REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMIT (MRL) IN TEA

Dr. T C CHAUDHURI&

Ms KATIE DONNELLY

CO-ORDINATORS

Reporting and Compilations :

Dr. K. Mohotti, Dr. Abeysighe (Srilanka), Ms Roshni Sen, Dr. M. Kumar, Dr. A. Barooah, Dr B. Bera (India)

Dr. K. Yoshida (Japan) Prof. Z. Chen (China)

Dr. Wachira, Dr E. Cheramgoi (Kenya) Dr. T. Henn (EU)

Ms. L. Roberge (Canada) Mr. J. Simrany (US)

Ms P. Parra (Argentina) Dr. M. Ahmed (Bangladesh)

And Associated Scientists from Member countries

BACKGROUND (Ref doc CCP: TE 12/5)

Recommendations of 19th Session of IGG, Delhi (i) co-ordination, prioritization and acceleration of submission of dossiers for MRLs in tea, (ii) Producing countries shall carry out field trials on alternative pest management systems(iii) Involvement of all stakeholders, Codex, EU and other

standard setting bodies (iv) pursue other activities to broaden the group to ensure

alignment, (v) conduct a strategy review with a small subgroup of Working Group members to review the action plan.

ACTIONS TAKEN

• Holding Sub group meeting of WG in CANADA on 21 Sept, 2010

Following discussions, the participants once again reiterated the goal of the Group as:

“To achieve global cooperation obtaining maximum residue levels (MRLs) in tea” and

Identified major issues after deliberations on country positions, finally agreed on the goals of the group to tackle

the issues. Finally, QUESTIONNAIRES developed and circulated

Report of the Sub Group was presented in the WG meeting in Kenya, Jul 18-19, 2011 along with information submitted by few members.

The WG on MRL finally agreed in Kenya meeting on the Action Plan as decided.

ACTION PLAN IN WG MEETING, KENYA18-19 July, 2011

A. Agreed activities to achieve Objectives & Goal1. To continue to generate data for

MRL, submit to CODEX;

2. To identify Compounds for future trial;

3. To continue field trials on priority compounds;

4. To develop IPM in member countries

B. Action plans for all Four (4) GOALS

To develop & implement IPM strategiesTo continue MRL submissions to JMPR, producing,

consuming countriesTo programme replacement of old / banned compounds, discouraging sudden withdrawal

of approval without alternativesTo develop priority list of pesticides based on sustainability, affordability, safetyTo give advance notice of changes in authorizationTo develop effective communication plan.

ACTIVITIES identified to achieve GOALSPRODUCING countries --- key issues, goals SL Key issues (short) Goal (short)1 Evolving pest pressures Develop and implement IPM

strategies2 Lack of MRLs, non

harmonized MRLsReclassification of tea from minor to major crop at JMPR; Obtain MRLs for chemicals in use in both producing and consuming countries

3 Replacement of old chemicals/banning of old chemicals

Replacement programmes

4 Health, safety, sustainability

Prioritization of chemicals based on health, safety and sustainability

5 Communication among stakeholders

Effective plan for communication

QUESTIONNAIRES Re-CIRCULATED TO THE STAKEHOLDERS AND INFORMATION SOUGHT

Information from Questionnaires addressing Goals and Objectives

GOAL- Pests affecting crop losses in tea. Objective – To

identify different pests and economically important pests.– IPM strategies adopted in tea pest management. Objective

– To identify different IPM strategies and record methods used to minimize use of pesticides used in pest management

– Pesticide use in tea. Objectives - To identify old / banned / replaceable / withdrawn pesticides and record current list of substances / pesticides and alternatives / potential chemicals

– Priority chemicals for MRL generation. Objective – To update the priority list of chemicals requiring MRLs in consuming countries and Codex.

RESULTS

Table 1: SUMMARY OF PESTS / Diseases AFFECTING CROP LOSSES (number of key pests given in parenthesis)

Arge

ntina

Banglad

eshIndia Japan Kenya Sri Lanka China

Insects - 8 (2) 12 (5) 104 (9) 5 (3) 16 (5) -

Mites 1 (1) 4 (1) 4 (1) 9 (1) 4 (1) 5 (2) -

Nematodes - 2 (2) 2 (1) 14 (1) 1 (0) 3 (2) -

Foliar disea - 4 (2) 2 10 (2) 2 (2) 5 (1) -

Stem diseas - - 2 - 4 (2) 5 (3) -

Root diseas - 2 (0) 2 2 (0) 2 (1) 6 (2) -

Weeds - - Num-ous - - Numerous -

Misc. - - - 1 (0) 2 (0) - -

Ware H pest - - - - 6 (0) 3 (0) -

Total 1 20 24 + 140 26 43 + 23

Table 1: SUMMARY OF PESTS AFFECTING CROP LOSSES

Inse

cts

Mite

s

Nemato

des

Disease

s: Folia

r

Disease

s: Stem

Disease

s: Root

Misc

.

Ware

h.p

ests

0

5

10

15

20

25

Argentina

Bangladesh

India

Japan

Kenya

Sri Lanka

China

Table 2: SUMMARY OF IPM STRATERGIES IN PEST MANAGEMENTNumber of Asterisks (*) level of IPM practices adopted

IPM

strateg.

Arge

ntina

Bangla

deshIndia Japan Kenya

Sri

LankaChina

Clone/cult - - ** * ** **** -

Agronom ** ** ** ** ** ** -

Cultural ** *** ** * * ** -

Biological - ** *** ** * * -

Nat. enem ** *** ** ** * **** -

Pest forecs

* * * * - * -

Chemical ** **** *** *** ** ** -

1. Agronomic and cultural methods are more prominent.2. Harnessing of clonal selections, biological control, pest

forecasting and modeling etc. are resorted only in a few countries.

3. Success experiences of clonal selections, biological control (biopesticides), pest forecasting and modeling etc. need to be incorporated in IPM strategies.

4. IPM strategies for weed management have become strengthening.

5. Mammalian and stored / ware house pest control warrants control measures.

IPM strategies adopted:

Table 3: SUMMARY OF PESTICIDE USE No. pesticides used

Type Arg’tna B’desh Ind Jap Kenya SLka China

Insecticides - 9 20 82 6 3 21

Acaricides 1 3 7 17 4 1

Nematicides - 2 2 3 1 1

Fumigants - - - - - 2

Fungicides - 2 2 22 5 7

Weedicides - - 2 6 3 7 2

Table 3: SUMMARY OF PESTICIDE USE

Insecticides Acaricides Nematicides Fumigants Fungicides Weedicides 0

10 0 0 0

9

32

02

0

20

7

20

2 2

40

17

3

0

22

664

10

533

1 12

7 7

21

2

Arg’tna B’desh Ind Jap Kenya SLka China

Table 4: SUMMARY OF PESTICIDE USE STATUSName of pesticide

Status Argt’na B’desh Ind Jap Kenya S Lnka China

Old 1 - 13 30 14 9

Replaced - - - - - 3

Withdrawn - - - - 3 1

Alternate - - 19 - 6 11

Current Use - 17 15 100 6 23 23

Table 4: SUMMARY OF PESTICIDE USE STATUS

Argt’na

B’desh Ind Jap Kenya S Lnka China 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Old

Replaced

Withdrawn

Alternate

Current Use

OBSERVATIONS ON DATA1. Pest occurrences are more in Japan, Srilanka, India

and China – Old plantations, agro climate.2. Major pests are leaf eating pests, stem pests, mites3.Leaf, stem and root diseases are common.4.Weed control is a major problem in tea5. A few ware house pests are found as potential pests6. Damage of pests depend on change in climatic scenario.7. IPM is a new attempt to all – GOOD SIGN

North America DevelopmentsUSA• Endosulfan– FDA proposed deletion of all tolerances Apr 11– All food crops except tea given 3-5 year expiry date– China on behalf of Tea industry lodged an objection,

requesting 5 year extension/expiry date– Outcome awaited

• Petitions lodged with EPA for 3 compounds• 2 new MRLs grantedCANADA• 1 new MRL granted

Submissions for Tea - MRLs GrantedAustralia Canada USA

Lambda cyhalothrin

1 mg/kg May 10 2 mg/kg Jun 10Petition with EPA

Fenpropathrin 2 mg/kg Sep 10 2 mg/kg Jun 11Petition with EPA

Bifenthrin 5 mg/kg May 10 Petition with PMRA Petition with EPA

Deltamethrin 5 mg/kg Sep 10

Cypermethrin 0.5 mg/kg May 10

Fenvalerate 0.05 mg/kg May 10

Glyphosate 2 mg/kg Sep 10

Chlorpyrifos 2 mg/kg May 10

Acetamiprid 50 mg/kg Feb 10

Etoxazole 15 mg/kg Apr 11

Ethiprole 30 mg/kg Jun 11

Chlorantranilprole 50 mg/kg Jul 11

Items in green - New since July 2011

Submissions for Tea - New MRL Petitions Australia Canada USA

Propiconazole Petition with PMRA Submission 2012?

BuprofezinSubmission 2011

Petition with EPA Nov 2011, 20mg/kg

Tolfenpyrad Submission 2010 Submission 2011

Fenpyroximate Submission 2011 Submission 2011

Clothianidin Petition with EPA Dec 2011, Plucked leaves 50 mg/kg

Permethrin IR4 submission 2011

Dinotefuron Petition with EPA Sep 2011, Plucked leaves 25mg/kg

Chlorfenapyr Submission planned 2011/12

Submission planned 2011/12

CODEX MRLs

• Confirmed CAC July 2011

– Endosulfan – revised 10 mg/kg– Bifenthrin 30 mg/kg– Thiamethoxam 20 mg/kg– Clothianidin 0.7 mg/kg– Etoxazole 15 mg/kg– Flubendiamide 50 mg/kg

• Scheduled 2012– Chlorfenapyr BASF– Dinotefuran Mitsui– Buprofezin Nichino

• Planned submissions 2013– Tolfenpyrad Nichino– Fenpyroximate Nichino– Fenpropathrin Sumitomo

EU DevelopmentsChanges to authorisations• Granted 2011

Bitertanol, Buprofezin, Fenazaquin, Hexythiazox, Lime sulphur, Oxyfluorfen, Pyridaben, Azadirachtin

• Non-approvedPropargite

• Resubmitted applications pendingBifenthrin

Proposed changes to MRLs• SANCO 12226 Adoption of Codex MRLs approved CAC July

2011– Endosulfan, Bifenthrin, Clothianidin, Flubendiamide,

Thiamethoxam, EtoxazoleDiscussed at Standing Committee Feb 2012

• EFSA opinion– Hexythiazox 0.05* → 4 mg/kg

EU Developments‘Article 12’ review of existing MRLs

• Substances a) not approved for use b) consumer risk identified → MRLs deleted

unless substantiated Codex or Import tolerance

• Draft proposal SANCO 10691– Dicofol 20 → 0.1* will lose EU & Codex MRL unless new Tox.

data given to JMPR – Fenitrothion 0.5 → 0.05*– Tridemorph 20 → 0.05*– Chlorfenapyr 50 → 0.05* or no change? JMPR evaluation 2012

• Change to LODs for a number of substances– E.g. DDT 0.2* → 0.05*

* denotes LOD

• Discussed at Standing Committee Feb 2012

Process for Making MRL Submissions1. Priority lists of MRLs

1. Priority chemicals for tea production2. Priority chemicals for regulations internationally

2. Submissions for MRLs in tea1. Identify opportunities2. Identify field trial data from producing countries /

AgroChem Co.s3. Provide residue monitoring data 4. Provide summary of MRLs globally for tea

3. Build working partnership with Agrochemical Co.s1. Open dialogue with AgroChem Co.s2. Discuss priority compounds for tea & Co.s3. Agree inclusion of tea in submissions4. Provision of field trial data etc.

Important issues1. Generally, all are pursuing revision of list of

pesticides replacing old by new generation pesticides.

2. Current recommendations for pesticide use are based on upgraded list.

3. Current recommendations can be considered as PRIORITY list.

4. CONFUSION for chemicals as existing in both current and old list, e.g. Hexythiazox in old list in Japan; paraquat, carbofuran are old in India but in current list in Sri Lanka.

ISSUES for FUTURE Actions1. Reviewing of existing national MRLs for tea and go for new

label claim with MRL for new compounds.2. Strike a balance between old and new generation

compounds based on safety, sustainability, economics 3. IPM strategies are to be more effective reducing chemical

load.4. Residue data for computation and submission to JMPR5. Importing country regulations to recognize efforts of

producers taking residue data support from producers

ISSUES for FUTURE Actions (contd.)6. Withdrawal of chemicals is a concern to producers. 7. Short and long term goals of WG to persist .8. For better harmonizing of MRLs between EU, Codex, Japan and US –

FAO to intervene for acceptance of information / field data9. Develop uniform Risk assessment criteria10. Based on the list of chemicals used in producer countries, to

prioritize them and generate data for submissions11. Make use of electronic forum of the FAO to share and exchange all

information on pest management, pesticide use and data12. To place pesticide manufactures on board for toxicological data

submissions.13. WG to meet soon in intersessional meeting for prioritization and to

collate data.

GRAY AREAS• Country information are lacking on –

** MRL, Number of compounds under trial, submission of data to JMPR.

** Capacity building in residue works.** Cooperation in computation of dossiers

with minimum 8 expts. **Communication gap

CONCLUSION1. Priority list of chemicals and generation of residue

data as per JMPR and submission to National regulators / JMPR / Importing country regulators.

2. To share constraints in pest and disease control in Producing countries by Non Producing countries to achieve Harmonization in MRL.

3. Sharing of residue Data bank by the Regulators while fixing MRL for tea is essential.

4. If points 1 to 3 above are followed, all will gain to over come this non-tariff barrier for sustainability

SUMMARY1. Responses to Questionnaires strengthened the efforts in

HARMONISATION of MRLs, but still a long way.2. The efforts of residue data generation should continue for

national as well as international use.3. IPM to be strengthened.4. Fixation of realistic MRLs is essential all through.5. Tea as perennial crop needs ‘time allowance’ to switch

over to new compounds vis a vis new MRLs

THANK YOU