Editorial - Pesticides News 57

A raft of new regulatory measures in the European Union has relevance both inside and outside Europe. Regulators are gearing up for a radical overhaul of pesticide approvals. Starting July 2003, 320 pesticide active ingredients will have their licences revoked because the Commission and member states will no longer register pesticides based on partial safety data packages.
    In a related move the European Commission has set in motion pesticide policy reforms that will require all member states to draw up national pesticide action programmes. The Pesticide Action Network would like to see these plans take the form of progressive pesticide use reduction programmes. Some European countries, such as Denmark (see page 10), already have pesticide use reduction programmes. Here success has been linked in no small part to a state-funded extension service to help implement the reduction programme, and a willingness among all stakeholders to make it succeed.
    Some regulators are starting to consider the concept of Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA) for pesticides as a way of securing safer pest management products. CRA aims to replace ‘higher risk’ with ‘lower risk’ products. Under this system, regulators will assess products to find whether there is another active substance, product or method available for the same use which is equally effective and presents significantly less risk to human or animal health or the environment. PAN UK is organising a multi-stakeholder meeting on 26 November to discuss the finer points of CRA implementation (for more details contact davidbuffin@pan-uk.org).
    As Pesticides News goes to press, analyses are proliferating on the success or otherwise of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. PAN groups are seriously concerned about the implications for agriculture: the official pronouncements lacked insight into strategies for helping the poor in rural areas. Of the 1.2 billion people living on less than $1 a day, 75% live in rural areas. The agricultural ‘modernisers’ focus on increasing production to ‘feed the world’, in spite of clear recognition that access to food is the root of the problem. Of course, food production is crucial, but strategies that offer support for the rural poor often struggle to attract investment. The US fought to ensure the Summit endorsed the relevance of genetically engineered crops. But poverty needs investment in people, in the kind of agriculture that is meaningful for the poor and will help sustain vibrant rural communities. Featured on pages 3-5 are reports from PAN UK and African partners that reveal many of the problems to health, environment, and livelihoods resulting from high-input intensive agriculture. 
    Agricultural development that focuses on local, sustainable inputs, and works with the communities dependent on success for their livelihoods, needs to be seen as modern and innovative. These messages were not entirely drowned out by the Summit, and perhaps the focus on poverty and the environment will attract new and creative supporters for the farmers and communities that really feed the world.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 57, September 2002, page 2]