbage) aphids

diamondback moth

imported cabbageworm

Leafy vegetables (lettuce) thrips

aphids

powdery mildew

Pear pear psylla

pear rust mite

leafrollers

aphids  

codling moth (suppression)

Stone fruit (cherry) cherry fruit fly

black cherry aphid  

powdery mildew

spotted wing Drosophila (suppression)

Tree nuts (pecan) aphids

pecan nut casebearer

hickory shuckworm

Page 11 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

CUCURBITS

Powdery and downy mildews are pests where resistance commonly occurs.  Tolfenpyrad, which

is more of an insecticide, also has fungicidal activity on several species of powdery and downy

mildew.  Tolfenpyrad has shown better control than standard fungicide products (Table 3).  

Tolfenpyrad will also offer a new mode of action for disease resistance management.

Table 3.  Comparative product efficacy by % disease control in cucurbits.

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Competitor

Cucumber3 downy mildew 6 DAT 82% 54% (Fluopicolide)

Squash4 powdery mildew 4 DAT 45% 25% (Chlorothalonil)

Squash5 downy mildew 39 DAT 86% 63% (Chlorothalonil)

FRUITING VEGETABLES

Pepper weevil is an extremely challenging pest to control in peppers.  The adults are the only

life stage that is exposed before they lay eggs inside a pepper.  There are limited products

available for the control of adult pepper weevil, so growers always need new products.  In

efficacy trials, pepper weevil populations are extremely high and any amount of control is

considered successful.  Tolfenpyrad offers efficacy similar to current standards (Table 4).  The

addition of another mode of action for control is also needed for resistance management.   

Table 4.  Comparative product efficacy by % reduction in pepper weevil‐damaged fruit.

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Oxamyl

Pepper6 Reduction in damaged fruit Season long 60% 70%

Pepper7 Reduction in damaged fruit Season long 68% 46%

Thrips in any crop are possibly the most challenging pest to control.  They reproduce quickly

and can hide in spaces where it is difficult to get adequate insecticide coverage.  Thrips can also

vector diseases, so to quickly stop their feeding is essential.  In the eastern US, there are several

species of thrips that are pests in fruiting vegetables (tomato and pepper).  Not all of the

standard products work on all species of thrips or both the adults and immature stages.  

Tolfenpyrad offers similar or better control than some of the standard products (Table 5).  

Tolfenpyrad can control both the immature and adult stages as well as all of the identified

thrips species found in fruiting vegetables.  Resistance is always an issue and resistance has

been documented in peppers in Florida.8 New modes of action, such as tolfenpyrad, are needed

by the growers.

Page 12 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Table 5.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in fruiting vegetables for thrips.

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Spinetoram Spirotetramat

Pepper9 Chilli thrips (larvae) 5 DAT 84% 100% 59%

Pepper10 E flower thrips  

(adults) 6 DAT 61% 76% 54%

Tomato11

Western flower

thrips/Blossom thrips

(mixed)

season long 70% 73%

Broad mite in peppers can cause distorted leaves thus inhibiting photosynthesis and can also

cause unmarketable peppers.  Tolfenpyrad offers superior control of both the immature and

adult broad mites compared to current standard products (Table 6).  Tolfenpyrad quickly

inhibits feeding and offers quick knockdown of mite populations.   

Table 6.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in pepper for broad mite.

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Spiromesofen Spirotetramat

Pepper12 broad mite (larvae) 5 DAT 94% 47% 59%

Pepper12 broad mite  (adults) 14 DAT 74% 34% 54%

BRASSICA (COLE) LEAFY VEGETABLES CROP GROUP 5

Diamondback moth is known for its innate ability to quickly develop resistance to insecticides.  

Tolfenpyrad provides equal or superior level of control to the current standards (Table 7).  

Tolfenpyrad will offer a new mode of action for diamondback moth resistance management.

Table 7.  Comparative product efficacy in broccoli/cabbage for control of Diamondback moth

(DBM).

Crop Pest Assessed Variable Tolfenpyrad Competitor

Cabbage13 DBM Control of DBM ‐ Seasonal Total 91% 76% (Methomyl)

Cabbage14 DBM Reduction in damaged plants 92% 96% (Emamectin‐

benzoate)

Cabbage15 DBM Reduction in damage at harvest   96% 95% (Flubendiamide)

LEAFY VEGETABLES (EXCEPT BRASSICA VEGETABLES) CROP GROUP 4

Thrips in any crop are possibly the most challenging pest to control.  They reproduce quickly

and can hide in spaces where it is difficult to get adequate insecticide coverage.  Thrips can also

vector diseases so to quickly stop their feeding is essential.  Thrips in lettuce are very difficult to

Page 13 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

control and several products have a reduced amount of efficacy because of thrips ability to

develop resistance.16 In efficacy trials, thrips populations are extremely high, so any amount of

control relative to the standard products is adequate.  Tolfenpyrad controls both the immature

as well as the adult stages of thrips and offers equal or better control than some of the

standard products (Table 8).   

Table 8.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in lettuce for thrips.

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad

Methomyl +  

Lambda‐

cyhalothrin Spinetoram

Lettuce17 thrips (total) 12 DAT 43% 46% 58%

Lettuce18 thrips (adults) season total 38% 51% 44%

Lettuce18 thrips (larvae) season total 67% 89% 95%

Lettuce19 thrips (total) season total 64% 71% 32%

PEAR

Pear psylla is a major pest in pears because of the large amounts of honeydew that is produced

by the nymphs feeding.  The honeydew can drip onto the fruit, black sooty mold can grow, and

the fruit russets and becomes unmarketable.  Tolfenpyrad has excellent control on all stages of

pear psylla (Table 9) and quickly stops the nymph stage from feeding.  Not many of the current

standards can offer control of all stages.  There are limited products, pyrethroids and formerly

endosulfan, available during delayed dormant for control of adult and egg stages of pear psylla.  

Tolfenpyrad exhibits excellent control of all stages of pear psylla, including adults and eggs.

Table 9.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Pears for pear psylla (PP).

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Spinetoram

Lambda‐

Cyhalothrin Endosulfan

Pear20 PP (eggs) 6 DAT 100% 100%

Pear21 PP (nymphs) 20 DAT 87% 23%

Pear22 PP (adults) 2 DAT 100% 23%

STONE FRUIT CROP GROUP 12

Cherry fruit fly is a major pest in cherry production.  The adult is the only stage that is exposed

before they lay eggs inside the cherry fruit.  Tolfenpyrad offers 100% control, equal to the

current standard insecticide programs (Table 10).  Tolfenpyrad will be a new mode of action for

cherry fruit fly resistance management.

Page 14 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Table 10.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Stone fruit (cherry) for cherry fruit fly.

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Imidacloprid/Spinetoram

Cherry23 cherry fruit fly Season total 100% 100%

Cherry24 cherry fruit fly Season total 100% 100%

Cherry25 cherry fruit fly Season total 100% 100%

PECAN

Limited products, primarily imidacloprid, are used for control of aphids in pecans.  There are

concerns of resistance in several of the pecan aphid species, so having an efficacious product

such as tolfenpyrad will become important for resistance management.  When black pecan

aphids feed on commercial pecans, they cause serious chlorosis (leading to necrosis) on leaves

which can result in devastating defoliation and yield loss in subsequent years.  Tolfenpyrad

offers superior control of black margined aphid and equal control in black pecan aphid

compared to the standard product (Table 11).  

Table 11.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Tree nuts (pecan) for aphids.

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Imidacloprid Chlorpyrifos Acetamiprid

Pecan26

black

margined

aphid

7 DAT 86% 15% 0%

Pecan26 black pecan

aphid 2 DAT 99% 99% 99%

Pecan27

black

margined

aphid

14 DAT 100% 43%

Pecan27 black pecan

aphid 7 DAT 100% 98%

Pecan27 yellow aphid 14 DAT 100% 73%

   

Page 15 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

CRITERIA 2

Tolfenpyrad Targets Niche Pests on Major Crops

EFFICACY

Trial results demonstrate that tolfenpyrad is an excellent alternative molecule that controls

niche pests, critical pests, and pests that are of agricultural economic significance; it has

powerful broad spectrum activity compared to other registered chemicals; and superior

comparative efficacy to older chemistries that are a continuing concern to the EPA.  A range of

pests that tolfenpyrad controls on major crops are described in Table 12 and following are

summary tables of efficacy for several important crops.    

Table 12.  Recommended Pests Targeted for Control with Tolfenpyrad on Major Crops.

CROP PESTS

Citrus (orange) Asian citrus psyllid

citrus rust mite

citricola scale

citrus thrips

Cotton aphids

thrips

Grape leafhopper

mealybugs

Apple leafrollers

leafhoppers

apple maggot

plum curculio

aphids  

codling moth (suppression)

Potato potato psyllid

Colorado potato beetle

aphids

CITRUS CROP GROUP 10

A major pest in both Florida and California citrus, Asian citrus psyllid transmits the bacterium

Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, which causes citrus greening, Huanglongbing (HLB).  HLB can

kill a citrus tree in five to eight years after infection plus HLB causes damage to the fruit.

Growers in Florida have implemented an aerial program to spray for Asian citrus psyllid (ACP)

while targeting new flushes of leaves.  Having the flexibility for growers to rotate tolfenpyrad

into an aerial program is important for resistance management for control of Asian citrus psyllid

in all citrus‐growing areas.  Growers in both California and Florida also use airblast applications

Page 16 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

for control of ACP.  Tolfenpyrad not only controls ACP equally or better than current standards

(Table 13) but does so by quickly stopping the insect from feeding.  Insecticides that are feeding

inhibitors have been shown to dramatically reduce or prevent transmission of insect‐vectored

plant pathogens thereby reducing the disease spread. Not all of the current registered products

provide quick inhibition of feeding.  

Table 13.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in citrus for Asian citrus psyllid (ACP).

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Spirotetramat

Zeta‐

Cypermethrin Fenpropathrin

Orange28 ACP

nymphs

16 DAT 99.8% 92%

Orange29 ACP

adults

27 DAT 84% 53% 42% 68%

Orange30 ACP

adults

58 DAT 89% 41%

In citrus, citricola scale can cause severe damage to the tree and fruit.  The scale insects feed

and produce large amounts of honeydew which stays on leaves and drips onto fruit.  Black

sooty mold grows on the honeydew causing unmarketable‐russetted fruit and can interfere

with photosynthesis on leaves. Tolfenpyrad quickly stops citricola scale from feeding therefore

stopping the production of honeydew.  Tolfenpyrad offers excellent control of citricola scale

and is comparable or better than current standards (Table 14).  Tolfenpyrad offers a new mode

of action and rotational chemistry for resistance management as resistance has been

documented in the San Joaquin valley in California to chlorpyrifos.31

  

Table 14.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in citrus for citricola scale.

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Chlorpyrifos Acetamiprid

Orange32 Citricola scale 63 DAT 98% 100% 99%

Orange33 Citricola scale 180 DAT 94% 60% 100%

Orange34 Citricola scale 52 DAT 100% 100% 100%

COTTON

Cotton aphid is a common pest on cotton and can reach damaging populations.  Ground

applications are important for early season pests.  Aerial applications in cotton are essential for

late season control of insect pests.  When growers have the option to apply insecticides by air,

they can avoid driving through the large cotton plants and knocking off the cotton bolls.

Page 17 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Tolfenpyrad provides excellent control of aphid and is comparable to the standard of

acetamiprid and much better than other labeled materials (Table 15).  Tolfenpyrad would also

offer a new mode of action to help in resistance management.

Table 15.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in cotton for aphids.

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Chlorpyrifos Acetamiprid

Bifenthrin +

Imidacloprid

Cyfluthrin +

Imidacloprid

Cotton35 aphid 7 DAT 93% 81% 97% 54% ‐170%

Cotton36 aphid season long 95% 75% 99%

GRAPE

Vine mealybug in grape is a very devastating pest and has an extremely low economic

treatment threshold.  Wine grapes are a valuable commodity, so keeping the grape clusters

clean from insects and black sooty mold are a primary management practice.  Tolfenpyrad was

evaluated for the knockdown ability and control of vine mealybug as not all products that are

currently on the market work quickly.  Some products currently used for control of vine

mealybug can flare secondary pests such as grape leafhopper.  Tolfenpyrad does not flare grape

leafhopper, and provides excellent control, thus requiring one less spray for the vineyard.

Tolfenpyrad provided excellent knockdown in comparison to standard products (Table 16).   

Table 16.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in Grapes for control of Vine Mealybug

(VMB) and Grape Leafhopper (GLH).

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Spirotetramat Methomyl Imidacloprid

Grape37 VMB 15 DAT 88% 46%

Grape38 VMB 7 DAT 84% 22% 85%

Grape39 GLH 7 DAT 100% 100%

APPLE

Plum curculio is a major pest in the eastern US apple production.  This pest has been controlled

over the years with organophosphates.  Tolfenpyrad offers equal or superior control of plum

curculio as well as providing a different mode of action for resistance management (Table 17).   

   

Page 18 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Table 17.  Comparative product efficacy by % control of Plum Curculio on Apple.

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Phosmet

Apple40 plum curculio harvest damage rating 83% 83%

Apple 41 plum curculio harvest damage rating 98% 87%

Apple 42 plum curculio harvest damage rating 87% 83%

POTATO

Potato psyllid is another pest that transmits a bacterium which causes zebra chip, characteristic

damage that is exhibited when potato chips are fried.  The potato psyllid has been described as

the most destructive potato pest in the western hemisphere and leads to annual losses

exceeding $25 million of dollars for the potato industry.43 For the first time this year, potato

psyllids in Idaho have been confirmed to contain Lso, the bacterium that causes zebra chip.44

Tolfenpyrad provides superior control to the standard products and controls all life stages of

psyllids (Table 18).  Tolfenpyrad quickly inhibits the feeding and transmission of the bacterium.  

In addition to foliar applications by ground, having the flexibility to rotate tolfenpyrad into an

aerial program is important for resistance management and for control of potato psyllid in

potatoes.

Table 18.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in potato for potato psyllid.

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Thiamethoxam

Cyfluthrin +

Imidacloprid

Potato45 potato psyllid Season total 84% 56% 31%

Potato46 potato psyllid Season total 90% 84%

Colorado potato beetle has been a pest in potato for years and many neonicotinoids have been

used.  Resistance is always a concern, so adding another efficacious mode of action such as

tolfenpyrad, helps with resistance management (Table 19).  Plus tolfenpyrad controls several

other potato pests (i.e., potato psyllid, aphids and leafhoppers) at the same time.

Table 19.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in potato for control of Colorado potato

beetle (CPB).

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Imidacloprid

Cyfluthrin +

Imidacloprid

Potato47 CPB (larvae) Season total 100% 91%

Potato48 CPB (adults) Season total 83% 50% 50%

Potato49 CPB (larvae) 14 DAT 86% 50%

Page 19 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

CRITERIA 3

Tolfenpyrad controls pests that are identified as critical by the Federal government National

Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) as called for in Homeland Security Presidential

Directive #9 (HSPD‐9)

Huanglongbing (HLB) is a citrus disease that has been deemed as critical by the Federal

government and is listed on the National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) website. 50

HLB is caused by three species of bacterium, “Candidatus” Liberibacter africanus, L. asiaticus,

and L. americanus.  HLB was reported in Florida back in 2005 and as of 2012 HLB was reported

in both Texas and California citrus growing areas. 51   The HLB pathogen is vectored by the Asian

citrus psyllid (ACP) and the primary recommendation for control is with insecticide spray

programs.  In the University of California, Integrated Pest Management (UCI PM) treatment

guidelines for ACP, the chemistries listed are: three pyrethroids, one diamide, one spinosyn,

two organophosphates and two carbamates. 52   As highlighted in the citrus section of this

Public Interest Finding, tolfenpyrad has excellent activity on all stages of ACP, prevents the pest

from feeding thus reducing the transmission of the bacterium and also provides a safer

rotational material compared to the pyrethroid, carbamate and organophosphate standards.

   

Page 20 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

CRITERIA 4

Tolfenpyrad controls pests that are identified as critical by the USDA APHIS Plant Protection

and Quarantine (PPQ) Program Pests

Spotted wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) is a major pest on fruit and berries, especially

sweet cherry and strawberry.53Growers have had to rely on insecticide treatments to control

this new pest which was introduced into the Pacific Northwest in 2009 following the initial

discovery in California in 2008.54 In the Pest Management Guide for Tree Fruits in the Mid‐

Columbia Area, there are currently three pyrethroids, three organophosphates, one carbamate

and spinosyn listed for control of this pest.55 Tolfenpyrad has shown comparable efficacy

against adult SWD in laboratory bioassays compared to the standard product (Table 20).  In

addition, tolfenpyrad was shown to decrease the number of larvae by 85% through residual

control (Table 20).  Until more field work is conducted, the tolfenpyrad label for stone fruit will

list SWD as a pest for suppression only.  We are continuing to evaluate tolfenpyrad’s field

efficacy on SWD as well as the potential for adult repellency for oviposition.  Due to the unique

mode of action, tolfenpyrad would offer a new tool for resistance management of this pest as

well as replacing such chemistries as organophosphates and carbamates.

Table 20.  Comparative product efficacy by % mortality in laboratory bioassays for spotted

wing Drosophila (SWD).

Bioassay Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Spinetoram

Contact + Residual Test56 SWD adult males 2 DAT 90% 100%

SWD adult females 2 DAT 74% 100%

Residual Test57 SWD adults 2 DAT 75% 100%

SWD larvae 7 DAT 85% 96%

Tephritid fruit flies are a family of Dipteran insects that consist of very damaging pests in fruits

and vegetables.  This family includes such pests as: cherry fruit fly, apple maggot, oriental fruit

fly, Mediterranean fruit fly and melon fly.53 Tolfenpyrad controls several Tephritid species such

as cherry fruit fly, which is documented in the stone fruit section of this Public Interest Finding.  

Tolfenpyrad has not currently been tested on all fruit flies, but could possibly offer another

insecticide for control of these critical pests.  For the management of Western cherry fruit fly,

there are only four chemical classes listed in the Pest Management Guide for Tree Fruits in the

Mid‐Columbia Area: neonicotinoids, carbamates, organophosphates and spinosyns.55

Tolfenpyrad would provide an alternate mode of action for resistance management as well as a

potential replacement for harsher compounds such as carbamates and organophosphates.  

Page 21 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Japanese beetle is a pest that feeds on over 300 different plant species and would become very

destructive to the agricultural industry if it were to establish in the western US.53 Japanese

beetles are a major pest on wine grapes and primarily feed on leaves.58 Japanese beetles have

typically been controlled by using a soil insecticide, imidacloprid, to control the white grubs and

allow the translocation throughout the plant, thus preventing adult feeding.59 In areas where

preventative control is not needed, such as the western US, topical applications of products are

used to control the adults. 59 Tolfenpyrad exhibits knockdown activity against adult Japanese

beetles even when used at a low rate (16 fl oz versus a proposed label rate of 24 fl oz)

compared to other products like chlorantraniliprole (Table 21). Tolfenpyrad reduces the

amount of feeding by adult Japanese beetles on grape leaves comparable to the standard

neonicotinoid and pyrethroid (Table 21).  The contact activity and short residual of tolfenpyrad

is also beneficial in that it does not translocate throughout the plant and remains in the

environment for a short time.

Table 21.  Comparative product efficacy by % reduction in feeding and % control in grape for

Japanese beetle (JB).

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Imidacloprid Bifenthrin Chlorantraniliprole

Grape60 Reduction

of adult

feeding

21 DAT 54% 57% 54%

Grape61 JB adult

control

4 DAT 66% 75%

Potato Virus Y has been deemed critical by the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA).  This virus is vectored by aphids feeding on potatoes and causes necrotic ringspot

disease also known as common mosaic.53, 62 When common mosaic virus is found in potatoes

grown for seed, this becomes another source for virus spread for potato growers.62 Tolfenpyrad

provides a higher level of control for aphid adults and nymphs in potatoes compared to

mixtures of pyrethroids plus neonicotinoids (Table 22).  In addition, tolfenpyrad controls several

other potato pests (i.e., potato psyllid and Colorado potato beetle) that are referenced in the

potato section of this Public Interest Finding.  Systemic insecticides applied in‐furrow or by seed

treatment have not been effective at controlling the transmission of the virus. 62 Tolfenpyrad

can be applied as a contact material targeting the aphid vector and reduce the amount of virus

in a potato field.  We are currently evaluating, via electrical penetration graph, how quickly

after treatment with tolfenpyrad the insect stops feeding.  This information will indicate if a

treatment with tolfenpyrad stops insect feeding quick enough to inhibit the transmission of a

virus or bacterium.

Page 22 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Table 22.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in potato for aphids.

Crop Pest

Days after  

Treatment Tolfenpyrad

Lambda‐

Cyhalothrin +

Imidacloprid

Cyfluthrin +

Imidacloprid

Potato63 aphids (adults) 7 DAT 80% 0%

Potato64 aphids(nymphs) 7 DAT 93% 55%

   

Page 23 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

CRITERIA 5

Tolfenpyrad is a replacement for carbamates and organophosphates for insect control.  In this

context, tolfenpyrad provides an improved alternative based on worker and environmental

safety and resistance management.

Tolfenpyrad has a unique insecticidal mode of action and is efficacious against several orders of

phytophagous insects as well as some fungal pathogens.  There are no new chemistries recently

introduced or in development in the USA with such a broad insecticidal spectrum;  and there

are no new contact fungicides on the horizon to replace the long‐established

ethylenebisdithiocarbamates (EBDC) and chlorothalonil chemistries needed for resistance

management.  Tolfenpyrad is an excellent replacement for several older groups of agro‐

chemicals including carbamates, organophosphates and pyrethroids based on safety, resistance

management, and comparative efficacy.   

Worker and Environmental Safety

Tolfenpyrad is an effective replacement for older chemistries based on its relatively safer

toxicity profile for workers and the environment.  For example, in comparison to carbamates

such as methomyl and oxamyl, tolfenpyrad stands out as a safer alternative.  Both methomyl

and oxamyl are potentially neurotoxic to non‐target organisms based on their ability to inhibit

cholinesterase activity.65 Tolfenpyrad does not inhibit cholinesterase activity, is not neurotoxic

to non‐target organisms and has the less restrictive signal word “Warning” on the label.  

Methomyl and oxamyl currently carry labels with the signal words “Danger, Poison”

accompanied by a skull and crossbones icon and have more restrictions for personal protective

equipment (PPE) for handlers and applicators.  Both oxamyl and methomyl have more PPE

restrictions such as chemical resistant aprons and chemical resistant gloves compared to the

PPE requirements for tolfenpyrad.  These differences between the two carbamates and

tolfenpyrad have bold font below in the table (Table 23).   

   

Page 24 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Table 23.  Personal Protective Equipment for tolfenpyrad compared to carbamates.

Tolfenpyrad Oxamyl Methomyl

User Safety

Recommendations

• long‐sleeved shirt

and long pants

• waterproof gloves

• shoes plus socks

• protective eyewear

• dust/mist filtering

respirator

• coveralls over long‐

sleeved shirt and

long pants

• chemical resistant

gloves

• chemical resistant

footwear

• protective eyewear

• chemical resistant

headgear

• dust/mist filtering

respirator  

• chemical resistant

apron

• long‐sleeved shirt

and long pants

• chemical resistant

gloves

• shoes plus socks

• protective eyewear

• dust/mist filtering

respirator  

• chemical resistant

apron

The re‐entry interval (REI) for Tolfenpyrad is considerably shorter than the carbamate

alternatives, oxamyl and methomyl (Table 24).  Growers and workers need the flexibility of

being able to re‐enter the field or orchard.

Table 24.  Re‐entry Intervals for tolfenpyrad and carbamates based on the current registered

label.

Tolfenpyrad Oxamyl Methomyl

12 hours 48 hours 48 hours to 4 days

Tolfenpyrad would replace the use of methomyl in lettuce for control of thrips, in Brassicas for

control of diamondback moth, in apples for control of leafrollers, and in potatoes for control of

aphids.  Tolfenpyrad would replace oxamyl in peppers for control of adult pepper weevil.   

Replacing methomyl and oxamyl with tolfenpyrad will also reduce the environmental burden by

decreasing active ingredient used.  Tolfenpyrad uses significantly less active ingredient (0.14 to

0.27 pounds per acre) compared to methomyl (maximum of 4.0 pounds per acre) and oxamyl

(maximum of 6.0 pounds per acre).

In comparison to organophosphates, such as chlorpyrifos and phosmet, tolfenpyrad stands out

as a safer alternative.  Both chlorpyrifos and phosmet are potentially neurotoxic to non‐target

organisms based on their ability to inhibit cholinesterase activity.65 Tolfenpyrad does not inhibit

cholinesterase activity and is not neurotoxic to non‐target organisms.  Chlorpyrifos is also a

Page 25 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

restricted use pesticide (RUP), meaning that one has to have an applicators license to buy or

apply the product.  In California, growers are required to post signs indicating that an RUP has

been applied.  Chlorpyrifos and phosmet currently have more restrictions for personal

protective equipment (PPE) for handlers and applicators such as chemical resistant aprons and

chemical resistant gloves compared to the PPE requirements for tolfenpyrad.  These differences

between the two organophosphates and tolfenpyrad have bold font below in the table (Table

25).  Tolfenpyrad would act as a safer replacement to organophosphates.

Table 25.  Personal Protective Equipment for tolfenpyrad compared to organophosphates.

Tolfenpyrad Chlorpyrifos Phosmet

User Safety

Recommendations

• long‐sleeved shirt

and long pants

• waterproof gloves

• shoes plus socks

• protective eyewear

• dust/mist filtering

respirator

• coveralls over long‐

sleeved shirt and

long pants

• chemical resistant

gloves

• chemical resistant

footwear plus socks

• protective eyewear

• chemical resistant

headgear

• dust/mist filtering

respirator  

• chemical resistant

apron

• coveralls over long‐

sleeved shirt and

long pants

• chemical resistant

gloves

• chemical resistant

footwear plus socks

• chemical resistant

headgear

• dust/mist filtering

respirator

• chemical resistant

apron

The re‐entry interval (REI) for tolfenpyrad is considerably shorter than the organophosphate

alternatives, chlorpyrifos and phosmet (Table 26).  Growers and workers need the flexibility of

being able to re‐enter the field or orchard.

Table 26.  Re‐entry Intervals for tolfenpyrad and organophosphates based on the current

registered label.

Tolfenpyrad Chlorpyrifos Phosmet

12 hours 24 hours to 5 days 24 hours to 14 days

Tolfenpyrad would replace the use of chlorpyrifos in cotton for control of aphids, in oranges for

control of citricola scale and in pecans for control of aphids.   Tolfenpyrad would replace the

use of phosmet for control of plum curculio in apples.   

Page 26 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Replacing chlorpyrifos and phosmet with tolfenpyrad will also reduce the environmental

burden by decreasing active ingredient used.  Tolfenpyrad uses significantly less active

ingredient (0.14 to 0.27 pounds per acre) compared to chlorpyrifos (maximum of 5.63 pounds

per acre) and phosmet (maximum of 8.5 pounds per acre).

In comparison to pyrethroids, such as lambda‐cyhalothrin and cyfluthrin, tolfenpyrad stands

out as a safer alternative.  Some synthesized pyrethroids are toxic to the nervous system of

non‐target organisms.65 Tolfenpyrad’s mode of action does not affect the nervous system of

any target or non‐target organism.  The pyrethroids, lambda‐cyhalothrin, fenpropathrin,

cyfluthrin and bifenthrin are all RUPs, meaning that one must have an applicator license to buy

or apply the product.  In California, growers are required to post signs signaling that an RUP has

been applied.   

The re‐entry interval (REI) for tolfenpyrad is shorter than the pyrethroid alternatives,

fenpropathrin and lambda‐cyhalothrin (Table 27).  Growers and workers need the flexibility of

being able to re‐enter the field or orchard.

Table 27.  Re‐entry Intervals for tolfenpyrad and pyrethroids based on the current registered

label.

Tolfenpyrad Fenpropathrin Lambda‐cyhalothrin

12 hours 24 hours   24 hours  

Tolfenpyrad would replace the use of fenpropathrin for control of ACP in citrus and replace

lambda‐cyhalothrin for control of thrips in lettuce and pear psylla adults in pear.

Replacing fenpropathrin with tolfenpyrad will also reduce the environmental burden by

decreasing active ingredient used.  Tolfenpyrad uses less active ingredient (0.14 to 0.27 pounds

per acre) compared to fenpropathrin (maximum of 0.4 pounds per acre).

Tolfenpyrad is not systemic and does not exhibit long residual activity, which are attributes that

contribute to the positive environmental impact of this active ingredient.  Tolfenpyrad is

recognized for its use as an insecticide resistance management (IRM) tool because of its unique

mode of action, contact activity, lack of translaminar and systemic activity, and ability to control

economically important pests in fruits and vegetables.   

Resistance Management

Unique modes of action (MOA) are a desired component of any integrated pest management

program.  Unfortunately new MOAs often become commercialized in clusters thus introducing

Page 27 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

multiple versions of the same.  Tolfenpyrad is representative of a unique MOA and so can be an

effective IRM tool in many crop / pest (pathogen) systems.   

• Example I: Control of Downy Mildew in Cucurbits

o The standard approach to reducing / preventing development of resistance to

systemic fungicides is based on tank mixing or alternating different MOAs with

contact fungicides such as chlorothalonil and mancozeb.  Chlorothalonil in

particular is problematic because of the documented high residues found in

pollinator hives. 66 Tolfenpyrad has been shown to be a highly effective

substitute for chlorothalonil in controlling these diseases.  In the event

chlorothalonil use is curbed and/or eliminated in the future, it is very important

to have an additional option that is efficacious.

• Example II: Control of Western Flower Thrips in Leafy Vegetables and Peppers

o The current standard across the US is spinetoram which exhibits superior thrips

control compared to any other registered active ingredient.  However

spinetoram (and its precursor spinosad) has been over‐used many times,

resulting in lack of efficacy against a key insect pest.  The Arthropod Pesticide

Resistance Database shows that Western flower thrips have documented

resistance in 157 cases to multiple active ingredients, including spinosad.67

o Rotational sprays of tolfenpyrad and spinetoram have been shown to provide

effective control of thrips in season long programs in lettuce and pepper (Table

28).

Table 28.  Comparative product efficacy by % control in lettuce and peppers for thrips.

Crop Pest

Days after

Treatment Tolfenpyrad Spinetoram

Rotational

Sprays

Lettuce68 thrips 6 DA‐C 43% 42% 82%*

Lettuce69 thrips season total 62% 69% 71%

Pepper70 thrips 2 DA‐B 78% 90% 92%

*rotational sprays included methomyl in addition to tolfenpyrad and spinetoram.

Tolfenpyrad, as a new mode of action, should be rotated with neonicotinoids, pyrethroids and

other over‐used compounds to provide a much needed rotational material for insect resistance

management.  Since tolfenpyrad does not act systemically, it does not persist in the

environment and does not expose subsequent generations of insects.

   

Page 28 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

CRITERIA 6

Section 18 Emergency Exemptions

IR‐4 is in the process of registering tolfenpyrad in several minor use crops.  For several of these

crops, the commodity groups have expressed interest to Nichino America and are requesting

support in submitting section 18s for tolfenpyrad.  The target pest for the section 18 request is

thrips.  Tolfenpyrad provides excellent control of several species and controls both the

immature and adult life stages.  Tolfenpyrad also provides an alternate mode of action, METI,

compared to the standard products currently being used.  This will also help with resistance

management in thrips populations, which is an ongoing concern.   

   

Page 29 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

SUMMARY

This Public Interest Finding (PIF) clearly demonstrates the need for tolfenpyrad registration in

agricultural food production in the US.  Tolfenpyrad offers a unique mode of action in the

control and resistance management of several critical insects such as Asian citrus psyllid, potato

psyllid and thrips.  Through tolfenpyrad’s contact activity, control of aforementioned pests is

rapid, causing pests to stop feeding and thus reducing the spread of insect‐vectored diseases.  

Tolfenpyrad does not exhibit any translaminar or systemic activity and so does not persist long

on fruit and foliage.  Tolfenpyrad is an effective insecticide that offers a replacement for

harsher chemistries such as carbamates, organophosphates and pyrethroids.   

Where questions have been posed regarding risk quotients on certain crops, this document

provides mitigation procedures / modeling that greatly reduce these numbers.  In addition,

certain physical‐chemical characteristics of tolfenpyrad, including tight binding in soil

(mitigation: vegetative buffer strips) and very low water solubility substantiate the position that

this product does not present an unreasonable risk to the environment.

Tolfenpyrad is proposed to be registered on many minor use crops and several of those

economically important pests are highlighted in this PIF.  Growers for many minor use crops

have a limited number of effective products, so chemistries with new modes of action that offer

control are greatly needed for pest management.  Tolfenpyrad has activity on five of the listed

pests that have been identified as critical by the NPDRS and USDA‐APHIS‐PPQ.  There is a

substantial interest for the registration of tolfenpyrad from growers and universities across the

US.  Several commodity groups have written letters of support to the EPA, as well.  Tolfenpyrad

offers a valuable tool for growers, is less burdensome on the environment than many currently

registered chemistries, and is an effective alternative mode of action for resistance

management.  

   

Page 30 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. EPA Draft Ecological Risk Assessment Summary for New Use Registration of Tolfenpyrad,

unsigned and undated, received 06/01/13.

2. D383820 EPA Memorandum from 04/12/12.  Tolfenpyrad – Aggregate Human Health

Risk Assessment Evaluating the First Food Uses on Multiple Commodities.

3. Steffel, James. (2011). Hamburg, PA (LABServices). Tolfenpyrad control of downy mildew

in cucumber. (NAI 2012‐0041)

4. Vallad, Gary. (2011). Wimauma, FL (UF‐Gulf coast REC). Tolfenpyrad control of powdery

mildew squash. (NAI 2011‐0071)

5. Rideqout, Steven. (2010). Painter, VA. VA Tech Eastern Shore AREC.  Tolfenpyrad control

of down mildew squash. (NAI 2010‐0221)

6. Stansly, Philip A. (2011). Immokalee, FL (Univ of FL). Tolfenpyrad for control of pepper

weevil, 2011 (NAI 2011‐0024)

7. Schuster, David J.  (2010). Wimauma, FL (Univ of FL).  Control of pepper weevil with

tolfenpyrad (NAI 2010‐0046)

8. Funderburk, Joe; Reitz, Stuart; Stansly, Phil; Olson, Steve; Sui, David; McAvoy, Gene;

Whidden, Alicia; Demirozer, Ozan; Nuessly, Greg; Leppla, Norm. (7/18/13). Managing

Thrips in Pepper and Eggplant.  University of Florida IFAS Extension.  Retrieved from  

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in401

9. Seal, Dakshina (2010). Homestead, FL (Univ of FL). Control of Chilli thrips with

tolfenpyrad (NAI 2010‐0069)

10. Funderburk, J. (2011). Quincy, FL (Univ of FL).  Control of thrips with tolfenpyrad on

peppers (NAI 2011‐0229)

11. Seal, Dak (2013). Homestead, FL.  Univ. of Florida. Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in

tomato. (NAI 2013‐0020)

12. Smith, Hugh. (2011). Wimauma, FL (UF‐GCREC).  Tolfenpyrad for control of broad mites

on pepper. (NAI 2011‐0062)

13. Shelton, Tony (2011). Geneva, NY (Cornell). Tolfenpyrad control of Diamondback moth

on cabbage. (NAI 2011‐0214)

14. Mau, Ron. (2011). Maui, HI (Univ. of Hawaii). Tolfenpyrad control of Diamondback moth

on cabbage. (NAI 2011‐0009)

15. Stansly, Phillip. (2010). Immokalee, FL (UF‐SW Florida REC). Tolfenpyrad control of

Diamondback moth in cabbage. (NAI 2010‐0034)

16. Jensen, S. E.  2000.  Insecticide resistance in the western flower thrips, Frankliniella

occidentalis.  IPM Reviews 5: 131‐146.

17. Palumbo, John. (2010). Yuma, AZ (Univ of AZ).  Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in head

lettuce (NAI 2010‐0144)

Page 31 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

18. Palumbo, John. (2012). Yuma, AZ (Univ of AZ).  Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in head

lettuce (NAI 2012‐0335)

19. Dara, Surendra. (2011). Lompoc, CA (UCCE).  Tolfenpyrad for control of thrips in lettuce

(NAI 2011‐0135)

20. Beers, Elizabeth. (2012), Wenatchee, WA (WSU) Dormant pear psylla egg dip bioassays

(NAI 2012‐0204)

21. Shearer, Peter. (2011) Hood River, OR (OSU) Bexar15SC for control of pear psylla on

pear (NAI 2012‐0028)

22. Beers, Elizabeth. (2012), Wenatchee, WA (WSU) Dormant pear psylla adult slide dip

bioassays (NAI 2012‐0204)

23. Smith, Tim. (2009). Wenatchee, WA (WSU‐Extension).  Tolfenpyrad for control of cherry

fruit fly in cherry (NAI 2009‐0059)

24. Smith, Tim. (2010). Wenatchee, WA (WSU‐Extension).  Tolfenpyrad for control of cherry

fruit fly in cherry (NAI 2011‐0011)

25. Smith, Tim. (2011). Wenatchee, WA (WSU‐Extension).  Tolfenpyrad for control of cherry

fruit fly in cherry (NAI 2012‐0024)

26. Dutcher, James. (2010). Tifton, GA (Univ of GA).  Tolfenpyrad for control of aphids in

pecans.  (NAI 2011‐0007)

27. Dutcher, Jim (2012). Tifton, GA. Univ. of GA. Tolfenpyrad for control of several aphid

species in pecan.  (NAI 2012‐0276)

28. Stansly, Philip A. (2010) Immokalee, FL (Univ of FL). Efficacy of Tolfenpyrad for control of

Asian citrus psyllid in oranges, (NAI 2010‐0119)

29. Stelinski, Lukasz.  (2010). Lake Alfred, FL (Univ of FL). Evaluation of Tolfenpyrad for Asian

citrus psyllid, August 2010 (NAI 2010‐0176)

30. Stansly, Philip A. (2011). Immokalee, FL (Univ of FL). Tolfenpyrad for control of Asian

citrus psyllid, 2011 (NAI 2011‐0065)

31. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. (07/18/13). How to Manage

Pests, UC Pest Management Guidelines: Citrus, Citricola scale.  UC ANR Publication

3441.  Retrieved from http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r107301511.html

32. Deitz, Steve.  (2011). Woodlake, CA (Sawtooth Ag Research).  Tolfenpyrad for control of

citricola scale in citrus (NAI 2011‐0108)

33. Grafton‐Cardwell, Elizabeth.  (2011). Riverside, CA (UC‐R).  Tolfenpyrad for control of

citricola scale in citrus (NAI 2011‐0122)

34. Deitz, Steve. (2010). Woodlake, CA (Sawtooth Ag Research).  Tolfenpyrad for control of

citricola scale in citrus (NAI 2010‐0283)

35. Godfrey, Larry (2008). Shafter, CA.  Univ. of California‐Davis. Tolfenpyrad for control of

cotton aphid. (NAI 2008‐0114)

Page 32 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

36. Godfrey, Larry (2009). Shafter, CA.  Univ. of California‐Davis. Tolfenpyrad for control of

cotton aphid. (NAI 2009‐0161)

37. Hernandez, Pedro and Schletewitz, Eric (2012). Sanger, CA. Nichino America (Internal

Company Trial).  Tolfenpyrad for control of vine mealybug in grape.  (NAI 2012‐0234)

38. Hernandez, Pedro and Schletewitz, Eric (2011). Sanger, CA. Nichino America (Internal

Company Trial).  Tolfenpyrad for control of vine mealybug in grape.  (NAI 2011‐0133)

39. Galt, Daniel (2010). Hickman, CA. Hulst Research Farm Services. Tolfenpyrad for control

of grape leafhopper. (NAI 2010‐0129)

40. Becker, Chris. (2010). Romulus, NY. BARR Scientific.  Tolfenpyrad control of plum

curculio in apple.  (NAI 2010‐0042)

41. Wise, John. (2009). Fennville, MI.  MSU.  Tolfenpyrad control of plum curculio in apple.  

(NAI 2009‐0130)

42. Jentsch, Peter. (2011). Highland, NY.  Cornell Univ.  Tolfenpyrad control of plum curculio

in apple.  (NAI 2011‐0143)

43. Munyaneza, Joseph E. (2012).  Zebra chip disease of potato: biology, epidemiology, and

management.  American Journal for Potato Research Online FirstTM, 30 August 2012

44. Wenninger, Erik.  (07/18/13). Lso‐positive potato psyllids found in Canyon and Twin

Falls.  University of Idaho Extension, Pacific Northwest and Treasure Valley Pest Alert

Network (07/16/13 posting).  Retrieved from http://www.pnwpestalert.net/

45. Liu, T.X. (2008) Weslaco, TX (TX A&M) Potato psyllid control in potato (NAI 2008‐0223)

46. Liu, T.X. (2010) Weslaco, TX (TX A&M) Potato psyllid control in potato (NAI 2010‐0032)

47. Schreiber, A. (2011). Eltopia, WA. (Ag Devel Gr)  Tolfenpyrad for control of Colorado

potato beetle (NAI 2011‐0156)

48. Szendrei, Zsofia.  (2011). East Lansing, MI (MSU).  Tolfenpyrad for managing Colorado

potato beetle on potatoes (NAI 2011‐0172)

49. Kuhar, Tom.  (2010). Painter, VA (VA Tech).  Tolfenpyrad for control of Colorado potato

beetle (NAI 2010‐0062)

50. National Plant Disease Recovery System.  (07/17/13).   Recovery Plan for Huanglongbing

(HLB) or Citrus Greening caused by “Candidatus” Liberibacter africanus, L. asiaticus, and

L. americanus.  United States Department of Agriculture.  Retrieved from

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/docs.htm?docid=14271

51. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services.  (07/17/13). Huanglongbing Pathogen Pest

Profile. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Retrieved from

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pdep/target_pest_disease_profiles/HLB_PestProfile.html

52. University of California, Integrated Pest Management. (07/17/13). A New Pest in

California, Diaphorina citri (Asian Citrus Psyllid): Provisional Treatment Guidelines for

Citrus in Quarantine Areas.  University of California.  Retrieved from

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/EXOTIC/diaphorinacitri.html

Page 33 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

53. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.  (07/17/13). Plant Protection and

Quarantine Pest Alert: Drosophila suzukii (Spotted wing).  United States Department of

Agriculture.  Retrieved from

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/index.shtml

54. Beers, Elizabeth H., Smith, Timothy J. and Walsh, Doug.  (07/17/13). Spotted Wing

Drosophila.  Washington State University. Retrieved from

http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/opm/displaySpecies.php?pn=165

55. Castagnoli, Steve.  (07/17/13). 2013 Pest Management Guide for Tree Fruits in the Mid‐

Columbia Area.  pgs. 78‐80. Oregon State University Extension. Retrieved from

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/36323

56. Beers, Elizabeth. (2011), Wenatchee, WA (WSU) Effect of Tolfenpyrad on Spotted Wing

Drosophila Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) in Laboratory Bioassays.  Test 1101‐02. (NAI

2011‐0305)

57. Price, James.  (2011). Wimauma, FL (Univ. of FL).  Efficacy of Tolfenpyrad EC against

Spotted‐wing drosophila on strawberry – bioassay.  Fruit Bioassay #2. (NAI 2011‐0036)

58. Isaacs, Rufus.  (07/17/13). Japanese beetle.  Michigan State University. Retrieved from

http://www.grapes.msu.edu/japanesebeetle.htm

59. Potter, Daniel and Held, David.  (2002). University of Kentucky. Biology and

Management of the Japanese Beetle.  Annu. Rev. Entomol.  47:175–205

60. Wise, John.  (2009). Traverse City, MI (MSU).  Grape Berry Moth Control in ‘Niagara’

Grape (also included Japanese beetle ratings).  Percent Leaf Feeding Rating.  (NAI 2009‐

0123)

61. Wise, John.  (2011). Traverse City, MI (MSU).  PHL Control in ‘Chancellor’ Grape (also

included Japanese beetle ratings).  (NAI 2012‐0013)

62. Nolte, Phillip; Alvarez, Juan M.; Whitworth, Jonathan L.  (2009). Potato Virus Y

Management for the Seed Potato Producer.  University of Idaho Extension. CIS 1165.  

Retrieved from www.cals.uidaho.edu/edcomm/pdf/CIS/CIS1165.pdf

63. Waters, Tim.  (2010). Pasco, WA (WSU‐Extension).  Aphid Potato Nichino 2010.  (NAI

2011‐0017)

64. Waters, Tim.  (2011). Pasco, WA (WSU‐Extension).  Nichino GPA Pot 2011.  (NAI 2011‐

0184)

65. US Environmental Protection Agency.  (07/18/13).  Types of Pesticides.  Retrieved from:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/types.htm

66. Mullin CA, Frazier M, Frazier JL, Ashcraft S, Simonds R, et al. (2010) High Levels of

Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee

Health. PLoS ONE 5(3): e9754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009754

Page 34 of 497
Tolfenpyrad

    TOL‐GEN‐19 Supplement 1

Page 35 of 497

67. Whalon, Mark.  (07/18/13). Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database.  Michigan State

University. Retrieved from:  

http://www.pesticideresistance.org/display.php?page=species&arId=348

68. Flora, Eric. (2012). Salinas, CA (Pacific Ag Research).  Evaluate the efficacy of Torac 15EC

on flower thrips in lettuce in the Salinas Valley. (NAI 2012‐0196)

69. Westbrook, Bob. (2011). Watsonville, CA (Bioresearch). Efficacy of Tolfenpyrad for

control of Western Flower Thrips in lettuce.  (NAI 2012‐0018)

70. Srivastava, Mrittunjai; Funderburk, J.E. and Olson, Steve (2011). Quincy, FL (Univ of FL).  

Thrips control in north Florida peppers, 2011 (NAI 2011‐0229)