Tracking pesticide use in urban areas 

No information is available about levels of pesticide use in urban areas. Lars Neumeister of PAN Germany argues that efficient reporting systems on application of non-agricultural pesticides are essential in the European Union, and sets out the basis of a possible model.

Recording the precise amount of pesticide application is essential to assess risks. Accurate records can allow regulators to estimate exposure levels, identify health or environmental risks, and develop priority areas for less toxic alternatives. 
    None of the 15 European Union (EU) Member States maintains a comprehensive pesticide use reporting system for either agricultural or non-agricultural application. Information on the application method, the ingredient, amount applied, formulation, location and date allow researchers to carry out targeted surveys, monitoring programmes and epidemiological studies. The box sets out how pesticide use data, analysed with data on human toxicity and ecotoxicity, can be used with modelling systems and field studies to assess exposure and risks. 
    Most EU countries collect aggregated figures on sales of agricultural pesticides. In the area of non-agricultural use, the pesticide industry is the only source of information. In neither instance is it possible to view details of active ingredients and application by crop or location over time.
    In the US, the states of Oregon(1), New York(2,3) and California(4) require the applicator to report on both agricultural and non-agricultural pesticide use data. In New York retail sales of pesticides are also reported. California’s pesticide use data have been used for many different purposes, including as the basis for epidemiological studies estimating the exposure to pesticides of vulnerable groups.

Recording pesticide use in urban areas
In urban areas pesticides are primarily applied by commercial companies, local authorities, or home and garden owners. Different tracking systems would be required for each: commercial applicators and local authorities could report directly to a government organisation electronically or by lodging report forms. Homeowners could be tracked using retail sales information, validated by surveys.

Recording and reporting
Commercial and local authority applicators should report applications weekly, ideally using a password protected internet data base. Submitting paper forms would be possible, though more cost intensive. Information collected should at least include: 

• EU pesticide registration number of the pesticide product(s) applied (to be established)
• application method
• amount applied
• volume of the rooms treated indoors; areas and units treated outdoors
• sites (a code for schools and areas of other vulnerable groups to be established)
• numbers and ages in household
• geographic location – street address, postal code, county
• date of application
• name and address of company or authority applying

Retailers should report the sales of non-agricultural products containing pesticide active ingredients (called biocides in EU regulations), and any home and garden product containing a pesticide active ingredient. Common bar codes could be used to identify individual products where scanners are in use for retail sales, and be submitted electronically. Retailers without scanners would be required to use an alternative recording system. The EU registration numbers, location and details of sales would be reported monthly to a governmental organisation. This information would indicate areas with high use of toxic non-agricultural pesticides. Targeted use surveys and epidemiological studies as well as training on alternatives could be conducted using the reported data.

Changes for implementation 
An urban pesticide use reporting system in the EU would need legislation, uniform product registration, and a common coding system.
    The first step would be a regulation or directive specifying who must report, and laying down the system. Secondly, it is urgent to establish a unique EU registration number for relevant non-agricultural products. Manufacturers would submit data electronically to a secure data base, and receive an individual product code, with details at least including:

• name of the pesticide product
• Member State where the product is approved
• CAS number of the active ingredients and of inert ingredients
• amounts, volume and percentage of the active ingredients and of the inert ingredients
• product formulation
• recommended application rate
• use type and target organism
• symbols, risk and safety phrases according to Council Directive 67/548

The central label database would provide the manufacturer with a unique EU registration number and barcode for the product. The EU registration number should would encode the following information to ensure that reported use data could be efficiently queried and evaluated: 

• use type of the product (herbicide, insecticide)
• percentage active ingredient(s)
• formulation 
• Member State of approval

The EU registration number and bar code would appear on the product label. This unique registration number, in combination with the amount used, facilitates calculations. Evaluation of use data should be fast and easy using the central product registration and the encoded information of the EU registration number.
    A third requirement is harmonisation of EU coding systems. Schools, childcare centres, parks and other places where pesticides are applied, need site codes that are uniform across the EU. Other uniform coding systems could be developed for application equipment and application methods.
    House owners, managers, caretakers and individuals should be helped to keep records of their pesticides use, enabling any illness to be analysed against the history of pesticide exposure. 

References
1. Rothlein, J., Jenkins, J., Oregon Pesticide Use Reporting System, Analytical Review, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, US, 2000.
2. Thier, A., The Toxic Treadmill, Pesticide Use and Sales in New York State 1997-1998, Environmental Advocates and New York Public Interest Group Fund, New York, US, 2000.
3. Thier, A., Enck, J., Klossner, C., Plagued by Pesticides: An Analysis of New York State and Long Island’s 1997 Pesticides Use and Sales Data, Environmental Advocates and New York Public Interest Group Fund, New York, US, 1998
4. Kegley, S.E., Orme, S. Neumeister, L., Hooked on Poison: Pesticide Use in California 1991- 1998, PAN North America and Californians for Pesticide Reform, San Francisco, US, 2000.

Lars Neumeister works for PAN Germany, who have published Pesticide Use Reporting, Legal Framework, Data Processing and Utilisation, Part one: Full reporting Systems in California and Oregon, 2002.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 59, March 2003, page 6]