Issues Engagement Working Group

1. Issues Engagement Working Group Project 2017R01 – Validation of testing protocols for resistance Discussion 05 Mar 2018 H. Strek, I. Heap, M. Peterson 06 Mar 2017

2. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • Purpose • ensure that editors of major journals publishing papers on new resistance cases are aware of and support asking authors to follow the HRAC guidelines for validation • Key actions • write white paper for publication which will be sent to all editors of journals having published a paper on resistance validation in last 10 years • conduct global ring test to compare and contrast the validation results of agrichemical companies, universities, research institutes and contract laboratories following their own protocols and using a standard protocol Delayed Under review

3. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Approach • Goal: write white paper for publication which will be sent to all editors of journals having published a paper on resistance validation in last 10 years • conduct a review of all validations published over the last 10 years with manuscripts being examined for compliance with a checklist of the criteria available on our GHRAC website to help in developing arguments is proposed • from this review gather statistics on journals & adherence to requirements • discuss results and decide whether to continue, drop or expand certain requirements • write manuscript, write letter to editors and include statistics for their journal

4. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline • Introduction with the following major points • The mission of the HRAC • to be the source of science-based information on resistance • to facilitate dialogue with key stakeholders about resistance and its management • The International Survey • how it was set up under the sponsorship of HRAC to be a repository of unique cases (explaining what that is) • also explain what it is not • it is not a complete repository of each resistance case • i.e., is not for area estimates • explain unique cases • explain why split in states/provinces in US, Canada, Australia (should we split up Brazil? other geographies? this is a side discussion for HRAC later)

5. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline • Introduction with the following major points (cont.) • bring in variability of species in responses to herbicides • describe how companies set a rate

6. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline (cont.) • Describe how a typical resistance runs its course • explain that the majority of the cases of less-than-expected activity that get referred to academia or industry as suspected resistance cases are first screened in the field via typical investigation processes because a large majority of them (at least in the beginning of a resistance wave) have nothing to do with resistance, but something to do with other agronomic reasons that explain the failure • bring in a few examples, e.g., lambsquarters glyphosate case, resistance to quinclorac with two Echinochloa species • if we can rule out the above, then we usually wait to sample seeds – we are locked into this because no field test kits nor quick lab tests are available that cover all potential mechanisms • validation also needs to follow a set procedure because for many of the cases it cannot be shown that there is a failure in expected efficacy at field use rates • point out that cases seem to fall into three categories – “typical” and “survey” and “serendipitous”

7. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline (cont.) • Screening tests • the cases that pass through the field screening process may then get tested in the greenhouse with a bioassay (or other quick screening method) • these are then sometimes tested further to identify potential resistance mechanisms (i.e., for TSR), or to identify which compounds still work • a major driving force is that a majority of the suspectedcases in the beginning of a resistance wave are not confirmed as resistant after thorough testing is completed • emphasize that a minimum of 4x RF is required but going back to the field (next season) is really important

8. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline (cont.) • Full validation procedure • state that the validation procedure is not intended to deny the occurrence of resistance, it is there to confirm it • it is important to differentiate a mere shift in population sensitivity from a real evolved resistance in a particular population • since only the first unique cases are reported, it is important to be sure that they are real (again, it is important to say what the Survey is not) • explain the validation steps and detail why each is necessary • list some cases where things have happened when these steps were skipped, reinforcing the reason for doing each of the steps • point out that special emphasis on the control or susceptible populations is necessary - researchers sometimes choose ultra-sensitive populations to drive up the R/S ratios. • reinforce defined minimum R/S ratio already advanced by Ian in validation steps • if a first unique case becomes a resistance wave, follow-up papers generally cover the rest of the validation steps

9. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline (cont.) • “Competition” among academics and implications of a listing • for academics it appears to have become important to become recognized as the first researcher describing a particular unique case, thus they tend to skip many requirements for validation in order to speed up the process and not get “scooped” • this sometimes leads to a dispute for a particular population, usually with a major research-based company which originally brought the compound to market • the placement of a new unique case into the Intl Survey can have negative economic implications for a company • companies tend to get lots of negative messaging from competitors and can lead to a rapid loss of market share in some cases – the exception has been glyphosate – and thus to prevent this based on false information and “crying wolf” about resistance, the validation procedure reduces the risk of this happening and losing credibility

10. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline (cont.) • Literature review and survey • conduct a literature search of every reported resistance case over the last 10 years – Harry to initiate at Bayer • run a checklist to see how many of the validation steps were followed or not • the results will probably be most interesting, especially in identifying the least followed step(s) • ask Ian to access the literature reports for the unique cases which would be most helpfulto use as a cross-check of literature search

11. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Basic Outline (cont.) • Choice of journal • Pest Management Science is first choice • should pay for publishing as open paper to facilitate easy access • determine if they can publish the abstract in English, Spanish and Portuguese • determine if we could translate into these languages and post translations on website • potentially post a download link at the end of the second-language abstracts

12. Issues Engagement Working Group - Project 2017R01 • White Paper – Further steps • Continue to meet on a regular basis • next meeting planned for 19 Mar 2018 • further meetings will be scheduled prior to next meeting • Work on getting this published first and then tackle the ring test • the paper could help us with the need for and direction of a more laborious ring test