Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:09:25.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Industry Views of Minor Crop Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger E. Gast
Roger E. Gast*
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: regast@dow.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The level of past industry participation in registering herbicide minor crop uses has been a function of active ingredient discovery output and the combination of incentives and barriers that drive minor use registration decisions. Over the past 10 yr there have been several external factors negatively impacting the rate of new herbicide introductions by industry. These include industry consolidation, a decrease in the global value of the conventional herbicide market, adoption of Herbicide-Resistant Crop (HRC) technology, a substantial increase in required regulatory activity primarily through reregistration programs, and increased costs of discovery research and product development. The increased cost of conducting business in an increasingly competitive market has undoubtedly influenced herbicide registrants to adopt different discovery strategies. Economics dictate registration efforts only towards crops that will create a significant, positive return on investment. In most cases, development of new herbicides for minor crops is not economically viable due to low or negative return on investment and disproportionate liability risk. Therefore, to motivate increased participation, companies need incentives and mechanisms to mitigate risk and registration barriers. Increased data protection and the Interregional Project 4 (IR-4) program, a cooperative government program with the goal of developing data to support regulatory clearances of pest control products for specialty crops, are current government programs in place that provide incentives and defray cost. Other incentives should be explored to make minor crops more attractive targets. However, product registration, liability risk, and dedicating the necessary resources to adequately research crop selectivity are still major economic barriers. Creative solutions that ensure companies are not unreasonably exposed to yield loss claims would remove a primary reason why companies are reluctant to register herbicides for minor crops.

Keywords

BarriersGMOsherbicide-resistant cropsherbicide-tolerant cropsHRCIR-4minor cropspatentsspecialty cropsweed controlindustry view
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 385 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Baron, J. J., Kunkel, D. L., Holm, R. E., Hunter, C., Archambault, S., and Boddis, W. 2003. Cooperative facilitation of registrations of crop protection chemicals in fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops in the United States and Canada. Pages 583–588. in Proceedings of the BCPC International Congress: Crop Science and Technology, Vols. 1 and 2, Glasgow, Scotland, U.K., November 10–12, 2003.Google Scholar
Bischoff, R. F. 1993. Pesticide chemicals: an industry perspective on minor crop uses. Pages 662–664. in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E., editors. New Crops. New York Wiley.Google Scholar
Dill, G. M. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant crops: history, status and future. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, S. O. 2005. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:211–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J. C., van Eerd, L. L., Miller, S. D., Owen, M. D. K., Prather, T. S., Shaner, D. L., Singh, M., Vaughn, K. C., and Weller, S. C. 2000. Future research directions for weed science. Weed Technol. 14:647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, R. E., Baron, J. J., and Kunkel, D. L. 2005. The IR-4 program and its cooperation with the crop protection industry to provide new pest control solutions to U.S. specialty crop growers. Pages 239–250. in Proceedings of the BCPC International Congress: Crop Science and Technology, Vols. 1 and 2, Glasgow, Scotland, U.K., October 31–November 2, 2005.Google Scholar
[PSD] Pesticides Safety Directorate Approvals Support Group 2005. Off-Label Uses of Approved Pesticides — an Introduction. http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/approvals.aspid486. Accessed: April 17, 2007.Google Scholar
Rotteveel, A. J. W. and Powell, V. 2003. Progress with resolving minor use crop protection issues in Europe. Pages 195–202. in Proceedings of the BCPC International Congress: Crop Science and Technology, Vols. 1 and 2, Glasgow, Scotland, U.K., November 10–12, 2003.Google Scholar
[U.S. EPA] Environmental Protection Agency 1996. Implementation of Requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpa_implementation.htm. Accessed: April 14, 2007.Google Scholar
[U.S. EPA] Environmental Protection Agency 2006. Guidance on Warranty Statements, October 17, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/warranty.pdf. Accessed: April 20, 2007.Google Scholar