Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061-0202
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-10-20T04:00Z

February 6, 2006

Ms. Deborah Edwards

Public Information and Records Integrity Branch

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460-0001

Re:	Azinphos Methyl Ecological Risk Assessment, Grower Impact
Assessments; Notice of 	Availability; Docket Identification Number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061

The U.S. Apple Association (USApple) is the national trade association
representing all segments of the apple industry.  Members include 36
state apple associations representing 7,500 apple growers throughout the
country, as well as over 300 individual firms involved in the apple
business.  We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the critical
need to maintain the use of azinphos methyl on apples.

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ecological risk
assessment conclusions are based on a highly conservative analysis that
is likely to overstate the ecological risk from azinphos methyl use. 
The use of such a conservative analysis has the potential to harm apple
growers because growers rely on azinphos methyl for dependable and cost
effective insect control.  Without azinphos methyl, growers will lose
significant revenue, incur more fruit rejections from processors and
become less competitive at home and abroad.

USApple’s comments regarding EPA’s apple impact assessment are based
on input from university entomologists, crop consultants and growers. 
USApple has attached documents and analysis received from technical
experts regarding the apple impact assessment.  This input clearly
demonstrates that apple growers will be forced to bear an unreasonable
economic burden if the azinphos methyl use is revoked.  In light of the
conservative nature of the ecological risk assessment and the great need
for this tool, USApple requests that EPA maintain the azinphos methyl
use.

Ecological Risks are Overestimated

EPA’s azinphos methyl ecological risk assessment identifies potential
risks from the use of azinphos methyl using a mathematical model.  This
model provides risk outputs based on a construct of theoretical
assumptions about how azinphos methyl might find its way into the
environment.  In this particular case, USApple believes the model
defines an overly conservative scenario that greatly exaggerates the
risk from azinphos methyl use.

Specifically, the spray drift model assumes that wind is always blowing
in the direction of its hypothetical farm pond at the highest allowable
wind velocity, the vegetation cover is sparse and the drift value is
multiplied by three.  The water model calculates loading of the
pesticide in the pond assuming that all orchards are composed of soils
with high runoff potential.  Additionally, the water model counts
pesticide runoff carried by water into the pond, counting only the
pesticide deposition and not the water.

This model compounds the pesticide loading scenario by restricting
natural out flow of the pond.  Also, it does not count the run off
reduction from the 25 foot buffer which is required on the azinphos
methyl label, and it does not include the run off reduction from a
vegetative buffer between the pond and the hypothetical farm field. 
This assumption contradicts the real scenario in apple production. 
These assumptions reflect the most conservative scenario for azinphos
methyl use, not a realistic scenario.  

While such an approach may have its analytical benefits, USApple
believes it is important to keep in mind that the model outputs are
theoretical, and because they rely on exaggerated hypothetical
assumptions not based on real world information, they likely
overestimate the ecological risk from azinphos methyl.  The model used
by the agency would best be described as a screening tool, not a literal
gauge for risk.  As such, EPA should be cognizant of the model’s
limitations when weighing the risks and benefits of azinphos methyl use.
 

Model Assumptions Contradict Monitoring Data

EPA’s modeling scenario utilizes data that are inconsistent with
monitoring data measuring real azinphos methyl concentrations in water
bodies across the United States.  In its Pennsylvania air blast modeling
scenario EPA generates a concentration of 15.1 parts per billion (ppb)
and 9.9 ppb for its Oregon air blast scenario.  However, STORET and U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring data indicate azinphos methyl
concentrations are mostly 1 ppb or less, with two peak values of less
than 4 ppb between 1990 and 2005.  After 2001, the highest
concentrations from actual monitoring data were 0.75 ppb in Oregon and
less than 0.05 ppb in Pennsylvania.

Additionally, EPA’s ecological risk assessment fails to provide the
full context when discussing azinphos methyl detections in Washington
state.  While stating on pages 39-40 that azinphos methyl was detected
in a high percentage of samples collected by USGS in 1999 and 2000, the
agency does not mention that more than 95 percent of the detections were
below 0.1 ppb.  The assessment also omits USGS data that would reflect
significant usage changes resulting from azinphos methyl label changes
in 2002 and 2003.  USGS data indicate that between 2001 and 2004 in
Washington state there were 408 azinphos methyl samples with a maximum
value of 0.18 ppb with only 7 samples with concentrations above 0.05
ppb.

The weight of the evidence from available monitoring data indicates that
azinphos methyl concentrations are significantly lower than the
hypothetical values used in the ecological risk model to calculate
ecological impacts from azinphos methyl.  Additionally, the monitoring
data indicate that these values have continued to decline as EPA has
imposed greater restrictions on azinphos methyl use.  These factors are
strong indicators that EPA’s model overestimates the ecological risk,
since real measurements of azinphos methyl are significantly lower than
the hypothetical values used in the model.

Finally, the absence of recent adverse ecological incidences indicates
that previous label modifications have been effective in reducing the
ecological impact of azinphos methyl use.  The dearth of such incidents
also suggests that EPA’s theoretical risk model overstates the real
risk from azinphos methyl use.  As an example, most previous incidents
were caused by uses on cotton or sugarcane which are no longer labeled
for use.  Additionally, there have been no reported incidents since
2001.   

Benefits Assessment - Western United States

Washington State University’s Dr. Jay F. Brunner provided USApple an
analysis of EPA’s apple impact assessment for Washington state.  This
analysis is attached for your review.  Brunner provides general comments
regarding the spectrum of pests controlled by azinphos methyl, the use
of mating disruption in Washington, alternative insecticides for codling
moth control and a discussion of assumptions regarding scenarios used to
evaluate the potential impact of the loss of azinphos methyl.  Brunner
makes the following points in his analysis:

EPA’s phosmet substitution scenario and its alternative chemicals
scenario are possible scenarios, but the mating disruption scenario
would not a viable alternative for western growers, since it would be
generally ineffective in controlling codling moth.

EPA’s insecticide cost estimates are too low.

EPA should use application rates that provide effective control in its
analysis, not average rates from a national survey.

EPA should include an additional cost of $20 per acre in its cost
calculation to account for additional applications of alternative crop
protection materials.

Processors are as strict in rejecting fruit damaged by worms as fresh
packers.

Orchards with high codling moth populations are difficult to control
with phosmet, mating disruption or alternative chemicals.

Long term use of neonicotinyl insecticides are likely to increase spider
mite populations and could require greater miticide applications.

While novaluron use could reduce the cost of leafroller control,
preliminary evidence suggests it will also disrupt biological spider
mite control.

EPA’s alternative chemical scenario should include yield losses
because the azinphos methyl alternatives require much more precise
timing and coverage.  Growers will need an adaptive period to learn how
to use the new alternatives and avoid failures caused by imprecise
timing or inadequate coverage.

Benefits Assessment – New York

Cornell University entomologist Dr. Arthur M. Agnello provided USApple
with a summary of EPA’s grower impact assessment, which is attached. 
Agnello makes the following points in his summary:

Unlike other apple growing regions across the United States, codling
moth is not the primary target pest for azinphos methyl applications in
New York.

Mating disruption is rarely used in New York, since more than one insect
pest species is present in orchards, which would require more than one
type of pheromone dispenser.  Mating disruption is still under
evaluation in New York and would not be considered a likely grower
response if azinphos methyl use were revoked.  Additionally, mating
disruption would not control plum curculio or apple maggot.

Novaluron is not currently registered in New York.

Phosmet substitution for azinphos methyl is a reasonable scenario in New
York and some growers are already substituting phosmet for azinphos
methyl, because of its efficacy on the plum curculio and apple maggot
and restrictions on the use of azinphos methyl.

Substituting alternative chemicals for azinphos methyl would provide
adequate efficacy, but cost 2.9-3.3. times more than azinphos methyl
programs.

A four year U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Avoidance and Mitigation
Program project conducted in six eastern states demonstrated that
reduced risk pesticides provide equivalent control when compared to
conventional programs, but they cost 45-130 percent more to implement.

Benefits Assessment – Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania State University entomologists Drs. Greg Krawczyk and Larry
A. Hull and North Carolina State University entomologist Dr. James
Walgenbach provided a summary regarding the impact of the loss of
azinphos methyl on apple growers in the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian
apple growing regions.  Krawczyk makes the following points in his
analysis which is attached:

Damage from codling moth, oriental fruit moth, European apple sawfly,
plum curculio and apple maggot have caused processors to reject nearly
3,000 truck loads of apples since 1998.  Processors reject entire truck
loads of apples if a single live insect larva is found during
inspections.

Azinphos methyl is also used to control obliquebanded leafroller, tufted
apple bud moth, red banded leafroller and other insects.  However, EPA
does not include the additional cost that would be incurred to control
these insects if azinphos methyl were no longer available for use on
apples.

Under EPA scenario I, Pennsylvania growers could probably substitute one
azinphos methyl application with a single application of phosmet, but at
a much higher rate and at an increased cost of $54-$75 per acre. 
Additional fruit damage would also be expected.

Under scenario II, growers would incur additional costs of approximately
$90 per acre.

Scenario III would result in greater costs of approximately $80 per acre
to control codling moth, but the additional costs to control other
insects are not included and not counted in the EPA analysis.

Additional necessary orchard monitoring and management costs are not
included in EPA’s alternative chemical scenario.

Significant grower education will be needed for growers to effectively
use alternative chemicals which require precise timing and better
application.

Benefits Assessment – Michigan

Michigan State University entomologist Dr. Larry Gut provided a summary
of four years of research on the use of organophosphate (OP) replacement
chemicals in apple production.  Gut makes the following points in his
summary which is attached:

The use of OP alternative chemicals provided equivalent efficacy as
compared to OPs and other chemicals.  However, the cost of the
alternative chemical program was 2-3.1 times higher and grower revenue
was reduced by approximately $255 per acre.

The reduction in revenue does not include the additional costs for
monitoring and management that would be necessary under the alternative
program.

Gut estimates Michigan growers would lose more than $10 million in
revenue each year if the cost of monitoring and management are included.
 Total Michigan revenue from apple production in 2004 was $90 million.

Benefits Assessment – California

Agricultural pest management consultant Michael A. Devencenzi provided
USApple a summary of his observations regarding EPA’s apple impact
assessment.  Devencenzi makes the following points which are attached:

Substituting phosmet for azinphos methyl according to scenario I would
not provide adequate codling moth control, since phosmet’s 10 day
active residual period is less than azinphos methyl’s 21 day active
residual period.  A more realistic scenario would substitute six
applications of phosmet, but cost $184.20 more than the one azinphos
methyl application.

Acetamiprid is not sufficiently efficacious in controlling codling moth
in California, especially with high populations of codling moth. 
Preliminary thiacloprid trials indicate that it performs poorly within
high population situations, and the 30 day preharvest interval is a
concern for growers trying to control codling moth hatching during
harvest.

Novaluron is not currently registered in California.

The cost for azinphos methyl alternatives are more expensive, and do not
provide the same level of control

One application of azinphos methyl would not be insufficient when used
with mating disruption.  Growers using mating disruption presently use
three applications of azinphos methyl.

Mating disruption does not work on small orchards and they are
susceptible to codling moth infestation from host species in the
vicinity of apple orchards.

Organic growers sustain 20 percent losses while using mating disruption,
three applications of spinosad and 9 granulosis virus applications.

Azinphos methyl is currently irreplaceable.     

Summary – Benefits Assessment

EPA’s scenarios provide a structure to analyze the potential impact of
the loss of azinphos methyl.  While some of these scenarios are
plausible responses and possibly adequate scenarios to control the apple
insect pests, they are not economically feasible and they do not capture
the complex set of changes that would be set in motion by the loss of
such a critical element in the current biological system.  The current
system is in a delicate balance.  Disrupting the system will lead to a
series of predictable and unpredictable events.  While the United
States’ most renowned experts in apple insect control have provided
their best predictions of the loss of azinphos methyl, every outcome
regarding its potential loss is not presently known.

Growers are concerned that the loss of azinphos methyl will lead to the
emergence of unanticipated secondary pests, which will be difficult to
control with available alternatives, or resistance will develop among
remaining alternatives.   Early experience with the alternative reduced
risk pesticides suggests that mite populations may be stimulated by
their use, while entomologists explore the possibility of cross
resistance between neonicotinyl pesticides and organophosphates.  

The control system outlined in EPA’s scenario II would require
significant adjustment by growers, since the alternatives work
differently; require more precise application timing and better
application coverage.  During this adjustment phase failures are likely.
 However, EPA does not include quality and yield losses in its
assessment for this scenario.

Alternate row middle application methods, which are prevalent in the
Appalachian region, may not provide sufficient chemical coverage for
proper efficacy.  As a result, application costs are likely to increase
because growers will need more time to make applications to the same
amount of acreage.

Processor Rejections

Apple growers are expected to deliver perfect fruit to its customers, so
growers must do whatever is necessary to ensure their fruit is delivered
without insect damage.  While it is generally accepted that fresh market
fruit must meet this standard it is mistakenly assumed that processors
accept apples with worm damage.

Processors do not accept worm damage because they are required by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to meet strict standards for
wholesomeness when processing apple products.  Processors must minimize
the amount of insect damage in their products to meet consumer demand
for pure and wholesome products and to meet FDA standards.  To comply
with these strict standards processors reject entire truck loads of
apples if even one larva is found in an inspection.

Export Market Demands

The apple industry exports nearly a quarter of its fresh market
production to markets around the world.  In some markets, strict
phytosanitary protocols govern the standards for the presence of certain
quarantine pests.  Taiwan, the apple industry’s third largest apple
market allows only three codling moth larvae detections each year.  All
apples exported from California and Washington must meet this standard
to prohibit the introduction of codling moth in Taiwan.  In 2004, the
U.S. apple industry exported 2.3 million cartons of apples to Taiwan.

Last year, three codling moth larvae were detected by early December
resulting in the loss of the Taiwan market for the balance of the 2004
crop season.  The loss of the Taiwan market caused Fuji apple prices to
drop from an over supply of Fuji apples in the U.S. domestic market. 
Taiwan has detected two codling moth larvae this season.  An additional
detection will lead to the loss of the Taiwan market again this season.

Azinphos methyl is a dependable and economical tool to control codling
moth.  The loss of this important tool will lead to disruptions in the
current system, make it more difficult to control codling moth and
potentially jeopardize the industry’s access to the Taiwan apple
market.

Additionally, new alternatives such as the neonicotinyl pesticides are
unlikely to acquire CODEX maximum residue levels (MRLs) which are needed
in some export markets.  Without CODEX MRLs some markets would be off
limits to U.S. exporters if the chemical were used by apple growers. 

Import Threats and International Competitiveness

The People’s Republic of China has petitioned the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) for access to the U.S. apple market.  USDA’s Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is in the early stages of a
review process that could ultimately permit imports of fresh apples from
China.  The general absence of regulations or regulatory requirements
along with China’s low labor costs makes China a formidable
competitor.  In 1995, China’s exports of apple juice concentrate to
the United States were infinitesimal.  In 2004, China was the dominate
supplier of apple juice concentrate in the United States with a 57
percent market share.

Other apple producing countries continue to put pressure on U.S.
producers domestically and in export markets around the world.  The loss
of azinphos methyl in this environment of intense competition will make
U.S. apple producers less competitive and vulnerable to erosion of U.S.
market share here and abroad.

Economic Vulnerability

Available statistics do not provide an accurate picture of profitability
in the apple industry.  However, knowledgeable experts in the apple
industry report that growers are not thriving economically.  Lighter
apple crops in 2002 and 2003 boosted prices, and provided a respite to
the desperate economic situation the apple industry faced from 1996
through 2001.

Over the last two years apple production has increased while the apple
industry has coped with export impediments in Mexico and Taiwan.  More
apple marketing firms have recently gone out of business and growers are
under greater and greater economic stress.  Margins for processing apple
growers are razor thin and urban sprawl continues to put greater
pressure on growers to sell barely profitable orchard operations.

A decision by EPA to revoke the use of azinphos methyl on apples will
accelerate the loss of orchard operations and harm apple growers.  It is
likely that growers will not have the means to profitably control
insects without azinphos methyl.  Their only choice will be to reduce
acreage, thus reducing supply or to abandon their orchards.  Processing
apple growers will find it particularly difficult to afford EPA’s
Scenario II, since margins for processing apples are small.  Many
growers would be much more likely to rely on pyrithroids and other more
economic alternatives.  This response will eventually lead to greater
miticide applications and future resistance problems with pyrithroids
and miticides. 

Without azinphos methyl, growers will be forced to adopt the more
expensive options which will further reduce revenue.  Some of these
growers, and possibly a significant number, will choose to sell their
orchards to developers for housing developments.  Much of the apple
acreage in New York’s Hudson Valley, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Virginia, Michigan and New England is under pressure for
commercial development.  Loss of azinphos methyl will certainly
accelerate the conversion of orchard landscapes to tract housing and
shopping malls in these regions.

This scenario is a stark reality for apple growers who are present day
stewards of orchard operations that have been their family’s
businesses for generations.  Abandoning that tradition would cause
individual families considerable distress.  USApple suggests that EPA
should consider this outcome and find a way to factor it in to its
decision to maintain or revoke the apple use. 

USApple appreciates this opportunity to provide EPA with information
regarding the use of azinphos methyl on apples.

Please contact me by telephone at (800) 781-4443 or via e-mail at  
HYPERLINK "mailto:jcranney@usapple.org"  jcranney@usapple.org  if you
have questions or need additional information.

Sincerely yours,

James R. Cranney, Jr.

Vice President

cc:		USApple Board of Trustees

Attachments: 	Agnello

		Brunner

		Devencenzi

		Krawczyk

		Gut

  

     

 PAGE   

 PAGE   8 

703 442-8850

800 781-4443

fax 703 790-0845

Web site www.usapple.org

8233 Old Courthouse Road, Suite 200  (  Vienna, VA 22182-3816 USA