March 2022 | ISSUE 128
PESTICIDE NEWS
An international perspective on the health & environmental effects of pesticides
A OURSTEP F PLAN HELPING COUNCILS GO PESTICIDE FREE Implicatons of a adetr alde enwbt the UK and azilBr
edakL EU meo alsevr big hancges
Taklincg opta outspr with mintarspe oil
TOXIC TRADE IN BRAZIL By Josie Cohen, Head of Policy & Campaigns, PAN UK Ongoing trade discussions between the UK and Brazil are likely to lead to an increase in pesticide-related harms in both countries. A new report – co-authored by PAN UK, Sustain and Dr Emily Lydgate – outlines how the growth in trade with Brazil being pursued by the UK Government could mean that British consumers unwittingly find their diets driving serious health and environmental impacts on the ground in Brazil where their food is grown. Brazil is the third largest user of pesticides globally and its so-called “Poison Package”, which is currently being pushed through Congress by President Bolsonaro, has slashed laws designed to protect human health and the environment from pesticides. The country’s pesticide standards are far weaker than those of the UK with almost double the number of highly hazardous pesticides allowed for use, including the lethal herbicide paraquat and bee-toxic neonicotinoids. The UK already imports significant amounts of food and animal feed (largely soya) from Brazil, both of which are likely to grow under a new trade agreement. While food imports are subject to UK safety limits for the amount of pesticide residues allowed to appear in a particular item, there are no such limits placed on feed. As a result, highly toxic pesticides banned for use in the UK due to health or environmental concerns can be used to grow Brazilian soya on deforested land. Soya beans are already Brazil’s largest agricultural export to the UK, with as much as 90 percent fed to animals.
The report also exposes how an increase in trade with Brazil threatens to weaken the UK’s own domestic pesticide standards, with negative knock on effects for both public health and the environment. As a major agricultural exporter, Brazil would have much to gain from a drop in UK standards, which currently exclude food exports containing pesticides in amounts that exceed UK safety limits. Brazil tends to allow larger amounts of highly hazardous pesticides to appear in food than the UK. As just one of many examples included in the report, Brazilian lemons grown for the home market are allowed to contain 200 times the amount of the insecticide dimethoate than those allowed to be sold in the UK. Lemons are already a key export to the UK which would be likely to increase under a trade deal. Dimethoate has been shown to have links to cancer and is banned in the UK for reasons which include the risk posed to consumer health through longterm exposure via diet. A rise in agricultural exports from Brazil also poses an economic threat to the future of UK farming. Judging by the UKAustralia Free Trade Agreement – the only new trade deal the UK has signed post-Brexit – it seems highly likely that an agreement would increase quotas under which Brazilian agricultural exports receive low tariffs, providing an incentive for Brazil to export more to the UK. This threatens to undercut UK farmers with a flood of cheap imports grown on a larger-scale and to lower environmental standards. www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade-brazil
www.pan-uk.org | 2
“The UK Government continues to pursue increased agricultural trade with Brazil, but the intensification of agricultural production there has been linked with deforestation and highly hazardous pesticides which harm wildlife and ecosystems. The UK should ensure that it is not contributing to this problem.” Dr Emily Lydgate, Specialist in Environmental Law at the University of Sussex
Burning Amazon forest in Brazil to open space for agriculture. Credit Pedarilhosbr/Shutterstock.com Front cover: Spraying pesticides in a soybean field in Brazil. Credit FR Agro/Shutterstock.com
www.pan-uk.org | 3
Aerial view of tropical deforestation in Mato Grosso do Sul in Brazil. Credit BMJ/Shutterstock.com
www.pan-uk.org | 4
CHEMICAL DEFOLIANTS SPRAYED ON AMAZON RAINFOREST TO FACILITATE DEFORESTATION By Jenny Gonzales, Mongabay Pesticides have been dropped from planes and even helicopters with the aim of evading IBAMA, the Brazilian environmental agency, for years as a method to clear remote and hard-to-reach areas of the Amazon rainforest. That practice — used more frequently since 2018 — takes longer than clear-cut deforestation (the removal of all existing vegetation using heavy machinery). On the other hand, pesticide use cannot be detected via real-time satellite imagery. According to IBAMA, some pesticides work as defoliants. The dispersion of those chemicals over native forest is the initial stage of deforestation, causing the death of leaves — and a good part of the trees. The material is burned and surviving trees are removed with chainsaws and tractors. “Although human-induced forest degradation takes a few years to happen, the process is advantageous to criminals because chances of being caught are very low. We can only see the damage when the clearing is already formed,” notes an IBAMA official who spoke with Mongabay on the condition of anonymity. “A dead forest is easier to remove than a living one. Certain (not all of them) pesticides practically leave only big trees standing.” In the next step, the offenders drop grass seeds by aircraft. “This is the great bargaining chip for land grabbing. In order for illegal land to be sold as a ‘farm in formation,’ the soil must be covered with grass,” added the agent. Glyphosate, carbosulfan (prohibited in aerial spraying) and 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange, used massively in the Vietnam War and which still results in cases
of birth defects in the country) were some of the pesticides found by the environmental agency in clearings in the Arc of Deforestation (the Legal Amazon area where the agricultural frontier advances towards the forest), according to a survey by Repórter Brasil and Agência Pública. “Causing forest degradation through pesticides is a major aggression to the environment. The 2,4D herbicide, for instance, is capable of killing large trees, and the carbosulfan insecticide is highly toxic. Animals will eat poisoned leaves and fruits from the forest [while the vegetation dies]. And it’s very dangerous for anyone nearby when pesticides are thrown,” Eduardo Malta, a biologist at the NGO Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), told Mongabay in an interview. In an IBAMA video sent to Mongabay, two inspectors show a rural property on which they detected, during an overflight, an area of about two hectares (4.9 acres) with dry, brownish vegetation. Upon landing at the site, they found dozens of empty gallons of the Planador XT herbicide — which had been dumped into the area by helicopter at the owner’s behest. “Although that product is authorized to be applied by agricultural aircraft, its use is prohibited in native forests,” states one of the IBAMA agents in the video. “In addition, the containers [thrown on the soil] were not washed or disposed of properly, and the rains could end up transporting the residues. Adults, children [of farm workers] and animals live on the site. Everyone has their health put at risk.”
www.pan-uk.org | 5
Cattle farms buying pesticides — what for? The IBAMA video shows that, not only do land grabbers release pesticides to deforest, but farmers also do so on their own properties. Faced with the increased number of cases, IBAMA began to map those areas through INPE’s (Brazilian space agency) forest degradation alert system. When crossreferencing the data, the environmental agency found that many of the clearings were located on farms that were purchasing pesticides, mainly in the state of Mato Grosso. Such properties, however, were livestock farms and not agricultural ones, so it did not make sense to purchase those products. “The criminals noticed that forest degradation was not our priority because we only arrived at those places much later, when the clearings were already formed. So they began practicing more of those,” the IBAMA representative told Mongabay. “The truth is we were more focused on fighting clear-cut deforestation due to the increasing rates in recent years. It was a learning experience for us.”
The reduced number of field agents to cover all six Brazilian biomes, and not just in the deforestation area, is a big problem. In 2019 they were only 591, which is 55% less than 2010 (when it was 1,311). 2010 was the last year that IBAMA opened new vacancies for enforcement agents. “It is unfortunate the irresponsibility of those people towards human life and the environment. Pesticides were not made for that purpose, there are no scientific studies on the consequences of dumping those products in the native forest, and the effects on living beings, water and soil,” said the agent. “In addition to IBAMA, Embrapa [a public agricultural research company linked to the Ministry of Agriculture] and the Ministry of the Environment, among others, must participate in the effort of raising awareness and educating rural producers and the population. The agency alone in this battle is an inglorious fight.”
Jenny Gonzales is a Brazilian journalist based in São Paulo. Formerly contributor at the sustainability & companies section of Valor Econômico newspaper, business assistant editor of Carta Capital magazine, correspondent for Brazilian publications and editor of Time magazine's Portuguese supplement in New York. This article was published in Mongabay on 19th January 2022 and can be viewed in full at: https://news.mongabay. com/2022/01/pesticides-released-intobrazils-amazon-to-degrade-rainforestand-facilitate-deforestation
www.pan-uk.org | 6
BANNED BEE-TOXIC PESTICIDE AUTHORISED FOR USE IN SUGAR BEET FARMING By Sarah Haynes, The Pesticide Collaboration In January, the Government authorised the emergency use of a banned bee-toxic pesticide for sugar beet farmers in England. However, the use of the neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam, was still subject to a threshold being reached in the Beet Yellows Virus forecast. On 1st March, Defra announced that this threshold for use was met, and the goahead was given for this chemical to be used on almost 100,000 ha of land in East England. Thiamethoxam works by disrupting the nervous systems of insects, ultimately leading to their paralysis and death. It is particularly harmful to bees, with just a single teaspoon able to kill 1.25 billion honeybees – enough to fill four lorryloads. Even minute traces of this toxic chemical in crop pollen or wildflowers has the potential to play havoc with bees’ ability to forage and navigate, with sometimes catastrophic consequences for the survival of their colony. A recent study showed that even one exposure of a neonicotinoid insecticide (in this instance imidacloprid) had significant impacts on their ability to produce offspring in future years. In addition to harm to pollinators and the environment, the decision is worrying for another reason - it goes against explicit advice provided by the government’s own expert bodies. Both the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Health and Safety Executive agreed that “the requirements for emergency authorisation have not been met”, with concerns that associated water pollution will harm river life. The decision is also at odds with commitments in the recently adopted Environment Act to
reverse species declines by 2030, previous promises to tackle the biodiversity crisis, and the global leadership the UK sought to claim by hosting COP26, where Environment Secretary George Eustice stated that the UK was “leading the way” in sustainable farming. Whilst this is just one decision, it does not bode well for the UK’s pesticide regime postBrexit. 2022 may prove to be a crunch year for the future of pesticides in the UK. The final National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (NAP) is due to be published, which will set the ambition and direction for pesticide use for at least the next five years. We anticipate that the NAP will commit to developing targets for pesticide reduction, which could have a hugely positive impact, if designed well. On the other hand, the newly announced Brexit Freedoms Bill pledges to “cut EU red tape” and “end the special status of EU law and ensure that it can be more easily amended or removed”. Given that the UK has so far taken on the EU’s relatively precautionary approach to pesticides, they could be an obvious target for deregulation. It continues to be a crucial time to work together, towards an urgent reduction in pesticide use and harms. Decisions taken over the next few years could have huge consequences for nature restoration, biodiversity, river health, and so much more. We know that the agrochemical industry is well organised and will be pushing for their own agenda. We will continue working for a system that doesn’t allow destructive decisions – like this authorisation – to be made. The Pesticide Collaboration was co-founded by PAN UK and RSPB.
www.pan-uk.org | 7
OUTSIDE THE SAFE OPERATING SPACE OF THE PLANETARY BOUNDARY FOR NOVEL ENTITIES By Dr Linn Persson and Professor Bethanie Carney Almroth There are an estimated 350,000 different types of manufactured chemicals on the global market. These include plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, chemicals in consumer products, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals. Many of these are so called novel entities, created by humans and new to the planet, with largely unknown effects on the Earth system. Significant volumes of these novel entities enter the environment each year. In 2009, an international team of researchers identified nine planetary boundaries that demarcate the remarkably stable state Earth has remained within for 10,000 years - since the dawn of civilization. These boundaries
include greenhouse gas concentrations, the ozone layer, forests, freshwater and biodiversity. The researchers quantified several of the boundaries, but the boundary for novel entities was one of two boundaries that remained unquantified. In January, an international team of researchers published new research in which they have assessed different aspects of the current flow of synthetic chemicals and other novel entities. The 14 scientists conclude in the scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology that humanity has exceeded a planetary boundary related to environmental pollutants including pesticides.
www.pan-uk.org | 8
“The rate at which these pollutants are appearing in the environment far exceeds the capacity of governments to assess global and regional risks, let alone control any potential problems,” says co-author Bethanie Carney Almroth from the University of Gothenburg. Current increasing trends of chemical production and release put the health of the Earth system at risk and the authors call for actions to reduce the production and release of synthetic chemicals and other novel entities.
"The pace that societies are producing and releasing new chemicals and other novel entities into the environment is not consistent with staying within the safe operating space for humanity.” Linn Persson, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and Affiliated Researcher at Stockholm Environment Institute.
Dr Linn Persson is Head of the International Department at the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) and affiliated researcher at Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Her research portfolio includes work on chemical pollution, chemicals management, international agreements and their implementation, chemical indicators, and planetary boundaries. Bethanie Carney Almroth is a professor of ecotoxicology at the Dept. of Biological and Environmental Sciences at the University of Gothenburg. She has a background in fish physiology and research focuses on the effects of microplastics and chemicals in plastic products on aquatic organisms. She also works with large scale collective action and sustainable development.
www.pan-uk.org | 9
TARGET TO CUT GLOBAL PESTICIDE USE BY TWO-THIRDS URGENTLY NEEDED TO HALT BIODIVERSITY LOSS By Dr Alex Stuart, International Project Manager, PAN UK
The global rate of species extinction is unprecedented and the absolute abundance of wild organisms has alarmingly decreased by half over the past 50 years. This is a catastrophe which threatens the very basis of food production and sustainable development globally. The drivers of biodiversity loss are many, but numerous scientific studies have highlighted the major role pesticides play. In March 2022, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will meet in Geneva to negotiate goals and targets to reverse biodiversity loss in the decade post-2020. These will be incorporated into the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which is expected to be forwarded to the Conference of the Parties (COP-15) for further negotiation and adoption later in 2022 in Kunming, China. The first draft of the GBF includes a target to cut global pesticide use by two-thirds by 2030.
Working with Third World Network (TWN), PAN has produced a new briefing outlining why tackling pesticides is essential to protecting biodiversity. In addition, to have a realistic chance at reducing the decline in biodiversity caused by pesticides, the GBF needs to: •
•
•
include measurable targets to reduce synthetic pesticide use and toxicity by at least two-thirds phase out highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), which are highly detrimental to biodiversity support farmers to transition away from a reliance on synthetic pesticide use through the use of agroecological approaches
The briefing note is available in English, Spanish and French at: https://www.pan-uk. org/conserving-biodiversity
www.pan-uk.org | 10
'INERT' PESTICIDE INGREDIENTS UNDERSTUDIED AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TO BEES By Dr Edward Straw, University College Dublin ‘Inert’ ingredients are any ingredients in a pesticide product other than the main (active) ingredient. For example, glyphosate is the active ingredient in the product Roundup, but there are also other unknown ingredients in Roundup. In recent years, inert ingredients have begun to be considered as potential threats to bees' health, threats largely ignored by the regulatory system.
ponds, others reduced bees ability to learn, and others still made bee diseases worse. Just 19 publications were found on the topic, a small amount given how widely used ‘inert’ ingredients are. Worse still just three publications tested a species other than honeybees, so we know almost nothing about how ‘inert’ ingredients impact most bee species.
Now, for the first time, researchers have brought together all the available scientific evidence on the impacts of ‘inert’ ingredients on bee health. They have found that while many ‘inert’ ingredients were harmless to bees, several could cause harm to bees through a number of different routes. Some ‘inert’ ingredients caused bees to drown in
The researchers argue that there should be more transparency on pesticide labels, with each ingredient listed clearly, not kept secret. They also argue that there needs to be better and more testing of pesticide products to reflect the toxicity the ‘inert’ ingredients can have. Read the full article in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Dr Edward Straw is a pesticide researcher at University College Dublin where he works on how farmers use pesticides, and how they could use them in ways that are safer for the environment. He recently finished a PhD at Royal Holloway University of London.
www.pan-uk.org | 11
A FOUR-STEP PLAN HELPING COUNCILS TO PHASE OUT THE USE OF GLYPHOSATE By Sean Faulkner, Kersten UK To date - as many as 80 of the 398 principle councils in the UK have made the decision to phase out their use of glyphosate for killing weeds in public spaces. Whether the motive is to protect people, pollinators, our precious water sources or even just to assuage the mounting public pressure to act, we are likely to see many more councils following this trend. Having closely followed the progress of these councils however, I am a little discouraged by the route many have taken in order to change their approach. Change is not as simple as swapping glyphosate for another product and using it in exactly the same way and we have seen councils reverting back to the use of glyphosate after trials which were doomed to fail from the start. If you run a trial in the last week of May, having done no preparation to remove detritus, when the weeds are fully grown, the only thing that will get the same result as glyphosate is glyphosate. The way you have set up the trial will suit glyphosate, but not any of the alternatives you are wanting to try. Most alternative methods are heat based they work well on young annual plants and seeds and not on the large plants we find lining pavements by late May. There are successful strategies we can use to replace glyphosate and we have laid out four options that can be combined to create an effective Integrated Weed Management approach, destined for success.
STEP 1: Get the community and stakeholders involved Often weed management contracts are written around treatments with glyphosate - make sure that you are writing contracts, or method statements for your operatives, in a way that can be met by teams using alternatives to weed killer. You could encourage pricing of the job with and without pesticides if you use contractors. Is the community engaged? Often residents can be involved in community weeding schemes to reduce some of the burden on Council Operatives and Professional Contractors. Manchester Council and Lambeth Council in London have made progress with this strategy. Cllr Adilypoura in Lambeth said: “The response to the Community Weeding Scheme was amazing and we want to say a big thank you to everyone who has been taking part. By Spring 2021 around 150 streets were participating, contributing to a significant reduction in the amount of glyphosate sprayed in the borough and demonstrating that weeds can be managed without chemicals. Talk with suppliers of pesticide alternatives early in the process and ask for advice if you are arranging trials as they often have useful knowledge and experience and can let you know the realistic capabilities of their products and equipment. Find a good resource on alternative solutions here.
www.pan-uk.org | 12
Example of urban glyphosate spraying on pavements in Lambeth. Credit Iris Borgers.
www.pan-uk.org | 13
STEP 2: Reduce bare soil and sources of detritus When it comes to weeds, our biggest enemies are detritus and bare soil. We can minimise bare soil by planting it with well chosen species that may also reduce maintenance costs, detritus, and seeds produced at the same time. Many councils are trying to encourage pollinators and are planting wild flowers, but how about ground cover plants in smaller areas around trees, or on slopes? Changing from grass to ground cover will increase flowers for pollinators such as bees, whilst also reducing the amount of maintenance required for grass. Grass requires continual cutting throughout much of the year, it is expensive to look after. Ground cover plants also naturally suppress weeds. The RHS have some great information on ground cover plants. Using low maintenance evergreen hedges instead of fences, will also add to biodiversity, whilst reducing weeds and maintenance costs - trimming a hedge only needs to take place once a year. In order to reduce weeds on hard surfaces it is important to ensure that detritus can be easily swept off the surface. For example, designing the corner of a kerb with a nice wide radius, rather than a sharp corner allows a sweeper to easily follow the edge of the kerb and collect any detritus trapped there. Stroud Council has "committed to undertaking grounds maintenance using methods which have minimum damaging impact on the natural environment". In keeping with this it will: Prevent by design. Whenever there is the opportunity to influence the design of new features or modify existing ones, control of weeds will be considered when determining materials, siting, angles etc. At all times, preference will be given to incorporating design features which will minimise weed growth. Ground covering plants will be preferred where appropriate over other types of plant. Prevent by maintenance. Routine maintenance such as sweeping of hard surfaces, mulching etc. will be undertaken as required, as will weeding by hoe and hand where appropriate. This policy will apply to Council staff, the areas for which the Council is responsible and to all contractors working on those areas. The Council will identify and list areas under its control where weed control is not required and amend this when circumstance or land under its control change. Image: Example of unnecessary glyphosate spraying around tree bases in Duke St Park. Credit Gail Pickettt.
www.pan-uk.org | 14
www.pan-uk.org | 15
STEP 3: Remove detritus and soil with mechanical control Remove soil with weed brushes. By removing the soil and detritus build up on hard surfaces you can significantly reduce the growth of perennials - this in turn immediately reduces the number of applications of glyphosate needed to maintain an area. We can further aid our mission by sealing cracks and joints in our roads and pavements, reducing points where soil can be trapped. Not only can the right approach save money by reducing the volume of applications, it can also save significant sums in surface repair or replacement, as a
well maintained, clean surface will be much more resistant to freeze thaw and other destructive processes. Typically - areas that would require 3-4 applications of glyphosate in a year can be treated to one pass with a weed brush (collecting any arisings with a sweeper) and one glyphosate application per year. Keeping glyphosate in place for the first year will allow you to fall back on this in any areas where weed brushing and sweeping has not been as effective as you wish. Collect detritus with a sweeping regime. If we remove the soil and, importantly, the cause of the soil, we short circuit the cycle and avoid the need to use chemicals. Statutory provision is made for this in The Environmental Protection Act 1990 which
www.pan-uk.org | 16
imposes duties under section 89(1) and (2) on certain landowners and occupiers to keep specified land clear of litter and refuse, and on local authorities and the Secretary of State to keep clean public highways for which they are responsible.
Successful implementations include Edinburgh City Council and Newport City Council who have both seen large reductions in the number of applications of glyphosate required following the introduction of annual weed brushing on hard surfaces.
The code of practice on litter and refuse published by DEFRA lists detritus as refuse and litter which must be removed from highways (roads and pavements). When detritus is in its early stages of decomposition it is usually very easy to collect using a sweeper or vacuum. Sweeping the kerb edge is a quick, cheap and easy method of preventing weeds from growing, keeping channels free for water to flow to drains and preventing soil from ramping the kerbs.
Scott Coughlan, Team Manager of Newport City Council, said; “We are really happy with our weed brush and it has really reduced our reliance on chemical control, which is better for the environment. With the other two machines we are adding, we can reduce the use of glyphosate even further, which is the intention. I’m of the belief that there will be further restrictions to glyphosate use in the next few years and wanted to be ahead of the massive demand there will be.” Image below: Worker spraying glyphosate in a playground in Banbury to suppress weeds. Credit: J Willson.
www.pan-uk.org | 17
www.pan-uk.org | 18
STEP 4: Replace chemical pesticide application with a thermal solution
A pesticide-free borough, town, city or county
In the previous three steps we focused on preventing the emergence of weeds. Because we have minimised the plants' access to soil we have restricted the types of weeds you will see, especially on hard surfaces. In spring, you will need to deal with young annual weeds and moss. Find a useful guide on soil depth and weed growth here.
Following this plan, listening to advice and trial and error will help to eliminate your reliance on glyphosate (although there is still special cases as in invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed).
These weeds can now easily be treated with thermal weed control methods such as hot air or hot foam. The use of heat to control unwanted plant growth has been around for many years and was certainly in use before the widespread use of inorganic chemicals. A common misconception is that the plant has to be visibly scorched before it will suffer. The fact is, a plant leaf only has to be briefly exposed to a temperature of around 80°C to suffer terminal damage. Treating plants early in the year, as they first emerge, further reduces the number of applications of heat required to perhaps just one or two rounds. Many Councils and Contractors in the UK are having success with using hot air to control weeds including Looe Town Council, Cormac (Cornwall Council), Port of London Authority and The National Trust among others.
Steps 2 and 3 are the most under utilised in the planning process. They will take time, because it is likely that years of simply spraying your weeds has given rise to lots of soil and detritus. However, these are also the most important steps and are crucial for step 4 to work effectively. Whether you adopt hot air, hot water, foam or any other alternative to glyphosate, their success will rely on the implementation of a strategy that reduces soil build up on hard surfaces and leaves no bare soil to populate on organic surfaces. Some of the equipment needed may be expensive compared to spraying, but if you combine the steps in this strategy, you can make significant maintenance savings that will likely outweigh any added cost of equipment and labour.You can find more information on weed prevention here. Image left: Spraying along residential walls in Hillingdon. Credit: Carl90210.
Sean Faulkner is the Sales Director at Kersten UK. He has more than 12 years of experience in grounds maintenance equipment and weed management on hard surfaces.
www.pan-uk.org | 19
SUCCESSFULLY TACKLING POTATO SPROUTS WITH SPEARMINT OIL By Nick Tapp, Juno Plant Protection The hazardous chemical chlorpropham used to be the ‘go to’ product for suppressing potato sprouting in storage until it was withdrawn in the UK and EU in June 2019. Potatoes placed in store will, at some point, begin to sprout and this spoils their eating quality. Sprout suppressants, cold temperatures and well managed ventilation allow the potatoes to be stored in good condition for over a year. Chlorpropham, better known as CIPC, was originally developed as a herbicide, but also proved to be an effective method of suppressing potato sprouts, extending the storage season for domestically produced potatoes to a full 12 months. However, the negative aspects of regular use of CIPC had not gone unnoticed and the decision, in 2019, to withdraw approval for use in the EU, was based largely on dietary risks to consumers. Persistence of CIPC in buildings was also an increasing concern. Nearly 20 years ago, a far-sighted French company, Xeda International SA, picked up research work from the early ‘60s which indicated that essential oils might act as a sprout suppressant in potatoes. What was not immediately clear was how best to apply the oils and, more importantly, which oil delivered the best and most persistent efficacy. Over the next decade Alberto Sardo of Xeda carried out trials on almost all commercially available essential plant oils, and two stood out as preferred candidates for full commercialisation - spearmint oil and clove oil, with the former delivering slightly better results. Spearmint oil, formulated as the commercial product Biox-M, was granted
approval under Annex 1 of the EU pesticides regime in September 2009. It has since been approved in at least 15 countries in the EU and is widely used in Israel (a significant exporter of potato to Europe). Biox-M is applied as a thermal fog and should only be applied by specialist contractors, with the recommended fogging equipment. Application with Biox-M should be made as soon as the first sign of potato ‘eye’ growth is detected. Further applications may be required for crops stored at warmer temperatures (for processing) or for long term storage. There is no mandatory harvest interval; however, it is advised that the treated crop remains in store for at least 12 days after treatment to allow the natural mint odour to dissipate. An uphill struggle to gain acceptance of safer alternatives Full product approval of Biox-M in the UK in 2012 coincided with growing concerns around the future of CIPC. Initial use was by a small but growing cohort of forwardlooking growers in the fresh sector, organic growers, and, on occasion, those who had not kept a close enough eye on their crops
www.pan-uk.org | 20
in store. Within three or four years, around 10% of the UK stored potato crop was being treated with Biox-M. However, the large processing sector, manufacturers of chips and crisps, steadfastly clung to CIPC, and refused to engage with a future in which CIPC might not exist. Rumours also circulated that Biox-M would taint the crop, leaving a flavour of mint on the finished product. Spearmint oil is a volatile compound and the majority of the residual oil applied to potatoes is found on the skin of the tuber. For most chips and crisps, an early step during processing is the removal of the skin. The next step is to blanche the tubers in boiling water and as heat increases the volatility of spearmint oil it largely evaporates. The withdrawal of approval for CIPC in 2019 was met by forecasts of apocalyptic collapse of the British processing sector. Letters were written to MPs and an emergency approval for another synthetic product, DMN, was granted to ‘save the industry’, ignoring the fact that a far safer, plant-based product had been used with considerable success for eight seasons. However, in spite of predictions of doom, many in the processing sector grasped the opportunity to give Biox-M a go. Due to its volatility, it was always going to behave very differently to CIPC in store and preventing ‘escape’ is essential.
Achieving an even distribution of the fog at application is important and store preparation and management requires a complete rethink. Initial treatments of the 2020 crop did not always prove effective, but as a number of fogging contractors had been using Biox-M since late 2012, especially on the continent, much had already been done to feed into best practice and the learning process was swift. Users entered the 2021 harvest season well-prepared and looking to further increase efficacy. Since approval, around 4 million metric tonnes of potatoes have been treated with Biox-M, with excellent outcomes. To put these figures in context, the UK annual potato crop is typically 5.6-6.0mt, of which around 2.5-3.0mt goes into store but is not all treated with sprout suppressant. Some crop, however, is treated more than once. The last published pesticide usage survey from Defra (for the 2018 crop, i.e. before the withdrawal of CIPC the following season) showed that CIPC accounted for 85% of the total tonnage treated, while 10% was treated with ethylene and 5% with spearmint oil. Unpublished data documents that spearmint oil treatments exceeded > 2mt in 2020/21, now representing a large proportion of the stored crop. Forthcoming data from Defra on the 2020 harvest will soon be published and should reveal a major success story in replacing a hazardous chemical with a safer and more sustainable natural product without synthetic additives or ingredients derived from the petro-chemical industry.
Nick has spent a career in farming and the food supply chain. He served on the British Potato Council and on the Committee of the Cambridge University Potato Growers Research Association. He and Peter Hall have spent a decade working to introduce Biox-M as a potato sprout suppressant in the UK. Nick is also Chairman of Craigmore Sustainables LLP, a farm and forest business based in New Zealand.
www.pan-uk.org | 21
LEAKED EU MEMO SUGGESTS A MORE ROBUST APPROACH TO PESTICIDE REGULATION By Nick Mole, Policy Officer, PAN UK While the UK waits for Defra to publish its revised National Action Plan on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (known as the ‘NAP’) a leaked EU memo suggests that Europe is considering some bold moves. The EU relies on Member States to adopt individual National Action Plans to guide their use of pesticides, with the overarching objective of reducing use and associated harms. However, each NAP and which measures they include is decided by individual countries, with no mechanism for enforcing measures. This has resulted in some countries having relatively strong NAPs
with clear objectives for reducing pesticides while others have significantly weaker NAPs in place. In view of this, there has been a lot of criticism about the effectiveness of NAPs to deliver real changes in pesticide use without any proper accountability or enforcement in place. A recently leaked memo suggests that this is likely to change in the coming months. The European Commission is proposing a legally binding pesticide use and harm reduction target of 50% to bring pesticide regulation in line with its new Farm to Fork strategy.
www.pan-uk.org | 22
Equally exciting, is a plan to prohibit the use of all pesticides in public parks, gardens and urban green spaces. At present it is possible for Member States to introduce such measures but not a legal requirement. To make this a legally binding and enforceable commitment represents a welcome change in approach for the EU. Unfortunately, none of this will apply to the UK as we are no longer members of the EU. All eyes will be on Defra in the coming months. Will they dare to include these bold measures in the new NAP? PAN UK has long been pushing them to do so. Our PesticideFree Towns Campaign has encouraged many councils to end their use of urban pesticides and we continue to call on the UK Government to ban their use. This is an opportunity for the UK to take some bold steps to protect people and the environment from the harms that pesticides cause.
www.pan-uk.org | 23
FAREWELL TO KRISTIN SCHAFER AT PANNA Kristin Schafer, PAN North America’s Executive Director, has stepped down after more than 25 years in the organisation. During her time with PANNA, Kristin held a variety of roles, starting as a Policy Strategist and Policy and Program Director. Always a passionate and tireless advocate, she was especially interested in children’s health and last year was recognised by the Children’s Environmental Health Network for her work on pesticides and child health in the US.
Kristin was a joy to work with, and was at the heart of key PAN battles including the establishment of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and PANNA’s successful campaign for a US ban on the brain-harming pesticide chlorpyrifos in the US. She was, for many years, a core member of PAN International Regional Coordinators and the PAN network will miss her greatly, but she will continue to fight for food, climate and environmental justice. (Kristin is pictured third from right)
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