Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Plant Protection Research

The Journal of Polish Society of Plant Protection, Committee of Plant Protection; Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Plant Protection – National Research Institute

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.84

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.332
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.829

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 56, Issue 3 (Jul 2016)


Basic substances under EC 1107/2009 phytochemical regulation: experience with non-biocide and food products as biorationals

Patrice A. Marchand
  • Corresponding author
  • Institut Technique de l’Agriculture Biologique (ITAB), 149 rue de Bercy, F-75595 Paris Cedex 12, France
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-09-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jppr-2016-0041


Basic Substances are a newly effective category of Plant Protection Product under EC Regulation No 1107/2009. The first approved application of Equisetum arvense L. opened Part C of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, which lists the basic substance approved. Although E. arvense was described as a fungicide extract, subsequent applications like chitosan were related to non-biocide molecules. Consequently, plant protection product data were collected from research on alternative or traditional crop protection methods. They are notably issued or derived from foodstuffs (plants, plant by-products, plant derived products, substances and derived substances from animal origin). Applications are currently submitted by our Institute, under evaluation at different stages of the approval process or already approved. Remarkably, this Basic Substance category under pesticide EU Regulation was surprisingly designed for these non-biocidal plant protection products. In fact, components described as the “active substance” of most of the actual applications are food products like sugars and lecithin. Basic Substance applications for these foodstuffs are therefore a straightforward way of easily gaining approval for them. Here we describe the approval context and detail the agricultural uses of theses food products as Biological Control Agents (BCAs) or biorationals for crop protection. From all deposited or approved Basic Substance Application (BSA), a proof has been provided that non-biocide and food products via physical barrier or lure effects may be effective plant protection products with an acceptable low profile of concern for public and agricultural safety.

Keywords: basic substance; Biological Control Agent (BCA); biorationals; food products; Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009_article23


  • Afidol (Association Française Interprofessionnelle de l’Olive). 2016. Piégeage massif de la mouche de l’olive [Massive trapping of the olive fly]. Technical report. 2 pp. Available on: www.afidol.org/piegeage_massif_2016.pdf [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • ANA (Association des Naturalistes de l’Ariege). 2010. Carrière des talcs de Trimouns-Inventaires naturalistes: Étude biodiversité verses [Talcs career of Trimouns – Naturalists Inventories: Biodiversity study of spills]. Technical report. 99 pp. Available on: http://www.midipyrenees.fr/IMG/pdf/201501_dossier-creation-rnr-montsegur.pdf [Accessed: August 12, 2016]

  • Arnault I. 2015. Utilisation de micro-doses de sucres en protection des plantes – Projet Usage [Use of micro-doses of sugars in crop protection – Usage Research Project]. p. 16. In: Proceedings of the ONEMA Projet Recherche et Innovation du Plan Ecophyto 2018. Paris, France, 13–14 October 2015. Available on: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282857449_USAGE_Utilisation_de_micro-doses_de_sucres_en_protection_des_plantes [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • Arnault I., Bardin M., Ondet S., Furet A., Chovelon M., Kasprick A-C., Marchand P., Clerc H., Davy M., Roy G., Romet L., Auger J., Mançois A., Derridj S. 2015. Utilisation de micro-doses de sucres en protection des cultures – Projet Usage [Use of micro-doses of sugars in crop protection – Usage Research Project]. Innovations Agronomiques 46: 1–10. Available on: https://www6.inra.fr/ciag/content/download/5709/43247/file/Vol46-1-Arnault.pdf [Accessed: August 12, 2016]

  • Aveline N. 2013. Tests in vitro HE (huiles essentielles) vs. mildiou de la vigne [In vitro tests of E.O. (essential oils) vs. downy mildew]. Research Program CADAR HE (Huiles Essentielles). Technical report. Institut Français de la Vigne et du Vin, Blanquefort, France, 17 pp.Google Scholar

  • Borgen A., Bent N. 2001. Effect of seed treatment with acetic acid for control of seed borne diseases. p. 135–140. In: Proceedings of the BCPC Symposium No. 76: “Seed Treatment: Challenges & Opportunities” (A.J. Biddle, ed.). British Crop Protection Council, Farnham, Wishaw, North Warwickshire, UK, 26–27 February 2001, 288 pp.Google Scholar

  • Braham M. 2013. Trapping adults of the Medfly Ceratitis capitata and non-target insects: Comparison of low-cost traps and lures. Tunisian Journal of Plant Protection 8 (2): 107–118.Google Scholar

  • Bruyére J. 2013. Utilisation de l’acide acétique (vinaigre) dans la lutte contre la carie du blé (Tilletia caries et foetida) [Using acetic acid (vinegar) in the fight against wheat common bunt (Tilletia caries and foetida)]. p. 20. In: Proceedings of the “Journées Substances Naturelles en Protection des Cultures. Réglementation, expérimentation, usages”. Institut Technique de l’Agriculture Biologique (ITAB), Paris, France, 9–10 April 2013. Available on: http://www.itab.asso.fr/publications/jt-intrants2013.php [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • Caleca V., Rizzo R., Battaglia I., Palumbo Piccionello M. 2007. Tests on the effectiveness of mass trapping by Eco-trap (Vyoril) in the control of Bactrocera oleae (Gmelin) in organic farming. IOBC WPRS Bulletin 30 (9): 139–146.Google Scholar

  • CA (Chambre d’Agriculture de l’Aude). 2011. Réduction des coûts en viticulture. Produits alternatifs: Lactosérum [Reducing costs in viticulture: alternative crop protection: Lactoserum]. Technical report. Chambre d’Agriculture de l’Aude (CA11), Carcassonne, France, 123 pp.Google Scholar

  • Compo Expert. 2015. Basic Substance Application “Talc” 2012–2015. p. 11–15. In: “EFSA Technical Report EN-1044: Outcome of the consultation with Member States and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the basic substance application for talc E553B for use in plant protection as repellent on fruit trees and grapevines”, 39 pp. 2016, EFSA Supporting Publications 13 (7). Available on: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1044/pdf [Accessed: August 8, 2016]Crossref

  • Crisp P., Wicks T. J., Troup G., Scott E. S. 2006. Mode of action of milk and whey in the control of grapevine powdery mildew. Australasian Plant Pathology 35 (5): 487–493. DOI: 10.1071/AP06052CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Derridj S. 2013. Du sucre pour protéger les plantes [Sugar for protecting plants]. Alter Agri 118: 29–31.Google Scholar

  • EC. 2007. Commission Decision No 442/2007, OJ L 166, of 28.6.2007, p. 16–23.Google Scholar

  • EC. 2002. Commission Regulation No 178/2002, OJ L 31, of 1.2.2002, p. 1–24.Google Scholar

  • EC. 2008. Commission Regulation No 889/2008, OJ L 250, of 18.9.2008, p. 1–84.Google Scholar

  • EC. 2009. Commission Regulation No 1107/2009, OJ L 309 of 24.11.2009, p. 1–50.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2011. Commission Implementing Regulation No 540/2011, OJ L 153, of 11.6.2011, p. 1–186.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2012. Working document on the procedure for application of basic substances to be approved in compliance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 SANCO/10363/2012 (rev.9 of 21 March 2014).Google Scholar

  • EU. 2014a. Commission Implementing Regulation No 462/2014 of 5 May 2014 approving the basic substance Equisetum arvense L., OJ L 134, of 7.5.2014, p. 28.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2014b. Commission Implementing Regulation No 563/2014 of 23 May 2014 approving the basic substance chitosan hydrochloride, OJ L 156, 24.5.2014, p. 5.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2014c. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 916/2014 of 22 August 2014 approving the basic substance sucrose, OJ L 251, of 23.8.2014, p. 16.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2015a. Commission Implementing Regulation No 762/2015 of 12 May 2015 approving the basic substance calcium hydroxide, OJ L 120, of 13.5.2015, p. 6.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2015b Commission Implementing Regulation No 1107/2015 of 8 July 2015 approving the basic substance Salix spp. cortex, OJ L 181, of 9.7.2015, p. 72–74.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2015c. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1392/2015 of 8 July 2015 approving the basic substance vinegar OJ L 181, of 9.7.2015, p. 75–77.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2015d. Commission Implementing Regulation No 1116/2015 of 9 July 2015 approving the basic substance lecithins, OJ L 182, of 10.7.2015, p. 26–28.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2015e. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1392/2015 of 13 August 2015 approving the basic substance fructose, OJ L 215, of 14.8.2015, p. 34–37.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2015f. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1392/2015 of 17 November 2015 approving the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate, OJ L 301, of 18.11.2015, p. 42–44.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2016a. Available on: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/application_report/index_en.htm [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • EU. 2016b. European pesticide database. Available on: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=homepage&language=EN [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • EU. 2016c. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 548/2016 of 8 April approving the basic substance diammonium phosphate, OJ L 95, of 9.4.2016, p. 1–3.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2016d. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 560/2016 of 11 April approving the basic substance whey, OJ L 96, of 12.4.2016, p. 23–25.Google Scholar

  • EU. 2016e. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2016 of 29 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control; OJ L 116, of 30.4.2016, p. 8–22.Google Scholar

  • Fauteux F. 2006. The protective role of silicon in the Arabidopsis-powdery mildew pathosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of the United States of America 103 (46): 17554–17559. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606330103CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Felsot A.S., Racke K.D. 2007. Crop protection products for organic agriculture, environmental, health, and efficacy assessment. American Chemical Society (ACS) Symposium Series 947, Washington, DC, USA. Available on: http://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841238817 [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • Fontaine L. 2012. Carie du Blé: Agir avant qu’il ne soit trop tard [Wheat Common Bunt: Take action before it will be too late]. Technical report. Cahier Technique, Institut Technique de l’Agriculture Biologique (ITAB), Paris, France, 12 pp. Available on: http://www.itab.asso.fr/downloads/Fiches-techniques_culture/Fiche%20Carie%20mini.pdf. [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • Garcia D., Garcia-Cela E., Ramos A. J., Sanchis V., Marín S. 2011. Mould growth and mycotoxin production as affected by Equisetum arvense and Stevia rebaudiana extracts. Food Control 22 (8): 1378–1384. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.02.016CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giffard H., Mammet O. 2012. Détermination de la DL50 de contact sur abeille domestique (Apis mellifera) par différentes applications d’une préparation. [Determination of the contact LD50 on honeybees (Apis mellifera) from different applications of a preparation]. TEST API, Technical Reports No. 178, 31 pp.Google Scholar

  • Gil-Ortiz R. 2015. Development of new ecological long-lasting dispensers of semiochemicals for the control of Bactrocera oleae (Rossi). Pest Management Science 71: 1685–1693. DOI: 10.1002/ps.3415CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • GRAB (Groupe de Recherche en Agriculture Biologique). 2013. Évaluation de l’efficacité au champ de différentes spécialités biologiques sur la mouche de l’olive (Bactrocera oleae). [Evaluation of the field efficiency of different organic specialities on the olive fly (Bactrocera oleae)]. Technical report. Groupe de Recherche en Agriculture Biologique, Avignon, France, 8 pp. Available on: http://www.grab.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CR_mouche_olive_20131.pdf [Accessed: August 12, 2016]

  • La Pugere (Station d’Expérimentation “La Pugère”). 2011. Psylle du poirier (Psylla piri) Evaluation de l’efficacité du TALC dans une stratégie de lutte préventive contre le psylle du poirier [Pear psylla (Psylla piri), The TALC efficiency evaluation in a preventive control strategy of the Pear psylla]. Technical Report PUGH110002, Station d’Expérimentation “La Pugère”, Mallemort, France, 68 pp.Google Scholar

  • Kelderer M., Casera C., Lardschneider E. 2008. Formulated and unformulated carbonates to control scab (Venturia inaequalis) in organic apple p. 47–53. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cultivation Technique and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit-Growing, Fördergemeinschaft Weinsberg, Germany, 18–20 February 2008, 349 pp.Google Scholar

  • Marchand P.A., Isambert C.A., Jonis M., Parveaud C.-E., Chevolon M., Gomez C., Lambion J., Ondet S.J., Aveline N., Molot B., Berthier C., Furet A., Clerc F., Rey A., Navarro J.-F., Bidault F., Maille E., Bertrand C., Andreu V., Treuvey N., Pierre S.P., Coulon A., Chaput C., Arufat A., Brunet J.-L., Belzunces L., Bonafos R., Guillet B., Conseil M., Prieur L., Tournant L., Oste S., Larrieu J.-F., Coulombel A. 2014. Evaluation des caractéristiques et de l’intérêt agronomique de préparations simples de plantes, pour des productions fruitières, légumières et viticoles économes en intrants [Evaluation of characteristics and agronomic interest of simple herbal preparations for fruit, vegetable and wine-production as efficient inputs]. Innovations Agronomiques 34: 83–96. Available on : https://www6.inra.fr/ciag/content/download/5226/40868/file/Vol34-6-Marchand.pdf [Accessed: August 12, 2016]

  • Marchand P.A. 2015a. Basic substances: an opportunity for approval of low-concern substances under EU pesticide regulation. Pest Management Science 71 (9): 1197–1200. DOI: 10.1002/ps.3997CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marchand P.A., Isambert C.A., Jonis M., Chovelon M., Aveline N., Molot B., Berthier C., Furet A., Bidaut F., Maille E., Bertrand C., Andreu V., Brunet J.-L., Belzunces L.P., Bonafos R., Guillet B. 2015b. Intérêt agronomique de préparations simples de plantes, pour des productions viticoles économes en intrants [Agronomic interest of simple herbal preparations for fruit, vegetable and wine-production as efficient inputs]. Revue des Oenologues et des Techniques Vitivinicoles et Oenologiques 155: 25–28.Google Scholar

  • Montag J., Schreiber L., Schönherr J. 2006. The post-infection activity of hydrated lime against conidia of Venturia inaequalis. p. 77–82. In: Proceedings of the “Ecofruit” – 12th International Conference on Cultivation Technique and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit-Growing Boos (M. Boos, ed.). Weinsberg, Germany, 31 January–2 February 2006, 243 pp.Google Scholar

  • Misato T., Homma Y., Ko K. 1977. The development of a natural fungicide, Soybean lecithin. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 83 (Suppl. 1): 395–402. DOI: 10.1007/BF03041455CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Popp J., Pető K., Nagy J. 2013. Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agronomy and Sustainable Development 33 (1): 243–255. DOI: 10.1007/s13593-012-0105-xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tobias A., Lehoczki-Tornai J., Szalai Z., Csambalik L., Radics L. 2007. Effect of different treatments to bacterial canker (Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis), bacterial speck (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato) in tomato and bacterial spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria) in pepper. International Journal of Horticultural Science 13 (2): 49–53.Google Scholar

  • Trdan S., Žnidaric D., Vidrih M., Ka M. 2008. Three natural substances for use against Alternaria cichorii on selected varieties of endive: antifungal agents, plant strengtheners, or foliar fertilizers? Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 115 (2): 63–68.Google Scholar

  • Vidal R. 2016. Projet Casdar HE “Evaluation de l’intérêt de l’utilisation d’huiles essentielles dans des stratégies de protection des cultures” [Research program CASDAR “Evaluation of the benefits of using essential oils in strategies for crop protection]. CASDAR HE (huiles essentielles). Technical report. In: Proceedings of the Conference “Journées Substances Naturelles en Production végétale“. Institut Technique de l’Agriculture Biologique (ITAB), Paris, France, 26–27 April 2016, 45 pp. Available on: http://www.itab.asso.fr/publications/jt-intrants2016.php [Accessed: August 8, 2016]

  • Villaverde J.J., Sevilla-Morán B., Sandín-España P., López-Goti C., Alonso-Prados J.L. 2014. Biopesticides in the framework of the European Pesticide Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. Pest Management Science 70: 2–5. DOI: 10.1002/ps.3663CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-03-29

Accepted: 2016-08-12

Published Online: 2016-09-24

Published in Print: 2016-07-01

Citation Information: Journal of Plant Protection Research, ISSN (Online) 1899-007X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jppr-2016-0041.

Export Citation

© 2016 Patrice A. Marchand, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in