Summary of ABSTC and US EPA Meeting Regarding Agency Proposed Changes to the Corn Rootworm Resistance Management Program

MEETING LOCATION: 					DATE:
US EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, 			March 31[st], 2015
2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA 22202


ATTENDEES:

Kimberly Nesci, US EPA/OPP/BPPD  -  in person
Alan Reynolds, US EPA/OPP/BPPD  -  in person
Jeannette Martinez, US EPA/OPP/BPPD  -  in person
Mike Mendelsohn, US EPA/OPP/BPPD  -  in person
ShaRon Carlisle, US EPA/OPP/BPPD  -  in person
Bill Chism, US EPA/OPP/BEAD  -  in person
Jonathan Becker, US EPA/OPP/BEAD  -  in person
Tony Burd, Syngenta/ABSTC  -  in person
Dave Guyer, Syngenta/ABSTC  -  in person
Graham Head, Monsanto/ABSTC  -  in person
Jeff Bookout, Monsanto/ABSTC  -  in person
Christina Lawrence, Monsanto/ABSTC  -  in person
Nick Storer, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC  -  in person
Mark Kimm, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC  -  in person
Clint Pilcher, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC  -  in person
Michael Smith, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC  -  in person
Elizabeth Owens, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC  -  via phone
Matthew Caroll, Monsanto/ABSTC  -  via phone 
Isaac Oyediran, Syngenta/ABSTC  -  via phone 
Jamie Staley, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC  -  via phone 



AGENDA:
   *      Introductions
   *      Mission/purpose of ABSTC and meeting rationales
   *      Discussion on EPA proposals, ABSTC recommendations and reasoning
   1.         IPM approach to CRW resistance management
   2.         Proactive strategies to detect unexpected damage (UXD) in Bt corn fields
   3.         Annual monitoring of CRW populations
   4.         Resistance confirmation process (bioassays)
   5.         Remedial action plans
   *      Action items/next steps

SUMMARY OF MEETING
Representatives of US EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and member companies of the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee (ABSTC) that hold corn rootworm PIP registrations discussed the five key elements of the Agency's proposal to make changes to the corn rootworm resistance management program and ABSTC's docket submission (letter dated February 13, 2015). ABSTC's docket comment reflects their perspective and experience with CRW IRM.  In this meeting, ABSTC acted as agents of the CRW PIP registrants.
   1.  IPM approach
ABSTC member companies highlighted their efforts towards implementing best management practices (BMPs) in cases of unexpected damage as a result of corn rootworm feeding. Companies further informed US EPA about the release of additional education materials to grower communities and planned training sessions with independent crop consultants [http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0805-0008]. EPA understands that ABSTC and the National Corn Grower Associations (NCGA) engage in collaborative efforts to reach growers about the need to use BMPs with corn rootworm resistance management. ABSTC and EPA agreed on the need for proactive, up front measures to address corn rootworm resistance. EPA and ABSTC discussed concerns in the docket comments about limited availability of non-CRW Bt seed to growers which restricts accessibility for more diverse IPM tools and EPA's proposal regarding the use of SAIs with CRW Bt seed. EPA discussed the need for measures to assess the success of the proactive IPM initiatives.
   2.  Proactive scouting 
Scouting has historically been done and will continue to be conducted by growers. ABSTC member companies discussed that other entities can be involved in scouting as well. 
   3.  Removal of random monitoring
All parties agreed that random insect sampling for resistance monitoring was less effective than focusing on collecting populations from UXD sites. This would allow biotech companies to divert their resources to other aspects of corn rootworm resistance management.
   4.  Resistance confirmation process
ABSTC member companies continue to work on improving the methodology of the diet bioassays and proposed to use this approach along with an on-plant assay methodology (single on-plant or sub-lethal seedling assay) to measure a significant decrease in susceptibility of populations.  EPA and ABSTC agreed on the common goal:  to have a good diagnostic tool to accurately detect resistance.
   5.  Remedial action plans 
The discussion focused on the extent of the remedial action area for UXD sites. EPA continued to emphasize the need for additional empirical dispersal data as well as modeling analyses.  

Action Items
   *      EPA to look at the timing of USDA NASS corn surveys to see if these data might be available to evaluate the success of IPM measures.
   *      ABSTC to consider ways to measure the effectiveness of their proactive IPM approach.
   *      EPA to review docket comments
   *      ABSTC and EPA to meet again in early May
