Governments from 122 countries have now signed the international Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The Convention will set in motion action to eliminate or minimise the use of 12 toxic chemicals. Nine of the POPs are organochlorine pesticides (see page 15).
With the main exception of DDT, where it was agreed that the use should continue until other means of controlling mosquito vectors of disease such as malaria were viable, elimination is the goal.
Environmentalists hope that regulators and researchers will soon find an answer to the DDT conundrum. New research investigating endocrine-disrupting effects of DDT has found a disturbing connection to hormonal imbalance in young girls. Scientists at the University of Leige, Belgium, studied 39 girls from immigrant families who came from 22 countries that use DDT to fight mosquito-borne disease. They found high levels of the DDT metabolite DDE. The girls showed signs of early onset of puberty, from the age of eight, according to a forthcoming article in the journal
Human Reproduction.
There are also a number of ‘POPs candidates’ which PAN UK wants to see added to the Convention. As a mater of priority, endosulfan (see pages 12-14) and lindane (see page 5) require consideration.
The production and use of many POPs have already ceased, but old and obsolete stocks remain in stores and sometimes in use, and continue to pose a threat. Pesticides News has reported on the vast problems posed by POPs and other obsolete pesticides. Now PAN
UK and the World Wide Fund for Nature are leading an international initiative – the Africa Stockpiles Project – to raise US$250 million to fund the removal and destruction of all the obsolete pesticides in Africa.
In the UK, confidence in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) is at an all-time low. After winning a second term in power, the Labour government is set to address the wider concerns about agriculture, and may dismantle MAFF as a result. The party’s election manifesto said: ‘We are committed to create a new department to lead renewal in rural areas – a Department for Rural Affairs.’
In the past MAFF has been criticised for being both poacher and gamekeeper, creating a conflict of interest between responsibilities for food safety as well as the promotion of farmers’ interests. The creation of the Food Standards Agency has reduced the conflict in some areas, but not regarding pesticides where MAFF has lead responsibility for regulation. As a rule of thumb, countries like Denmark and Sweden, where pesticides are regulated through either their departments of health or environment, take a more precautionary approach. Stephen Tindale, former advisor to UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher, has recommended that MAFF’s responsibility for regulating pesticides should transfer to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.
We are approaching a milestone for pesticide regulation in the EU (see page 16). The approval of pesticides has increasingly been harmonised since the EU agreed Directive 91/414 on 15 July 1991. Ten years on, the Commission has to produce a progress report, which will have to consider why pesticide approval has moved at such a slow pace. The report will also look to the future, and hopefully reflect an increasingly tough stance on pesticide approval. It is likely for example that many hazardous organophosphates and carbamates will come off the European market, because there will not be enough data produced to guarantee health and environmental safety.
The EU will need to clarify when ‘non-approval’ is a ban, and would meet the criteria of the Prior Informed Consent Convention. This could ensure that developing countries were alerted to pesticide concerns.
Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been at the heart of the European agricultural debate for many years. A number of countries in the EU are joining the queue for radical reform, including Germany, the UK, and possibly France, after its up-coming elections. A CAP that promotes sustainable agriculture by encouraging support for environmental criteria rather than production, is needed now more than ever. As ever, watch this space.
[This article first appeared in
Pesticides News No. 52, June 2001, page 2]