January - April 2004
1. PAN Europe activities
Pesticide residues in food
The Commission’s 2003 proposal for a new pesticides residue
directive aiming to harmonise Maximum Residue Levels across the
EU was discussed in March and April by European Parliament members.
PAN Europe members were very critical of the Commission proposal
and submitted suggested amendments to ensure better consumer protection.
Some of these were taken on board by Green, Socialist and Liberal
MEPs and we were pleased that Parliament voted to:
- take account of cumulative pesticide exposure;
- assess all sources of pesticide exposure when deciding MRLs;
- take new scientific findings into account and new concerns of
development toxicity, immunotoxicity and endocrine disruption;
- more frequent publication of residue monitoring results on the
internet;
- integrated pest management approaches, rather than just Good
Agricultural Practice, should be used as a basis for setting maximum
residue levels.
Unfortunately, calls to add an extra safety factor of 10 for children
were not agreed. PAN-E partners in 8 countries were involved in
lobbying Parliament Members to support stricter measures. The next
step will be when the Council of Ministers for 25 Member States
votes on the proposals later this year.
Revision of pesticides authorisation directive
91/414
PAN-E took part in the stakeholder consultation meeting organised
by DG Health & Consumer Protection in January and submitted
our position on the Commission proposals in the revision of this
directive. There should be hazard-based cut-off criteria for excluding
active ingredients from approval, particularly for toxicity, persistence
and bioaccumulation and for those carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic
to reproduction, endocrine disrupting and sensitizing. Newly recognised
effects should be included faster and evaluation of toxicity of
mixtures of pesticides. There should be substitution and comparative
assessment, to favour least harmful products and alternative methods.
The new proposals to register formulated products at 3 zonal levels
(Scandinavia, Central Europe, and Southern Europe) could limit the
possibility for individual Member States to restrict use of particular
products and set up a 3 tier system of different standards. We want
more controls and sanctions on improper use and a robust system
to make sure that any pesticide no longer approved under the directive
for health or environmental reasons is clearly identified and notified
to other countries under the Prior Informed Consent convention.
Commission proposals are expected to be finalised by September 2004
and then voted on by Parliament and Council of Ministers.
Aerial spraying consultation
We attended a DG Environment stakeholder meeting in March to address
the original Commission proposals for a possible ban on aerial spraying,
under its proposed Thematic Strategy for a sustainable use of pesticides.
PAN-E’s position in our PURE campaign is for a total ban.
We are concerned that crop and forest spraying companies are arguing
that aerial application can be precisely controlled and there is
no alternative on steep slopes and they say there are environmental
benefits from low volume, GPS-guided, sophisticated technologies
but without presenting any concrete evidence. There is very different
practice among Member States, e.g. Greece no longer aerial sprays
olive groves but Spain does. Total bans are currently only in Denmark,
Estonia and Slovenia, with partial bans in Italy, Cyprus, Austria
and Belgium.
Costs and benefits of pesticide reduction
As part of the development of the Thematic Strategy for a sustainable
use of pesticides, DG Environment has to conduct an Economic Impact
Assessment, carried out by an external consultancy firm. PAN-E and
other stakeholders were asked to complete a questionnaire on our
opinions and data. However, the questionnaire focuses on possible
costs of proposed measures and provides almost no opportunities
to estimate possible benefits, either economic or health and environment-related.
We expressed our concern to DG Environment and the consultancy firm
and have submitted information on published studies showing benefits
from pesticide reduction programmes. Disturbingly, DG Environment
continues to claim that there is no direct link between overall
reduction of quantities of pesticides used and the risks involved.
PURE is Working report
We published a new report entitled Pesticide Use Reduction is
Working: An assessment of national reduction strategies in Denmark,
Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway. This describes the different
measures under these programmes, achievements, factors contributing
to success or difficulties, as well as indicators used to measure
reduction targets.
Environment & Health strategy
In June 2003, the Commission proposed a "European Environmental
and Health Strategy", also called SCALE (Science, Children,
Awareness, Legal instruments , Evaluation), on how to address environment
and health issues in a more integrated way. In order to develop
this strategy and prepare an Action Plan 2004-2010 as the Commission's
input to the WHO Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health
in Budapest in June 2004, a series of technical working groups were
set up starting last autumn, in which we participated. In 2004 PAN-E
participated further in the biomonitoring of children TWG, and integrated
monitoring of endocrine disruptors and liaised with like-minded
NGO and academic colleagues in the childhood cancer and neurodevelopmental
disorders TWGs. We have been concerned that the aim of the TWGs
appeared to be to highlight problems and deficits with the existing
data and to advocate further research, rather than push for policy
action.
We submitted pesticide-related recommendations for immediate actions,
including legislation for pesticide dependency reduction; pesticides
as priority substances for biomonitoring; geographical mapping of
emissions; and adoption of cut-off criteria in Directive 91/414.
These were included in annexes to the relevant working group reports
but not considered as consensus recommendations. In January we joined
other NGOs in sending a letter to EC officials with our concerns
and recommendations for the next phase of developing action plans.
In March NGOs, including PAN-E, again wrote to EC officials and
relevant Commissioners to express disappointment about the outcome
of this process. The main concerns are: the draft action plan fails
to take forward many concrete and important proposals from TWGs
; there is too much emphasis given to research; legislative action
is a must for an Action Plan; precautionary decision-making must
be a basis for SCALE; and financial resources and targets are critical
for better health.
Stop paraquat campaign
In January we joined a coalition of international trade union organizations
and environmental NGOs to file a lawsuit with the European Court
of First Instance challenging the European Commission’s decision
last December to grant EU-wide approval for the herbicide paraquat
. The Commission decision ignored readily available scientific evidence
on the toxic effects of paraquat on humans and the environment.
Lawyers representing the coalition will argue that approval violates
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, the European Union Treaty (in particular the precautionary
principle) and secondary EU law.
The Swedish government is also suing the Commission, asking the
European Court of Justice to annul the Commission’ decision
to approve paraquat. Paraquat has been banned since 1983 in Sweden
for health concerns.
At an international strategy meeting in March, members from PAN
Regional Centres agreed to focus worldwide on paraquat and the organochlorine
endosulfan as key active ingredients under PAN International’s
objective of eliminating the most hazardous pesticides. PAN International
wants to see both pesticides notified under the PIC convention and
to get endosulfan listed in the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Convention.
2. Published news and information
More actives get “essential use”
derogation
The Commission has allowed certain Member States to continue specific
uses of eight pesticides withdrawn from the EU market in March 2004.
These are the herbicides cinosulforon, flamprop-M, pretilachlor
and quinclorac, the insecticides hexaflumoron and methidathion,
the fungicide triadimefon and the disinfectant alkyldimethyl-benzyl
ammonium chloride. Both methidathion and triadimefon are categorised
as Bad Actors in PAN North America pesticides database using official
data sources: methidathion is acutely toxic and triadimefon moderately
toxic; both are possible carcinogens and potential groundwater contaminants,
methidathion is a cholinesterase inhibitor and triadimefon a suspected
endocrine disruptor. Essential uses will be allowed for these pesticides
until end of 2007. Methidathion, for example, may continue to be
used on olives in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, on apples and
pears in France, Greece and Portugal and on oilseed rape in Germany,
amongst others.
New active ingredients herbicide flazasulfuron, fungicide pyraclostrobin
and fungicide benzoic acid were added to the EU approvals list,
Annex 1 of the pesticides authorisation directive, and the herbicide
and potato sprout inhibitor chlorpropham given re-registration approval.
New fungicide mepanipyrim and the biofungicide Pseudomonas chloroaphis
are recommended by the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and
Animal Health to be included for EU-wide approval too.
Bee controversy leads to further pesticide
restrictions in France
Following the longstanding debate over use of fipronil and imidacloprid
insecticides and heavy mortality of bee colonies, the French Ministry
of Agriculture in February suspended sales of the six fipronil products
registered in France. However, farmers could still use seeds treated
with fipronil for sowing this season and use up existing seed stocks.
France’s pesticide toxicology commission earlier this year
recommended the government should not support EU-wide approval of
fipronil, for which France is the rapporteur state for the review
of this active ingredient, due to be finalised by end 2005. A court
case in southern France to prosecute BASF and Bayer for sales of
a “toxic product harmful to human and animal health”
in connection with bee kills has kept the debate in the media eye.
The magistrate raised concerns that fipronil received only a series
of temporary sales authorisations since its introduction in 1996,
rather than a rigorous assessment pre-marketing and researchers
reported that traces of fipronil have been found in silage fed to
cattle and accumulated in animal fat and milk, while fipronil was
detected in the air. M. Narbonne, a food safety expert at Bordeaux
University, argued that the level of exposure in food often exceeded
the acceptable daily intake, especially for children.
Agrochemical market in Europe increased in
2002
Industry figures showed a 1.7% increase in sales in 2002 in the
total EU and European Free Trade Agreement Region, up to ? 5,835million.
Although the figure means an actual decline of 0.3% allowing for
currency and inflation factors, industry notes this was a significant
improvement on the years 1999-2001. Higher crop prices and greater
certainty over farm income were important factors. Total 2002 sales
in the ten Accession countries were worth ?779 million euros, sales
in Romania and Bulgaria ? 140 million and Russia and the Ukraine,
? 221 million. Preliminary assessment of 2003 sales confirms the
upward trend, although drought depressed fungicide sales in northern
Europe.
Denmark confirms further pesticide reduction
can benefit farmers
The Bichel committee of experts set up in 1997 produced the first
assessment of economic consequences for farmers and society of different
scenarios of pesticide reduction. Its conclusions have been used
to inform subsequent government pesticide action plans. In 2003,
the economic analysis was updated using current crop and pesticide
prices and records of around 2,000 farmers’ use of pesticides
during 1999-2003. The update confirms that farmers will gain an
overall benefit of around 12.5 euros/ha, if they further reduce
their Treatment Frequency Index from 2.0 to 1.7 (equivalent to a
reduction of 15%). The government’s new action plan for 2004-09
targets this reduction in TFI. With 2.5 million hectares in Denmark,
this means a total saving for farmers of roughly 30 million euros.
It notes that a 30% reduction (TFI down to 1.4) would be possible
using well established technologies without changing crop rotations
and without additional costs (less than 7 euros/ha). Challenges
will be to change farmer behaviour and practice, substituting farmer
or advisor time for pesticide operations. Preventative spraying
will need to meet higher economic thresholds and some systematic
herbicide applications will need to be replaced with targeted spot
treatment. Using row cultivators in sugarbeet, maize and winter
oilseed rape can also reduce usage effectively, as can more resistant
varieties of barley and wheat. However, stronger incentives are
required to reach the reduction target, such as binding agreements,
quotas or significant levies on use. The study also showed that
larger farms of over 100ha have a 15% higher pesticide use than
smaller farms.
Toxic effects of co-formulants
Denmark’s Bichel Committee of 1999 suggested that pesticide
authorisation should also include data requirements on co-formulants,
some of which may be more toxic than the active ingredient. A literature
study of 18 selected co-formulants showed that data availability
on toxic effects is very limited and human data are very scarce.
Most data concentrates on acute toxicity and irritant effects, meaning
considerable gaps in proper hazard assessment. Many of the co-formulants
studied were skin, eye and respiratory irritants, some had reported
neurological, blood and kidney effects. The data indicate that co-formulants
are not toxicologically inert but may have adverse health effects,
although no exposure assessment was carried out to attempt to assess
risk. The study recommends revising current approvals process to
include data requirements on all relevant toxicological end-points
for all the specific co-formulants to be used in a given pesticide
formulation, with special attention to sensitisation, repeated dose
toxicity, and CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive toxicity).
Further regulation should ensure that co-formulants for which serious
health effects are identified should no longer be permitted for
use.
OC residues in Portugal
A study in 2001-02 looked at organochlorine residues in non-occupationally
exposed people in urban and rural areas. p,p´DDE, a HCH ,
p,p´DDD and ß-HCH were the most frequently identified
residues. Isomers a- and ß-HCH were found more often than
the insecticidal ? isomer, lindane. This could be due to exposure
to impure formulations of lindane, either in agricultural use or
in shampoos and lotions for headlice and scabies. Significantly
higher levels of total DDT load were found in urban samples, possibly
due to higher consumption of animal and diary products, particularly
imported from countries where DDT has been used recently, while
rural inhabitants tend to consume more local production. The authors
note that younger groups have high levels of OC residues, suggesting
continued exposure to these compounds. The data showed higher levels
of DDT contamination than for studies in Spain, Italy, Germany or
Belgium, although a Swedish study showed much higher p,p´DDE
levels.
Pesticides and birth weight in rural Poland
A study of women from rural central Poland of whom 2/3 lived or
worked on farms. None of the women were involved directly in pesticide
application but indirectly exposed via working in treated fields
or living on farm. Phenoxy herbicides were most frequently used
(50%), followed by pyrethroids (43%), benzene thiosulphanates (28%),
OPs (23%) and copper compounds (17%). 83% of women working in orchards
and 73% working on other crop farms reported pesticides use during
first or second trimester of pregnancy. A small but statistically
significant negative effect on birth weight associated with exposure
to pyrethoids was found. Pyrethroids are not reported in the literature
to have negative effects on the foetus but several of the pyrethroids
to which the subjects were exposed are suspected possible endocrine
disruptors.
OC concentrations in gull chicks in the Baltic
The Fennoscandinavian subspecies of the lesser black-backed gull
has experienced drastic population decline in recent years and is
now endangered over its entire range. Decline is linked to very
high chick mortality due to diseases. Elevated DDE/PCB ratio in
lesser black-backed chicks indicate increased exposure to DDT compounds
compared with other Baltic seabirds. DDE concentrations in diseased
chicks were well above levels previously correlated with decreased
reproduction, while levels in healthy herring gull chicks were well
below these levels. Differences in DDT exposure due to migration
habits might be important.
Dietary exposure in German children
Urine samples were analysed for OP and pyrethroid insecticides
of children from families reporting no household use of pesticides.
Exposure was therefore presumed to be via dietary intake. Levels
of pyrethroid metabolites were low suggesting exposure well below
Acceptable Daily Intake levels, but OP metabolite concentrations
excreted were high and exceeded estimated dietary intake. One possible
explanation is that OPs ingested might have already degraded to
metabolites, which are not featured in standard residue testing.
Internal exposure of OP insecticides may exceed ADI values in some
children. In one family OP metabolite levels were low in father
and son but very high in the mother. She ate large quantities of
fresh fruit purchased from a local supermarket. When she switched
to eating organic fruit, her levels dropped considerably.
3. News from PAN Europe partners
Using theatre to campaign on pesticide issues
in Armenia
Armenian activists used dangerous pesticides in agriculture as
the theme for a children’s theatrical performance as part
of their campaign “Towards Toxic Free Future” to raise
public awareness about why pesticide use should be reduced. Based
on the “Dwarf Nose,” fairy tale, the performance describes
a relationship between food and people’s health. The main
hero, a boy with a long nose and a hunchback, is bright but his
physical appearance emphasizes in a grotesque way the influence
of toxic food on human health. The first performances were in October
2003 at two schools in Ararat Marz, the region most polluted with
pesticides. Further performances at the State Puppet Theatre and
National Centre of Aesthetics were a great success and a version
was prepared for TV. To follow up, a schools competition is being
held for the best script on dangerous usage of pesticides in agriculture.
By involving children in personal participation in the information
campaign, AWHHE aims for them to introduce to their families knowledge
about pesticide impacts on human health and environment.
Balkan NGOs start networking on pesticides
Bulgarian NGOs organized the first international workshop dealing
with pesticide related issues in the Balkan region in March 2004
in Sofia, with contributions from PAN Germany and 27 representatives
of NGOs and administration from 4 Balkan countries (Bulgaria, Turkey,
Romania and Macedonia). The aim was to meet NGOs interested in pesticide
issues and facilitate exchange of information with Bulgarian government
officials on pesticide use, authorization, control and monitoring.
Pesticides remain too expensive for most Bulgarian farmers to use
under current economic conditions but where pesticides are still
applied, they are often used inappropriately and are causing problems
of resistance. The management of pesticides is often very poor leading
to localised water pollution problems from poor storage, over-application,
inappropriate disposal or accidents by spray operators. In 2001,
35% of stores were in bad condition. In 2003, 711 storage sites
containing over 6,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides and 57% of sites
were unprotected.
A Bulgarian network of NGOs was set up in 2003, with a campaigner
to prepare data about the impacts of pesticide use in Bulgaria.
Educational meetings were held with farmers and experts in the Bulgarian
Black Sea region. Closer cooperation in NGO action activities is
necessary for the Balkan region and the second International Balkan
workshop is planned for September 2004 in Romania. PAN Germany will
publish a Fact Sheet on “Pesticide Use in Bulgaria - Pesticide
use, issues and how to promote sustainable agriculture in Bulgaria”
in cooperation with the Bulgarian NGO Association Agrolink in May.
Promoting Best Agricultural Practice in Central
& Eastern Europe
In March 2004, PAN Germany organized a technical workshop, titled
“Moving Towards Pesticide Reduction – Instruments for
Change” in co-operation with the Polish Ecological Club of
Gliwice (PKE) with 18 representatives of NGOs from 6 Central and
Eastern European countries. The aim was to discuss different “Risk
Management Concepts” in agricultural plant protection such
as Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) and Integrated Crop/Pest Management
(ICM/IPM), which have been developed to make conventional farming
more sustainable. In order to move farmers away from ‘bad
practices’ to good and best practices, the concept of Best
Agricultural Practice (BAP) was introduced. While GAP focuses on
rules, regulation and recommendation, often understood as “current
agricultural practice”, BAP goes beyond other concepts to
build a step-by step approach from “bad practices” to
“good practices” to “best practices” as
a vision towards pesticide reduction and sustainable agriculture
in local agroeconomic, social and environmental contexts.
Participants from the new EU-Member States already harmonized in
EU-legislation agreed that “good” practice in GAP definitions
were generally in place, whereas those from non-EU countries (e.
g. Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine) classified their current practice
as “bad”. Not only are pesticides handled poorly but
the legal framework and official control instruments are either
underdeveloped or do not work in practice.
All participants agreed on the need for more education and training
activities for farmers and crop advisors, financial and strategic
support from the government as well as NGO activities in order to
raise awareness of environmental and health risks of “bad”
plant protection practices in.
Bystander exposure and right to know concerns
taken up by UK parliamentarian
The British government held a public consultation on the issue
of pesticide exposure of those living close to sprayed fields last
year. PAN UK and others encouraged the public to take an active
part, demanding a public right to know on pesticide application
details and for buffer no-spray zones next to people’s homes,
as a precautionary measure to protect public health. Over a thousand
people and organisations submitted their views, one of the highest
number of responses to a consultation since records began. The government
is now preparing its decision. To continue the pressure, PAN UK
has persuaded one Member of Parliament to propose an Early Day Motion
on the subject, to be debated if more than 100 Members sign in its
support. The EDM proposes “that the public should have the
right to know what pesticides to which they are exposed in the air,
and potentially by skin contact, are being used near their homes,
and in fields crossed or skirted by rights of way; notes that pesticide
users should provide advance notification, and signs on-site, giving
this information, or a hotline number, or website; and believes
that no-spray buffer zones around residential areas, including homes,
nurseries, schools and homes for the elderly, should be observed
as a precautionary public health measure”.
PAN UK is urging members of its Action on Pesticide Exposure (PEX)
network and other supporters to ask their MP to sign the EDM and
to contact the relevant Minister to let them know their views.
The PAN Europe Newsletter is compiled by Stephanie Williamson,
PAN-E Coordinator, Eurolink Centre, 49 Effra Road, London SW2 1BZ,
UK Tel +44 (0)20 7274 8995, Fax +44 (0)20 7274 9084, Contributions are welcome from PAN Europe network members and individuals.
home 
about us 
campaigns 
issues 
resources 
news 
join PAN Europe 
links 
credits 
