Outcomes from comparative assessment conference  

In November 2002 PAN UK held the Pesticide Challenge Conference attended by over 100 regulators from Europe and developing countries, representatives from farming organisations, food importers and suppliers, public interest NGOs and researchers. The delegates discussed the limitations of modern pesticide regulatory systems, and the benefits of introducing the concept ‘comparative assessment’ when evaluating the risks of pesticides. David Buffin highlights some of the main conclusions. 

At present most pesticide approval systems do not compare the risk of each pesticide against others. Regulatory systems are needed which address comparative assessment whereby there is a commitment to phase out pesticides hazardous to health or the environment, and develop a process that will encourage registration of safer alternatives.
    There is widespread interest in moving towards a regulatory comparative assessment approach at the UK and EU level. In principle the ability to use comparative assessment already exists in European legislation for biocides (non-agricultural pesticides), and is now being considered for agricultural based pesticides through EU Directive 91/414. It is also being considered through the Sixth Environmental Action Plan which may require Member States to adopt comparative assessment in national pesticide reduction plans.
    Starting in July 2003, over 320 pesticides that are not fully backed-up with modern testing requirements will no longer be allowed in the European Union. Although the number of pesticides withdrawn from in any one Member State will be less than 320, the horticultural sector will be particularly affected. There is an urgent need to find safer alternatives to replace these pesticides. Cost and efficacy are import drivers in this process. In cases where more than one pesticide is available for a particular crop pest, farmers should be guided by a regulatory process that identifies which is the least hazardous.

Public interest
Participants debated whether a comparative assessment of a group of pesticides should be linked with the adoption of the substitution principle. This means that before a pesticide product is approved it has to be proved that it is safer than products already on the market for the same areas of use. Public interest groups are in favour of linking comparative assessment to the substitution principle. They recommended an expansion of the regulatory framework to encourage pest management practices that emphasise non-chemical options. 
    Focus on environmental issues needs to be balanced with equal concern for the health of those exposed to pesticides, particularly workers, bystanders and people living within heavily sprayed areas. Environmental water catchment areas are already well established as areas to reduce pesticide use. Some conference participants proposed an equivalent ‘people catchment’ areas.
    There was a clear call for more research into less toxic products and systems to reduce the dependence, risk and use of pesticides. The characteristics of biological control are very different from chemicals. This means that the regulatory systems set up largely for the approval of synthetic chemical pesticides need reform to accommodate pest management requirements offered through options such as biological control. 
    Concerns were raised about a risk assessment approach which considers the effect of each pesticide in isolation. There are recognised scientific uncertainties about the combined effects of pesticides, the so called ‘cocktail effect’. There are also concerns whether hormone-disrupting effects are adequately screened. An important overall goal is a systems approach for example the organic farming model, that argues for an integrated approach to farming systems that move beyond assessing individual pesticides or pest control strategies.

Conference recommendations 
PAN UK called on the UK government to:

• set up a stakeholder group such as a Safer Alternatives Innovation Forum 
• establish a regulatory Pest Management Directorate, to receive advice from an independent expert committee such as an Advisory Committee on Pest Management
• revise the wide-stakeholder Pesticide Forum to give it a more significant role

In the wider context participants called for:

• faster registration for biopesticides
• systems for farmers and growers that provide advice, information and assistance and establish crop protocols (a pest management directorate could deliver this)
• an improvement in the market for biocontrol products by developing an urgent need for a different regulatory approach
• acceptance of consumers’ desire for zero pesticide residues in food and a clean environment 
• the adoption of pesticide use reduction plans that minimise risks to operators, the environment and consumers
• greater effective support for farmers and growers

The concept of comparative assessment is being considered by the European Commission. It is hoped that that the recommendations and conclusions from the Pesticide Challenge conference will help the wider debate, including at the European and international levels. 

A detailed report on papers presented was included in the last issue of Pesticides News (see PN58).

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 59, March 2003, page 7]