Regulatory experiences in symbiotic control of pierce's disease

Abstract

The amount of research funds for addressing practical plant pest or disease problems is determined by the value of the industry and the size of the threat. When new products, tools or strategies are developed, regulatory agencies must judge and evaluate these new tools that are not specifically described in the statutes that guide their decisions. Regulatory costs to pay for risk assessments make commercial sense when projected income from a new product can be charged against an investment based on the size of the expected market. When a pest or disease problem affects a minor crop, the research to address regulatory issues does not have such a clear-cut funding origin. Ironically, a very selective biopesticide designed to address a local pest or disease problem is the ideal form of sustainable pest management, but has the smallest market of any pest control strategy and therefore the smallest amount of financial support. In this sphere of modest financial resources, regulatory needs can force research away from solving the problem at hand to address unfocused or ill-defined risk issues. When genetic modification is a part of the proposed new strategy, an added burden is placed on the developers. This burden can defy logic and can, ironically, come largely from peers, not the public.