Pesticide News - Issue 127

November 2021 | ISSUE 127

PESTICIDE NEWS

An international perspective on the health & environmental effects of pesticides

PESTICIDE LINKS WITH BREAST CANCER, BRAIN CANCER, NEURODEGENERATIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASE New techniques for measuring pesticide exposure

PAN calls for a pesticide amnesty

Pesticide residues in Mediterranean diets

Dear Readers, Exposure to pesticides has long been known to harm human health. In the most extreme cases, acute pesticide poisoning can cause severe, irreversible illness and even death. Pesticides are sadly a common method of suicide, so much so, that one recent study has estimated that over 17 million people have committed suicide using pesticides since 1960.

Occupational exposure remains a widespread problem around the globe. Last year, a comprehensive global assessment estimated that around 44% of farmers and farmworkers – some 385 million – are poisoned every year. In spite of these shocking numbers, pesticide poisoning remains largely hidden from policy makers because data is not regularly or consistently collected.

Another problem is that pesticide recordkeeping – particularly in the global south – is often poor making it difficult to identify the particular chemicals responsible for the poisoning symptoms. In this issue, Dr Sheila Willis, Head of International Programmes at PAN UK, provides a short update on PAN UK’s work to collect data in smallholder farming communities in West Africa including an innovative, non-intrusive, passive sampling technique which uses silicone wristbands to identify which pesticides farmers have been exposed to in their work.

Field data inevitably concentrates on acute pesticide poisoning, and the short-term effects of exposure, but long-term effects of chronic exposure are also a real worry: some pesticides are known carcinogens, while others have been linked to neurological illnesses like Parkinson’s disease, and still more have been shown to increase the risk of serious illnesses ranging from reproductive disorders to depression.

studies: Dr Nicole Gatto of Claremont Graduate University shares her research which found that those in farming occupations with documented exposure to pesticides had more than a 20% elevated risk of brain cancer. Reseach by Grace Wan of the Far Eastern Memorial Hospital in Taiwan has uncovered that people with high levels of exposure to the insecticide malathion had a 25% higher risk of kidney disfunction.

In a ground-breaking study, Dr Angeline Andrew of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Centre and her team compared US national pesticide use records with health claim data for 26,000 people suffering from the neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). She found that those diagnosed with ALS were more likely to have been exposed to certain pesticides including the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate.

Given that only 5-10% of ALS cases are believed to have genetic causes, this research is valuable in uncovering the causes of the disease.

These studies show that there are many ways to be exposed to pesticides and that problems can take many years to manifest themselves.

Relying on personal protective equipment or behaviour change to limit exposure is unreliable and unlikely to be successful. A far more effective approach is to reduce our reliance on pesticides and, in particular, end the use of highly hazardous pesticides.

On a sad, personal note I'd like to remember Enfys Chapman who passed away in August.

Enfys suffered from the effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides while on her farm in Cambridgeshire many years ago. In spite of the resulting health problems, she was a tireless campaigner for victims of pesticide exposure and will be sorely missed.

On page 10, Patricia Bischof, Scientific Officer at Breast Cancer UK, discusses the links between pesticide exposure and breast cancer risk. We also highlight some important new epidemiological

www.pan-uk.org | 2

Dr Keith Tyrell, Director, PAN UK

www.pan-uk.org | 3

MALATHION AND KIDNEY DISEASE

By Grace Wan Kidneys are key organs in our body that control fluid osmolality, acid– base balance, and most importantly, remove toxins.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is permanent kidney damage and loss of renal function, and it can eventually lead to renal dialysis.

Hypertension, diabetes and other metabolic issues are the most frequent risk factors of kidney function loss, or CKD in modern society. However, CKD with unknown causation (CKDu) is found in tropical low- and middle-income

countries where agriculture is the major industry, such as Sri Lanka, Meso-America and India. CKDu cases found in these regions, in contrast to CKD patients in highincome countries, do not appear with classic hypertensive or diabetes symptoms, and most of them are asymptomatic to interstitial nephritis, as well as mild elevation of serum creatinine and proteinuria levels.

Initially, it was suspected that the condition in these regions was associated with agricultural workplaces through exposure to heat stress, dehydration, pesticide spraying, heavy metals and other agrochemicals.

However, indirect pesticide exposure due to environmental contamination, dietary intake of food or vegetables containing pesticide residues, application of pest control in household settings and practicing herbal medicine potentially containing heavy metals, may also be contributing to CKDu among non-agricultural workers. In addition, despite the fact that the exact cause of increased CKD remains unknown, spraying pesticides without personal protective equipment (PPE) and working with contaminated soil have been suggested as likely exposure pathways, especially in young males.

To better understand the impact of pesticide exposure on kidney function loss, as current findings are still struggling to provide a solid answer, researchers from School of Public Health, the University of Queensland analysed links between pesticide exposure and the risk of kidney dysfunction in 41,847 people, using data from the USA National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

www.pan-uk.org | 4

Recently published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, we found those in the population with high exposure to the insecticide Malathion had 25 per cent more risk of kidney dysfunction compared with those who experienced low pesticide exposures. This is the first study to provide evidence linking Malathion with poor kidney health in humans and it also highlights the potential of organophosphate insecticides’ role in renal injury.

Malathion is widely used in agriculture, domestic and public recreation areas as part of mosquito and fruit fly eradication programs, and its ingredients are rapidly absorbed. Animal studies have found that Malathion causes kidney dysfunction by inducing oxidative stress that subsequently causes histopathological and molecular changes.

Our findings suggest that we should limit our exposure to pesticides, even in very small doses, as chronic exposure may lead to negative health outcomes.

Pesticide mixtures may also lead to adverse health issues.

Reducing the use of pesticides and, in particular, eliminating Highly Hazardous Pesticides such as Malathion, is the most reliable approach to addressing pesticide exposure. However, individuals can take steps to reduce their own exposure, for example by altering behaviours, practicing personal hygiene, and using PPE, as Malathion and other pesticide exposures frequently occurred through our skin, breath and dietary intake.

Grace Wan is an Epidemiologist and is currently employed as a Strategist at Far Eastern Memorial Hospital in Taiwan.

While at the University of Queensland she coauthored Association of Pesticides and Kidney Function among Adults in the US Population 2001–2010.

www.pan-uk.org | 5

PESTICIDES AND NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE

By Dr Angeline Andrew The majority of cases of motor neuron disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are not explained by a familial trait or gene.

Scientists suspect that certain chemicals in the environment are likely the culprit. Since many insecticides kill by over-stimulating the unprotected neurons of insects, it is not farfetched to hypothesize that certain pesticides may also harm neurons in susceptible humans.

The brain/central nervous system controls the muscles of the human body via a set of elongated cells called ‘motor neurons’. In ALS, these guiding neurons mysteriously and progressively die off leading to weakness and muscle atrophy. Sadly, in most patients respiratory failure and death usually occurs over a 3-5 year period after diagnosis.

Despite extensive research efforts, there is currently no treatment to halt ALS progression, and the cause remains unclear. Identifying causal factors could help to prevent ALS and focus studies of interventions to block progression.

Occupational exposure to pesticides has been implicated in ALS in several past studies: agricultural workers in Northern Italy 1964-1988; jobs with agricultural chemicals in Washington State, U.S. men 1990-1994; and U.S. professional pesticide applicators.

If working with pesticides increases ALS risk, what happens if you live in the area where they are sprayed? With its origins in John Snow’s investigations of the Cholera epidemic of the 1850’s, scientists have used “shoe-leather epidemiology” to identify

www.pan-uk.org | 6

people likely exposed to an infectious agent or toxic chemical based on where they live.

We took this same approach to identify the individual pesticide types associated with ALS risk.

The U.S. Geological Survey compiles annual estimates of the amount of each herbicide or fungicide, or insecticide applied to crops in each county nationwide. Our study used maps of residential locations overlaid with maps of the applied amounts of 423 pesticides to estimate pesticide exposure for each individual. We compared the amount of pesticide exposure for ALS patients to see if it was higher than the estimated amount of exposure in controls (people who do not have the disease of similar age and gender, living in the same state).

In the first phase of the project, we compared exposures of a large group of ALS patients (n=26,199) to controls. We also did a land use assessment, but did not find generically higher rates of ALS for those living near cultivated crops. This supports the hypothesis that only certain chemical pesticides have neurotoxic effects that increase risk of neurodegenerative disease. It suggests that focusing attention on overall pesticide exposure as an indicator could underestimate the contribution that exposure to some pesticides can make to ALS. By analyzing exposure to specific individual pesticides we were able to slim down the list of 423 pesticides to a shorter list of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides that were statistically higher in ALS patients.

We focused on this shorter list for the second phase of the project, which used the past residential history of ALS patients and controls to estimate pesticide exposure from a few states. Because the events that caused the neurons to begin to die-off begin years prior to a patient noticing symptoms of the disease, we obtained the addresses for 5-years prior to disease detection.

For example, past exposure to the herbicide 2,4-dicholorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) used to kill broad-leafed weeds in orchards and cereal crops significantly increased the risk of getting ALS in our study. This result supports the prior finding that chemical company employees who worked with 2,4D had a 3-fold increased risk of death from ALS compared to other company employees between 1945–1994. The chemical may damage neurons by blocking assembly of scaffolding materials in the cell, known as microtubules.

Thus, we generated a short list of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides with geospatial and temporal links to ALS. This list includes carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, permethrin and paraquat. Our study is most useful for identifying those pesticides that warrant future in-depth study in controlled laboratory settings. Laboratory models of environmentally-induced disease should be used test for potential treatments that can arrest the debilitating and fatal progression of ALS.

Dr Angeline Andrew is Associate Professor at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.

She uses her inter-disciplinary training in toxicology, epidemiology and statistical data analysis to assess the biological effects of environmental exposures. She is currently working closely with geospatial and clinical collaborators to identify neurodegenerative disease risk factors.

www.pan-uk.org | 7

HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE AMNESTY IN THE UK

By Nick Mole, Policy Officer, PAN UK When my dad, a keen gardener, passed away a couple of years ago my mum and I thought it a good time to clean out the garden shed.

Alongside the rusting tools, chicken wire and long unused tennis rackets was a veritable treasure trove of old bottles containing a variety of pesticides.

We found eleven assorted bottles of chemicals including; herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Several were new, several were old and one with a hand-written label was completely unidentifiable. Given that this is a very small sample of chemicals taken from a very small garden it made us wonder what else is lurking in British garden and allotment sheds and what can we do to get rid of them?

Old pesticides are a problem because they are poisons, they kill living organisms and they pose a potential risk to human health.

A risk that is heightened due to them being stored dangerously in unmarked containers

with no instructions for use or, in some cases, no clear idea of what they actually are. Accidental poisonings do happen. And for those looking to get rid of pesticides there is the problem of what to do with them.

There is not always a relevant facility at a local household waste provider and the only alternative is to pour them down the drain or send them to landfill, both of which can present a threat to human health and the environment.

How do we get these poisons out of sheds and into a safe disposal site? In Guernsey, a pesticide amnesty organised by the Guernsey Pollinator Project was held over a period of two days earlier this year. The results were alarming and certainly gave both pause for thought and an insight into the potential scale of the problem. In just two days, 888 products were handed in by members of the public.

The items handed in included DDT (banned for over 30 years), endosulfan (subject to a global ban due to its human health harms) and paraquat (lethal in minute doses and has been used in tens of thousands of suicides around the world).

A similar pesticide collection was carried out in New York State in the US. They held two events over 2021 aimed at farmers, businesses and other institutions to collect unwanted and / or obsolete pesticides. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation stated that in order “to advance New York’s ongoing efforts to protect public health and our environment it’s critical to remove excess pesticides and other chemical wastes from our communities and landfills”.

www.pan-uk.org | 8

Over both events they collected in excess of 100 tonnes of unwanted and obsolete pesticides. Bristol also held an amnesty in October organised by the Bristol Natural History Consortium as part of their initiative to halve the use of pesticides across Bristol.

The amnesty aimed to help residents dispose of pesticides they no longer wanted. In return for handing in a product, residents were given a packet of wild flower seeds. It will be interesting to see the results.

PAN UK believes that amnesties like this should take place across the UK to raise awareness on the harms pesticides can have on public health and the environment.

Local councils will need to find a way to dispose of these pesticides in a safe manner, one that does not result in tonnes of pesticide products and their packaging heading to the local landfill site. They are currently required to provide safe chemical disposal facilities, however many councils do not have the budget to provide this option. Even if they do, they are often not well advertised as disposing of pesticide waste is an expensive business. Following the polluter pays principle PAN UK believes that the companies that make pesticide products should contribute towards the costs of disposal. Not doing so results in an effective subsidy and artificially low price for pesticides, much like the hidden costs of agricultural pesticide use.

Ultimately PAN UK would like to see an end to the sale of home and garden pesticides to the general public. Already, as part of PAN UK’s work with supermarkets, some retailers are taking pesticides off their shelves. The Co-op and Waitrose who will no longer be selling synthetic pesticides as of 2022.

You can help us to reduce the sale of home and garden pesticides by taking our action urging supermarkets to stop selling pesticides: www.pan-uk.org/take-pesticideproducts-off-supermarket-shelves

www.pan-uk.org | 9

PESTICIDES AND BREAST CANCER - WHAT ARE THE LINKS?

By Patricia Bischof, Breast Cancer UK Breast Cancer is the most common cancer in the UK – with 56,000 new cases every year. The causes of breast cancer are not fully understood. Studies have identified numerous factors which can increase or decrease breast cancer risk, including those associated with genetics, circulating hormone levels and lifestyle. For example, being overweight, consuming alcohol, having a poor diet are factors that increase risk, while engaging in physical activity, having a healthy diet and breastfeeding are factors that help reduce risk.

However, environmental risk factors, including exposure to potentially harmful chemicals such as pesticides, can also play a key role.

How are pesticides used and what is the impact on our health? Pesticides are used to kill pests, including insects (insecticides), rodents (rodenticides), fungi (fungicides) and weeds (herbicides). Many are toxic and potentially harmful to animals, plants and humans. Some have the potential to disrupt our hormone systems, known as endocrine disrupting chemicals or EDCs, and can play a role in development of cancers, such as nonHodgkin lymphoma, colorectal and breast cancers.

We get exposed to a cocktail of pesticides primarily through the food we eat and the water we drink. Pesticide residues are often found in or on food after pesticides are used on food crops; these may be particularly harmful to our health. They may build up in our bodies and are routinely found in fat tissue, blood and urine.

Why are we concerned about pesticide exposure? Pesticides could increase breast cancer risk by acting as carcinogens (cancercausing agents) causing gene mutations that lead to, or promote cancer, or may act as EDCs and disrupt sex hormones including oestrogen. High levels of natural oestrogen increase breast cancer risk. Similarly, EDCs that affect oestrogen by mimicking its actions or effectively increasing its concentration in the body, may also increase risk. Furthermore, exposure to such pesticides in the womb can affect breast development and make us more vulnerable to developing breast cancer as adults.

Several pesticides are banned as they harm our health or the environment, including some linked to breast cancer. The insecticide DDT was banned in the UK in 1986, due to various health concerns.

Human population studies have since shown long-term exposure to DDT increases breast cancer risk. Population studies also suggest

www.pan-uk.org | 10

exposure to banned insecticides dieldrin and chlorpyrifos, may increase risk. Other banned insecticides that are EDCs and/or cause mammary tumours in animals include lindane, chlorpyrifos and parathion.

Many pesticides used today are EDCs that affect oestrogen and/or cause mammary cancer in animals; these may also increase breast cancer risk. Examples include the insecticide deltamethrin and the herbicide glyphosate (known as “Round-up”), which cause mammary tumours in rodents and interfere with oestrogen. In 2015, glyphosate and malathion (an insecticide used in greenhouses) were classified as probable human carcinogens.

Human population studies suggest that past exposure to malathion and the fungicide captan (used to control plant diseases) increase breast cancer risk. Most studies examining pesticide exposure with breast cancer incidence show an elevated risk.

Only a handful of pesticides are approved for use in organic food. As a result, organic food contains less pesticide residue than conventionally farmed food.

Some studies suggest an organic diet reduces breast cancer risk however more longterm studies are needed to clarify this.

In December 2020, the Government confirmed its intention to publish a new ‘National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’ (NAP) which committed to “minimise the risks and impacts of pesticides to human health and the environment”. Breast Cancer UK is calling on the NAP to: • Introduce pesticide reduction targets to phase out substances that pose a high risk to human health.

• Give public health bodies direct responsibilities to monitor, research and recommend restrictions on pesticides of concern.

• Ensure pesticide authorisations and restrictions are based on a strict interpretation of the precautionary principle.

This year, BCUK joined The Pesticide Collaboration and we are proud to campaign alongside PAN UK and other NGOs to call on the Government to urgently address the impact of pesticide exposure on the nation’s health.

For more information on the links between pesticides and breast cancer, see our pesticide factsheets and for tips on how to reduce your exposure visit our prevention hub.

Patricia is the Scientific Research Officer at Breast Cancer UK, a charity dedicated to the prevention of breast cancer by tackling the environmental and lifestyle causes of the disease. She is responsible for providing scientific information, content and advice on preventable risk factors of breast cancer.

www.pan-uk.org | 11

FARMING, PESTICIDES AND BRAIN CANCER

By Dr Nicole Gatto What are possible human health effects associated with pesticide exposure? A logical approach to attempt an answer to this question would be to look at occupational populations who use pesticides as part of their jobs. The agriculture industry, and specifically farming occupations, have a long history of utilizing chemical pesticides and fertilizers, many of which have been assessed by IARC for their potential as human carcinogens. If increases in cancers are observed in farmers, for example, we would then consider impacts in the general population whose levels of exposure to pesticides are lower but still potentially concerning for cancer.

Farmers have been the focus of numerous studies of brain cancer. Two comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence were published in the late 1990’s. One concluded that farming was associated with an elevated risk of brain cancer; the other concluded that it was not. Since then, twenty additional years of data from studies have become available.

In order to extend previous work to the current day and harmonize findings from 40 years of research studies, we conducted a systematic literature review and metaanalysis. We analyzed data from 52 studies, including 11 additional studies that were published since 1998. The studies were based around the world from the United States and Canada to the European region, including the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and Iceland, as well as Brazil, New Zealand and China. Information about farming occupations were gleaned from registries or other administrative lists, death certificates, personal interviews, and self-reports.

Forty of the 52 studies reported an association between farming and brain cancer. The magnitude of the elevated risk of brain cancer from farming reported by the individual studies ranged from relatively small (about 3% greater) to much larger (6.5 times the risk).

www.pan-uk.org | 12

When we pooled results from all 52 studies, we found that farming overall is associated with a 13% increase in the occurrence of brain cancer or death from brain cancer.

Some subgroups among farmers were more affected than others. White farmers had a higher risk of brain cancer than non-white farmers. Livestock farming was associated with a greater risk compared with crop farming. Our results did not indicate a difference in the effects of farming on brain cancer between men and women. The elevated risk we measured also did not vary by the publication date of studies, either prior to 1990, between 1990 and 1999, or in the year 2000 or later, which suggested that risk was consistent over the 40-year time period.

Since it is possible that some of the farmers in the studies that we included did not use pesticides, we restricted one of our analyses to studies for which we were certain of their pesticide exposure. We found that farmers with documented exposure to pesticides had greater than a 20% elevated risk of brain cancer. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that many farmers are also exposed to other potentially hazardous chemical and biological agents, such as solvents, fuels, and oils, biologically active dusts, viral and bacterial exposures from farm animals, nitrates from fertilizers, all which can have adverse health

effects in their own right. Thus, it is possible that some of the increased risk of brain cancer among farmers could be due to exposure to these other chemicals.

Because the world’s population is projected to double by 2050 which will be accompanied by an increased demand for food production, farmers are expected to continue to need tools to control pests and achieve needed increases in production.

Increasing organic farming practices and developing alternative technologies to reduce the reliance on pesticides are opportunities to reduce the exposure of farmers to chemical pesticides and thus to decrease the health risks associated with their exposure.

Dr Nicole Gatto is an Associate Professor in the School of Community and Global Health at Claremont Graduate University. She is an epidemiologist with research focuses on environmental, genetic and lifestyle risk and protective factors for diseases impacting aging populations, specifically Parkinson’s disease, dementias/ cognitive impairment, cancer and cardiovascular disease.

www.pan-uk.org | 13

WRISTBANDS - A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR UNDERSTANDING PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

By Dr Sheila Willis, Head of International Programmes, PAN UK The first systematic review of acute pesticide poisoning in thirty years was completed in 2020. It was estimated that 385 million cases of unintentional acute pesticide poisoning occur each year, affecting approximately 44% of farmers worldwide. This figure does not include suicides or chronic effects of pesticides on human health – both of which are also of significant concern.

Estimates of pesticide poisonings tend to draw on official data collected by medical professionals, usually in a hospital setting.

However, in most cases, only a proportion of the most serious cases of pesticide poisoning result in hospitalisation and, as a result, the vast majority of incidents go unrecorded. Over the years PAN UK has conducted many studies to determine the scale of acute pesticide poisoning among farmers and farm workers. These surveys rely on the participants’ recall of incidents of acute pesticide poisoning and the products involved. We generally try to complement this information with group discussions with local stakeholders, interviews with local health professionals, and literature reviews to verify that the reported conditions and health impacts are representative and credible.

Another way of gathering supporting information is to collect empirical evidence of pesticide exposure. In the past, this has relied on intrusive, complex and expensive sampling of human tissue and other matrices (blood, milk, urine). It is difficult to recruit participants, train and supervise field staff appropriately and store and transport the samples to suitable laboratories for analysis.

A relatively new and non-intrusive method, developed by the University of Oregon, uses

silicon wristbands to detect an individuals pesticide exposure. Research shows that these wristbands can absorb pesticides in a similar way to skin. If a person wears a clean wristband over a period of days, it is possible to collect it into a sealed container and analyse the various pesticides to which the wearer was exposed. Once sealed they can be kept at room temperature for some weeks before the pesticides degrade, offering an opportunity to use the method in remote areas. In situations where farmers purchase pesticides (illegally) in soft drinks bottles or plastic bags because they can’t afford the whole container, or where they have been unable to read the label due to poor literacy or a foreign language, it can be helpful to have validation of the products to which they are exposed.

PAN UK has been eager to try the wristband method since reading about it in 2016. Our chance came when the Laudes Foundation agreed to support the development of a phone app to collect survey data from farmers and to use wristbands on a limited scale to validate this survey data.

We are delighted to be working with our partners at OBEPAB in Benin on the first of these studies. Wristbands have just been distributed to 260 cotton farmers who use pesticides. They will be collected in the next few days and packaged up for analysis at a pesticide laboratory in Belgium. This will be an extremely valuable step in identifying the pesticides that are causing the most acute health problems and strengthening the evidence that pesticide exposure is the cause of specific symptoms.

www.pan-uk.org | 14

www.pan-uk.org | 15

PESTICIDE EXPOSURE IN WESTERN VERSUS MEDITERRANEAN DIETS

By Professor Chris Seal Pesticide residues in foods are closely monitored and maximum residue levels are regulated in law. Organic farming standards prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides but do allow biological control agents, some mined mineral pesticides and some plant extracts.

Pesticides are ubiquitous in a mixed diet, and there is concern that chronic exposure to low levels of intake may have health implications.

Evidence from observational studies suggests that organic food consumption is associated with significantly lower risks of chronic diseases such as overweight/ obesity, metabolic syndrome, certain cancers, preeclampsia and hypospadias.

These benefits may be due to lower dietary pesticide exposure but this has not been confirmed in clinical trials, and this may be confounded by composition of the diet.

Ingested and absorbed pesticides are ‘detoxified’ in the body and mostly excreted in urine as either the native pesticide or a residue after partial metabolism. Urinary pesticide residue excretion (UPRE) is an excellent marker of pesticide exposure and has been shown to be lower in organic food consumers, but there are few studies and most have only examined excretion of single compounds or considered only a small number of pesticides.

People who follow a Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet) with higher fruit, vegetable and whole-grain consumption generally have lower risk of chronic diseases, so nutritionists strongly advise this diet pattern. We decided to investigate the effects on UPRE of changing from (1) a normal ‘Western’ diet to a defined MedDiet and (2) a conventioanl MedDiet with an organic MedDiet.

www.pan-uk.org | 16

To our knowledge a total diet substitution experiment of this type, measuring UPRE of a wide range of pesticide products, has not been attempted before. The study involved 27 volunteers taking part in a residential agricultural field course in Crete, Greece. All of the volunteers were housed in the same hostel and we provided all food and drink during the study. Fourteen volunteers in the conventional group consumed a MedDiet which was made entirely from conventional foods, while the intervention group of 13 volunteers consumed exactly the same menu but made entirely from certified organic ingredients. The diet was typical of the region.

Before and after the intervention period all participants consumed their normal diets, which according to their food diaries were low in fruit, vegetables and wine consumption and consisted entirely of conventional foods.

We measured UPRE before, and two weeks after the diet substitution which lasted for 2 weeks with a repeated 7-day menu.

The food consumed was analysed alongside urine and blood samples from the study participants. All food samples were assessed for 492 active ingredients used as crop protection products and/ or found as contaminants in foods by commercial analytical companies. In addition, all cereal product samples were assessed for chlormequat (CCC) residues, and the results from the food analyses were used to determine the list of pesticide residues monitored in urine.

These included parent compounds and/ or metabolites of a wide range of classes (including organophosphates, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids) and types (including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, plant growth regulators) of pesticides that are used in agriculture as crop protection or veterinary products.

The results, which have just been published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition were marked. As we predicted, fruit, vegetables and whole-grain cereals were the most significant dietary sources for synthetic chemical pesticides, but organic food production methods resulted in substantially lower pesticide residue levels in these foods. As a result, switching from a ‘Western’ to a conventional MedDiet with higher consumption of fruit, vegetables and whole grain resulted, on average, in more than 3-times higher total insecticide and organophosphate intake and 10-times higher total pesticide intake than the same MedDiet made entirely from organic food.

This is a unique study with international collaborators from the UK, Australia and Norway, and it is the first time that anyone has attempted an experiment of this type and scale. The number of subjects is quite small and so we need to be a bit cautious in reading too much into the results. However, the study provides clear evidence that both our diet and the way we produce food may affect the level of exposure to synthetic chemical pesticides. The relative benefit of the MedDiet may be mitigated by higher pesticides exposure whereas organic food consumption reduces exposure to all groups of synthetic chemical pesticides. This may explain the positive health outcomes linked to organic food consumption in observational studies.

The study was funded by an un-restricted award from the Sheepdrove Trust. The funders had no input into the study design or interpretation of the results.

Chris Seal is Emeritus Professor in the Public Health Sciences Institute at Newcastle University after more than 30 years in nutrition research.

His research focussed on the health benefits of plant and cereal-based foods, especially whole grain, and the impact of agronomic practices on the nutritional composition and value of foods.

www.pan-uk.org | 17

THE UK NATIONAL FOOD STRATEGY

By Nick Mole, Policy Officer, PAN UK There is no doubt that the UK food system is in trouble - food related health issues such as obesity are endemic, access to healthy food choices is difficult particularly for those on low incomes and in many cases the way we grow and produce our food is harming our ecosystems and is unsustainable in the long-term.

Recognising this, Defra commissioned food writer and restauranteur Henry Dimbleby to develop a set of recommendations that could form the basis of a coherent strategy for addressing some of the key issues affecting our food system. In July 2021, following extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, Defra published the National Food Strategy recommendations. A 290-page document covering a huge range of topics related to our food system and containing 14 specific recommendations.

The UK Government is due to produce a white paper based upon the recommendations sometime in early 2022.

The recommendations are on the whole welcomed and much needed. However, it is our opinion that some of them are lacking in detail or should go further, particularly with regards to addressing the many problems that pesticide use causes to both human health and our environment.

Recommendation 8 – “Guarantee the budget for agricultural payments until at least 2029 to help farmers transition to more sustainable land use” – is a positive recommendation that PAN UK has been urging the government to deliver. But while a lot is made in this recommendation about carbon sequestration and habitat restoration there is no specific mention of setting

targets or making payments to farmers specifically linked to reducing the use of pesticides. This is a missed opportunity.

Farmers need support for reducing their use of pesticides. Rolling it into the Sustainable Farming Incentive payments that will replace CAP payments fits in with the much-touted ethos of “public money for public goods” and will help protect people and the environment from the harms that pesticide use causes.

Recommendation 10 – “Define minimum standards of trade, and a mechanism for protecting them” – the UK leaving the EU and establishing a new set of trade deals and agreements unilaterally with other countries has thrown up a range of opportunities and threats to UK pesticide standards. PAN UK has highlighted some of these in our series of Toxic Trade briefings.

There are two main issues that we have highlighted: increased pesticide residues in the food that we import to the UK and an undermining of UK farmers ability to grow and produce competitively if in competition with others using pesticides that we have banned in the UK. Whilst the recommendation does state that the Government should “only agree to cut tariffs on products which meet our core standards” it doesn’t mention pesticide standards specifically as one of those that needs to be defined. If we are to ensure that the UK food system is sustainable, profitable and providing the healthiest food for consumption, the forthcoming white paper should adopt recommendation 10 and include pesticide standards as one of the key areas that need to be maintained.

www.pan-uk.org | 18

Recommendation 11 – “Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system” – it is vital that we invest in innovation to help make the UK food system as sustainable and healthy as possible.

However, there is a risk that the definition of ‘innovation’ could be co-opted by those that only think of innovation in terms of genetic modification, precision farming and similar high-tech solutions. Innovation must be inclusive of traditional, nature-based, agroecological farming techniques. If this recommendation makes it into the white paper, and it is clearly needed, then it must include provision for significant amounts of the funding to be invested in developing agroecological and organic methods of pest and weed control and the research must be driven by the needs of farmers from the bottom up rather than a top down research agenda.

Recommendation 13 – “Strengthen Government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy and sustainable food” – this particular recommendation is one that could really help in health benefits to the public across the UK and also support and encourage the farming sector to adopt organic and agroecological farming methods, it is vital that this is adopted.

In France the government introduced a requirement that at least 50% of public procurement of food must be organic and/or locally sourced. The UK should adopt a measure at least as ambitious as this and ideally more so. The health and wellbeing benefits of providing organic food in schools, hospitals and prisons has been shown in a number of studies over the years and should be supported. This would not only be of benefit to consumers but would help to support and grow the organic sector. Similarly if there was a requirement that food were to be sourced locally, a definition would be needed, this would help support smaller local growers, reduce food miles which could help meet climate targets and potentially help reconnect local communities to their food growers.

All in all, the NFS is a positive step. Many of the recommendations, if adopted, will contribute positively to the UK food system. But, without including clear targets for addressing pesticide issues there will remain a serious gap in our approach to making the UK food and farming sector more sustainable and healthy, not only for the public but for all involved in growing our food.

www.pan-uk.org | 19

REMEMBERING MRS ENFYS CHAPMAN Enfys Chapman, co-founder with her husband John, of the Pesticide Exposure Group of Sufferers (PEGS), died in North Wales on 27th August 2021 aged 93 from complications following a fall.

PEGS helped many who, like Enfys, had been accidentally sprayed by pesticides as well as many more who had suffered, as many farmers had done, from the effects of pesticide use. Their telephone helpline was a source of empathy and advice for large numbers of sufferers.

Enfys and John worked indefatigably through PEGS to communicate the dangers of pesticides to government and also worked with university academics to raise awareness of symptoms and effects of pesticide poisoning. Following their retirement the work of PEGS was subsumed into PAN UK where the issues highlighted by PEGS continue to be covered by the team.

As a small team of dedicated experts, we are extremely careful with our funds and can assure you that your donation will be put to good use. If you would like to support our work please click here.

DONATE TO PAN UK

Pesticide Action Network UK

ISSN 2514-5770

We are the only UK charity focused solely on tackling the problems caused by pesticides and promoting safe and sustainable alternatives in agriculture, urban areas, homes and gardens.

The Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD

We work tirelessly to apply pressure to governments, regulators, policy makers, industry and retailers to reduce the impacts of harmful pesticides to both human health and the environment.

Telephone: 01273 964230 Email: admin@pan-uk.org

Find out more about our work at: www.pan-uk.org