September 2001
Retailer bans suspect pesticides
The UK retailer and farming enterprise, the Co-op, has banned
the use of 24 pesticides worldwide in crops it purchases because
of rising consumer concerns about health and environmental impacts.
As Britain's biggest farmer, the Co-op believes governments must
start applying the 'precautionary principle' to existing and new
pesticides and increase support for safer alternatives.
Serious consumer concerns about the safety of food grown using
pesticides is fuelled by secrecy in the food and agrochemical industries.
The Co-op predicts that unless action is taken these factors will
conspire to derail consumer confidence and once again undermine
the livelihoods of UK farmers. A new report from the Co-op addresses
the problems of agrochemical use in intensive agriculture, and provides
some sustainable solutions1.
Retailers, like other stakeholders, are concerned about the high
profile pesticide scares, crises like BSE and the foot and mouth
epidemic.
Now the Co-op has announced that it will focus particularly on
the organophosphate (OPs) nerve poisons and the environmentally
persistent organochlorines that worry consumers.
There is concern that exposure to some of these chemicals may be
implicated in serious long term health effects including declining
sperm counts and increasing rates of testicular cancer and breast
cancer.
OPs are the most widely used group of insecticides in the world.
They are among the most acutely toxic of all pesticides to insects,
vertebrate animals and humans. OPs are hazardous both to professional
and amateur users, and are regularly detected in food items such
as fruit and vegetables. The latest results from the UK government’s
pesticide residue analysis show the safety limit (known as the acute
reference dose) can be exceeded.
Lindane has been singled out as a problematic organochlorine. It
is known to act as a hormone disrupter (a chemical linked to effects
such as birth defects, sexual abnormalities and reproductive failure).
The Co-op’s new code of practice developed with suppliers
bans 24 pesticides in fresh and frozen produce (see box). It includes
organochlorines (such as lindane), and some OPs (including chlorfenvinphos
and demeton-S-methyl). The Co-op intends to review its list on a
regular basis. ‘We continue to have discussions with the various
groups including farmers, suppliers and environmentalists. Where
other pesticides are identified with concerns, we will consider
either putting them onto a banned list, or put them on a “requiring
approval list” until we have further evidence to support either
use, or ban them,’ maintains Kevin Barker of the Co-op.
Six of the pesticides that the Co-op has banned are still approved
for use in the UK. So what was the response from the regulators
to this unofficial ban? According to Kevin Barker: ‘The regulators
have been very quiet and we have had very little or no feedback.
We have raised a number of questions with the Advisory Committee
on Pesticides (ACP) for which we are still awaiting a response.
We will be seeking meetings with the UK regulator, the Pesticides
Safety Directorate, and other officials to discuss our concerns
and hopefully we will drive these issues forward.’
The pesticide industry has on the other hand made its concerns
known, adopting such headlines as: ‘Co-op ban is plain wrong’.
Dr Anne Buckenham, Director of the Crop Protection Association (CPA),
said: ‘The Co-op has done a disservice to the whole UK food
chain which in recent years has done so much to ensure responsible
pesticide use.’2
The fact is that the CPA may have to get used to retailers imposing
decisions on the pesticides suppliers. On 16 August another UK retailer,
Marks and Spencer (M&S), said it was significantly expanding
its list of prohibited pesticides to cover 79 chemicals. M&S
will work with its suppliers to phase these out by January 2002.
More details will be announced over the coming months.
Alternative options for farmers
How are farmers going to replace these banned pesticides? It is
easy to talk about alternatives in theory, but difficult to deliver
replacements in practice. The UK government is considering policies
which could replace higher risk products with lower risk products
where ever possible3. Kevin Barker explained how the Co-op is looking
for safer alternatives: ‘We will work with experts worldwide
to develop crop/pest data sheets that try to pull together as much
information as possible regarding preventative measures, particularly
focusing on biological and cultural control as a first step.’
The Co-op will provide further details on chemical pesticides so
that the user can make more informed decisions. Kevin Barker admits
that there is nevertheless an information gap: ‘There needs
to be a concerted effort by the whole of the industry to make readily
available information for those that need to know. Nobody is supplying
this data in an understandable format to the growers, the people
that count.’
Co-op commitments
- Ban world-wide the use in Co-op fresh and frozen produce of
24 pesticides for which there are alternatives.
- Restrict the use of a further list of over 30 pesticides, by
insisting on more benign alternatives.
- Publish Co-op pesticide residue analysis on its website (www.co-op.co.uk).
- Support greater public access to information to provide a balanced
and independent view on the use of pesticides and alternative
methods.
- Lobby UK government to outlaw the use of the six pesticides
on the Co-op’s banned list which are still approved in the
UK.
- Lobby government to empower the ACP to encourage alternatives
and to provide funding for research.
- Support the Organic Targets Campaign organised by Sustain, the
alliance for better food and farming.
Conclusion
Environmental groups like Friends of the Earth have been quick
to congratulate the Co-op on its stance. Retailers must support
more research into safer alternatives, because of chronic under-funding
in the past. The UK government will decide over the next few months
whether to incorporate comparative assessment whereby less risky
pest management is adopted. Pesticide regulators should move towards
these measures by taking a more precautionary approach to pesticide
safety and approval, as recommended by consumer and environmental
public interest groups, and now increasingly by other stakeholders
such as retailers.
Latest pesticide residues results from the European Commission
(EC) suggest that residue safety breaches are getting worse. The
EC has analysed the testing carried out by 17 national monitoring
programmes in the European Union countries, as well as Norway and
Iceland, of melons, peppers, cauliflowers and wheat. While 64% of
the samples contained no detectable residues, nearly one-third of
the food consumed is contaminated. Of this, 4.3% exceeds the approved
maximum residue level (MRL). Of particular concern were the levels
of residues of endosulfan and methamidophos in peppers and melons.
The EU report highlights the low level of residue testing for fruit
and vegetables in the UK. Compared with 17 other European countries,
the UK ranks 11th for number of samples taken and the lowest per
capita: only 0.231, compared with 3.44 samples per capita in Sweden.
However, UK samples in the monitoring programme showed 2.9% of the
residues analysed as above the MRL, whereas 30% of samples in the
Netherlands were above the MRL, 24% in Finland and 10% in Spain.
The report analysed data from each member state in order to identify
which residues occurred most frequently. The organophosphate (OP)
chlorpyrifos figured in 12 countries including the UK. Another frequently
detected pesticide in the UK was DDT, despite having been banned
for use there since 1984.
There is increasing concern about multiple residues in food (see
PN 51 p17). The results show 14% of the samples contained residues
of more than one pesticide, and in 2.2% residues of four or more
pesticides were detected. In Finland 29% of samples contain multiple
residues, and in France, one sample contained eight or more pesticide
residues.
Because most residue limits are set on the adult bodyweight, children
can consume a disproportionate level of pesticide residues. At the
residue levels found across Europe, a toddler would consume 181%
of the health-based acceptable daily level of endosulfan in peppers,
over six times (681%) of the acceptable level of methamidophos.
As a precautionary measure, the EC has greatly lowered the MRL for
methamidophos on peppers.
Both these pesticides are known to cause problems, particularly
in developing countries. Many people died in Benin recently as a
result of exposure to the pesticide endosulfan (see Pesticides News
51 p12), and methamidophos is an OP nerve poison that can adversely
affect those applying the insecticide.
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Pesticides Action Network
Europe (PAN Europe) have called on the European Union to reshape
its chemicals and pesticides policy in order to ban substances of
high concern, set strict deadlines and allow full public participation.
The European Commission has recently issued a report on the 1991
agricultural pesticides Authorisation Directive1 which recommends
that the deadline for an EU-wide review of pesticides should be
delayed for five years from 2003 to 2008. This report signals an
admission from the Commission that the current system does not work
and that it cannot enforce its deadlines.
The EEB and PAN have criticised the slow, ineffective chemicals
and pesticides control process for its lack of clear criteria to
identify unacceptable substances, such as those which are persistent
or bioaccumulative, and for putting the burden of proof and an enormous
workload on the regulators instead of on industry. The existing
system encourages industry to submit incomplete data-sets or delay
submission.
‘The current EU agriculture policy relies heavily on use
of pesticides. Industry knows that this makes it unlikely that deadlines
with sanctions will be seriously enforced,’ said Dr. Ute Meyer,
PAN Europe. ‘Therefore it is necessary to have EU-wide pesticides
legislation that establishes national pesticides use reduction programmes
and minimises agriculture’s dependency on pesticides.’
The evaluation of the active ingredients of pesticides is performed
behind closed doors. So far, public interest participation in the
process has not been possible. Public pressure and transparent discussions
are necessary to improve procedures and decision-making. The EEB
and PAN Europe urge the Commission to open up the process now to
full NGO participation.
‘A quick, effective chemicals and pesticides control is urgently
needed; one which bans persistent or bioaccumulative or toxic substances,
sets strict deadlines and allows full public participation.’
said Stefan Scheuer, EEB Chemicals Policy Coordinator. ‘These
are the key issues which must be incorporated by the ongoing review
of the chemicals and pesticides policy.’
The onus has shifted towards the European Parliament where a debate
on the Commission’s White Paper for a future chemicals policy
started on 27 August. It is now up to MEPs to make sure that requirements
outlined by EEB and PAN are included in future legislation.
European News
Understanding regulation in Europe
Over 200 delegates attended the regulatory conference Review for
the Future – Getting the Best out of Directive 91/414 held
in Brussels 5-6 July 2001. Many regulators attended from the European
Commission, Member Sates, as well as industry and public interest
NGOs.
Dr Ute Meyer, co-ordinator of PAN Europe, attended the meeting
and argued for greater participation of public interest groups in
the regulatory process and greater transparency. She suggested opening
up Commission review meetings to public interest observers. Another
public interest speaker was Beate Ketlitz, food policy adviser to
the European Consumers Association (BEUC). She commented on the
wide variations in pesticide monitoring programmes in EU states,
and said that review of the maximum residue limits for organophosphate
insecticides had to be a priority, especially for baby food and
infant food.
Pesticide sales results for 2000
Denmark’s sales down in value – but not in volume
Pesticides sales by members of Dansk Plantevaern (the Danish crop
protection association) amounted to DKr 63.2 million (€85.1
million) in 2000, a decline of 15% on the previous year. Sales of
active ingredients in volume terms increased by 8.3% from 2,588.0
tonnes in 1999 to 2,802.7 t in 2000. This increase was due to a
shift from more expensive products to cheaper ones.
Decrease in Finnish sales
Finnish pesticides sales fell by 4.5% to FMk 287 million (€48.3
million) in 2000, ending three years of consecutive value growth
at the distributor level. Pesticide volume sales remained stable.
A total of 3,161 tonnes of pesticide products containing 1,166 tonnes
of active ingredient were sold in 2000, up by 0.7% and 0.6% respectively.
The volume of sales of biological pesticides almost trebled to
6.7 tonnes in 2000. Products were based on Bacillus thuringiensis,
Pseudmonas chloroaphis, Streptomyces griseoviridis, Verticlum lecanii
and Phlebiopsis gigantean.
Swedish market falls back
Sales of pesticides by members of the Swedish pesticide association
(IVT) amounted to Skr 509 million (€51.5 million) in 2000,
a decline of 15.7% on the previous year. Sales in 1999 increased
mostly because of major aphid infestations compared with the previous
year.
Belgium sales static
Pesticide sales by members of Phytofa, the Belgian agrochemical
industry association, reached BFr 6,278 million (€155.6 million)
in 2000, up by 6.4% compared with 1999. However, this does not reflect
real growth of the market, as new members joined the association
in 1999 and 2000, and boosted its representation to 90% of the national
market.
Germany bans organotin Pesticides
Germany has banned fentin hydroxide the last remaining organotin
compound that was being used as an agricultural pesticide. The chemical
is a fungicide/bacteriacide that controls blight and blackleg. Germany’s
federal biological institute, the BBA, withdrew the pesticide’s
registration in August and banned its sale with immediate effect
Germany suspends dichlobenil
The German BBA has also suspended all registrations of herbicides
containing dichlobenil, until 30 April 2002. The decision follows
the discovery of high levels of the dichlobenil metabolite, dichlorbenzamid,
in ground water in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. The
registrations will be suspended to give the BBA time to look into
the discovery.
EU excludes parathion
The European Commission has confirmed the exclusion of the organophosphate
insecticide/acaracide, parathion, from Annex I of the EU agricultural
pesticide registration directive (91/414). The decision follows
an exclusion recommendation from the Standing Committee on Plant
Health in March 2001. Registrations must be withdrawn by 9 January
2002 and existing stock may be used in no more than one further
growing season. Parathion was part of the first round of the EU
review of existing active ingredients and was defended by Bayer
and Cheminova.
Review of pesticide taxation
Many countries in Western Europe have introduced voluntary programmes
to encourage farmers to adopt environmentally more benign practices
such as integrated pest management, but more policy action appears
to be needed to meet environmental quality levels now demanded,
according to UK agricultural economists. Input taxes could assist
in meeting policy objectives.
The researchers took a farm systems approach to the evaluation
and identification of the most appropriate specification of a tax
instrument to reduce the environmental problems of agricultural
pesticide usage. A case-study illustration is given for a specialist
arable farm in the UK, combining an economic model of land use and
production with a set of environmental indicators for pesticides.
Linking these two components allows the identification of the potential
trade-offs between achieving reductions in the environmental burdens
to a number of ecological dimensions and farm income.
The results of the model indicate that either compromises will
have to be made in environmental policy, or additional instruments
will be required to counter-act the negative side-effects of some
instruments.
Chlorophenol pollution in Finnish water
Chlorophenols have contaminated the drinking water and a local
lake in the village of Järvelä in Southern Finland. The
water intake for the village is sited about 800m from a sawmill
and 3,400m from the lumberyard, where the fungicide ‘KY-5’
was used to inhibit the growth of bluestain fungus in timber from
the 1940s until 1984. A total of 1,773 inhabitants responded to
a survey in the contaminated area. Gastrointestinal and skin symptoms,
in particular, were significantly more common in the contaminated
area that in each control area. Nausea, general malaise, headache,
anorexia, exceptional tiredness, and respiratory infections were
significantly increased compared to the control areas. A dose response
was also observed: higher consumption of drinking water and contaminated
fish further significantly increased reported symptoms. In conclusion,
long-term use of chlorophenol polluted household water and fish
can cause symptoms already familiar in connection with occupational
chlorophenol exposure.
Pesticides and semen quality
Researches from Denmark have studied the incidence of testicular
function among greenhouse workers exposed to pesticides. Semen was
examined for 122 men from 30 ornamental flower greenhouses measured
according to World Health Organisation guidelines.
According to current exposure the median values for of sperm concentrations
and the proportion of normal spermatozoa were 60% and 14% lower,
respectively, in the high-level exposure groups than in the low-level
group, and the values of the intermediate group fell in between.
The results are compatible with the hypothesis that male fecundity
may be at risk from exposure to pesticides in the manual handling
of cultures in greenhouses.
A Abell, Erik Ernst and Jens Bonde, Semen quality and sexual
hormones in greenhouse workers, Scandinavian Journal of Environment
and Helath, 2000, Vol. 26, pp492-500.
European Environmental Bureau action on water
The EEB has launched a campaign Making
the Water Framework Directive work, following a broad consultation
among EEB’s Water Campaign Network. As a result the network
developed ‘Ten actions for implementing a better European
Water Policy’.
The 10 points are:
- Securing public participation and NGO involvement at the start
– the need for EU guidance
- Substantial support for WFD implementation
- Extending sustainability rules to all water uses
- Integrated water management
- A robust definition of good ecological status
- New economic transparency for water use – laying the foundations
to get the prices right
- Let the polluter pay and create positive incentives
- Protecting groundwater for future generations
- Cessation of all hazardous substances
The PAN Europe Newsletter is produced by Stephanie Williamson,
Contributions are welcome from PAN Europe network members.
home 
about us 
campaigns 
issues 
resources 
news 
join PAN Europe 
links 
credits 
