National Organic Standards Board 

Crops Committee 

2012 Sunset Recommendation 

Streptomycin 

March 3, 2011 

List: §205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production. 

(i) As plant disease control. 

(10) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only. 

Summary

The Crops Committee requested, but did not receive, prior to adopting its recommendation on 

streptomycin, an updated Technical Review (TR), noting deficiencies in the previous reviews. 

The committee has a 2006 TR and a1995 Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) for streptomycin. 

The committee proceeded based on its own research, pending the receipt of the new TR, 

which will be reviewed when it is received. 

The antibiotic streptomycin was first approved in November 1995. Streptomycin and another 

antibiotic, tetracycline, were each listed with a split vote. The issue of engendering antibiotic 

resistance in human pathogens and in workers was raised in the 1995 TAP review. The 

annotation that permitted use for “fire blight control in apples and pears only” was adopted. 

Streptomycin antibiotics were to be reviewed again in two years, and there was to be a task 

force to further explore antibiotic use in fruit production. 

The 1998 proposed rule would have allowed “antibiotics as pesticides.” There was public 

opposition to the use of antibiotics as pesticides. When the USDA published the next draft rule 

in early 2000, it removed the NOSB recommendations allowing streptomycin and tetracycline 

in order to be consistent with the prohibition of antibiotics in livestock. The two antibiotics were 

reinstated in the December 2000 final rule in response to comments from growers. 

Thus, from the very beginning, there has been controversy over allowing these chemicals to be 

used in organic agriculture. The board discussion regarding the 2006 sunset included 

concerns about: 

 Promotion of resistance in human pathogens 

 Natural substitutes 

 Inconsistency with the prohibition of antibiotics in livestock 

 Inconsistency with organic principles 

 Disagreement with the prophylactic use of antibiotics 

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) opposition to the use of 

streptomycin and tetracycline in crop production 

 Failing to give an incentive for alternatives 

 Reaction against organic fruit by consumers 

 Possibility that antibiotics might be taken up by fruit trees 
Sunset 2012 Review 

Streptomycin 

March 3, 2011

Page 2 of 3

 Need for more research 

 Restrictions on sales of fruit in Europe 

 Disruption of the organic system. 

And on the other hand, 

 Lack of data showing impact on resistance in human pathogens 

 Dependency of growers on the materials 

Ultimately, after expressing concern and the wish that someone might petition to remove them 

sooner than the next sunset, the two antibiotics were renewed with a vote of 7 yes, 4 no, 1 

abstention, and 2 absent. 

Now, the two antibiotics have come to board again—streptomycin as a sunset 2012 material 

and tetracycline as a petition to remove the annotation (the 2012 expiration date). Although the 

committee does not have an updated TR on streptomycin, it has found that the case against 

streptomycin has grown stronger and that removal from 601 should be delayed no longer. 

The Crops Committee was presented with evidence that streptomycin can contribute to 

antibiotic resistance in human pathogens when used as pesticides on plants. At the same time, 

additional products are available for use against fire blight. Serenade Max, Bloomtime 

Biological FD, BlightBan C9-1 and Blightban A506 are relatively new biological controls. 

Surround is a kaolin clay product that has had some success in controlling fire blight. 

However, most importantly, the majority of the committee believes that the first line of defense 

is the choice of resistant varieties and rootstocks, a concept that the committee majority 

believes is a critical organic principle, essential to disease or pest prevention in organic 

systems. Despite this, the pattern of growth in organic apple and pear varieties in certain areas 

of the country has been skewed toward those varieties most susceptible to fire blight. In 2010, 

the leading organic apple varieties grown in Washington state were Fuji, Gala, and Granny 

Smith and accounted for approximately 54% of organic apple acreage —all highly susceptible 

to fire blight. (Some other widely-planted varieties are also highly susceptible.) The leading 

varieties in organic pear production were Bartlett, D’Anjou, and Bosc —80% of organic pear 

acreage— again among the most susceptible to fire blight. On the other hand, there are 

numerous apple and pear varieties that are not susceptible to fire blight. 

Given the public health threat associated with antibiotic resistant, the committee majority 

believes that organic production should not contribute in a small or large way to antibiotic 

resistance. The options for new antibiotics with efficacy are eluding us as resistance continues 

to increase. 

Similarly, the committee has been told that fire blight resistance to streptomycin in some apple 

production is found widely. Therefore, streptomycin’s efficacy and, as a result, essentiality 

cannot be established. 
Sunset 2012 Review 

Streptomycin 

March 3, 2011

Page 3 of 3

Committee Recommendation 

The majority of the Crops Committee recommends against the continued listing of 

streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only. The motion was to continue the 

listing of streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only. 

Committee Vote 

Motion: To relist streptomycin on § 205.601, for fire blight control in apples and pears only. 

Motion: Jay Feldman Second: Tina Ellor 

Yes: 0 No: 5 Absent: 2 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0