In
November the people of Sweden decided to join the European Union, along with
Finland and Austria. There has been a fierce debate as to whether high Swedish
environmental standards will survive in the more lax atmosphere of some other
European countries. By agreeing to enter the EU in 1995, Sweden has taken on
this challenge. This article looks at recent environmental development
specifically concerning pesticides, and underlines Swedish commitment.
Swedish
experiences regarding the principle of substitution
There is continuing debate in the EU over putting
biocides (non-agricultural pesticides and disinfectants) on the market. For
their part, the Swedes have contributed the idea of the ‘substitution
principle’ which makes sure that less hazardous products and processes are
adopted. The Swedish experiences regarding this principle are outlined below.
Swedish chemical control is founded on three basic
principles:
1 Prevention of harm to human health or the environment caused by the inherent
properties of chemical substances.
2 The manufacturer or importer is responsible for risk prevention and has to
show that the relevant chemical can be used without risk to human health or the
environment.
3 Anyone handling or importing a chemical product must avoid more hazardous
chemical products by choosing less hazardous substitutes if they are available.
This includes the manufacturer, the user and the authorities (if they are the
purchaser).
The
principle of substitution was added to the Swedish Act on Chemical Products in
1990 by a clarifying amendment. The Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate (KEMI)
addresses pesticide issues.
Approval
of pesticides (including biocides)
Since the middle of the 1980’s Sweden has paid
special attention to the hazards to health and the environment caused by
pesticides, including biocides. Programmes on risk-reduction have been launched
by the government and parliament. In 1986 a programme was introduced with the
aim of reducing by half the quantity of active ingredients used over a five-year
period. The starting point was the average consumption between 1981 and 1985. A
reduction of approximately 50% was achieved by 1990. In 1990 a new food policy
was passed by the Swedish Parliament. The aim in this context is a further
reduction of the risks and another 50% reduction of pesticides used in
agriculture by 1996. There have been some
One part of the risk reduction programme has been a
re-assessment of all (old) pesticides and biocides. The maximum approval period
is now limited to five years, after which the manufacturer has to apply for a
renewal for the approval.
KEMI, whilst giving due weight to the
principle of substitution, has withdrawn or refused approval when alternative
products with less risks have been available. In many cases, the manufacturers
have co-operated by voluntarily withdrawing old, and often poorly documented, or
unnecessarily h~ardous chemicals from the market.
Comparative
assessment —substitution
The application of the substitution principle requires
a comparative assessment of possible chemical and non-chemical alternatives. In
addition to the health and environmental impacts of alternatives, their
applicability and availability are major factors considered. Practical, economic
and efficacy aspects are analysed. The risks of resistance to pesticides, and
the need to have alternatives, are considered.
Application approvals and old
pesticides are only withdrawn when the comparative assessment results in
significant differences between the original products and alternatives.
Although, the approval of existing products are not normally revoked directly
upon the approval of a new less hazardous product. This provides time to
ascertain that new products perform well, allowing the chemical industry and
farmers to adapt to change.
In some cases, KEMI suggests that there
is a need from a health or environmental point of view to phase out the use of
an existing product or group of products. (see below with the case of EBDCs.) In
such cases, phase-out plans are drawn up in cooperation with the authorities,
users, industry and scientific institutions.
Cancer
claim marks end for EBDCs
As part of the Swedish risk reduction programme,
special attention has been aimed towards the chemical group of fungicides
ethylenbisdithoicarbamates (EBDCs). They are an important sector representing
60% of the world’s fungicide market — although the Swedish government want
to see a phaseout by the end of 1996. In the past, the use of EBDCs has provided
a heated debate in the US over food residue concerns. In Sweden, the concern has
been more focused towards occupational exposure and the issue has perhaps been
tackled in a more practical way.
KEMI, with responsibility for regulating pesticides, has
classified products containing EBDCs as carcinogenic. This is mainly due to
their metabolite ethylenethiourea (ETU) and because mancozeb, the best
documented of the EBDCs, have been both
These properties have been aggravated
by the intensive use of repeated foliar applications against potato late blight
(Phytophora infestans). Under normal conditions, five to seven
applications occur per season. KEMI consider exposure to the immediate
environment and people handling EBDCs may be high, although the same can
probably not be said for the risks from EBDC/ETU residues in food. EBDCs are
non-systemic and therefore tend not to penetrate to the edible portion of food.
This has been reinforced by the results of Swedish regulatory monitoring of
pesticide residues in domestic sample of potatoes.
EBDCs are regarded by KEMI as having
‘particularly serious properties’ and are regarded as unacceptable under the
Swedish Ordinance (SFS 1985:836) on Pesticides. The aim was to remove these
pesticides from the market promptly. This has not been possible because of their
entrenched and dominant position for use against potato late blight in Sweden
and every other potato producing country in the world. At present EBDCs
represent about 70% of Swedish fungicide use. They are known to be very
effective and are relatively cheap—as a result there has been very little
research into alternatives.
These circumstances have led KEMI to
develop a phase-out plan for EBDC products in Sweden. The main goal is to take
these fungicides off the market by 1997. The authorities feel it important to
get the co-operation of others and are therefore working with manufacturers and
grower associations to reduce the amount of EBDCs used. Research programmes have
been initiated which address spraying methods, adjusted dosages, late blight
forecasting methods, field trials with non-EBDC fungicides and resistant potato
varieties. It is popular varieties such as Bintje and King Edward which are
susceptible to fungal attack. However, varieties such as Matilda, Hertha,
Ovsafio and Elsu have proved resistant — but have not yet appealed to the
Swedish consumer, according to Peter Bergkvist.
On 9 November KEMI reviewed EBDCs (a
total of seven products). Products containing solely EBDCs have been withdrawn.
Products which contain a mixture of EBDC and other fungicides have remained on
the market.
Applications for prolonged approvals of
fungicides containing EBDCs maneb or mancozeb as the only active ingredient
(five products) were refused, which means they will be banned by the end of
1994. (The approval for zineb, another EBDC, expired in 1990).
Two mixed formulations (Tatto and
Ridomil MZ 63 WP) containing the EBDC mancozeb and systemic fungicides have had
their approval extended for a further two
New safety protection measures mean that there is a re-entry
period of three days after the last treatment and protective clothes must be
worn when entering the field. These instructions apply to any that may come into
contact with the crop—which may include inspectors etc. as well as
farmers/operators.
The use of Tattoo and Ridomil MZ 63 WP means considerably
lower amounts of EBDCs will be released into the environment. By weight, the
reduction has been estimated at between 60 and 80%.
Early in 1993, a new alternative
product containing the active ingredient fluazinam, used at low dose rates, was
assessed by KEMI and found to have a better health and environment profile than
the EBDCs. (DB)
For
more information: Peter Bergkvist, KEMI, P0 Box 1384, S-171 27 Slona, Sweden.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 26, December 1994, page 18]