UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FEB 0 5 2015 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Metiram (014601) 

FROM: 

THRU: 

Tara Chandgoyal, Plant Pathologist 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Sepehr Haddad, Environmental Protection Specialist#~ p) ·~ Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Elizabeth Hill, Economist 

Economic Analysis Branch 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

Arnet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Br 

Diann Sims, Chief~~ Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Timothy Kiely, Chief SJ: lA A~ Economic Analysis Branch vv L 

Biological and Economic Analysi ivision · 3P) 

TO: Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager, RMIB III 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Peer Review Panel Date: December 10, 2014 
SUMMARY 

Metiram was first registered in the United States in 1948 for use on food and ornamental crops, 

and is a member of the ethylene bisdithiocarbamate (EBDC) group of fungicides which includes 

the related active ingredients mancozeb and maneb (USEP A, 2005). 

Based on private market usage data from 1998-2012, usage averaged approximately 765,000 

pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied annually on approximately 400,000 acres treated. The 

average a.i. rate over this time period was 1.91 lbs a.i./acre. For metiram, during the timeframe 

of2004-2012, usage for apples averaged 300,000 lbs a.i. with an average of 10 percent crop 

treated, and for potatoes usage also averaged 300,000 lbs. a.i. with an average percent crop 

treated of 5 percent. Metiram is used on apples to control scab and rust diseases. On potato it is 

used to control early and late blight diseases. The only non-agricultural use for metiram is on 

leather fern in Florida as special local need to control anthracnose disease. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an 

overview of the pest management roles and quantitative usage information for metiram. The 

BCP includes summaries of previous BEAD products and available public and/or private use and 

usage data for metiram to describe the role of this chemical in pest management. Additional 

information on use is available in the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA). Information 

provided in this BCP may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP risk and 

benefit assessors, OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Registration Review 

process of this pesticide. The document is based on information and data available to BEAD as 

of November 2014. 

HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR METIRAM 

Metiram, first registered in the United States in 1948 for use on food and ornamental crops, is a 

member of the ethylene bisdithiocarbamate (EBDC) group of fungicides which includes the 

related active ingredients mancozeb and maneb (USEP A, 2005). The metiram Registration 

Standard was issued in 1986 with an update to the standard in 1992. Currently, the only 

food/feed uses of metiram are apples and potatoes. It is also registered for use on leather fern in 

Florida as special local need to control anthracnose disease. 

A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by BEAD for this chemical in 2014 

that provides the percent crop treated for apples and potatoes. For metiram, during the SLUA 

timeframe of2004-2012, usage for apples averaged 300,000 lbs a.i. with an average of 10 

percent crop treated, and for potatoes usage also averaged 300,000 lbs. a.i. with an average 

percent crop treated of 5 percent. 

To date, BEAD has not reviewed any section 18 Emergency Exemption requests for the use of 

metiram. This should not be interpreted as lack of benefits associated with the chemical. 

Page2 
COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Metiram is formulated as dry flowable (water dispersible granules), and is applied by aircraft and 

ground application methods. 

USE SITES 

Agricultural Use Sites 

Metirarn registered agricultural use sites are apples and potatoes. 

Non-Agricultural Use Sites 

The only non-agricultural use for metiram is on ornamental nonflowering plants. There is one 

Special Local Need (SLN) registration ofmetiram in Florida for use on leather leaf fern to 

control anthracnose disease. 

METIRAM USAGE 

Agricultural Usage 

Based on private market usage data from 1998-2012, usage averaged approximately 765,000 a.i. 

applied annually on approximately 400,000 acres treated. The average a.i. rate over this time 

period was pounds 1.91 a.i./acre. 

Figure l presents metiram usage in pounds a.i., and Figure 2 shows total area treated in acres 

over the 1998-2012 timeframe (Proprietary Data, 1998-2012). Figures 1 and 2 show that over 

this time period in terms of pounds applied and acres treated there has been a sharp decline in 

usage, which is primarily driven by a reduction in usage on apples. 

Page 3 
Figure 1. Metiram Usage in Pounds Active Ingredient (1998-2012) 

1,400,000 

0 

'?J'h '?>"> ~~ ~...., ~"' ~'? cl>' ~<, d<> ~ ~'t> ~"> ~~ ~...., ~"' 

{'i ..,os -ss "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 i5 "''5 "''5 -ss ~ "'~ "'<::> 

Years 

Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012 

Figure 2. Metiram Total Area Treated in Acres (1998-2012) 

800000 

VI 

w 

.... 

u 

~ 

-o 

w 

.... 

ro 

w 

.... 

Iro 

w 

.... 

<! 

ro 

.... 

0 

I0 

'?>'t> '?>"> s::>'<:> s::>.., ~"' ~'? ~t>< ~<, ~(o ~ ~'t> ~"> ~~ ~...., ~"' 

{'i {'i -ss "''5 i5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 ~ "'~ "'~ 

Years 

Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012 

Table 1 shows that the crop with the most pounds applied during 2008-2012 timeframe has been 

potatoes, accounting for approximately 60 percent oftotal pounds applied. The average a.i. rate 

for potatoes in terms of pounds a.i. applied was 1.37 lbs a.i./acre. The average a.i. rate for the 

only other registered use (apples) is 2.65 lbs a.i./acre as shown in Table 1. 

Page4 
A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by BEAD for this chemical in 2014 

that provides the percent crop treated for apples and potatoes. For metiram, during the SLUA 

timeframe of2004-2012, usage for apples averaged 300,000 lbs a.i. with an average of 10 

percent crop treated, and for potatoes usage also averaged 300,000 lbs. a.i. with an average 

percent crop treated of 5 percent. 

T a e bl 1 M . etlram u se on p otatoes an d A I •PP es: A verage AIR .. ate, 2008 -2012 

Annual Average Annual Average A vg. A .I. Rate (lbs Crop Total Acres Pounds Treated* a.i.!acres) 

Potatoes 211,000 154,000 l.37 

Apples 147,000 55,400 2.65 

"Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg those acres that recetve multtple treatments. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

As shown in Table 2, Washington and New York are the top states with the highest use of 

metiram accounting for over 50 percent of total pounds applied between 2008 and 2012. 

T a bl e 2 . St ates w1t . h H' 1g1 h est U se o fM etlram . - Percent of Total Lbs. Applied (2008-2012) 

2008-2012 

Average annual= 210,000 lbs/Year 

State %Lbs 

Washington 37% 

New York 14% 

Wisconsin 7% 

Michigan 7% 

Idaho 6% 

Other 29% 

TOTAL 100% 

Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012 

USE INTENSITY 

Figure 3 provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual amount (in pounds) of 

metiram applied per l ,000 acres of crop acres grown. The calculated values presented in the 

map are not equivalent to an application rate (lb ai/ A), therefore, the map may show areas of 

high use intensity that do not correspond to the states listed in Table 2 since those are the states 

with the highest use of metiram based on pounds active ingredient applied. In this case; 

however, the states with the highest use intensity are also the state with highest annual average 

use (the states of Washington and New York). In Figure 3, the state of Maine also depicts high 

use intensity of metiram. See Appendix I for a more detailed explanation of the information 

presented on the map. 

Page 5 
FIGURE 3. Annual Average Agricultural Use Intensity ofMetiram (2008-2012) 

Pounds Active Ingredient 

per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

U <o_, O o.1 - 1.5 

- 1.6-7.0 

. 7.1- 21 .5 

- > 21.5 

0No 0 ata 

Non-Agricultural Usage 

The only non-agricultural use for metiram is on ornamental nonflowering plants. There is one 

Special Local Need (SLN) registration for this use of metiram in Florida. A review of public and 

proprietary databases did not show any available data on metiram non-agricultural usage. 

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO METIRAM 

Metiram is registered for use on potato to control early and late blight. It is registered for use on 

apples to control scab and rust diseases. Metiram is effective in controlling these diseases and 

also plays an important role in resistance management program because it has multisite mode of 

action against fungal pests. 

Metiram is a fungicide belonging to dithiocarbamate group of fungicides. It belongs to group M3 

of Fungicide Resistance Action Committee based on mode of action of fungicides (FRAC, 

2014). Metiram has multi-site contact activity and considered as a low risk fungicide without any 

Page 6 
sign of resistance developing in fungi. Dithiocarbamate group includes many other fungicides 

(such as mancozeb, maneb, thiram, zineb and ziram). 

ROLE OF METIRAM IN PEST MANAGEMENT 

Metiram has been used on apples and potatoes for many years and there has been no report of 

resistance developing in any fungal pest. It is a contact fungicide with multisite mode of action 

against fungal pests. Metiram does not have curative properties and therefore it is used in 

combination and/or alternation with systemic fungicides (such as azoxystrobin, propiconazole) 

for season long disease control and resistance management. 

It is an important fungicide for use on apples and potatoes because no fungal pest has developed 

resistance against this fungicide since its registration in 1948. A closer look at propriety EPA 

usage data shows that metiram use on potato declined from 687,000 lbs a.i. in 1998 to 236,000 

lbs a.i. in 2012 with fluctuations in usage from year to year depending on disease pressure. The 

decline in usage may be due to registrations of new generations of fungicides (such as 

azoxystrobin, pyroclostrobin, zoxamide) for the control of these fungal diseases while metiram 

remained as a tool for resistance management. In addition, we noticed that mancozeb (another 

EDBC fungicide with similar disease control spectrum as metiram) use on potatoes remained 

relatively stable during this period (2,1 00,000 lbs a.i. in 1998 to 2,070,000 lbs a.i. in 2012). It 

appears that mancozeb has always been preferred over metiram for controlling fungal diseases 

on different crops (Gullion et. al., 201 0), and therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that when 

new generation of fungicides (such as azoxystrobin,-pyraclostrobin, zoxamide, mandipropamid) 

were registered during early 2000, metiram usage on potatoes declined. 

On apples, metiram use declined from 471,000 lbs a.i. in 1998 to 142,000 lbs a.i. in 2012. This 

may be for many reasons. Since the 1990s, the major apple producing areas (Washington and 

Oregon State) have been replacing scab susceptible apple varieties (Red Delicious) with newer 

varieties (such as Golden Delicious, Braebum, Fuji, Gala, Jonagold) that are less susceptible to 

scab and require less inputs of fungicides such as metiram (Gianessi and Silvers, 2000). In 

addition, restrictions on the use of metiram through the summer growing season (77 days 

preharvest interval) makes it unavailable for disease control during summer season (US-EPARED, 2005). The newer classes offungicides (such as cyprodinil, difenoconazole, 

fenbuconazole, fluxapyroxad, fenbuconazole) have been registered for use on apple to control 

fungal diseases on apples and growers have been using them instead of metiram to control fungal 

diseases because of PHI application restriction and systemic action of newer fungicides. 

DATA NEEDS 

The following information may improve future assessments conducted by the Agency related to 

the use and importance of this fungicide: 

• Non-agricultural use of metiram in Florida in terms of pounds a.i. applied, application 

timing, and acres treated. 

Page 7 
REFERENCES 

BEAD. 2014. Metiram Screening Level Usage Analysis. Biological and Economic Analysis 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. 

FRAC. 2014. 

http://www .frac.info/frac/publication/anhang/20 14 %20FRAC%20Code%20 List. pdf. 

Assessed on December 2, 2014. 

Gianessi, L.P and Silvers, C.S. 2000. Trends in crop pesticide use: Comparing 1992 and 1997. 

National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 1616 P. Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20036. 

Gullino, M.L. et, al., 2010. Mancozeb - Past, Present, and Future. Plant Disease 94: 1076- 1087. 

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/1 0.1 094/PDIS-94-9-1 076. Accessed on December 30, 

2014. 

Proprietary Data. 1998-2012. (pesticide agricultural usage data) 

USEPA. 2005. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Metiram. EPA document no. EPA 

73-R-05-017 August 2005. 

USEP A.2005. EPA Fact Sheet for Metiram. 

Page 8 
APPENDIX I 

The map included herein is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual 

amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. These 

data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide 

used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to 

an application rate (lb ai/A). 

The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation of the maps 

should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. 

The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide 

use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys 

cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority of the crop. Although 

the surveys capture most of the use of a particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are 

several limitations to these surveys. 

• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not sampled 

• Not all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year 

• Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included in the survey 

The result of these limitations is that states that show no usage may actually have a small amount 

of the active ingredient being used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted 

because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide usage may not accurately represent the 

actual pesticide usage on the crops produced in the state. 

The denominator (1,000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the same private market 

survey database. The "Crop Acres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given 

state of all of the surveyed crops. This value is independent of pesticide usage and pesticide 

registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states 

that are major producers of each crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in 

a state is higher than that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state 

and/or crop was not included in the survey. 

The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared 

for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical as 

the legend bins will likely be different. 

Page 9