UK Minister pledges pesticide reform

The PAN UK Pesticide Challenge Conference was launched by Environment Minister Michael Meacher. He confirmed that a comparative assessment of pesticide risks is not part of the current regulatory framework but the government believes, in principle, that it should be. The challenge is to consider the best way to achieve this. 

Michael Meacher (left) and David Coggon, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, discuss questions on comparative assessment. Photo: Billy Ridgers

UK pesticides policy
The government is a strong supporter of organic farming, but we have to accept that pesticides will be with us for the immediate future. The challenge is to foster approaches that reduce the use of pesticides as well as minimise the adverse impacts in order to reduce both the health and environmental downsides of pesticides, and actively to encourage safer alternatives – particularly non-chemical controls, wherever possible. 
    Few independent studies on workers’ health have been carried out at the European level. One survey has shown that one in five considers they have been made ill or poisoned, or adversely effected by pesticides. Not enough attention has been focused on this issue to date.
    A survey carried out by the European Water Industry EUREAU in 2001 of the sources of drinking water shows that a number of European Union (EU) member states have relatively high levels of pesticide residues. And over the last ten years the UK industry has spent £1 billion in capital expenditure, and an additional £100 million per year on running costs, to remove residues from drinking water. This is not sustainable over the long-term as pesticide removal is an energy and resource intensive process. It would be better, if the money spent on removing pesticides from drinking water were diverted to developing non-chemical alternatives, where that is feasible
    There are three main areas of pesticide policy. First, there is the authorization system – the rules, that determine which compounds may be used as pesticides. 
    Second, there is policy on usage and controls, which determine such matters as how pesticides can be used and who can use them. There is already a body of statutory rules in this area governing issues such as the responsibilities and training of pesticide users. However in order to reduce further the impacts of pesticides, we need to find ways of making more effective and comprehensive the training and accreditation for all spraying operators and pesticide handlers.
    More generally we are determined to reduce the environmental impacts of pesticide use. A pesticide tax would be one way to achieve this and the government continues to believe that a tax could be a valuable tool in conjunction with other measures. The case for pesticide taxes or levies on pesticide products remains on the table. However, the government has invited the Crop Protection Association and other stakeholders to implement the Voluntary Initiative. This is a package of measures designed to refine and promote best practice in pesticide use. Progress has been slow during its the first year. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has issued a new critical report of the Voluntary Initiative, and some members of its Steering Group have stated that it may well fail to deliver the government’s objectives to minimise pesticide use. 
    Additionally, the government will be reviewing our policy on usage in response to the European Commission’s recent communication on a ‘thematic strategy for the sustainable use of pesticides’. We have had detailed suggestions from PAN and from a number of other parties in response to a recent consultation. The government is considering these comments in preparing its approach to negotiations. It is likely that by July 2004 all EU countries may have to establish national plans to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on chemical control. 
    There are at present no targets or timetables for the national plans as proposed by the European Commission. Existing experience with countries such as Denmark and Sweden has shown that a national framework tailored to local conditions and different regions can have a significant impact on the level of pesticide use. 
    There are similar proposals in the UK for a Advisory Committee on Pest Management that takes a more holistic approach to pest management, rather than relying on the present chemical-by-chemical assessment. 
    Such proposals could be developed through a revamped mutli-stakeholder group – the Pesticide Forum. 
    Third, we wish to encourage a reduction in farming’s dependence on chemical controls. Our support for the organic sector is one component of this. Additionally we are funding a programme of strategic research (costing about £1.5m per year) to explore the development of new crop protection techniques– those that are less toxic, likely to be more environmentally benign, and more target specific than conventional chemical pesticides. This work aims to make use of biologically based controls, such as natural ‘scent’ signals from plants, insect hormones, or compounds from parasitic wasps, to disrupt the behaviour or the life cycle of crop pests. These approaches can be used in integrated pest control strategies. The information will also contribute to developing a framework for assessing the risk posed by biological control methods. It is good to note that the ACP is setting up a sub group in order that alternatives can be further explored by UK regulators. But there needs to be more innovation to encourage safer alternatives. 

EU pesticide system
Pesticides are largely regulated through EU Directive 91/414. It sets up a two-tier system under which active substances are approved at Community level and products containing those substances by member states. This structure is central to the question of how comparative assessment might operate within Directive 91/414.

Comparative assessment debate 
Crop protection companies and farming organisations have real concerns that comparative assessment could represent a disincentive to innovation. If applied reasonably this will not be the case. But there are some difficult questions to address.
    For instance what should you compare? Is it the active substance? Is it the products containing that substance? Or is it the particular uses of those products?
    A second area of uncertainty is the nature of the comparison. Pesticides have multiple effects on different components of the environment. One may be more hazardous, in one respect – say to birds. But better than another in a different area – say to fish. It is important that these properties are not played off one against the other.
    It is important that comparative assessment be adopted at the EU level in revision of Directive 91/414 as a method for developing safer alternatives. Comparative assessment will offer a practical opportunity to develop a more precautionary approach. There are concerns that chemical substitution could lead to increased pest resistance problems as fewer pesticides become available. One way to avoid resistance problems would be to increase the search for non-chemical alternatives, and develop whole system approaches such as organic farming. We are already increasing financial support for and promotion of research into organic and ecological integrated pest management, as well as support for conversion to organic farming.
    Where there are few alternatives, the effect of withdrawing some pesticides could be damaging particularly to growers of minor crops. There is then a danger of promoting imports from countries where the pesticides are still used. So we may still need transitional arrangements in cases where substitutes are not readily available.

Conclusion
The focus of the debate surrounds the potential modification of 91/414 to accommodate comparative assessment. However, there is also a place for farmers applying a comparative approach to pesticide use more generally. Farmers cannot be expected to make comparative decisions about pesticides on their own. They will need help from extension services. The food chain industry as a whole should produce crop protocols that help farmers and growers develop safer alternatives in a practical way.
    The government recognizes the importance of pesticides to most farmers but we support policies which will reduce their adverse impacts. We believe that comparative assessment has a part to play in this and that it should become part of the pesticide authorization regime. But we need a system or systems that are practical and that will provide an incentive to companies and to farmers to deliver continuous improvement.

Edited presentation to the Pesticide Challenge conference, November 2003, Michael Meacher is Environment Minister at the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 58, December 2002, pages 3-4]