Presentation Summary

Leonard P. Gianessi, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 1616 P Street, NW, Washington DC, 20036, USA

U.S. farmers spend $8 billion a year on pest control products - primarily synthetic chemical pesticides. Annual biocontrol product sales are measured in tens of millions of dollars, not billions. Increasing biocontrol product sales is a tough problem. In comparison to the chemical standard, biocontrol products are more expensive and less effective. Biocontrol products can be erratic in performance and require special handling and special application equipment. The long-term solution to gaining market share for biocontrol products is to improve their performance and to make them more cost effective. Research regarding puffer pheromone technology and development of on-site fermentation technology point towards improvements in biocontrol solutions. With regard to the "mindset" regarding biocontrols, most of society requires no alteration. Non-chemical pest control solutions are favorites of the media, policymakers and research administrators. Growers don't care whether the product is chemical or non-chemical, just that it work well and be cost effective. The deciding factors are always likely to be when choosing among pest control alternatives: how much does it cost and how well does it work?

With regard to the cost issue, some have suggested that biocontrol products be subsidized. If pear growers in California received a $100 per acre subsidy for pheromone products, the pheromone technology would be cost competitive with the chemical technology. Who should provide the subsidy? This question has gone unanswered. One trend that is currently emerging is the willingness of some food processors to subsidize the purchase of biocontrol technology. With the current concern regarding organophosphate insecticides, some baby food processors are providing pheromone technology to growers at greatly reduced cost. In thinking about the "mindset" of who makes pest control decisions, the farmer is often singled out as the decisionmaker. However, in the U.S. 70-80 percent of the fruit and vegetable acreage is under contract to food processors and packinghouses, and these companies often specify in the contracts what can and cannot be used as pesticides. Perhaps biocontrol products should be marketed to these companies, that, in turn, could subsidize their use. The companies making biocontrol products should also consider subsidizing their use. The old adage is: Spend money to make money. There is a lot that can be learned from the agricultural chemical industry. A popular method is to offer respray programs: If a grower buys the product, and it fails to do a satisfactory job, the company will respray, at no charge. Perhaps biocontrol companies could offer to spray with synthetic chemicals if the biocontrols fail. Some agricultural chemical companies have given away application equipment in order to gain market share. Some companies have guaranteed growers that use of their product will either increase yields or the product will be given away free in the following year. All of these techniques are designed to get the farmer to try the product and establish a presence.

There is some expectation that pesticide regulation will remove many older products. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) subjects pesticides to new risk requirements and many uses may have to be dropped. If this were to happen, the viability of biocontrols should increase - no more cheap chemicals against which to compete. However, it is unlikely that EPA will ban a chemical use unless growers have an effective alternative. Thus, the mindset right now is concern over registrations of pesticides. This offers biocontrol products some opportunities. EPA is fast tracking alternatives to organophosphates. Biocontrol products that are good alternatives should be in this process. Another approach is to look at pest management systems for a crop and determine how biocontrol products could fit in with the chemical, and not as a complete replacement. Biocontrol products can be used early or late, but perhaps not at peak season. EPA controls the label and will be looking at ways to reduce the risk and exposure to pesticides. Certainly, with the intent of managing exposure and risk, it may be that chemical companies and regulatory agencies would be interested in designing a labeling procedure that combines biocontrols and pesticide products. New chemical registrations are taking a long time to get through the regulatory process. Would these be expedited if a biocontrol were included in the same package?

The biocontrol industry is going to have to learn to live with the synthetic chemicals. They are not going away. Inexpensive broad-spectrum compounds such as atrazine, carbaryl and EBDC fungicides are going to be around for a long time. The biocontrol industry needs to drop the mindsets of "us vs. them" or "biocontrols vs. chemicals." The risks of chemical are greatly exaggerated. If regulatory agencies become more empowered to regulate pesticides, it is just a matter of time before biocontrol products are more heavily scrutinized as well. It is a fool's dream to suggest that regulation of biopesticides should be lessened. Regulation will be tighter in the future, and it is the concern over risks of pesticides that fuels this empowerment. There are unexamined risks of biopesticides that may not pass regulatory or the public's scrutiny in the next decade.

One set of organizations with which biocontrol companies should be working is commodity organizations, such as Northwest Horticultural Council, the Cherry Marketing Institute, the Cranberry Institute, the Mint Industry Research Council, etc. These groups work closely with EPA and growers on pesticide regulatory issues. They fund research into alternatives. Every commodity group in the U.S. would love to have non-chemical pest control success stories. Many of these groups have joined with EPA in the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program. How can biocontrol products fit into pest management for a given crop?

One problem with many biocontrol projects is that research is often conducted in a vacuum, unconnected to the way the crops actually are produced. After years of research, a product is presented that just does not fit with growers' current practices. It may control a pest, but cannot be integrated into the system. Commodity organizations need to be involved early on in the development of these products. Little purpose is served by a biocontrol method that has no practical application. Early involvement by growers and their organizations can be beneficial. Also, research strategies should not ignore chemicals. Once again, the more effective approach might be to show how the biocontrol and chemical practices can work together.

How does the agricultural chemical industry do it? The ag chemical industry spends $25 million per year on market research studies - much of it on focus groups of growers who are asked, "What kind of products do you want?" The company then returns in several years with the products the farmers described. The biocontrol industry too often produces products that have been developed without first checking with farmers to determine whether that is really what they want.

One factor that affects the mindset of growers is the need to know that the company backs the product and will be a reliable distributor of the product. Unfortunately, there already are examples of the unreliability of biocontrol products. Mint growers in the Northwest, cranberry growers in Massachusetts and citrus growers in Florida were all using parasitic nematodes on a portion of their acreage, but when the company changed hands, the product no longer was available. How reliable was that? How does that affect the mindset?

Much has been made of the need to change the mindset of extension agents and university specialists who make recommendations and ratings regarding the use of pest control techniques. The perception is that these specialists are unaware of biocontrol products, and they need to be educated. One way to do this is to give them the product to test and funds to hire help in conducting the test. This is not a lot of money. However, do not be surprised if biocontrol products are not highly rated. These specialists have to extrapolate from field test research to all the growing regions around the state, that can vary tremendously from the field test. There are reasons that they rate products the way they do. Their credibility is at stake, and an overrated product that fails will lead to diminished future credibility. Unfortunately, there already are instances of biocontrol companies complaining to Ag School Deans about the poor ratings given to their products. However, these types of complaints are nothing new. These specialists have been rating chemicals for years, and not all chemicals are highly rated. Ag chemical companies have complained over these ratings as well. The discussions with extension specialists should be seen as a two-way educational street. On the one hand, the biocontrol industry can educate about how to use the biocontrol, and on the other hand the extension agents can help educate concerning the realities of crop production and the draw-backs of the product for wide-spread use.

Education of growers with regard to biocontrols is essential. Training manuals, outreach, meetings and field days are all excellent ways to reach this audience. Once again, don't be surprised if they come and still do not use the product. Many "sustainable" agriculture meetings have drawn large numbers of farmers who learn a lot and go back and apply chemicals as they always have. The ag chemical industry has a large number of field days every year at which they introduce new products that never get used. The history of the agricultural chemical industry is littered with failures, as well as successes. Many products have been introduced and look good on paper only to gain insignificant market share.

Most ag chemical products have small national sales. The blockbuster agricultural pesticides are rare. Only 16 active ingredients have national sales of $100 million or more per year. Most active ingredients (69) are in the range of $1-$9 million per year. Most agricultural chemicals are sold into specific markets that are served by the company. Most products are used on 5-10 percent of the national acreage for which they have registrations. Thus, the mindset that biocontrols have to achieve this enormous sales potential is somewhat misplaced. Individual products in the $1-$9 million per year range are typical for the crop protection business. The goal is to identify a particular market and work at it. It is a tough competitive industry.

Return to Biocontrol Workshop Program

Return to Biocontrol Workshop Homepage