ISSUE 114
July 2018
PESTICIDE NEWS The Journal of Pesticide Action Network UK
An international perspective on the health and environmental effects of pesticides
PESTICIDES AND SELF-POISONING DEATHS Will stricter pesticide regulation decrease suicide rates in low- and middle-income countries? ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: • Another step towards a pesticide-free London • What's being sprayed in the UK's towns and cities? • Alternatives to glyphosate in weed management - a new edition
ISSN 2514-5770
ANOTHER STEP TOWARDS A PESTICIDE-FREE LONDON On a scorching hot Friday in June, forty decision-makers responsible for managing public spaces around London gathered in Hammersmith for the first ever Pesticide-Free London workshop. Those in attendance included elected councillors and council officers from two-thirds of London boroughs, plus a range of other organisations who also manage large swathes of land in the capital. The topic of the day? How to end the use of toxic pesticides in London’s parks, playgrounds and other urban spaces.
Leonie Cooper, Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee of the Greater London Authority (GLA), introduced the Mayor of London’s new Environment Strategy which commits the GLA group to reducing its own pesticide use. With H&F proving that pesticide-free is possible and the GLA leading the way, it is looking highly likely that we can convince other London boroughs to follow suit. In addition, our recent council election campaign resulted in candidates in 30 of London’s 32 boroughs taking the ‘Pesticide-Free London Pledge’ to severely restrict, and ideally ban, pesticide use.
At last count, 38 different pesticides were being used in UK towns and cities, the vast majority to control weeds. They are sprayed in parks, playgrounds and other green spaces, road verges, pavements and around shopping centres and schools. The chemicals used have been linked to an array of health problems including cancer, diabetes and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s. Vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women and old people are most affected. Pesticides are also having devastating effects on London’s natural environment, destroying many of the areas where wildlife such as hedgehogs and bees forage for food and contaminating the natural resources they depend upon.
The Pesticide-Free Towns campaign is part of a global movement driven by rising levels of public concern over the impacts of pesticides. Increasing numbers of towns and cities are going pesticidefree. In France, all public spaces have been managed without pesticides since 2017. The UK is lagging behind but the public is no less concerned. Recent polling revealed that 68% of UK citizens want their local, shared urban spaces to be pesticide-free. If London shows that it can be done, then we should be able to convince other major cities to follow suit until all of the UK’s public spaces are free from toxic chemicals.
Urban pesticide use is unnecessary and there are many non-chemical alternatives available. At the workshop, various companies presented technologies designed to deal with weeds without resorting to chemicals. Hundreds of towns and cities around the world have already banned pesticides. In 2016, Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) became the first London borough to go pesticide-free and H&F Councillor Wesley Harcourt spoke at the event about their achievements.
PAN UK is on hand to provide land managers with advice on how to stop using pesticides and adopt sustainable and healthy non-chemical alternatives. But we can't do this alone. If you are concerned about pesticide use in your area, contact us at pestcidefree@pan-uk.org and we can link you up with Pesticide-Free Towns activists in your area or help you start a local campaign.
2
www.pan-uk.org
3
www.pan-uk.org
WHAT'S BEING SPRAYED IN THE UK'S TOWNS & CITIES? On 26th April, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) released the results of its latest survey into pesticides used in the amenity sector in the UK. This is the second such survey and it looks at use reported in 2016 – presenting some interesting and perhaps also worrying information.
Whilst this has managed to provide some useful information, it falls short in giving a complete picture of pesticide use in the amenity sector. It must be assumed that the quantities of active substances reported as being used are under-reported and that there is in fact a greater use of pesticides than the survey would indicate.
The survey covers pesticides used outside of agriculture, but does not include those used for home and garden use by the general public. Over 1,100 companies and organisations in the amenity sector were contacted and asked to respond to the survey. These included contractors, golf courses, local authorities, water companies and others.
Unsurprisingly, the survey shows that glyphosate is the most widely used active substance in the amenity sector. By weight, glyphosate represented 77% of all active substances used by the amenity sector in 2016. In terms of treated area, herbicide use accounted for 98.8% of the total with fungicides, insecticides, growth regulators and biological control agents accounting for the rest of the usage.
Response rate was just 9% with a further number of organisations responding online. The response rate from local authorities was particularly poor with only 24 in total. Given there are over 400 local authorities in the UK, all of which will be using pesticides in some form, this is disappointing. On the other hand responses from golf courses far outstripped those of the others providing 119 of the total. In all, the number of responders across the board were 209.
It is clear that there is a lot of work to be done to reduce the use of herbicides within the amenity sector but some optimism can be taken from the fact that nearly 50% of respondents claim they always consider the use of non-chemical control methods and that the remainder sometimes consider them. However, the question was “how often is the use of non-chemical methods considered?� rather than actually used. That is an important difference. 4
www.pan-uk.org
Some European countries are stopping - or dramatically reducing - the use of herbicides in amenity sectors. They have begun to effectively implement nonchemical control methods. This is an area where the UK Government should provide clear guidance/legislation aimed specifically at reducing and ending the use of pesticides, particularly in areas frequented by the public. Voluntary approaches do not work to reduce pesticides and the industry will not regulate itself without strong legislative measures that will help to drive change.
On the whole the survey is an interesting snapshot of a small section of the amenity sector at a specific point in time. But, if we are to be able to properly analyse pesticide use in our urban areas to drive key decisionmaking about non-agricultural pesticide use then we need more robust data provided more frequently. In terms of this report and the amenity sector as a whole PAN UK would like to see; Information provision • Undertake a survey every year - or at least every two - in order to provide the best picture of use and changes within the sector as possible • Make reporting to the survey mandatory for all professional users in the amenity sector Government support • Introduce legislation aimed at reducing the use of amenity pesticides
Whilst this survey is welcome in terms of adding to our knowledge on pesticide use, we must point out its shortcomings. As there have only been two reports covering the single years 2012 and 2016, it is not possible to look at changes in pesticide use across the sector in any meaningful sense. Top ten active substances by weight of active applied in 2016:
PAN UK has been running a Pesticide-Free Towns campaign for the last three years, aimed at reducing - and ultimately ending - the use of amenity pesticides, particularly by local authorities in the UK. There is a clear appetite for change and there have been some notable leaders in going pesticide-free such as Glastonbury and Hammersmith & Fulham. We are now working with a number of London boroughs and as part of our campaign we have produced a range of materials and held workshops to support councillors and council officers in going pesticide-free. For more information on our Pesticide-Free Towns campaign and to see videos from our recent workshop please visit: www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-free 5
www.pan-uk.org
PESTICIDES AND SELF-POISONING DEATHS By Michael Eddleston and Leah Utyasheva, CPSP
higher in agricultural communities than in industrialised countries, with resulting high rates of suicide.
Will stricter pesticide regulation decrease suicide rates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)?
Most persons who engage in suicidal behaviour do not want to die, with selfharm serving as a response to psychosocial stressors.4 A large proportion of pesticide suicides are impulsive, with a person contemplating suicide for less than 10 minutes.5 If a person is prevented from using a highly lethal method, they may use a method with lower lethality resulting in an increased chance of survival, or the suicidal impulse may pass. Relatively few people go on to find an equally lethal method of suicide. Surviving a suicidal period allows the person to find support and/or other ways to deal with the stress.
A ban on highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs)1 will not only protect the environment and improve public health. It will also achieve another rarely acknowledged goal – a rapid and major reduction in the number of pesticide suicide deaths common in many LMICs. Out of the 800 000 individuals who die from suicide worldwide each year - one death every 40 seconds - about 15-20% are due to pesticide self-poisoning.2 In 1990-2007, pesticide suicides accounted for 30% of all suicides annually, comprising an estimated 300,000 deaths per year globally.3 In the WHO South East Asia region, it likely causes around 38.5% of all suicide deaths. Globally, HHPs ingestion is now likely to cause over 150,000 suicide deaths each year.
Restricting access to means of suicide is called means restriction and is recommended by the WHO. It has shown to be highly effective in reducing global suicide numbers, including in the UK after the domestic gas supply was made less toxic. Restrictions on the import and sale of HHPs have been followed by falls in the number of people dying from pesticide self-poisoning but also dramatic falls in the overall suicide rate from any cause.6 Equally effective alternative pesticides and agricultural practices - in particular integrated pest management (IPM) - are available to replace HHPs.
In LMICs, where small-holder farmers use high strength pesticides and fertilisers to increase farm productivity, the ready access to and wide availability of HHPs make them an easy option for poisoning during acute crises. In comparison with developed countries, where agricultural strength pesticides are only available to licensed workers and few people now work in agriculture, HHPs are freely sold in shops and stored in many homes in rural communities around the globe. Unlike relatively low toxicity medicines commonly used for self-poisoning in the west, HHPs are typically lethal if ingested. This means that fatality of self-poisoning is much
15-20% of all suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning 6
www.pan-uk.org
Implementing legislation to limit the use of HHPs in agriculture has been a highly successful approach to suicide reduction, reducing overall suicide numbers in countries where small-scale farming is common, such as Sri Lanka, South Korea and Bangladesh. The best evidence comes from Sri Lanka, where this approach saved an estimated 93,000 lives at the remarkable cost of $50 per life and <$2 per disabilityadjusted life year (DALY).
reductions in case-fatality for pesticide poisoning and suicides.7 The overall suicide rate is now 17 per 100,000 - a 70% reduction over 20 years - and continues to fall. The Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention (CPSP) is a research and policy initiative of the University of Edinburgh. Building on the work of its Director Prof. Michael Eddleston in South Asia, the Centre aims to substantially reduce the global number of suicides that occur after intentional ingestion of pesticide. The initiative is supported by an Incubation Grant of the philanthropic organisation GiveWell USA.
After the introduction of HHPs into smallscale rural agricultural practice in the 1960s in Sri Lanka, the suicide rate increased from 5/100,000 people older than 8 years to 57/100,000 in 1995. Taking note, the Pesticide Registrar banned parathion and methylparathion in 1984 and then all WHO Class I toxicity pesticides in 1995. There was a sudden, rapid fall in total suicides from that time. Subsequent bans of WHO Toxicity Class II pesticides endosulfan (in 1998), dimethoate, fenthion, and paraquat (in 2008-2011) has led to further major
We are hoping that our work on reducing suicide rates will save lives, help the governments in the project countries to comply with international human rights obligations, reduce health care costs and productivity loss, and help to achieve governmental commitment due to the Sustainable Development Goals. Find out more at: www.centrepsp.org
References: Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHP) means pesticides that are acknowledged to present particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards to health or environment according to internationally accepted classification systems such as WHO or GHS or their listing in relevant binding international agreements or conventions. WHO, FAO, International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. Guidelines on Highly Hazardous Pesticides. 2016, Rome. 2 Mew E, Padmanathan P, Konradsen F, Eddleston M, Chang SS, Phillips M, Gunnel D, The global burden of fatal self-poisoning with pesticides 2006-15: systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders 219 (2017) 93-104. 3 Mew et al., The global burden of fatal self-poisoning with pesticides 2006-15: systematic review. 4 WHO Restricting Access to the Means for Suicide, at http://www.who.int/mental_health/ prevention/suicide/pesticides/en/. Accessed March 24, 2017. 5 Deisenhammer E, Ing C, Strauss R, Kemmler F, Hinterhuber H, Weiss E, The duration of the suicidal process: How much time is left for Intervention between consideration and accomplishment of a suicide attempt? J Clin Psychiatry 70:1, January 2009; Conner KR, Phillips MR, Meldrum S, Knox KL, Zhang Y, Yang G, Low-planned suicides in China. Psychol Med. 205 Aug; 35 (8): 1197-204, Eddleston M, Karunaratne A, Weerakoon M, Kumarasinghe S, Rajapakshe M, Sheriff MH, Buckley NA, Gunnel D, Choice of poison for intentional self-poisoning in Rural Sri Lanka, Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2006; 44(3):283-6. 6 Gunnell D, Knipe D, Chang, Pearson M, Konradsen F, Lee WJ, Eddleston M, Prevention of suicide with regulation aimed at restricting access to highly hazardous pesticides: a systematic review of the international evidence, Lancet Global Health, August 11, 2017. 7 Gunnell D, Knipe D, Chang, Pearson M, Konradsen F, Lee WJ, Eddleston M, Prevention of suicide with regulation aimed at restricting access to highly hazardous pesticides: a systematic review of the international evidence, Lancet Global Health, August 11, 2017. 1
7
www.pan-uk.org
NEWS FROM THE NETWORK Alternatives to glyphosate in weed management – New edition 11th July 2018 PAN Europe has published an updated edition of its report on alternatives to glyphosate as a contribution to the ongoing discussions among some Member States, led by France, on phasing out glyphosate and promoting alternatives. “The transition towards lower impact systems and less reliance on glyphosate involves not only replacing glyphosatebased herbicides by using mechanical means or other less harmful herbicides, but also discovering or re-discovering organic farming cycles and techniques, learning to work with nature again, following the “many little hammers” approach – as illustrated by the Integrated Weed Management triangle presented on the cover page of the report!” Henriette Christensen, Senior Find the report at: www.pan-uk.org/alternativesPolicy Advisor, PAN Europe.
to-glyphosate-in-weed-management
GLYPHOSATE GIRL AND THE MONSANTO TRIAL Dewayne Johnson, 46, is the first of hundreds of cancer patients to see his case against agrochemical giant Monsanto go to trial. Despite the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) saying that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans", Monsanto has long maintained that Roundup, which contains glyphosate, does not cause cancer. An easy-to-read blog of the trial written by Glyphosate Girl can be found at: https://glyphosategirl.com/
Copyright: Glyphosate Girl
8
www.pan-uk.org