December 2004 - March 2005
1. PAN Europe activities
Pesticide Use Reduction in Europe (PURE) campaign
In December 2004, the European Commission finally published the
Extended Impact Assessment (EIA) by German consultancy firm BiPro
of the possible proposed options for the Thematic Strategy for a
sustainable use of pesticides. All new EC proposed legislation has
to undergo an assessment of the costs and benefits of its implementation.
PAN Europe had earlier raised concerns that BiPro’s draft
assessment focused on economic costs of measures to reduce pesticide
costs but did not give sufficient attention to the economic and
other qualitative benefits from reducing health and environmental
impacts.
In February 2005, PAN Europe’s comments
to this EIA, coordinated by Catherine Wattiez, were submitted to
DG Environment of the EC. We agree with some of the options recommended
but have serious concerns on others. Regarding aerial spraying,
BiPro recommend the option of “legally binding minimal requirements”
to ensure “a proper aerial spraying”. We reject the
rationale leading to this conclusion as one-sided and based on incorrect
and insufficiently documented information and continue to demand
a total prohibition within 5 years. Thanks to our partners Ecologistas
en Accion in Andalucia, Spain, we were able to provide concrete
information on how the current requirements for aerial spraying
of olive groves often fail to be complied with and that BiPro’s
estimates for the greater cost-effectiveness of aerial compared
with ground spraying were not based on correct information.
To ensure a enhanced protection of water, we opt for the adoption
of the “specific risk reduction measures as mandatory parts
of the river basin management” under the Water Framework Directive
option and demand the installation of a no-spraying zone along surface
water as well as zones of no-pesticide or low pesticide use in order
to protect groundwater. In relation to measures for motivating farmers
to take up Integrated Pest Management, we in principle agree that
some form of “general IPM requirements” should be included
under cross-compliance, while more holistic “crop-specific
IPM” needs incentives under agri-environment funding. However,
we feel the BiPro estimates of mean volume use reduction potential
of 10% and 20%, for farmers converting to “general”
and “specific IPM” respectively, are very conservative
and unambitious. Experience with “ crop specific IPM”
schemes shows that much greater reductions can be achieved. We are
concerned that the report takes for “general IPM requirements
the IPM concept of EISA (European Initiative for Sustainable Agriculture)
which in its French version of “Agriculture Raisonnée”
hardly goes beyond legal requirements on using pesticides correctly.
These “general IPM requirements” need to go beyond just
good farming practices.
The EIA rejects specific targets for use reduction on the basis
of one sided misinterpretation of incorrect data from the successful
Danish experience based on a strict registration system and using
treatment frequency as an index. The report agrees to reduce only
“unintended use of pesticides” but we argue that it
is necessary to reduce as much as possible the total exposure to
pesticides by also reducing “intended use of pesticide. We
also continue to press for a pesticide tax. PAN Europe is also very
concerned that funding of “specific IPM” under the agri-environmental
measures, whose budgetary envelope will remain equal, would be at
the expenses of support, among others, for organic farming. PAN
Europe calls for additional and significant economic incentives
to convert to what is called in the report “general “
and “specific IPM”.
Stakeholder comments on the EIA, including ours, can be viewed
at DG Environment’s webpages on the Thematic Strategy.
STOP PRESS: The Commission has just set up a public on-line consultation
on its latest proposals available at the website below. The publication
by the Commission of a proposal for a Thematic Strategy on the sustainable
use of pesticides is now scheduled for September 2005.
Lobbying on Maximum Residue Levels
In late November 2004, we again lobbied MEPs to support progressive
amendments in the harmonisation of MRLs. Debate over proposals in
the new European Pesticide Residue Directive came to an end at its
2nd reading, following successful consensus talks between Parliament
and Council, when the consensus amendments passed the plenary voting
on 15 December. We feel that our lobbying efforts during 2004, coordinated
by Hans Muilerman in the Netherlands, were instrumental in getting
stricter amendments into this directive:
- getting "known" cumulative and synergistic effects
considered;
- taking children and the unborn as the most sensitive group to
protect;
- taking all sources of exposure into account;
- making a review of all "available" recent scientific
literature mandatory;
- evaluating immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption and developmental
toxicity;
- setting standards at the lowest (strictest) level;
- making naming and shaming of companies exceeding standards optional
for Member States
The EU will now develop a list of crops for which EU- wide MRLs
should be set in next 18 months. It will compile all current national
MRLs and select the most appropriate ones for use at EU level.
2. Published news and information
Directive 91/414/EEC: New EU approvals and withdrawals
New active ingredients and biopesticides
In December 2004, the EC’s Standing Committee
on the Food Chain and Animal Health voted to give EU-wide approval
to etoxazole, a new acaricide for use on cotton and vine and tepraloxidim,
a new herbicide for control of grass weeds. The insecticide triazamate
was not given approval. In January 2005 the EC added 6 new pesticide
active ingredients to Annex 1 of authorisation Directive (91/414).
These include: two biopesticides based on fungal agents Ampelomyces
quisqualis and Gliocladium catenulatum; two herbicides,
Syngenta’s S-metolachlor and Sumitomo’s imazosulfuron;
a disease resistance stimulator, laminarin, and an insect growth
regulator, methoxyfenozide. Member States are asked to take certain
aspects into consideration while registering products based on these
substances. Risk mitigation regulations must protect aquatic and
terrestrial non-target plants for imazosulfuron, while similar action
for non-target arthropods is required for methoxyfenozide. For S-metolachlor,
MS must protect aquatic plants and pay attention to groundwater
contamination in vulnerable regions. This herbicide gets PAN North
America “Bad Actor’ status for being a potential ground
water contaminant and suspected endocrine disruptor. The protection
of spray operators is required when using the biopesticide Gliocladium
catenulatum.
Existing active ingredients
In February 2005, it was decided to give EU-wide approval to 6 existing
active ingredients. These are the fungicides chlorothalonil and
thiophanate-methyl; herbicides chlorotoluron and tribenuron, the
insecticide cypermethrin and the growth regulator daminozide. Both
fungicides and daminozide warrant Bad Actor status. Chlorothalonil
is highly acutely toxic according to US EPA, a possible carcinogen
and potential groundwater contaminant. It was banned in Sweden for
carcinogenic concerns. Thiophanate methyl is also a likely carcinogen
and water contaminant and listed as a developmental or reproductive
toxin, with slight acute toxicity. It was banned in Denmark due
to soil persistence concerns and toxicity to earthworms, and restricted
in Sweden. Daminozide is also possibly carcinogenic and banned for
this reason in Sweden.
One piece of excellent news is that the EC will now withdraw approval
for the insecticide endosulfan. However, it was granted essential
use derogation until 2007 for cotton and tomato in Greece and Spain,
on hazelnuts (Spain, Italy and Poland), strawberry (Poland), peppers,
pears, potato and alfalfa (Greece) and on some ornamentals in Poland.
The EC’s revision of the authorisation directive has been
delayed still further. The new proposal will now be published by
the Commission in the second half of 2005, possibly as part of the
Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides.
Public consultation on proposed amendments to Directive
91/414/EEC
DG Health and Consumer Protection of the Commission launched 10
March 2005 an “Interactive Policy Making” online consultation.
Stakeholders can submit their inputs by 10 May 2005 latest. PAN
E will be providing its positions.
EU review of lower risk pesticides
The “fourth round” of substances for review under 91/414
directive includes many chemical and biological agents of low risk
to humans and environment. Companies wishing to gain EU-wide approval
for these must submit dossiers by June 2005 for plant extracts,
substances for treating stored products, and attractants/repellents
and by November 2005 for others such as pheromones, micro-organisms
and rodenticides. Sweden’s chemicals inspectorate, KEMI, intends
to propose strategies and amendments to current legislation to ensure
that these low risk pesticides remain on the market, including options
to reduce the application fees for product registration. Many of
the fourth round substances and microorganisms are for minor uses
and many are considered key products in organic farming. Sweden,
Poland and Czech Republic called for greater support for low risk
substances, especially as many are produced by small companies which
will struggle with high registration fees and data requirements.
Euro Parliamentarians call for stronger SCALE
The European Commission’s environment and health action plan
2004-2010 for the EU Strategy on Environment and Health (SCALE),
has created major waves in European Parliamentary debates. At the
parliament’s plenary sitting of 23 February 2005, a large
majority of MEPS voted in support of the report by Belgian MEP Riese,
criticizing the Action Plan for not bringing forward funding necessary
to implement the plan, not concentrating on the health of EU’s
Children and for lack of positive actions in the face of scientific
evidence. The major controversy came in a vote on the reduction
of exposure to already identified hazards to the health of particularly
vulnerable populations. These included OPs chlorpyrifos, diazinon
and malathion, OC endosulfan, as well as mercury, cadmium, certain
phthalates and chlorinated solvents. The Parliament considered that
‘without prejudice to existing Community legislation and following
the opinion of the relevant Scientific Committee, urgent consideration
needs to be given to restricting the marketing and/or the use of
[these] dangerous substances, to which new-born babies, children,
pregnant women, elderly persons, workers and other high-risk sections
of the population are heavily exposed, as safer alternatives become
available’.
Pesticides may cause prostrate cancer say government
advisers
UK government cancer advisers have for the first time said pesticides,
particularly herbicides, might cause prostate cancer. They want
better monitoring of pesticide use and the effects on farm workers
and those living near sprayed fields. The Dept. of Health has been
reviewing reasons for the huge increase in prostate cancer over
past 20 years, with 27,000 new cases a year, affecting 1 in 13 men.
Pesticides may cause Parkinson’s Disease
According to the studies conducted by Medical Research Council (2002-2003)
a UK-based extensive literature search and studies on epidemiological
and toxicological data on specific compounds and mechanisms, there
does appear to be evidence for a potential role of pesticides in
the development of Parkinson’s. However, the present evidence
is insufficient to establish causation for any individual pesticide.
Further research is recommended to better understand the effects
of pesticides on humans and the linkages.
Glyphosate and RoundUp affect oestrogen enzymes in
human cells
Although glyphosate has been linked to pregnancy problems in agricultural
workers, its mechanism of action in mammals is questioned. This
study shows that glyphosate is toxic on human placental cells within
18 hours, at concentrations lower than in agricultural use. This
effect increases with time and concentration or in the presence
of adjuvant ingredients in its formulation as Roundup. The formulation
is always more toxic than the active ingredient alone. The authors
tested the effect of Roundup on aromatase, the enzyme responsible
for oestrogen synthesis, at lower non-toxic concentrations and found
that it acts as endocrine disruptor on aromatase activity and messenger
RNA levels. Glyphosate itself interacts with the active site of
the enzyme but its effect on enzyme activity was minimal unless
Roundup was present. They conclude that endocrine and toxic effects
of roundup and not only glyphosate can be observed in mammals and
suggest that the presence of the formulation ingredients enhances
glyphosate bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation.
Prof. Seralini earlier discussed this work at PAN Europe’s
policy conference Reducing Pesticide Dependency in Europe to
Protect Health, Environment and Biodiversity in November 2003
and his presentation can be read in the conference proceedings on
our website.
UK wildlife poisonings decrease in 2003
According to the UK Dept. for Food, Farming and Rural Affairs’
Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme, number of pesticide poisonings
were 397 as compared to 450 reported incidents in 2002, down by
12%.The incidents comprised: four from approved uses of pesticides;
85 from the deliberate abuse of pesticides to poison animals illegally;
17 from pesticide misuse; and 19 cases that could not be “reliably
assigned to a particular category”.
Allergic reactions to biopesticides in Danish greenhouses
More than 300 Danish green house workers participated in a longitudinal
respiratory health study to determine the effects of using biopesticides
containing extracts of BT and Verticillium products. The
presence of IgE antibodies to BT (23-29%) or Verticillium (9-21%)
in their blood sera suggested these workers were being sensitized
to these biopesticide products. Even though studies suggest microbial
biopesticides may confer a risk of IgE- mediated sensitization research
is at a preliminary stage. In the future allergenic components in
the preparations need to be identified, studies performed on non-exposed
controls and the relation between sensitization and health parameters
needs to be analyzed.
Pesticide exposures for young children eating apples
and pears
This study of the dietary exposure of pesticides in children (age
11/2 to 41/2), based on data from the UK Pesticide Residue Committee’s
published monitoring results for apples and pears, looks at how
the acute reference dose (ARD) can be exceeded when a combination
of a high residue level and a high variability factor in residue
distribution among individual fruits occurs. Modelling results based
on Acute Reference Dose(ARD) of 0.04mg/kg bodyweight for apple and
pears for carbendizim and dithiocarbamates and ARD of 0.02mg/kg
for pear for phosmet suggested that variation in pesticide residues
is sufficient to cause individual children to experience occasional
exposures to pesticides at levels in excess of accepted safety thresholds,
even in cases where the MRL is not regularly breached.
Friends of the Earth, who commissioned the study, highlighted how
each day 10-226 British children under 5 years old could be eating
more than the ARD just by consuming a single apple or pear, since
residue levels in individual fruits vary widely. This worrying scenario
has been calculated for average children, not those who eat a large
amount of fresh fruit.
Organophosphate experiences and health effects in UK
A comprehensive report on OPs depicting the evidences of exposure
and health effects among UK citizens was prepared at the suggestion
of the All Party OP Parliamentary group. The report deals with OP
exposure cases from sheep dips to the latest gulf war syndrome,
drawing together cases of people with ill-health from different
groups in society who have been exposed to OPs and who have suffered
similar symptoms. It concludes by saying that the causal link between
OPs and ill-health has been sufficiently demonstrated and that "It
is now time for the government to put a greater emphasis on helping
the victims of OP poisoning”. The All-Party OP Group in Parliament
has asked the DEFRA minister responsible for policy on veterinary
medicines, to remove existing sheepdips from the market and compensate
farmers who are ill from OP exposure.
Impact of runoff-related pesticide contamination in
Germany
The study assessed how runoff-related contamination contributes
to differentiation in the macro-invertebrate communities inhabiting
6 streams in northern Germany. The community composition in three
streams exposed to maximum total pesticide levels between 0.2x and
0.01x acute toxicity to Daphnia waterfleas (48-h LC50) was clearly
distinct from that at three control sites. It revealed that possibility
of contamination of small streams by pesticides can be significant
and should be taken in to account in routine investigation of water
quality and re-evaluation under EU water directives, as well as
the need for safety factors in the procedures for the registration
of new pesticides.
Pesticides down by 23% in U.K waters
Findings from the Environment Agency’s annual pesticide monitoring
programme revealed that levels of the 9 most commonly used pesticides
in British waters decreased by 26% as compared with the average
for the previous five year period. This could be attributed to a
number of possible factors such as low levels of rainfall in autumn
2003 and better application techniques by farmers encouraged through
the industry-led Voluntary Initiative programme to reduce environmental
impacts. The top nine most frequently found pesticides in freshwater
environments were all widely used herbicides including mecoprop,
isoproturon and diuron. Sheep dip chemicals are still a significant
and widespread problem impacting on river ecology and causing freshwater
samples to fail to meet environmental quality standards.
Banned 2,4-D still persists in Swedish waters
This herbicide, banned in Sweden in 1990, can still be found in
Swedish watercourses, according to researchers from the Swedish
University for Agriculture who keep track pesticide levels. They
found 2,4-D content from the records of 2003 in streams and watercourses,
especially Ostergotland and also in Scania. Reasons could be that
there may be buried stocks of pesticides in the ground, or farmers
may be holding some stocks still. Cold weather may also have affected
the rate of break-down of the pesticide.
Portugal’s decree on pesticide safety
The Portugese Ministry of Agriculture has passed a decree to reduce
environmental risk and impact of pesticide applications. The decree
aims to reduce the risks in pesticide distribution and sales, improve
pesticide residue monitoring in agricultural products, water and
soil, and modernise the national agricultural communication service.
Activities will include measures to improve pesticide warehouses
and cut down on pesticide stockpiling.
Scotland to restrict pesticide possession
The Scottish Executive plans to introduce legislation banning the
possession of pesticides containing certain active ingredients without
a “lawful” excuse under its 2004 Nature Conservation
Act. This is to address the unacceptable practice of killing birds
of prey and other wildlife by illegal poisoning. It invited public
comments on the proposed active ingredients to be covered: aldicarb,
carbofuran, chloralose, mevinphos and strychnine Similar proposals
are expected to be tabled in England and Wales.
Pesticides sales increase in Sweden
In 2003 sales increased 22% over the previous year, totalling 2,085t
active ingredient. This increase was despite a 50% increase in the
government pesticide tax to 30 Swedish Kroner (3.34 euros) per kg
ai in 2003. Government statistics show that while insecticide and
growth regulator use declined, sales of herbicides and fungicides
increased to give the overall average increase.
3. News from PAN Europe partners
Spanish NGOs lobby for a halt to aerial spraying of
olives
At the end of January 2005, NGOs including PURE partners Ecologistas
en Accion set up an Andalucian Platform for Substitution of
Aerial Spraying. Aerial spraying is currently financed 75% from
the EU under a programme which aims to improve the quality of olive
oil and reduce its environmental impacts! Olive fly is a serious
pest decreasing olive oil quality and in Andalucia, EU funds are
being used to control it conventionally by aerial application of
dimethoate, causing serious environmental and health problems. At
least 40% of spray volumes fall directly on soil and 20% remains
suspended as drift, which can travel long distances. Watercourses,
bees, wildlife, livestock can also be affected. A key problem is
in implementing the regulations governing aerial application. Pilots
are supposed to leave a 150m buffer zone to protect organic olive
farms, which cover 50,000ha, along with water courses, protected
nature zones, vegetable and fruit plots and forested areas, but
in practice this is virtually impossible in the mountainous areas
of Andalucia. Natural parks, Natura 2000 sites, biosphere reserves
and areas for special protection for birds, which contain conventional
olive production end up being sprayed 3-5 times per year, with the
apparent approval of Andalucia’s Environment Council. Several
people suffered allergic reactions and nervous system alterations
in 2004 when fumigation planes flew directly overhead and organic
farms were contaminated with dimethoate.
The Platform is made up of representatives from the zones most
badly affected by aerial spraying and they demand its substitution
with other control practices. It calls on the regional directors
for agriculture and environment to engage in dialogue on addressing
the negative impacts, and asks for a halt to aerial spraying this
season. The Platform aims to promote ecologically sustainable olive
production. Its members want the regional Agriculture Council to
renew efforts for mass trapping of olive fly, proven successful
by some organic co-operatives, as an interim measure while more
research is done on sustainable alternatives to chemical control.
It also calls for development of an Andalucian plan for pesticide
use reduction.
French partners take agrochemical industry to court
over publicity campaign
On 10 February 2005, the French Union of Plant Protection Companies
(UIPP) launched a major six-month “communications initiative”
entitled “Pesticides: we can ask a question, we can find an
answer” (see http://www.protectiondesplantes.fr).
For the UIPP, the idea is to help everyone understand and to inform
people why the pesticides are useful. This media campaign, featuring
advertisements in popular national magazines (Paris Match, Elle,
Marie Claire…) has enfuriated French environmental NGOs and
organic farmers associations because it aims to promote pesticides
in a misleading way. The UIPP campaign fails to talk about preventing
health impacts and gives the impression that only intensive industrialised
agriculture is able to feed the world. Francois Veillerette, of
our partners Mouvement pour les Droits de le Respect des Générations
Futures (MDRGF) explained to national newspapers that “The
objective of the UIPP is to make pesticides socially acceptable,
by making an uninformed public think that they are not dangerous
to health and the environment, that their use is totally indispensable
and that anyway, organic food is not better for health”.
MDRGF and other organisations have issued a writ against UIPP and
the magazines to obtain the suspension of the advertisements, on
the grounds that the publicity is misleading, and a right of answer
to be published in these magazines. They have also organised a public
cyber-action against magazines who published the adverts, with more
than 3,500 readers writing in protest to magazine editors.
On 9 March 2005, this summary procedure was examined in the court
of Rennes in a packed audience chamber and with environmental, organic
farmers and consumers organisations demonstrating outside with placards.
The UIPP defence tried to claim that the fact that pesticides go
through an assessment and authorisation procedure eliminates any
negative repercussions and dismissed any possible consequences for
environment and health as scare-mongering. Other PAN partners and
PURE supporters involved in the protest campaign are Réseau
Cohérence, Eaux et Rivières de Bretagne and Nature
et Progrès. MRDGF and partners are now waiting for the verdict
but also considering legal action as a possibility to prove –
via a justice decision – that pesticides are dangerous for
the health and environment.
Two new PAN Germany Brochures on pesticides in Central
and Eastern Europe
Pesticides: Hot Issues - NGO Objectives and Actions Needed in Central
and Eastern Europe: This brochure has the information contributed
by NGO’s of Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Czech Republic and deals
with specific pesticide issues in their region. The problems of
unsafe pesticide stockpiles and the statistics , list of contaminated
sites, health impacts of pesticide use on rural populations, especially
women, and possible solutions were provided based on NGOs’
experiences and their activities in these areas.
Facts & Figures – Agriculture and Pesticide Use in
Central and Eastern Europe: This brochure supplies statistics
of agriculture situation and pesticide usage in five large new EU
member states: Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic,
and also includes the candidate country Bulgaria. Impact of politics
in Central and East European (CEE) countries and comparison with
15 EU countries is also discussed and an overview of the relevant
pesticide legal frameworks of these countries.
PAN UK publishes new report on pesticide exposures
For the first time, a year’s official reports of pesticides
in our food, water, and the environment have been brought together.
In People’s pesticide exposures – poisons we are exposed
to every day without knowing it, government data are set out beside
the results of PAN UK’s unique surveys. The report also includes
pesticide ‘incidents’ and ‘bystander’ exposures.
The failure by pesticide companies to report ‘adverse’
health information (poisonings) – when the obligation to do
so is a central plank in the government’s post-approvals health
monitoring system – is also described. PAN has discovered
that, in some drinking water tests, every single pesticide, of dozens
tested for, is detected – mostly below the legal limit. Problem
pesticides occur repeatedly. Certain local authorities responsible
for private drinking water supplies have not tested for pesticides
since 1991, when regulations were introduced. Food contamination
is a growing problem and now an acknowledged risk to young children
and the elderly. PAN’s unique analysis reveals a cocktail
of chemicals in food. Mostly, but not always, below legal limits,
65 per cent of them are recognised hazards to health: 35 per cent
are suspected cancer-causing chemicals, 12 per cent are hormone-disrupting
chemicals, and 41 per cent are acutely toxic.
More sustainable production of bananas needed
The Swedish Society of Nature Conservation first investigated the
banana industry ten years back and recommended organic bananas as
the best alternative. But their recent studies on the conventional
banana industry astonished them, revealing that in spite of IPM
techniques and safe handling of chemicals there is still 50kg/ha
of pesticides being used, which SSNC says is not acceptable. SSNC
says there should be clearly set acceptable limits to the pesticide
usage in sustainable production and certification of organic bananas
by the authorities at all the levels internationally in order to
prevent the damage to human health and environment.
More information and full report from the website of SSNC
Bulgaria hosts conference on Pesticide Impacts in the
Danube and Black Sea Region
FoE Bulgaria is an organiser of this international conference to
be held between 13th-15th May 2005 at the Golden Sands seaside resort,
Varna, in the northern part of Bulgaria’s Black Sea Coast.
The conference will cover latest data on adverse effects of pesticides
on population and worker’s health, legislation, strategy and
sources of contamination and water contamination in the Danube river
basin.
This PAN Europe Newsletter was compiled by Stephanie Williamson
and Mangaprabha Waggott.
Contributions are welcome from PAN Europe network members, PURE
supporters and individuals
home 
about us 
campaigns 
issues 
resources 
news 
join PAN Europe 
links 
credits 
