|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 PAN International Website |
|
|
Removing pesticides from the food chain
Providing safe, wholesome food was one of the founding principles of the Co-op movement some 150 years ago. Company policy-makers and managers believe that new work on pesticides simply puts those principles into practice. David Croft of the Co-op reports.
|
Consumer mistrust, expressed in a Co-op opinion survey |
 |
| Consumers think pesticides: |
 |
A survey of Co-op customers, described in our recent report(1), reveals that, whilst they are generally happy with the product choice and quality they now see on supermarket shelves, they are increasingly concerned about health scares, the environment and animal welfare outrages which have created an atmosphere of mistrust, of the whole framework around food safety and quality.
After from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and genetic modification, pesticides were an important area of concern, ahead of emotive subjects such as battery chickens and animal welfare. There is a general belief that pesticides are a risk to health, and that they permeate the food chain as residues. Consumers have very little ability to control their exposure to pesticides, other than through choosing to buy organic food, which may not be available to everybody. They have concerns about their effects on health, the environment, and occupational health.
Overall, two-thirds of consumers give pesticides a thumbs down, with ‘concerned’ and ‘very concerned’ responses accounting for over two thirds in the survey.
We have reflected this level of concern, tempered with a pragmatic approach, in a new programme of work on pesticides which we have developed over a number of years. The Co-operative Group in the UK, through Farmcare, is the largest farmer in the UK, and has a strong ethos of integrated crop management, developing from organic farming. With Farmcare we have developed controls that involve avoiding certain pesticides and restricting others, applied to all our growers worldwide.
The starting point was a risk assessment of a number of pesticides, taking into account all the available information, which was in some cases minimal. Working in partnership with Farmcare, we considered the toxicology of each substance, its bioaccumulation and persistency within the environment. A resulting list of banned pesticides was
instituted(2).
Co-op restricted pesticides can only be used by specific agreement with the Co-op, and where a supplier or grower requests approval for use they have to provide supporting evidence that other alternatives are not viable. We then encourage the grower first to consider other control measures including cultural or biological controls, or more benign chemical alternatives, before approval is granted. Because of the work done with Farmcare, and developing knowledge, we have been able to suggest to other suppliers viable alternatives confident that they would perform at an economic as well as at a control level.
These measures form part of a Code of Practice, which the Co-op has developed for all suppliers almost three years ago and which is applied to the worldwide production of all fresh produce, and produce for frozen, dried and canned goods.
Where problems are identified, for example the use of a pesticide without approval, then steps can and have been taken to stop supplies from a particular grower until matters are resolved to our satisfaction. This involves working with growers to find alternatives, and information is provided to assist this process.
The Co-op publicises all pesticide results on the website so that all consumers, including our members can access the data. The Co-op was the first retailer to do this and believe that this transparency is vital to reinstating consumer trust. We and PAN
UK would welcome initiatives from other retailers to follow suit: this would provide opportunities to share data more broadly, and allow collaborations on research into alternatives, and how to make practical improvements.
The Co-op believes that it is extremely important that we do not just apply more restrictions to the agricultural industry, but that they help provide solutions. This applies equally to large and smaller growers worldwide: those in other countries have an equal, if not greater, need for information and assistance. Obtaining unbiased advisory information from agrochemical companies is not easy, especially in developing countries, and we believe it is fundamental in allowing growers to make informed decisions on crop management. The industry has produced Environmental Information Sheets, but these have a UK focus, do not yet cover all pesticides, and do not offer comparative information, so this is not accessible unless a whole collection of Sheets is available.
As an alternative, and to provide improved support for growers, we have produced a series of Product Advisory Sheets. These aim to share information with growers on the possible control methods for pests in the particular crop so they can make an informed decision on the controls best suited to their needs. They include details of preventative measures, and cultural and biological controls. Information on the approved pesticides includes details on their potential environmental and health effects from the pesticide, potentially enabling a comparative risk assessment to be made, and the more benign products to be selected, if used at all.
The Co-op has produced Sheets for a growing range of crops, including carrots, potatoes, avocadoes and pineapples, demonstrating our equal commitment to growers in the UK and further afield. They have been very well received, and remove reliance on agrochemical sales for information on products.
The Co-op has begun to progress this idea with the Assured Produce Scheme where it has received some support. The Co-op believes schemes such as Assured Produce and Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group can help deliver small steps in improvements and practices, both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of control, whilst supporting a change in how people think about farming and growing controls.
The Co-op would like to see the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) supporting comparative data as part of the approvals process. It will prove valuable when the first pesticides are removed from the market by the European Union next
year(3), and more information on alternatives is needed.
For the Co-op, working with growers has identified difficulties for UK producers, particularly in relatively small crop and usage areas, for example, in apple-growing. UK approvals are not being sought for actives which would be advantageous for UK growers and are already approved on the continent. There are also products approved for limited applications in the UK which have, in some cases, wider approval on the continent. They may offer more effective and yet more benign control. Such restrictions create a disadvantage for UK growers and potentially increasing dependence on older chemistry. We would like to see improved ways of looking at the way ‘mutual recognition’ is applied by PSD.
The Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) should consider methods for the registration of alternative forms of pest control, with an appropriate regulatory hurdle. However we are in no way advocating deregulation of the approvals process which is still critical in maintaining safety.
As we continue to develop our programme of control over pesticides, we regard the way we regulate the selection of pesticides as the most important aspect. We have developed a new advisory panel of eminent scientists, chaired by Christopher Stopes, a consultant in food and farming, who also sits on the ACP. PAN
UK have also provided valuable input. The panel reviews the pesticides against a hazard framework based closely on the work of the ACP. It does not supercede the regulatory approach but provides a parallel model for development.
Currently the Co-op are reviewing our list of restricted pesticides, focusing on, for example the most commonly found residues, and those actives with potential for endocrine disruption. This may lead to more restrictions, and the development of alternatives. For example, there is an urgent need for an alternative to carbendazim. It is the most common residue found in testing programmes, though always below the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL). There is also a need for more research into alternatives, led by government and industry.
More work is also needed on investigating the cocktail effect, whilst developing countries need help in finding alternatives to pesticides where the MRL has been reduced to the limit of detection. Food production is a global process and, as such, the Co-op believes that the needs of growers must be considered. There is scope for collaboration between government departments, potentially including the Department for International Development, to generate sustainable solutions, and access to the market for small growers abroad.
In achieving these aims, the Co-op urges all parties, both directly and indirectly connected to the food industry, to work closely together. The Co-op hopes that the Pesticide Challenge conference, will allow the right partnerships to be developed and make progress.
References
1. Green and Pleasant Land, Co-op, UK, 2 July 2001.
2. Retailer bans suspect pesticides, Pesticides News 53, September 2001, p3.
3. EU pesticides clear out, Pesticides News 57, September 2002, p8.
Edited presentation to the Pesticide Challenge conference, November 2003, David Croft, Co-op Food Retailer, David.Croft@co-op.co.uk
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 58, December 2002, pages 9-10]