|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 PAN International Website |
|
|
Pesticides in EC Drinking
Water
- limit value may be raised
From
23-24 September 1993 the Commission of European Communities hosted the
“Conference on Drinking Water” in Brussels. About 250 representatives of
various interest groups were invited by the Commission’s DG XI (Environment),
to present their positions on the planned amendment of the so-called Drinking
Water Directive.
|
Comment Suppliers EUREAU,
the association of water suppliers in Europe, wants the Directive revised.
It points to scientific and technical progress and its own experience with
implementation. The basis and use of Maximum Admissible Concentration
(MAC) should be reassessed. It wants the term MAC reviewed to reflect the
fact that breaking the levels does not necessarily constitute a threat to
human health. EUREAU say that limits should be based on the most recent
scientific knowledge taking into account the work of national and
international bodies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO). An
effective updating mechanism is however required to allow for technical
and scientific progress and the availability of new information. EUREAU
firmly supports the principle of maximum protection to the consumer and
the uninterrupted supply of safe water, but believes that practical
application of the Directive could be improved by amending its contents. Updated
comments by Eureau on the revision of the Drinking Water Directive
80/778/EEC, August 1993. Environmentalists Pesticides
do not have any place in drinking water, according to environmental groups
such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Following the precautionary
principle, they say that pesticides should not be found in drinking water
down to the levels of analytical detection. FoE does not favour using WHO
MACs because these only offer a limited perspective on toxicological
considerations. For example, they do not consider the possibility of
synergistic effects. Additional complexities are posed by mixtures of
chemicals and in interpreting toxicological data. Friends of the Earth, comments of Drinking Water Directive and Greenpeace, statement on Drinking Water Directive, 1993. Industry The
agrochemical industry has had long-felt reservations about the Water
Directive. Their lobby group, the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA),
recommends that Community MAC levels for pesticides be based on
thorough reviews of all the scientific data, in particular toxicological
data. ECPA wants the EC to use limits based on WHO MACs. The ECPA
proposed Community MACs, if exceeded, would trigger a range of remedial
actions. ECPA consider this approach would provide protection to the
European consumer and environment, without imposing excessive costs on the
water industry and therefore the consumer. ECPA position paper on the revision of the Drinking Water Directive 80/778/EEC, ECPA, May 3, 1993. |
Directive 89/778/EEC, with its 62 parameters on the “quality of water intended for human consumption”, regulates at the European level. As previously expected, the controversy at the conference concentrated in particular on parameter 55. Since 1980 parameter 55 has set the maximum admissible concentration for pesticides and related products in drinking water at 0.1 µg/l per substance and at 0.5 µg/l for the sum of compounds.
Better detection has led to calls for lower standards
At its inception some 14 years ago, the Commission was led by the idea that environmental contaminants are not acceptable in drinking water. The actual level reflects what environmental chemists thought to be analytically detectable concentrations at that time. At the end of the seventies there were few objections to this standard as many thought that pesticides used in agriculture could not enter into drinking water. Adaptation into national laws was slow.
The development of sufficiently sensitive analytical methodology can now provide actual results from monitoring studies on raw and drinking water which completely change the picture. Over one hundred different pesticides have now been reported in water. The reasons for their occurrence in ground and surface water are still in dispute. Factors include: the physico-chemical properties of specific compounds; the filtering capacities of certain soils; the amount of regularly applied pesticides; and point source contamination. Atrazine is the most regularly found pesticide—but at least 20 other compounds are detected frequently.
The fact that pesticides occur in various water compartments (surface and ground waters as well as bank filtrates), even in concentrations at or above the limit value, is now taken as an argument to topple the current standard. All arguments already presented to the public were used at the conference: from the principle of subsidiarity to rat toxicology; from world hunger to sampling statistics. Every point—no matter how distracting—was named in order to strive for the goal of raising admissible concentrations for pesticides in drinking water.
No agreement—decision may be taken elsewhere
The heated show-down of arguments between representatives of the pesticide industry and farmers’ organisations on the one hand, water works, science, environmental and consumer organisations on the other hand was followed by the disillusioning statement of the EC administrators that the decision will be taken elsewhere. Moreover, it became apparent that the decision in fact might have already been taken, at least in principle, as political consensus was reported that agricultural production shall take priority over purity of water supplies.
Environmental payments to farmers may be cheaper than removing pesticides
This was more than disappointing since the only study about cost effectiveness presented at the conference showed that the costs for removing pesticides from ground water during drinking water treatment were considerably higher than those for a direct income transfer to farmers that abolish the use of pesticides and fertilisers in drinking water areas. This study (carried out in Denmark), and the rest of the 5 cm pile of papers presented at the conference therefore seems not worth the paper it was written on, as it appears that those who decide are no longer interested in enforcing the idea of a precautionary resource protection.
Proposed changes
The open question for the revised Drinking Water Directive expected to be proposed early next summer therefore is: How will the EC limits for pesticides in drinking water be changed? The main possibilities currently seem to be:
-
definition of admissible concentrations on a case by case basis using mammal toxicology data from the EC registration process
-
modification of the current standard by substantial extension of possibilities for derogations related to substances, time and location.
This
report was written by Rolf Altenburger, and first appeared in Pestizid
Brief, PAN Germany, October 1993.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 22, December 1993, page 10]