Editorial - Pesticides News 51

Many in society are questioning the very nature of intensive farming, as the tragedy of foot and mouth disease unfolds in the UK – and now threatens the rest of Europe. The disease comes at the end of a long line of disasters to hit UK and European farming - BSE, food poisoning and pesticide residues. A fundamental debate needs to take place about modern farming (including the inputs like pesticides) that will deliver a more sustainable way forward.
    One example of the unsustainability of pesticides use involves their chronic effects like cancer. This issue of PN catalogues the suspected pesticide carcinogens as recognised by governmental and inter-governmental bodies. In 1993 PN listed 70 possible carcinogens – today the number has grown to 160.
    There are also serious problems using pesticides in developing countries. Sixteen farmers died in Senegal after contact with Granox (containing carbofuran, thiram, and benomyl). The local medical authorities believe there may be more unreported deaths (see page 4). Poor farmers in developing countries are paying an estimated US$300 million for pesticides that do not meet internationally accepted quality standards, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). This issue of PN cites continuing problems with illegal pesticide products on sale in Uganda and Tanzania (see page 3). It is difficult enough to assess the safety of pure products, without the added complication of adulteration and contamination with unknown ingredients. 
    Trade liberalisation is now pushing pesticide supply into the hands of untrained, uninformed, unauthorised or fraudulent distributors, with significant risks to human health. PAN UK will be researching these issues with African partners over the coming years. Through case studies in Sudan, Benin, Ghana, Kenya and Ethiopia we aim to gain a better understanding of the linkages between pesticide use and trade liberalisation. 
    In the UK this issue reports on a conference organised by PAN UK and CIWEM, the Institute of Water and Environmental Management. The event highlighted the fact that pesticide pollution of water remains widespread despite good agricultural practice carried out through conventional agriculture.
    In Europe it is timely that Gretta Goldenman and Catherine Wattiez ask a number of fundamental questions about pesticides (see pages 10-11), prompted by concerns about pesticide residues in European drinking water. Pesticide use reduction has been a primary focus of PAN Europe’s annual conference. At the 2000 Conference participants agreed to support a Pesticide Use Reduction in Europe (PURE) campaign that would follow these developments at the European Commission. The campaign will require all EU member states to establish pesticide use reduction programmes within two years, based on a common framework, with specific numerical targets designed to achieve progressively more stringent, qualitative and quantitative reductions in pesticide use. At the EU level the campaign calls for a new Directive on Measures for Reduction of Impacts to Health and Environment from Use of Pesticides.
    On 24 January the European Commission published its 6th Environmental Action Programme covering the period 2001 to 2010. Specifically in terms of pesticides it aims at: ‘ensuring that the levels of pesticides in the environment do not give rise to significant risk to or impacts on human health and the environment, and more generally, to achieve an overall reduction in the use of pesticides.’ The announcements made so far are merely expressions of intention by the Commission. The aspirations will hopefully be converted into action through what is known as a ‘thematic strategy’ on pesticides which is scheduled for release by the end of 2001. It may include a range of instruments from proposals for legislation to dissemination of information.
    Changing the criteria for authorising release of pesticides into the environment is crucial. Carl Smith (see pages 12-13) writes about the implications of the ‘precautionary principle’ for pesticides. The fundamental question is not ‘Exactly how toxic is it?’ but ‘Is it really needed?’ The ‘substitution principle’ (which promotes least hazardous pest control) needs to be incorporated into registration and must be taken seriously (see pages 14-15); as do the possible combination effects of pesticide residues in food (see page 17). Over the coming months we will press for these big issues to be prioritised by governments around the world, in order to help prevent the next agricultural disaster.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No.51, March 2001, p2]