PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
The journal of Pesticide Action Network UK An international perspective on the health and environmental effects of pesticides Quarterly
September 2010
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 1
Pesticides News No 89 Editorial 2 Health effects
Europe
3
17 Pesticide residues still a food risk in the
Pesticide poisoning in Nicaragua – five decades of evidence
12 Global survey of pesticide use reveals widespread harm
Integrated pest management 8
Increased IPM knowledge among Beninese farmers
Organic cotton 7
Food spray training in Benin – a recipe for success
16 Growing organic crops for export – an ethical approach in Africa?
EU
Factsheet 18 Pesticides banned in Europe
News 11 Endosulfan bans spread 15 EU concerned over Egypt’s lax pesticide controls
Book reviews 23 Organics – the history of a movement 23 Best practice for apple and pear production
Pesticide Action Network UK Development House 56-64 Leonard Street London EC2A 4LT, UK Tel +44 (0)20 7065 0905 Fax +44 (0)20 7065 0907 Email admin@pan-uk.org
www.pan-uk.org www.pan-international.org links to all PAN Regional Centres
Farmers learn to distinguish beneficial and pest insects during a training course in Benin Photo: Martin Cooke
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 2
Editorial
Pesticides News 89
Synthetic pesticides were adopted as a routine part of pest control in the latter half of the 20th Century. But a decade or two later the negative consequences of their widespread use started to emerge. In this issue of Pesticides News we bring you an historical perspective on the situation in Nicaragua from the 1950s to the present day. Marianela Corriols (pages 3-6) tracks the history of pesticide use and of pesticide bans as health and environmental effects started to become apparent. Two large pesticide management projects in the 1990s generated convincing evidence of widespread poisonings and environmental harm and led to significant improvements in the regulation of pesticides. Despite these improvements Corriols believes that further changes are needed in Nicaragua to reduce reliance on pesticides and to enhance measures to protect workers’ health and the environment.
Who’s who at Pesticide Action Network UK
In this issue of Pesticides News Bella Whittle summarises many years of work of PAN International in documenting the global burden of pesticides on human health (pages 12-15). Despite the adoption 25 years ago of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides pesticide poisonings continue to affect rural communities. PAN regional centres have been monitoring these impacts on communities across the globe. The work of each regional centre has now been collated and summarised in a new report Communities in Peril: Global report on health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture. This report shows that highly hazardous pesticides are still being used in unsafe conditions. Whittle has provided detailed recommendations for the pesticide, food and fibre industries.
Eloise Touni International Project Officer (Disposal)
For the past 15 years PAN UK has provided support for cotton farmers in West Africa to switch to organic production methods. But one of the main barriers is a lack of reliable, easy-to-use methods to control cotton pests. For the past few years PAN UK and their partner organisation in Benin (OBEPAB) have supported Dr Robert Mensah to develop a new pest management tool for organic cotton. Dr Mensah has developed a food spray which attracts beneficial insects to the cotton plant reducing pest damage and increasing yields. In this issue of Pesticides News we report on a week-long programme to train farmers Online subscription how to use the food spray on their cotton crop Subscribers can now benefit from an online searchable (page 7). version of Pesticides News (September 1993 to the cur-
At PAN UK we are regularly asked by rent issue) with the followjournalists, researchers, developing country ing username and password food companies and NGOs which pesticides are (changed twice a year): Username: subscriber banned in Europe. The information is difficult Password: carbaryl and time-consuming to extract from EU websites. In 2007 PAN Europe produced a detailed briefing on this topic. In this issue of Pesticides News we publish an updated list of bans and restrictions and the reason for them (pages 18-22).
Pesticide Action Network – Regional Centres AFRICA PAN Africa BP 15938, Dakar-FANN Senegal Tel: (221) 33 825 4914 Fax: (221) 33 825 1443 panafrica@pan-afrique.org www.pan-afrique.org
2
September 2010
ASIA/PACIFIC PAN Asia and the Pacific PO Box 1170 10850 Penang, Malaysia Tel: (60-4) 657 0271 Fax: (60-4) 658 3960 panap@panap.net www.panap.net
EUROPE PAN Europe is facilitated by PAN UK and PAN Germany www.pan-europe.info elliott@pan-europe.info PAN Germany Nernstweg 32 22765 Hamburg, Germany Tel: (49-40) 399 191022 Fax: (49-40) 390 7520 info@pan-germany.org www.pan-germany.org www.pan-international.org links to all PAN Regional Centres
LATIN AMERICA RAPAL (PAN Latin America) Coordinadora Regional Av. Providencia No365, depto. No41 Providencia, Santiago de Chile Tel/Fax: (56-2) 341 6742 rapal@rapal.cl www.rap-al.org NORTH AMERICA PAN North America 49 Powell St., 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102, US Tel: (1-415) 981 1771 Fax: (1-415) 981 1991 panna@panna.org www.panna.org
Dr Keith Tyrell Director Nick Mole Policy Officer Dr Roslyn McKendry Editor, Pesticides News Rachel Sutton PAN Europe Coordinator Eliza Anyangwe International Project Officer (Cotton)
Phil Monday Project Officer (Africa Liaison) Dr Stephanie Williamson International Project Officer (Food and Farming) Ruth Beckmann Project Information Officer Liz Kabiro Finance and Admin Manager Martin Cooke Information and Publishing Manager Geremew Tereda Accounts Articles published in Pesticides News promote health, safety, environmental commitment and alternatives to pesticides as well as debate. The authors’ views are not necessarily those of the Pesticide Action Network UK. Initials at the end of articles refer to staff contributions to Pesticides News. Abbreviations and acronyms used ACP Advisory Committee on Pesticides CRA Comparative Risk Assessment EA Environment Agency (UK) EC European Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US) EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FFS Farmer Field School FSA Food Standards Agency HSE Health and Safety Executive ILO International Labour Organisation IPM Integrated pest management LD50 lethal dose for 50% of population µg/kg parts per billion MRLs Maximum Residue Limits mg/l parts per million NGO Non government organisation OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development OP Organophosphate (pesticide) PAN Pesticide Action Network PIC Prior Informed Consent PN Pesticides News UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
© Pesticide Action Network UK Please credit Pesticide Action Network UK when quoting articles ISSN 0967-6597 Printed on recycled paper
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 3
Health effects
Pesticides News 89
Pesticide poisoning in Nicaragua – five decades of evidence The evidence of the last 50 years demonstrates convincingly the negative impact of pesticide use in Nicaragua where high rates of acute pesticide poisoning have been documented. Recent changes in the institutional approach in the health, environment and agriculture sectors have led to significant improvements. However, these are not enough. Structural changes are needed to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides and to enhance measures to protect workers’ health and the environment. Marianela Corriols reports. Pesticide use in Nicaragua is mainly associated with agricultural production, but public health and domestic pest control are also significant sources of exposure. Pesticide use has been associated with several health problems, affecting mainly rural populations. This article synthesizes the evidence reported in scientific journals about health effects in Nicaragua.
A historical perspective1 The 1950s In the 1950s, agricultural production in Nicaragua was based on large-scale plantations and experiments with the first organochlorine pesticides were allowed by the Government. The country's principal traditional export for three decades (19501980) was cotton and DDT was widely used to control cotton pests. No environmental or health effects were reported in Nicaragua.
The 1960s In the 1960s, the area planted to cotton increased from 3,000 to 150,000 hectares and Nicaragua became one of the top 24
A worker mixing pesticides without protective clothing Photo: CARE Nicaragua pesticide programme
world cotton producers. The cotton boom was associated with an increased gap between rich and poor and a 50% reduction in the area used for basic grain cultivation (staples such as maize and beans) with its consequent impact on food security. Large loans (from international agencies) were available to buy pesticides for cotton and basic grain crops. An insecticide formulation plant was established in the country (HERCASA) and became the main toxaphene provider for Central America and the United States. Pesticide companies established marketing networks and promoted their products through agricultural students, technicians and extensionists. During this decade, concern started to grow about pest resistance, changes in pest patterns, destruction of beneficial insects and the increased environmental, health and economic costs. The first pesticides were prohibited (Table 1).
The 1970s Cotton was associated with high pesticide use and was sprayed up to 28-35 times per season2. This provoked a vicious cycle in which pests became resistant causing farmers to apply more pesticides provoking more resistance and so on. The negative impact of high pesticide use on cotton extended to other crops, such as sugar cane, bananas and coffee, due to the negative impact on beneficial insects. This further increased the need to apply more pesticides. Since the 1960’s, pesticides have been used not only for export crops but also for small farmers’ basic grain subsistence production. Moreover, pesticide multinationals introduced into national market products which were prohibited, severely restricted or not registered in developed countries and for which there was minimal health or environment information available to the national regulatory authorities. In 1972, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reported 3,000 cases of acute pesticide poisoning (APP) in Nicaragua in the year and high incidence rates3.
September 2010
Table 1. Pesticide prohibitions and restrictions Decade
Pesticides
1960s
aldrin, leptofos and DBCP
1980s
dieldrin, endrin, lindane, ethyl bromide, 2,4,5-T and chlordimeform
1990s
aldicarb and methyl parathion (severely restricted), hep tachlor, EDB, chlordane, dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, ethyl parathion and toxaphene (prohibited)
2001
2,4,5-T, aldrin, chlordane, dodecachlor, DBCP, EDB, dieldrin, dinoseb, endrin, hep tachlor, HCB, lindane and pentachlorophenol
2004
methyl parathion, terbuphos, etoprophos, aldicarb, methami dophos, methomyl, carbofu ran, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, paraquat (restricted), monocrotophos and phospine (registration cancelled)
2008
methyl parathion and methami dophos (registration cancelled)
The 1980s Social inequality led to change in Central America. In the 1980’s, the Nicaraguan Revolution brought about social reforms, redistributed agricultural land to small farmers and provided universal health care. As part of this, agricultural subsidies were provided to poor peasants increasing their access to pesticides. This decade was also known for the donation of toxic products from other countries and DDT was used in public health campaigns. The Minister of Health Surveillance System started to report and disseminate statistics about acute pesticide poisonings, which were being recognized for the first time as a public health problem affecting mainly agricultural workers4. A second group of pesticides was prohibited (Table 1). Several factors affected the agricultural pattern in the country: cheaper agricultural products, the war and the occurrence of natural disasters. The cotton area reduced from 220,000 hectares to less than 3,000, and was replaced by traditional crops, mainly coffee, sugar cane, bananas, tobacco, beans, and more recently by non-traditional crops such as black beans, peanuts, sesame and vegetables. But regardless of the changes, agriculture remained the country’s main industry.
The 1990s In the 1990s, there was a return to the neoliberal economic model and a reversal of agrarian reform. The new agricultural model of the 1990s was based on crop diversification and intensification of exports. The decade was characterized by: a reduction in
3
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 4
Health effects agricultural subsidies and opening of new international markets; free trade agreements and definition of pesticide residue limits for exports; self-regulation of the international cooperation for development and advances in approval and adherence to international instruments. In 1993, a third group of pesticides was severely restricted or prohibited (Table 1). An important characteristic of the 1990s, which impacted positively on policy making, was the implementation of two large pesticide management projects. PROMAP (Programa de Manejo de Plaguicidas) was funded by a loan from the World Bank (a loan) and managed by the Minister of Environment and implemented by various Government institutions. PLAGSALUD (Programa aspectos ocupacionales y ambientales del uso de plaguicidas en el Istmo
Pesticides News 89
Centroamericano) was funded by the Danish Agency for International Development (DANIDA) and implemented by the Panamerican Health Organization and World Health Organization in coordination with the Ministries of Health in Central America.5,6 These generated evidence that pesticide use was having severe environmental and health impacts, and helped to improve the legal framework for regulating pesticides and related policies. The surveillance system to monitor pesticide effects was strengthened and systematic reports were generated about acute pesticide poisonings all over Nicaragua7. And studies demonstrated that official data grossly underreported the problem8. Neurological and other health effects were described. In these years, trade unions initiated a period of campaigns and demands related to pesticide chronic effects.
Table 2. Environmental and health effects, Nicaragua 1960-2010 1960s-1970s ● 3,000 annual cases of acute pesticide poisoning, 176 cases/100,000 inhabitants in the 1960s33.
1980s ● ●
Pesticide poisoning recognized as a major public health problem34. 19% of crop duster aviation mechanics poisoned35.
1990s Neuropsychological effects of organophosphate (OP) poisoning among agricultural workers36. ● 10% of exposed agricultural workers were poisoned every year37. ● Organochlorine residues found in blood plasma38. ● 50% of farmers reported poisoned at least once39. ● Carbofuran and methamidophos caused widespread poisoning: 548 cases40. ● Abnormal vibrotactile thresholds and OP-induced delayed polyneuropathy41. ● Organochlorine residues found in cows’ milk42. ● Residents near sprayed fields were significantly more likely to complain of acute and/or chronic symptoms of poisoning43. ● 25% of farmers experienced acute pesticide poisoning44. ● Acute and chronic symptoms reported among farmers occupationally exposed to paraquat45. ● 35% of exposed children had abnormally low cholinesterase levels46. ● Environmental pollution caused by organochlorines47. ●
2000s Organochlorine residues found in the water and sediment samples48. Organochlorine residues found in human milk49. Organochlorine residues found in all samples of blood serum, adipose tissue, and breast milk50. ● Toxaphene residues found in a coastal ecosystem51,52. ● 19.1% of the parasuicide attempts among young people used pesticides53. ● Rip and pinch strength were impaired among all OP-poisoned subjects54. ● Threshold impairment as a consequence of severe intentional poisonings with neuropathic OPs55. ● Persistent, mainly motor, impairment of the peripheral nervous system two years after OP poisoning, possibly due to remaining OP-induced delayed neuropathy56,57. ● Visuomotor performance and possibly short-term verbal memory affected after severe acute OP poisoning58. ● Biomonitoring of pesticide residues showed that workers and children are exposed from spraying59, during mixing60, and contact with impregnated bags used to protect growing bananas61. ● 30,000 pesticide poisoning cases receiving medical treatment were not reported62. ● High cumulative incidence rate in Nicaragua in 2000: 2.3% of general population and 66,113 cases estimated in total63. ● 2069 APP cases reported among children 1995-200664. ● ● ●
4
September 2010
The 2000s Since 1998, strengthening agricultural competitiveness based on export growth has been a key element of the country’s development strategy9. In 2000, Nicaragua’s gross domestic product (GDP) was $2.4 billion, its per capita income was $466, and it was the second-poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, dependent largely upon agriculture10. But even though agricultural products provided one third of the GDP, employed one third of the workforce and made up two-thirds of the nation's exports, the agricultural sector worked with obsolete technology11. The country had 2,746,000 hectares of cropland but only cultivated just under one million, 70% with basic grain crops12. The agricultural workers, one third of them small producers, earned an average of US$119 per month and were among the lowest paid in the country. Besides their poverty, pesticide use posed health and environmental risks affecting their quality of life and constraining the country’s productivity. Until recently, this occupational risk was not properly addressed by governmental programmes and policies, and was having alarming health effects. In 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture and Ranching (MAGFOR), confirmed the prohibition of 17 pesticides (Table 1). Another round of prohibitions and restrictions, was recommended directly by the Plagsalud Project (PAHO/DANIDA) in the context of the XVI Central American and Dominican Republic Health Sector Meeting (RESSCAD 2000)13. At this meeting the various Ministers of Health of Central America and Panama committed to request the official authorities of all their countries to restrict and/or prohibit the twelve pesticides causing the most acute poisonings in Central America. In 2004, following this recommendation, the Nicaraguan authorities restricted another ten pesticides (methyl parathion, terbuphos, etoprophos, aldicarb, methamidophos, methomyl, carbofuran, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, paraquat) and cancelled the registration of monocrotophos and phospine. After phosphine’s registration was cancelled there was a reduction in the number of acute poisonings and intentional deaths. Unfortunately, after pressure from producers, the Ministry for Agriculture and Ranching again authorized the import of phosphine. These restrictions were considered insufficient and pressure from civil society was intense. The restrictions did not control the undesired health effects and acute poisonings continued to be reported. Besides effects on health, other effects of pesticide use were also being reported: agricultural pests’ resistance to pesticides14, misuse of insecticides for the treatment of cattle pests15 and insecticide resistance in Aedes aegypti (mosquito which spreads yellow fever, dengue fever and other diseases) control16. Evidence about the positive impact of implementing alternatives to chemical pesticide was also published. In 2002 Hruska and Corriols evaluated an integrated
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 5
Health effects pest management (IPM) training intervention and found that it prevented acute health effects and maintained productivity: after two years of training, the trained farmers used fewer pesticides, spent less money on pest control, made higher net returns, and were exposed to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides less than farmers who did not receive IPM training17. Even though acute pesticide poisonings were widely recognized as a public health problem, the extent of poisoning, its causes, the economic cost of treating cases and the effectiveness of educational intervention were not well known. Several studies performed by Ministry of Health (MOH), the Panamerican Health Organisation and at the National Autonomous Univeristy of Nicaragua (UNAN Leon-CISTA) provided more information. Pesticide exposure and health effects were assessed in a nationally representative survey of 3,169 persons 15 years and older in the year 2000. The key findings were: less than 5% of medically treated APP cases were reported to the MOH official register. The annual APP incidence among the general population was 2.3% (95%CI 1.7-2.8). The rate was higher among men, the rural population and agricultural workers. More than 66,000 cases were estimated to occur annually. The national incidence of APP among sprayers was extremely high, 8.3% (95% CI 5.8-10.8) and more than 34,000 cases were estimated to occur among pesticide sprayers, representing 52% of all APP’s in year 2000. Although most of the cases were minor and moderate, the poisonings caused affected approximately 340,000 days of work. The causal agents for APP in 95% of cases were WHO Class I-II pesticides. The main determinants of APP among sprayers were: backpack pump leakage and incomplete or no use of personal protective equipment. Seventy seven percent of cases were caused by pesticides proposed to be banned or restricted in Central America. Since 2007, recent developments in policies and programmes are improving pesticide management. In the environment sector, chemical safety has been reinforced (safe use, disposal of residues, eco-toxicologic evaluation for pesticide registration, man-
Pesticides News 89
agement of contaminated sites, legislation reinforcement, compliance with international agreements). In agriculture, since the 1970’s, when the first IPM started, the country has made notable steps towards an Integrated Crop Management Programme18. The country has developed a national toxicology centre, a pesticide programme integrated within a health surveillance system, which has generated valuable information for decision makers in agriculture, environment and health. The country has implemented integrated pest control programmes to reduce the use of chemical pesticides in public health campaigns. In 2008, two of the most toxic pesticides, methyl parathion and methamidophos, were finally prohibited in Nicaragua19. Cancelling methamidophos’s registration was one of the most important regulatory measures ever taken in Nicaragua and will greatly reduce the number of acute pesticide poisonings in the country. Pesticide research in Nicaragua continues and will provide further evidence. Several doctoral theses supported by the Swedish government funding have been published in the last twenty years20,21,22,23,24 and their results have helped to improve public policies, including modifications to pesticide registration. Recent developments in methods for pesticide exposure assessment have been reported: urinary levels of chlorpyrifos in applicators and their families25 and saliva biomonitoring of diazinon in plantation workers26; biological monitoring of pesticide exposures among diazinon applicators and their children; evaluation of workers and children exposed to chlorpyrifos through contact with impregnated bags used in banana production27. Several studies have evaluated methods of assessing dermal exposure: a visual scoring system with fluorescent tracers to assess dermal pesticide exposure28,29; a technique to evaluate determinants of pesticide exposure including an approach for developing countries30,31 and assessment and modelling of insecticide residues on hands using video observations of determinants of exposure32. Table 2 summarizes published evidence about pesticides effects on human health and environment in Nicaragua in the last five decades.
Conclusions
A worker spraying pesticides without protective clothing Photo: CARE Nicaragua pesticide programme
All the evidence gathered in the last 50 years shows the negative impact of pesticide use in Nicaragua. Even though historic underreporting may initially have led to an erroneous interpretation of acute pesticide health effects, there has been strong evidence and growing concern since the 1980s of the impact of pesticide use on human health in Nicaragua. More than 50 studies have been published in scientific journals, but most of the national research remains as grey literature. From the published studies we can conclude that pesticide use is causing acute and chronic effects, that there is a high acute pesticide poisoning incidence rate in the general population. This rate is four times higher among sprayers, causing significant loss of
September 2010
Workers mixing pesticides Photo: CARE Nicaragua pesticide programme
productivity and important economic costs. IPM interventions have been successful in reducing acute poisoning cases and economic losses. Besides recent efforts to address the problem, structural measures need to be taken to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides and to implement measures to protect workers’ health and the environment. The improvements in the institutional approach in the health, environment and agriculture sectors, traditional prevention and control measures can be enhanced by structural changes, including pesticides bans and restrictions, and change to IPM agriculture models, are needed to transform the underlying causes of pesticide harm. References 1. Murray, D. Cultivating crisis. The human cost of Pesticides in Latin América, D. Murray. University of Texas Press, 1994. 2. Swezey SL, Murray DL, Daxl RG. Nicaragua´s revolution in pesticide policy. Environment. 1986; 28:1-36. 3. Champ BR and Dyte CE. Report of the FAO global survey of pesticide susceptibility of stored grain pests. FAO plant production and protection series, no. 5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, Rome 1976 4. Cole DC, McConnell R, Murray DL, Pacheco Antón F. (1988) Pesticide illness surveillance: the Nicaraguan experience. Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 22(2):119-32. 5. Arbelaez M, Henao S. (2004) Vigilancia sanitaria de plaguicidas: experiencia de Plagsalud en Centroamérica. OPS/OMS. Washington DC. 6. Arbelaez MP, Henao S. (2002) Situación epidemiológica de las intoxicaciones agudas por plaguicidas en el Istmo Centroamericano. OPS/OMS, DANIDA.Costa Rica. 7. Henao S, Arbelaez MP. (2002) Epidemiological situation of acute pesticide poisoning in the Central American Isthmus, 1992-2000. Pan American Health
5
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 6
Health effects
6
Organization (PAHO) –Plagsalud. Epidemiol Bull. 23:5-9. 8. Keifer M, McConnell R, Pacheco AF, et al. (1996) Estimating underreported pesticide poisonings in Nicaragua. Am J Ind Med. 1996;30:195-201. 9. Gobierno de Nicaragua, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo, 2001. Managua, Nicaragua. 10. http://www.bcn.gob.ni/publicaciones 11. Op cit 3. 12. Gobierno de Nicaragua. Estadisticas del Ministerrio Agropecuarion y Forestal, Año 2000. MAGFOR, 2001..In: www.magfor.gob.ni/ 13. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. (2000) Informe Final de la XVI Reunión del Sector Salud de Centroamérica y República Dominicana (RESSCAD). Honduras. 14. Pérez CJ, Alvarado P, Narváez C, et al. (2000) Assessment of insecticide resistance in five insect pests attacking field and vegetable crops in Nicaragua. J Econ Entomol. 93(6):1779-87. 15. Villarino MA, Garcia O, Fussell W, Preston K, Wagner GG. (2003) An initial survey of the cattle grub Dermatobia hominis (L. Jr.) in Nicaragua. Prev Vet Med. 12;61(4):333-8. 16. Rodríguez MM, Bisset JA, Fernández D. (2007) Levels of insecticide resistance and resistance mechanisms in Aedes aegypti from some Latin American countries. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 23(4):420-9-15. 17. Hruska A, Corriols M. (2002) The impact of training in integrated pest management among Nicaraguan maize farmers: Increased net returns and reduced health risk. Int J Occup Environ Health. 8:191-200. 18. http://www.magfor.gob.ni/pea/salva/ PLAN%20MIC%2026%20octubre%2020091.pdf 19. http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/ Normaweb.nsf/%28$All%29/10B014A1031AFF600 625754700615B9B?OpenDocument 20. Amador R (1993). Neurotoxic effects from organophosphate insecticide exposure in Nicaragua. Methodological and epidemiological studies. Licenciate Thesis. Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 21. Miranda J (2003). Neurotoxicity after poisonings with organophosphate pesticides in Nicaragua. Doctoral Thesis. Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 22. Aragon A (2005). Dermal exposure to pesticides in Nicaragua. A qualitative and quantitative approach. Doctoral Thesis. Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 23. Blanco L (2008). Dermal exposure determinants – a pesticide exposure assessment approach for developing countries. Doctoral Thesis. Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 24. Corriols M (2009). Acute pesticides poisonings in Nicaragua: underreporting, incidence and determinants. Doctoral Thesis. Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 25. Dowling KC, Blanco LE, Martínez I, Aragón A, Bernard CE, Krieger RI. (2005) Urinary 3,5,6trichloro-2-pyridinol levels of chlorpyrifos in Nicaraguan applicators and small farm families. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 74(2):380-7. 26. Lu C, Rodríguez T, Funez A, Irish RS, Fenske RA. (2006) The assessment of occupational exposure to diazinon in Nicaraguan plantation workers using saliva biomonitoring. Ann N Y Acad Sci.1076:35565. 27. Rodríguez T, Younglove L, Lu C, et al. (2006) Biological monitoring of pesticide exposures among applicators and their children in Nicaragua. Int J Occup Environ Health. 12(4):312-20. 28. Aragon A, Blanco L, Lopez L, Liden C, Nise G, Wesseling C. (2004) Reliability of a visual scoring system with fluorescent tracers to assess dermal pesticide exposure. Ann Occup Hyg. 48(7):601-6. 29. Aragón A, Blanco LE, Funez A, et al (2006).
Pesticides News 89
Assessment of dermal pesticide exposure with fluorescent tracer: a modification of a visual scoring system for developing countries. Ann Occup Hyg. 50(1):75-83. Epub 2005 Aug 26. 30. Blanco LE, Aragón A, Lundberg I, Lidén C, Wesseling C, Nise G. (2005) Determinants of dermal exposure among Nicaraguan subsistence farmers during pesticide applications with backpack sprayers. Ann Occup Hyg. 49(1):17-24. 31. Blanco LE, Aragón A, Lundberg I, Wesseling C, Nise G. (2008) The determinants of dermal exposure ranking method (DERM): a pesticide exposure assessment approach for developing countries. Ann Occup Hyg. 52(6):535-44. 32. López L, Blanco L, Aragón A, Partanen T.(2009) Insecticide residues on hands: assessment and modeling with video observations of determinants of exposure—a study among subsistence farmers in Nicaragua. J Occup Environ Hyg. 6(3):157-64. 33. Op cit 3. 34. Swezey SL, Murray DL, Daxl RG. Nicaragua´s revolution in pesticide policy. Environment. 1986; 28:1-36. 35. Mc Connell R, Pacheco Anton AF, Magnotti R. (1990) Crop duster aviation mechanics: high risk for pesticide poisoning. Am J Public Health. 80(10):1236-9. 36. Rosenstock L, Keifer M, Daniell WE, McConnell R, Claypoole K. (1991) Chronic central nervous system effects of acute organophosphate pesticide intoxication. The Pesticide Health Effects Study Group. Lancet. 27;338(8761):223-7. 37. Corriols M., Rivas F. (1992) Evaluación del Componente de Salud del Programa Uso Seguro y Racional de Plaguicidas, II Región. Ministerio de Salud de Nicaragua y CARE Internacional. León, Nicaragua. 38. Rugama R, Calero S, Fomsgaard I, Lacayo ML, Martinez V, Pitty J. (1993) Levels of organochlorine residues in blood plasma from three populations in Nicaragua. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 51(1):1539. 39. Castillo R, Manzanares M.(1993) Intoxicaciones Agudas por plaguicidas en Nindirí, Masaya en 19811991. Monografía UNAN. Managua, Nicaragua. 40. McConnell R, Hruska A. (1993) An epidemic of pesticide poisoning in Nicaragua: implications for prevention in developing countries. Am J Public Health. 83:1559-62. 41. McConnell R, Keifer M, Rosenstock L. (1994) Elevated quantitative vibrotactile threshold among workers previously poisoned with methamidophos and other organophosphate pesticides. Am J Ind Med. 25:325-334. 42. Zapata AL, Santamaria M, Alvarez M, Salazar S, Muller U. (1996) Organochlorine pesticide residues in cow's milk, Nicaragua Bol Oficina Sanit Panam. 120(6):483-90. 43. Keifer M, Rivas F, Moon JD, Checkoway H. (1996) Symptoms and cholinesterase activity among rural residents living near cotton fields in Nicaragua. Occup Environ Med. 53(11):726-9. 44. Keifer M, McConnell R, Pacheco AF, et al. (1996) Estimating underreported pesticide poisonings in Nicaragua. Am J Ind Med. 1996;30:195-201. 45. Castro-Gutiérrez N, McConnell R, Andersson K, Pacheco-Antón F, Hogstedt C. (1997) Respiratory symptoms, spirometry and chronic occupational paraquat exposure. Scand J Work Environ Health. 23(6):421-7. 46. McConnell R, Pacheco F, Wahlberg K, et al. (1999) Subclinical health effects of environmental pesticide contamination in a developing country: cholinesterase depression in children. Environ Res. 81(2):87-91. 47. Carvalho FP, Montenegro-Guillen S, Villeneuve J, et al. (1999) Chlorinated hydrocarbons in coastal lagoons of the pacific coast of Nicaragua. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 36(2):132-9
September 2010
48. Castilho JA, Fenzl N, Guillen SM, Nascimento FS. (2000) Organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticide residues in the Atoya river basin, Chinandega, Nicaragua.: Environ Pollut. 110(3):52333. 49. Romero ML, Dorea JG, Granja AC. (2000) Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in milk of Nicaraguan mothers. Arch Environ Health. 55(4):274-8. 50. Dorea JG, Cruz-Granja AC, Lacayo-Romero ML, Cuadra-Leal J. (2001) Perinatal metabolism of dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene in Nicaraguan mothers. Environ Res. 86(3):229-37 51. Carvalho FP, Montenegro-Guillén S, Villeneuve JP, et al. (2003) Toxaphene residues from cotton fields in soils and in the coastal environment of Nicaragua.Chemosphere. 53(6):627-36 52. Lacayo-Romero M, van Bavel B, Mattiasson B. (2006) Degradation of toxaphene in aged and freshly contaminated soil. Chemosphere. 63(4):609-15. 53. Caldera T, Herrera A, Renberg ES, Kullgren G. (2004) Parasuicide in a low-income country: results from three-year hospital surveillance in Nicaragua. Scand J Public Health. 32(5):349-55. 54. Miranda J, Lundberg I, McConnell R et al. (2002) Onset of grip- and pinch-strength impairment after acute poisonings with organophosphate insecticides. Int J Occup Environ Health 8:19-26. 55. Miranda J, McConnell R, Delgado E, et al (2002). Tactile vibration thresholds after acute poisonings with organophosphate insecticides. Int J Occup Environ Health. 8(3):212-9. 56. Miranda J (2003). Neurotoxicity after poisonings with organophosphate pesticides in Nicaragua. Doctoral Thesis. Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 57. Miranda J, McConnell R, Wesseling C, et al. (2004) Muscular strength and vibration thresholds during two years after acute poisoning with organophosphate insecticides. Occup Environ Med. 61(1):1-6. 58. Delgado E, McConnell R, Miranda J, et al. (2004) Central nervous system effects of acute organophosphate poisoning in a two-year follow-up. Scand J Work Environ Health. 30(5):362-70. 59. Dowling KC, Blanco LE, Martínez I, Aragón A, Bernard CE, Krieger RI. (2005) Urinary 3,5,6trichloro-2-pyridinol levels of chlorpyrifos in Nicaraguan applicators and small farm families. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 74(2):380-7. 60. Lu C, Rodríguez T, Funez A, Irish RS, Fenske RA. (2006) The assessment of occupational exposure to diazinon in Nicaraguan plantation workers using saliva biomonitoring. Ann N Y Acad Sci.1076:35565. 61. Rodríguez T, Younglove L, Lu C, et al. (2006) Biological monitoring of pesticide exposures among applicators and their children in Nicaragua. Int J Occup Environ Health. 12(4):312-20. 62. Corriols M, Marín J, Berroteran J, Lozano LM, Lundberg I, Thörn A. (2008) The Nicaraguan Pesticide Poisoning Register: constant underreporting. Int J Health Serv. 38(4):773-87. 63. Corriols M, Marín J, Berroteran J, Lozano LM, Lundberg I. (2009) Incidence of acute pesticide poisonings in Nicaragua: a public health concern. Occup Environ Med. 66(3):205-10. Epub 2008 Nov 2. 64. Corriols, M, Aragon A. Child labor and acute pesticide poisonings in Nicaragua. (2010) Int J Occup Environ Health. 16(2):209-216.
Marianela Corriols, MD, PhD has worked for 20 years as a health advisor for international organisations. She is currently a lecturer and researcher in occupational health at the Health, Work and Environment Center (CISTA) at the National Autonomous University in Leon, Nicaragua; nelacorriols@yahoo.es
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 7
Organic cotton
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Food spray training in Benin – a recipe for success Effective pest management tools are vital to allow cotton farmers to convert to organic production. Sprays made from food products have recently been developed which, when sprayed on the growing cotton plant, attract beneficial insects reducing pest damage and improving yields. Farmers in Benin are being trained to incorporate these food sprays into their pest management regime. Eliza Anyangwe reports. By eliminating the use of agrochemical inputs, organic cotton farming has become the answer to the environmental, social and economic short-comings of the conventional system. But to obtain yields that rival those of conventional cotton, organic farmers require effective pest management tools. For several years, PAN UK and its Beninese partner Organisation Béninoise pour la Promotion de l’Agriculture Biologique (OBEPAB) have been supporting Dr Robert Mensah of the Australian Cotton Research Institute to develop a new pest management tool for organic cotton farmers [PN79pp5-7; PN84pp6-9]. Dr Mensah has developed a spray made from a food product which attracts beneficial insects to the growing cotton plant reducing pest damage and increasing yield. To ensure this new pest management tool is utilised farmers need to be trained how to use it. In July of this year PAN UK and OBEPAB put on a week-long food spray training course (with funding from Australia's Crawford Foundation and TRAID in the UK) delivered by Dr Mensah in Kandi, Northern Benin. Participants
Trainees gather at the end of the course with the ‘tools of the trade’ - the tanks used to apply the food spray. Photo: Martin Cooke
included farmers from the four regions across Benin where OBEPAB supports organic cotton farmers as well as OBEPAB's field agents. Most of the farmers have low levels of literacy and the training was developed with this in mind. No prior knowledge was assumed and so, in the classroom, the first task was for farmers to learn to recognise the various insects in their cotton fields. As one of the farmers said ‘as a conventional farmer, I thought I had to kill everything’. Farmers were encouraged to name the insects in their own dialects based on the physical attributes of the insect. They then learnt to identify which ones were pests, and which ones preyed on pests and so were beneficial to the farmer. The farmers learnt to monitor and record numbers of pest and beneficial insects and to track the proportion of one to the other. This ratio allows the farmer to determine when to spray and what to spray – either an organic pesticide to ward off pests or a food spray to attract beneficial insects. If the ratio of beneficial insects to pests is 2:1, the farmer need take no action. Farmers were taught to record numbers of beneficial insects and pests by placing a small stone in their pocket for a pest and a dried ear of corn for a beneficial insect. In this way, irrespective of literacy level, the farmers can monitor pest levels and the ratio of pests:beneficials. The part of the training with the most impact on the participants was the comparison between the organic and conventional cotton crops. Their monitoring of both plots showed that the organic cotton crop had more beneficial insects and fewer pests than the conventional crop. The farmers responded jubilantly to this discovery: ‘I am very glad we've had the training so I can now compare. The organic field I noticed is full of worms while on the conventional cotton farm, I could count only three.’ Earthworms are essential for aerating and mixing the soil but can be killed by pesticide spraying. Beyond equipping the farmer to monitor pests/beneficials and to use the food
Farmers count pests on cotton plant leaves. Photo: Martin Cooke
sprays, the training has wider benefits: it gives the farmer the confidence to represent himself/herself before cotton buyers which is one of the ultimate aims of OBEPAB and PAN UK's work in Benin – that organic cotton farmers become sufficiently empowered to take ownership of the marketing of their cotton. The training makes an economic and evidence-based case for organic cotton farming based on the farmers own monitoring of organic and conventional fields. It is facts like this that ultimately sway the conventional cotton farmer away from pesticide use and it is training like that offered in Kandi that equips the farmer with tools to work his way out of poverty without compromising his health, his soil or his environment. It is hoped the trained farmers will now go back to their communities and act as trainers, disseminating their newfound knowledge to the farmers in the organic cotton associations in their region.
At the end of the day farmers review what they have learnt. Photo: Martin Cooke
7
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 8
Integrated pest management
Increased IPM knowledge among Beninese farmers Since the 1980s Farmer Field Schools in Asia have been helping to improve farmers knowledge of pest management techniques and reducing their reliance on pesticides. This model is now being adapted to Africa. Trine Lund, May-Guri Sæthre, Ingrid Nyborg, Ousmane Coulibaly and Md. Hafizur Rahman report on a project to train Beninese vegetable producers in integrated production methods. Based on positive results from Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in Asia1,2,3,4,5, African governments, farmers and researchers are adapting the FFS model to African cultures and production systems. In Africa farmers are highly dependent on pesticides. They often use credit to buy inputs such as seeds, fertilizer and synthetic pesticides and due to the high cost of these inputs farmers need high yields to break-even. Many do not dare to reduce their use of synthetic pesticides for fear of yield loss6. The use of synthetic pesticides among vegetable producers in Benin and many other West African countries has increased to the extent that some insect pests have developed resistance to them7. As a response, in 2003, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA-Benin) initiated an FFS project to promote uptake of IPM options and a reduction in the use of synthetic pesticides among farmers in Benin. This project ‘Healthy Vegetables through
Participatory Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Peri-Urban Gardens of Benin’ is hereafter referred to as ‘the Project’. This report describes the Project and its impacts on participants.
The concept of IPM-FFS IPM utilizes a wide range of techniques to maintain pest damage below an economic threshold8 but the best way to promote the uptake of IPM is debated. Rigid, scientific recommendations passed down from ‘experts’ are often insufficient to help farmers make decisions within their changing environment. More recently, instead of such top-down approaches, the importance of farmers and their local knowledge is being recognised9. One learning method focusing on the farmer’s own development is the Farmer Field School. The FFS has four main principles: production of a healthy crop; performance of regular field observations; conservation of natural enemies; and belief in the expertise of farmers in their own fields10. FFSs use experiential learning where participants are encouraged to reflect on their own experience then seek to understand and develop knowledge from it11. By studying the interactions of the agro-ecosystem in their own fields and developing their analytical skills, farmers are empowered to realize which factors they can control, and how best to respond to them12.
Project design
8
Vegetable producer
Photo: Trine Lund
A participatory research/learning project was designed with two phases. In the first phase, the participatory research, a list of the most important pests as well as cropping and pest management practices was made. This list was based on the farmers’ perception of their pest problems and a diagnostic survey conducted in 2003. This guided the development of the training curriculum. While working to develop pest management techniques, the scientist in the Project found a strain of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana (isolate Bba5653)
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
which was effective against the Diamond back moth, Plutella xylostella L., the most devastating pest of cabbage13. This microbial control agent is environmentally friendly and harmless to humans. During the Project it was promoted as an alternative to synthetic pesticides along with additional non-chemical IPM options such as botanical nematicides14. A standard approach within FFS is to train a group of local farmers so they can subsequently train others. In the second phase of the project two ‘Training of Trainer’ (ToT) sessions were carried out, between August and October 2003 and then between December 2003 and April 20048. In total 37 vegetable producers participated and during the sessions these ‘trainers’ developed their skills in managing a number of crops including African eggplant (gboma; Solanum macrocarpon L.), carrot (Daucus carota L. sativus Hayek), lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. capitata L.). Each ToT participants was supposed to train at least four other vegetable producers is FFS sessions to share the knowledge they had gained from the ToT sessions. It was estimated that 65 vegetable producers would participate, but due to low recruitment the actual number of FFS participants was lower. AgroEcoSystem Analysis (AESA) was used to help the farmers make good management decisions based on their field conditions. But a proper AESA requires farmers to understand ecosystem interactions such as pest-predator relationships and the existence of beneficial insects. Most of the vegetable farmers believed that all arthropods in their fields would damage their crops, so the Project focused on teaching them how to distinguish the harmful pest insects from harmless and beneficial insects15. During the training the participants were exposed to the concepts of IPM, beneficial organisms, plant health, agro-ecosystems and factors affecting the quality of vegetables. During the FFS training the vegetable producers’ knowledge was challenged by knowledge from other producers and scientists, resulting in discussions, negotiations, and horizontal sharing of knowledge and skills.
Assessing the Project To determine the impact of the Project a survey was conducted. Six vegetable gardens in Cotonou were selected. In three of the gardens IPM-FFS had been conducted (Houeyiho, ONEPI, Gbegamey). These were compared to three vegetable gardens (in Godomey) where no FFS had been conducted (control group). The impact of the training was assessed by interviews carried out between October 2006 and January 2007. In total 54 semi-structured interviews with open ended questions were carried out with the vegetable producers. Among these were 15 ToT participants, nine FFS participants (trained by trainers attending the ToT course), 19 non-participants from the IPM-
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 9
Integrated pest management
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
FFS project area, and 12 control respondents from an area where no IPM-FFS had been conducted. The interviews focused on knowledge and use of IPM options, awareness of health hazards of synthetic pesticides, pesticide handling practices, and knowledge and use of protection gear. Focus group interviews were held with the ToT, FFS and non-participant groups and females and males were interviewed separately to allow open discussions. In addition, interviews were conducted with key informants who were experienced people working on issues related to agriculture, pesticides and IPM. Double difference modelling compares the change over time between two populations. This type of modelling was applied to study the change in behaviour within the ToT and FFS groups compared with the change in behaviour of the non-participants and control groups.
Results of the study Increased IPM knowledge Through the Project the ToT participants developed their understanding of IPM and this was reflected in their increased awareness of beneficial insects (60% of the ToT participants had a good concept of beneficial insects compared to 22% of the FFS participants, 18% of the control group and none of the non-participant respondents), of plant health and pest management tools, in their improved ability to take management decisions based on pest occurrence in the field and their ability to experiment with knowledge gained from the Project. All the ToT respondents and 56% of the FFS respondents, but only 16% of the non-participants were familiar with the term IPM. The ToT respondents had a broader understanding of the concept of IPM, but in general, most of the vegetable producers who were familiar with IPM had a narrow understanding of the concept of IPM. While the majority of the vegetable producers associated IPM with chemical control, the ToT and FFS respondents were more concerned about reducing the use of synthetic pesticides and using botanicals (such as neem, papaya, pepper, orange and cassava epidermis). The ToT and FFS participants’ attitudes towards synthetic pesticides also changed and some claimed to have adopted biological IPM tools such as botanical (neem extract) and biological (B. bassiana) pesticides. However, the participants had not significantly changed their use of synthetic pesticides, many were still mixing various pesticides together and most did not apply the correct pesticides to pests. It was also apparent that the FFS participants had gained considerably less knowledge than the ToT participants, perhaps due to less intensive FFS sessions led by trainers with less developed facilitating skills.
Need for experiential learning There were several examples of experiential learning, where vegetable producers with-
Woman selling pesticides in Houyieho vegetable garden
out knowledge of scientific terms like IPM had nevertheless successfully learned IPM practices based on experience. However, in the Project, information about beneficial insects was mainly theoretical. The producers had not observed beneficial insects in practice (for example, by observing the interaction of a pest and/or a beneficial insect in an enclosed area) and thus the theoretical knowledge was not meaningful to them. The need to focus on learning through experience was exemplified by one ToT participant: ‘I learned about beneficial insects and that these eat the pest, but it is too risky to rely on so I would rather kill all the insects. I have to see how the beneficial insects behave in practice before I can trust that they won’t damage my vegetables, but I don’t have enough space to experiment with beneficial insects’. The practical use of concepts such as ‘IPM’ and ‘agro-ecosystem’ requires an understanding of complex interactions, which takes time to develop. One reason why very few participants had a holistic and good understanding of these concepts was the lack of monitoring in their own fields. While it is important to bring in scientific information to improve the vegetable producers’ understanding, this information should build on the participants’ own
Photo: Trine Lund
knowledge so that it makes sense and is relevant to them. Post-IPM-FFS activities would likely allow the participants to develop their thoughts about IPM and agro-ecosystems as they practice these in their fields. There were many competent and knowledgeable vegetable producers who were concerned about the dangerous use of pesticides. In a follow-up of the IPM-FFS activities, these people could be instrumental in promoting and implementing IPM in their communities.
Factors hindering use of IPM What determines a household’s success in meeting food security and livelihood needs is whether the household has a ‘learning style’16 which ‘facilitates exploration, evaluation and adaptation of technological alternatives’17. Instead of adopting a complete package of IPM tools and concepts, the Project participants who were surveyed experimented with the new information and adopted parts of what they learned into their production systems. While one producer said: ‘Cultivating vegetables is about experimenting’, others were more risk averse. Even Project participants with a good understanding of beneficial insects used superfluous pesticides which might kill
9
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 10
Integrated pest management them. This demonstrates that it requires more than a good understanding to change existing practices. Another influencing factor may be that the vegetable producers did not understand the potential impact they could have by developing and passing on knowledge, as experienced in the IPM-FFSs in Ghana and Mali18. In the beginning, the Project only had IPM plots, but no plots where the farmers’ existing practice was demonstrated, which indicated a poor emphasis of the Project on the vegetable producers’ own experimentation and knowledge-creating processes. Studies have shown that farmers with a good understanding of how the field ecosystem works are better at managing crops than those who get rigid and simplified instructions on pest management such as on calendar spraying19,20. A study of farmers attending a cotton IPM-FFS in India showed a strong correlation between knowledge level and reduction in pesticide use, and concluded that a skilloriented, knowledge-intensive and hands-on education approach, like the FFS, is an efficient way to deliver complex IPM principles to farmers21. There are many factors in the vegetable producers’ environment hindering them from using IPM, and from using synthetic pesticides more safely. These include lack of ecological knowledge, lack of access to product information, shortage of target-specific pesticides and their relatively high cost. Many participants wished to produce good quality vegetables and use synthetic pesticides more safely. The limited access to land and the desire for higher profits were strong driving forces leading some vegetable producers to unsafe practices, like not respecting the pre-harvest interval and using prohibited synthetic pesticides. Pest infestation is one of the major agricultural production risks facing farmers’ worldwide22, and as poorer farmers have more limited ability to deal with these risks, they may choose
Pesticides News 89
broad spectrum pesticides as a way to reduce risk from pests and to secure their yield and income. Benin has regulations on pesticide use (law 1991/004), but these regulations are not enforced, and so, have limited impact on people’s behaviour. Although the work of various NGOs and research institutions have changed vegetable producers’ attitudes towards respecting pre-harvest intervals, more awareness is needed to change producers’ attitude to synthetic pesticides and to make dangerous practices unacceptable. An analysis of pesticide residues in vegetables from individual plots would personalize the information and foster a greater appreciation of the problem of food residues. In the Project it is likely that economic concerns weighed more heavily with participants than health concerns. Although awareness of pesticide hazards and personal protective equipment (PPE) was generally high, and many producers had felt the negative effects of synthetic pesticides on their health, most producers did not use PPE because it was too expensive. The Project did not have any impact on storage and handling of pesticides, as these practices were influenced by what was most convenient for the vegetable producers.
Towards more effective IPM The general results from this study in Benin are in line with other reports21,22 concluding that for IPM to succeed as a reliable plant protection strategy there is a need for a broader range of actors (farmers, extension workers, scientists, policy makers, NGOs) to be aware of IPM principles. In addition, we found it important to teach farmers and extensionists not only theoretical concepts but also through experiential learning in order for them to fully understand how to respond in practice to the complexity of plant and insect interactions. Other factors such as the need for group versus individual
Trade names and toxicity classes of pesticides used by respondents 35
25 20 15 10 5 0
Dyfonate Conquest plus Cypercal d Deltaphos Furadan Rugby Sheriphos Triazophos Cotalm p Cypercal Decis Dimethoate Dursban Endosulfan Fastac Fenpropathrin Kinikini Kuzitrine Oncol Regent Talstar Calicuivre Kocide 101 Malathion Orthene B.bassiana B.thuringiensis Daconil Laser Manate Super homai Topsin Unidentified
Number of respondents
30
Ia
Ib
II
U
III
Trade names and WHO toxicity class
24
10
Ia (extremely hazardous), Ib (highly hazardous), II (moderately hazardous), III (slightly hazardous) and U (unlikely to be hazardous)
September 2010
action, the nature of farmers’ indigenous knowledge, farmers’ resource endowments, and last but not least the macroeconomic determinants quite out of the control of individual farmers, all play a significant role in whether IPM can succeed or not.
Thanks to all who contributed with their knowledge and experience to this research. This report is adapted from Lund T, Sæthre M-G, Nyborg I, Coulibaly O and Rahman MH, Farmer field school IPM impacts on urban and peri-urban vegetable producers in Cotonou, Benin, International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, Volume 30 (1), pp 19-31, (2010) © ICIPE, Published by Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission. References 1. Pontius J, Dilts R and Bartlett A, Ten years of building community: From farmer field schools to community IPM, FAO Community IPM programme, Jakarta, 2000. 2. Erbaugh JM, Donnermeyer J, Kibwika P and Kyamanywa S, An assessment of the integrated pest management collaborative research support project's (IPM CRSP) activities in Uganda: Impact on farmers' awareness and knowledge of IPM skills, African Crop Science Journal, 2002, 10: 271 - 280. 3. Godtland EM, Sadoulet E, Janvry Ad, Murgai R and Ortiz O, The impact of farmer field schools on knowledge and productivity: A study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2004. 4. Praneetvatakul S and Waibel H, Farm Level and Environmental Impacts of Farmer Field Schools in Thailand, Working Paper 7, Development and Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Hannover, Germany, Hannover, 2006. 5. Rola AC, Quizon JB and Jamias SB, Do Farmer Field School Graduates Retain and Share What They Learn?: An Investigation in Iloilo, Philippines, 2001. 6. Williamson S, Economic costs of pesticide reliance, Pesticides News, 2003, 61: 3-5. 7. Atcha-Ahowé C, James B, Godonou I, Boulga J, Agbotse SK, Kone D, Kogo A, Salawu R and Glitho IA, Status of chemical control applications for vegetable production in Benin, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Togo – West Africa, in Clarendon H (ed), Pesticides management in West Africa, Newsletter jointly published by FAO and ECOWAS, No. 7, March 2009. 8. Dent D, Integrated Pest Management, Chapman and Hall, London, 1995. 9. Nyborg I, Berg T and Aune J, New Paradigms in Technology Development: Exploring Innovative Approaches to Linking Agricultural Research and Practice, Proceedings of the Innovative Agricultural Approaches of Promoting Food Security in Eritrea: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities for Growth, Asmara, Eritrea, 2-4 February 2006. 10. Op cit 1. 11. Kolb D, Experiential Learning, Prentice Hall, Inc, New Jersey, 1984. 12. Fleischer G, Jungbluth F, Waibel H and Zadoks JC, A field practioner’s guide to economic evaluation of IPM. Pesticide policy publication, vol. 9, Uni Druck Hannover, Hannover, Germany, 1999. 13. James B, Godonou I, Atcha C, Baimey H, Adango E, Boulga J and Goudegnon E, Healthy vegetables through participatory IPM in peri-urban areas of Benin, IITA, Cotonou, Benin, 2006. 14. Loumedjinon S, Baimey H and James B, Locally available botanical alternatives to chemical pesticides against root-knot nematode pests of
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 11
Integrated pest management carrot (Daucus carota) in Benin, in Clarendon H (ed), Pesticides management in West Africa, Newsletter jointly published by FAO and ECOWAS, No. 7, March 2009. 15. Op cit 13. 16. Pretty JN, Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance, Earthscan, London, 1995. 17. Lee DR, Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing countries, American Agricultural Economics Association, 2005, 87: 1325–1334. 18. Simpson BM and Owens M, Farmer field schools and the future of agricultural extension in Africa, AIAEE 2002, Proceedings of the 18th annual conference, Durban, South Africa 2002. 19. Mangan J and Mangan MS, A comparison of two IPM training strategies in China: The importance of concepts of the rice ecosystem for sustainable insect pest management, Agriculture and Human Values, 1998, 15: 209–221. 20. Price LL, Demystifying farmers entomological and pest management knowledge: A methodology for assessing the impacts on knowledge from IPMFFS and NES interventions, Agricultural and human values, 2001, 18: 153-156. 21. Mancini F, Impact of integrated pest management farmer field schools on health, farming systems, the environment, and livelihoods of cotton growers in Southern India, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Biological farming systems group, Wageningen, 2006, 112 pp. 22. Maumbe B, Bernstein R and Northon G, Social and economic considerations in the design and implementation of integrated pest management in developing countries, in Maredia, K., Dakouo, D. and Mota-Sanchez, D. (eds), Integrated pest management in the global arena, CAB International, 2003, pp87-95. 23. Lund T, Impact of an integrated pest management project on urban and peri-urban vegetable producers in Cotonou, Benin, MSc. Thesis, Norwegian university of life sciences, Ås, 2007, 176 pp. 24. World Health Organization, The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and guidelines to classification 2004, Geneva, Switzerland, 2004, http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_haz ard_rev_3.pdf
Lund T, Consultant, Plant Health and Plant Protection Division, Bioforsk - Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, Høgskoleveien 7, 1432 Ås, Norway. lund_trine@yahoo.no +47 333 90126 Sæthre M-G, Research Entomologist, Plant Health and Plant Protection Division, Bioforsk - Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research Høgskoleveien 7, 1432 Ås, Norway Nyborg I, Associate Professor, Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Post Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway Coulibaly O, Agricultural Economist, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Cotonou, Benin 08 BP 0932 Tri-Postal Cotonou, Benin Rahman MH, PhD student, Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)P.O. 1074, Ås 1432
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Endosulfan bans spread Use of endosulfan is to be phased out in Jamaica1. Michael Ramsay, from the Jamaican Pesticide Control Authority (PCA), said that the phase-out was a requirement of various international conventions to which Jamaica is a signatory. It is also based on the fact that endosulfan is a persistent organic pollutant. ‘We are being proactive and have decided to phase out its use early. The stocks now here in 2010 are to be used up and never imported again,’ Ramsay said. The Rotterdam Convention, a multilateral treaty to promote information sharing in the trade in hazardous chemicals, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from persistent chemicals, are the two key conventions to which Jamaica is a signatory. ‘We are following the trend of other countries who have already informed the convention that they have banned endosulfan,’ Ramsay said. Endosulfan is only registered in Jamaica for use in the coffee industry against the cof-
fee berry borer, a beetle that can cause extensive damage to coffee crops, but Ramsay said that, unfortunately, there were indications that it was being used on vegetables - another reason for its phase out. The phase out of endosulfan will be a challenge to the coffee industry, but the Coffee Industry Board (CIB) has indicated that it is in full support of the decision. ‘The policy of the board is that we want to phase out endosulfan. Operationally, we have an integrated pest management system that ought to replace the use of endosulfan.’ said Christopher Gentles, CIB's director general. More recently Canada has announced a ban on endosulfan2. The decision was based on the findings from Preliminary Risk and Value Assessments which highlighted a concern for workers involved in many application scenarios. The Canadian assessment also concluded the risk posed to non-target organisms could not be managed. 1. Eulalee Thompson, Toxic pesticide banned in Jamaica, The Jamaica Gleaner, 4 August 2010. 2. National Toxics Network, Canada bans endosulfan, 18 August, 2010.
11
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 12
Health effects
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Global survey of pesticide use reveals widespread harm PAN International recently launched ‘Communities in Peril: Global Report on health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture’. This report documents the results and recommendations of a survey by PAN organisations in 13 countries investigating the use of pesticides in rural communities around the world. It shows that highly hazardous pesticides are commonly being used in unsafe conditions. The report calls for more assertive action by policy-makers and corporations to address pesticide hazards and support agroecological methods of farming. Bella Whittle summarises the key findings and recommendations of the report.
12
25 years ago the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides was adopted to reduce pesticide risks to human health and the environment. The Code, fully revised in 2002, sets out standards of conduct for governments and the pesticide industry, which have formed the basis for pesticide legislation in many developing countries1. A number of international initiatives to combat the hazards of pesticides have followed the adoption of the Code, such as the legally binding Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent. The Convention lists problematic active ingredients and severely hazardous pesticide formulations for information sharing, import and trade controls. More recently, in 2006 the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) stressed shared and multi-stakeholder responsibilities so that by 2020, chemicals are ‘used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment’2. In spite of such international efforts, pesticide poisonings continue to heavily impact rural communities as shown in targeted surveillance exercises undertaken since 1985. Those living in poverty, women and children are disproportionately affected. At the same time, the market for pesticides in developing countries is growing, particularly in Asia and Latin America. In this context, the PAN Regional Centres in Asia, Latin America and Africa together with civil-society partners initiated the Community Monitoring and International Advocacy project to investigate the use and impacts of pesticides in affected communities. The Communities in Peril report3 is based on field research conducted under this project, focusing on the conditions of pesticide application, storage and disposal; health impacts; identification
of pesticides used (where possible within the last two years); and conditions of sale at retail stores.
Community monitoring The research for the report was based on a participatory action approach called Community Pesticide Action Monitoring (CPAM). This approach, developed by PAN Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), documents and creates awareness of pesticide effects. CPAM guides have been used at the local level with communities for over a decade. PAN groups and network partners worked together to develop a questionnaire and train CPAM monitors from local areas to carry out field surveys. A structured questionnaire was prepared by PAN with initial guidance of medical professionals and modified in consultation with local organisations and communities. This survey was delivered via interviews in local languages, and was carried out in 21 areas of 13 countries (see Table 1). The Communities in Peril report presents material based on interviews with 2,220 women and men farmers, agricultural workers, and members of rural communities affected by spray drift. Conditions in retail stores were
also monitored through observations and interviews with salespersons. In the United States, PAN North America conducted community monitoring by sampling air with a Drift Catcher, a methodology developed by its staff scientists in collaboration with communities. Using a Drift Catcher, trained communities can identify pesticide spray and volatilisation drift contaminating the air and determine whether these reach levels of concern for inhalation. There were some methodological limitations in the CPAM studies. Firstly, sampling is indicative and does not represent the overall numbers affected. Secondly, in some cases it was difficult for the respondents to identify the pesticides. Thirdly, local languages were used to minimise misunderstandings during field interviews, then the material was translated into English for reporting. In this process some errors may have occurred.
Conditions of pesticide use The report examines the users’ ability to wear personal protective equipment, as well as practices regarding disposal of empty containers, storage, and spraying methods.
Pesticide application In Asia, manual back-pack spraying was the
Table 1. Numbers interviewed with CPAM survey methodology Region
Number of pesticide users interviewed
Countries where CPAM surveys carried out
Africa
420
Mali, Senegal (two areas), Tanzania
Asia
1304
Cambodia, China, India (three areas), Indonesia, Malaysia (two areas), Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam (two areas)
Latin America
496
Argentina, Bolivia (four areas)
Total
2220
21 areas, 13 countries
Source: Original reports from PAN Regions are available at www.pan-international.org
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 13
Health effects
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Orissa India, 71% in Andhra Pradesh, India, and 56% in Cambodia. Access to a storage shed is rare. Regarding disposal, few of those interviewed were able to return the containers to the company or distributors (the ideal scenario). Disposing of the containers in the open field was common in the Indian study sites, practiced by over 70% in all three sites. Other areas also indicated burning the containers or disposing of them in the rubbish. In the Latin American sites, in Argentina the containers were often reused to store water (86%) or for other purposes. In Bolivia, the pesticides were commonly stored in the home and sometimes in the field. There was similarly a concern at the lack of secure storage space for pesticides. Containers were most commonly disposed of by leaving them in the field, followed by burning. In Africa, the most common method of container disposal was to discard in the field or burn. A woman in Senegal is mixing pesticides without protective clothing
method of application in most of the areas interviewed, although some motorised methods were used. Farmers often mix a ‘cocktail’ of pesticides, as exemplified in the Cambodian and Vietnam survey where farmers mixed three or more products to kill insect pests. In Latin America, an Argentinean community living in intensively sprayed soya bean production areas were regularly exposed to spray drift from aerial and ground-based pesticide application. In the Bolivian study area, many users mix and spray via backpack sprayers. Spray practices were described as ‘very poor’, with buckets sometimes used to both mix and apply pesticides. Farmers were also observed mixing pesticides with a stick or their bare hands, and many were observed eating or chewing coca leaves while spraying.
Personal Protective Equipment The Code of Conduct recommends governments and industry to promote the use of proper and affordable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Access to this was lacking. In Africa and Latin America the proportion using PPE was extremely low. In the surveyed areas of Latin America 6473% used no PPE, although some additional precautions (gloves and glasses) were used by some people when mixing pesticides. In Africa no-one wore sufficient protection or owned complete sets of equipment and protection. In Asia a significant proportion of pesticide applicators wore long-sleeved pants and shirts (63-99%), but it was not clear whether these were used only for pesticide application and washed after each use. Even in Malaysia, where the majority of oil palm workers surveyed wore PPE provided by the company, it was observed that the clothing was not worn for the duration of the spraying day (due to climatic condi-
Photo: PAN Africa, Senegal
tions) and that cotton-based clothing absorbed spray drift and leaked solution, failing to protect the wearer adequately. In some communities such as those in NorthVietnam and Kerala, India, applicators spray with bare feet. This is a common practice of farmers due to the muddy conditions of the paddy field. In none of the surveyed areas are pesticide users able to protect themselves adequately against exposure. Availability and cost, and to a lesser extent discomfort, were cited as reasons for this.
Disposal and storage of containers and unused product In Asia the most common places to store pesticides were the home, field, garden or shed. Of concern is the large number of users storing pesticides in their home, which was as many as 97% of farmers in
Conditions of sale Pesticide suppliers are the main point of reference for users for information about pesticides. The community monitors visited a number of pesticide shops in the study locations. Although the results are not comprehensive, some observations were made: particularly that it is not easy for pesticide users to buy PPE and suppliers do not advise on the importance of proper protection. In Africa, the retail store survey highlighted the lack of training of the salespersons, and that pesticides were often repackaged. In Cambodia, most product labels were written in foreign languages.
Acute pesticide poisoning During the survey, the community monitors asked whether farmers and workers had experienced symptoms when using or exposed to pesticides. Symptoms were list-
Pesticides are often stored inside the home as seen here in Andrah Pradesh
Photo: Sahanivasa
13
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 14
Health effects
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
documented in the USA ranging from acute poisoning to cancer, developmental disorders, infertility and birth defects. While noting that pesticide poisoning is often underreported, agricultural workers have the highest rates of toxic chemical injuries and skin disorders amongst occupational groups4.
Use of highly hazardous pesticides
Pesticides are being sold in a market in Sikasso, Mali, right next to the entrance to a restaurant. A woman is cooking food next to the pesticides. Photo: PAN Mali
14
ed in a multiple-choice question and respondents could also describe any other symptoms experienced. Regular incidents of acute poisoning are experienced by the communities surveyed. Across all the surveyed regions, these signs and symptoms were experienced to varying degrees. An average of over one third of all respondents indicated having experienced headaches, dizziness and blurred vision during or after spraying. In some sites (Cambodia and Sri Lanka) over 90% had experienced one or more such symptom. Other common symptoms included excessive sweating, insomnia, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, diarrhoea, hand tremors, excessive salivation, staggering, narrowed pupils, irregular heartbeat and convulsions. Such symptoms should not be underestimated and are often more severe than conveyed in these terms. In addition to information gathered from the 2,220 interviewees for the questionnaire survey, 69 informants from Asia detailed specific incidents they had experienced. Amongst the cases: ● 40 led to treatment in a hospital, 2 in a clinic, others visited a doctor ● 11 relied on self treatment (such as washing, drinking coconut milk or water, resting) ● two deaths, both in India, following the use of endosulfan and phosphamidon respectively (reported by family members) ● five cases of unconsciousness or fainting ● a farmer in India (Kerala) lost the sight in one eye after it was contaminated with methyl parathion ● most common symptoms recorded were headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, sweating. The results show a high degree of suffering faced by farmers, agricultural workers and communities affected by spray-drift due to acute health effects during or after
spraying. Contributing to the problem, many people in rural areas in developing countries have limited access to antidotes or health-care services. Symptoms may be similar to those of many other common illnesses and those affected may not seek medical attention or may be misdiagnosed. Chronic health implications were beyond the scope of the documented results. However, many of the respondents from Argentina and Bolivia reported chronic health problems that they associated with pesticide exposure. The Argentinean community affected by spray-drift described breathing difficulties, skin and abdominal problems, miscarriages and birth defects. They also shared their concerns over the contamination of their water sources, food crops and deaths of domestic animals. Concern over water contamination was shared by communities in Asia, such as those in Vietnam, Sri Lanka and India, where water sources are often used for multiple purposes, including drinking and bathing. Pesticide-related illnesses have been
Respondents were asked to identify the pesticides they used. In cases of poisoning incidents, many identified the product involved. The results were then compared with the PAN International Highly Hazardous Pesticide List to identify their hazards. The FAO/WHO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Management, as part of its risk reduction initiative, have developed criteria for identifying Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs)5. Drawing on these classifications, PAN has expanded the criteria and has drawn up a list of 395 HHPs6. A pesticide is considered to be highly hazardous by PAN International if it has one of the following characteristics: ● high acute toxicity (classified as WHO Ia or Ib or very toxic by inhalation, as noted by the European Union risk phrase R26) ● long-term toxic effects from chronic exposure (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, endocrine disruption) ● high environmental concern either through ubiquitous exposure, bioaccumulation or toxicity, and for high toxicity to bees ● known to cause a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment. In areas where sufficient data is available, the results show a high proportion of HHPs in current use in the surveyed communities. In Asia 66% of pesticide active ingredients identified by respondents in seven countries are HHPs (Figure 1); and seven of the ten most common pesticides in use were listed as HHPs. In Ngarenanyuki, Tanzania, 73% of the pesticides used in a study period (March-April 2007) were HHPs. In Latin America, of the 19 differ-
Figure 1. Pesticide use by 1185 respondents in seven Asian countries
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 15
Health effects ent active ingredients identified in the survey as commonly used, 17 were HHPs. In the US, where Drift Catchers have been deployed in 27 projects in 10 US states, the pesticides most captured are volatile chemicals, many of which are HHPs. Those of particular concern were azinphos methyl, chloropicrin, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diazinon, endosulfan, malathion, molinate, permethrin and telone (1,3-dichloropropene). Other HHPs found at lower levels were chlordane, chlorothalonil, DDE (breakdown of DDT) and trifluralin. In some states, samples were found with HHPs exceeding the Levels of Concern.
Conclusion The report concludes that the use of hazardous pesticides is endemic, with exposure problematic in the USA as well as developing countries. Hazardous working conditions are endured by rural farmers and workers, using a level of protection that is incomparable to the requirements. The signs and symptoms experienced indicate widespread ill-health amongst pesticideaffected communities. At the time of the report launch, Javier Souza, Regional Coordinator of PAN Latin America commented that: ‘very often communities don't have information about the health hazards of the pesticides they use, and even when they have this information, they simply cannot afford the costly personal protective equipment needed. The current mode of pesticide reliant agriculture sets communities up for pesticide poisoning and other health harms.’ Dr Abou Thiam, Executive Director of PAN Africa said that the results ‘banish’ the arguments of manufacturers regarding the ‘safe use’ of pesticides, noting that ‘the data shows that the conditions of use in the Global South are such that communities routinely suffer incredible health harms due to exposure to agricultural pesticides.’ The report recommends that policymakers around the world increase support for agroecological approaches and take assertive action to reduce the use of and exposure to hazardous pesticides. It supports the move by international bodies towards risk reduction, including the progressive ban on highly hazardous pesticides7. Sarojeni V Rengam, Executive Director of PAN Asia and the Pacific, said ‘We demand increased investment and policy support for agroecological approaches safe for humans and the environment. Governments should increase investment in rural infrastructure and training strategies to reduce hazardous pesticide use, risks and dependence’.
Recommendations The report gives detailed policy recommendations for the actors in the international system.
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
EU concerned over Egypt’s lax pesticide controls Egypt has insufficient controls and insufficient enforcement of controls governing pesticide use and the sale of illegal pesticides for use on fruit and vegetables bound for the EU. This was a conclusion of a recent European Commission’s Health and Consumers Directorate General’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) report following a visit earlier this year. The objective of the visit was to evaluate the control system in Egypt for pesticides used on fruit and vegetables intended for export to the EU. The FVO decided to visit Egypt in view of the high volume of fruit and vegetables which
1. Lack of Egyptian agchem controls concerns EU, Agrow 597, 6 August 2010 2. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_ en.cfm?rep_id=2470
To Governments
To the food (and fibre) industry
It is recommended that Governments adopt, through an international process, the PAN International list of HHPs as the basis for a progressive ban on highly hazardous pesticides and identify additional risky active ingredients to target for elimination, such as ‘pesticides whose handling and application require the use of personal protective equipment that is uncomfortable, expensive or not readily available’ (Article 3.5, Code of Conduct). It is recommended that hazard assessment rather than risk assessment form the basis of policy decisions, using a pro-public health approach. The principles of good governance and precaution should be practiced in plant protection decisionmaking. At the same time, the network insists on increased support for agroecological production systems, by investing in research and participatory, communitybased trainings and incentivising the rapid adoption of such systems, as well as promotion of safer and non-chemical alternatives. In addition, the network recommends that governments should legally require employers of pesticide sprayers to provide PPE and regular training and retraining; and to support and expedite establishment through the WHO of poison information centres in developing countries, as well as promotion of the community monitoring approach worldwide.
It is recommended that the industry ensure that the food and fibre it sources is produced in a way that does not cause harm to farmers, workers, their families and the environment. The industry can use its market influence to phase out HHPs in agricultural production and secure agro-ecologically produced products. In addition, the industry is recommended to promote organic products in developing countries.
To the pesticide industry It is recommended that the industry: adopt the lifecycle concept of pesticide management as set out on the Code of Conduct; voluntarily withdraw HHPs from sale; ensure the availability of affordable and effective PPE; embark on large-scale awareness raising activities on pesticide hazards; adopt best-management practices for empty containers; and provide cheap and safe lockers for storing pesticides. In regard to spray drift, the network recommends the implementation of extensive nospray zones around heavily sprayed fields.
it exports to the EU and some notifications of unacceptable levels of pesticide residues in food from Egypt within the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). The deficiencies identified by the FVO mean that at the present time fruit and vegetables exported from Egypt may contain pesticide residues which exceed EU MRLs. The report contains recommendations to Egypt to address the shortcomings.
References 1. FAO 2002, International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Revised), Rome. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/ documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/code.pdf 2. ICCM 2006, ‘Report of the International Conference on Chemicals Management on the work of its first session, Global Plan of Action (Part B)’, Dubai, SAICM/ICCM.1/7. www.chem.unep.ch/saicm1. 3. Dinham B, Ed., 2010. Communities in Peril: Global Report on health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture. Pesticide Action Network. http://www.panap.net/sites/default/files/PANGlobal-Report.pdf 4. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 2009, Pesticide Illness & Injury Surveillance, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Retrieved 28 September. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides 5. FAO 2007, ‘Report of the 1st FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management and 3rd session of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Management, Rome www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/pesticid/Code/ expmeeting/Report07.pdf 6. PAN Germany 2009, PAN International list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides, Prepared by PAN Germany for PAN International. http://www.pangermany.org/download/PAN_HHP_ List_Annex1_090929.pdf 7. FAO / COAG 2007, ‘New initiative for pesticide risk reduction’, Committee on Agriculture, 20th session COAG/2007/Inf. 14. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/011/j9387e.pdf
Bella Whittle is Programme Officer for PAN Asia and the Pacific; bella.whittle@gmail.com
15
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 16
Organic cotton
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Growing organic crops for export – an ethical approach in Africa? PAN UK and African partners have been promoting organic cotton as a way to provide safer and more sustainable livelihoods in the West African savannah lands for over 15 years. However, with current concerns about food security, should we be promoting cotton, or other cash crops, grown for export to Europe? PAN UK interviews field agent Mr Emmanuel Dossoumou from the Beninese Organisation for Promotion for Organic Agriculture (OBEPAB) on his views. Organisation Béninoise pour la Promotion de l’Agriculture Biologique (OBEPAB), PAN UK’s partner in the Fibre, Food and Beauty project, is exploring ways to improve market prices for the cashew and sheanut grown by Beninese organic cotton farmer associations as part of their crop rotations [PN83pp4-6]. To understand better local views on the pros and cons of organic farming and issues of food security and export versus local markets, PAN UK interviewed three OBEPAB field agents, who work with village-level farmer groups, and five organic cotton farmers in March 2010. Here are the views of Mr Dossoumou, a field agent, and Mrs Martine, a farmer.
When and how did you become involved in organic cotton production? OBEPAB recruited me after the death of the supervisor of the organic cotton farmers inSêto village. But I was already interested in organic production as a way to eliminate the high number of poisonings among cotton farmers. What do you like about organic cotton production and why? The health of farmers and their families is not affected. OBEPAB bodies are well organised and committed to paying cotton producers on time, in contrast to the disorganisation of the conventional cotton supply chain.
16
What are its drawbacks? There are arguments between organic cotton farmers and conventional cotton farmers due to issues of field borders. Also, organic cotton farmers are not represented in national farmer groups and do not profit from subsidies or other benefits provided by national bodies specifically dedicated to the development of cotton production in Benin. All the work in organic production is manual and finally organic cotton farmers do not cultivate large land surfaces.
What do you like most about your job? The total absence of extremely toxic products which are very dangerous for us as supervisor agents, and also for farmers and their families. I also appreciate the money I earn which allows me to supplement my small pension. Do you think that organic farmers should focus on export crops, such as cotton? No, because there are other crops such as food staples. The market for these is not as organised as the cotton market. The latter benefits African farmers only to a limited extent because of subsidies given to
American and Chinese cotton farmers which lowers the cotton price on the international market. So it is vital that organic cotton farmers become interested in other crops.
Has food security improved in the last five years in the village where you work? Yes, because now farmers even try to sell their food. However, they do not find favourable markets because the prices fixed by traders do not help them. What could be done to improve food security and the well-being of your village? It is a matter of modernising the production methods of the farmers in this village and
View from a farmer Mrs Martine Okou grows cotton, cowpea, maize, soya, cashew, cassava and yam and keeps chickens on her small farm in the Djidja region of Benin. She converted to organic production in 2000, mainly because of the huge debts she and other farmers accumulated under conventional production and the frequent poisonings suffered by those handling pesticides. She recognises that yield per hectare is lower compared to when she used synthetic fertiliser but appreciates the health security that organic production means for her family and workers, and that the food she grows is safer to eat. Martine described the fair price at which her organic cotton is bought as one of the real benefits for her family from converting their farming system. More food has been grown in Martine’s area in the last five years, partly due to government purchase schemes for cereals, motivating more farmers to plant food crops as well as cotton. To increase food provision further, she says that organic farmers need partners who can make available tractors, ploughs and other means to cultivate land more efficiently. Martine feels that the capital city, Cotonou, and external markets are the most promising for organic produce. When asked about concerns of some European consumers about the ethics of exporting cash crops from African smallholders, Martine replied ‘I need to sell my product to a client who will buy it at a fair price. The market where we can obtain this price is obviously the external market’.
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 17
Europe
Pesticides News 89
Pesticide residues still a food risk in the EU The European Food SafetyAuthority recently published a report on EU-wide pesticide residue testing during 2008. The report suggests that 3.5% of fruit and vegetables still contain residues above legal limits. Hans Muilerman of PAN Europe examines the results. The European Union’s Food Safety Authority EFSA published in July of this year their 2008 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues. In this report EFSA summarized the results of analysis done in 27 EU member states plus Norway and Iceland. The results of a coordinated programme of sampling are included as well as the results of national surveillance programmes.
Coordinated EU-wide sampling programme In 2008 oranges, mandarins, pears, potatoes, carrots, cucumbers, spinach, beans (without pods) and rice were sampled as part of the coordinated programme. 11,610 samples were analysed in different countries in roughly comparable ways, meaning a small number of pesticides were analysed (78) to allow every country to participate. Overall 2.2% of the samples had residues in excess of permitted levels for one or more pesticides (maximum residue levels MRL’s) which means that 2.2% of these products were illegally placed on the market but consumed by the public. The highest exceedance was for spinach (6.2%) and the lowest for potatoes (0.5%).
National testing programmes In the national surveillance programme 687,887 samples were analysed for the promoting organic farming in the whole region [the Djidja region in Benin].
In your opinion which markets might be accessible for organic farmers’ products? Organic and fair-trade markets. According to certain European consumers, buying food from Africa amounts to stealing land from poor African farmers who need it to provide food for their communities. What do you think? This is not fair because farmers here often sell their surplus. The possibility of selling on the international market is a right for every entrepreneur to generate income (to
presence of pesticide residues along with 2,256 ‘enforcement’ samples (taken in cases of suspicion). In this case 3.7% of the fruit and vegetable samples tested exceeded MRLs. This is slightly higher than the coordinated programme possibly because more pesticides were analysed (ranging from 39 – 679 in different countries). The number of fruit and vegetable samples exceeding MRLs (3.5%) is slightly lower than in previous years (2007: 4%, 2006: 5%). It is however difficult or even impossible to compare between these years. In 2008, the EU underwent a massive programme of relaxing MRLs to harmonise standards across EU Member States. During this process the most lax standard within the EU was adopted as the EU harmonised standard. In many cases standards were lowered 10-fold, 100-fold or even 1000-fold. Tens of thousands standards were revised in this process. So in reality it is impossible to tell whether pesticide residue levels have declined, remained similar or even increased. What we do know is that in 53.3% of products (fruit, vegetables, cereals) no residues were found. This is almost identical to results in previous years (53.6% in 2007) and it is clearly good news to know that several food items such as cabbage or cereals can be eaten without risk of consuming pesticide residues. The bad news is buy clothes, for children’s education).
Is the development of organic farming taking off in Benin? The development of organic production is becoming more important in cotton farming but it still needs to develop to promote other export crops (such as pineapple and cashew nut) and food staples (such as soya, rice). For more views from African farmers, see www.pan-uk.org/africanvoices/ PAN UK’s Fibre, Food and Beauty project partners are OBEPAB, Enda Pronat in Senegal and PAN Germany. See www.pan-uk.org/foodAfrica.html for more information, including the new leaflet ‘Can Organic Cotton Help Feed Africa?’ OBEPAB is coordinated by Dr Simplice Davo Vodouhê, dsvodouhe@yahoo.com, www.obepab.bj
September 2010
that 26.7% of food samples contained multiple residues: 10.9% contained two residues; 6.5% contained three residues; 4.2% contained four residues. One sample was even found containing 26 different pesticides (one sample of grapes analysed in Germany). This information is all the more worrying since EFSA does not consider the health risks of exposure to multiple residues and carries out its risk assessment as if people are only exposed to one pesticide at a time. But people are clearly exposed to dozens of pesticides every day through eating conventionally grown food. This makes EFSA’s whole risk assessment process ineffective. Most worrying is that EFSA itself is the organisation blocking the evaluation of the chemical mixtures. In the 2005 Residue Directive (EC Regulation No 396/2005) the EU decided that ‘cocktail effects’ should be taken into account and consumers protected from the risks of mixtures of pesticides. But, unfortunately, the EU also decided that EFSA should be the organisation to develop appropriate assessment methods. While several methods are available and in use in the USA (combined effects of the organophosphate pesticides) five years later, EFSA has still failed to make any progress on this. EFSA continues to publish reports while saying more information is needed. This highly irresponsible attitude puts consumers at risk. In the report EFSA finds the nerve toxin diazinon exceeding health standards in people’s diets. But by introducing assumptions about the fate of diazinon during food processing EFSA declares diazinon consumption in the end ‘safe’. Diazinon is a potent organophosphate nerve toxin and research shows that even in low doses diazinon can harm the developing foetus. Children and the unborn might be irreversibly affected. It is not known what weight EFSA places on the scientific literature as it generally bases its opinions on industry laboratory tests. Diazinon has a similar mode of action to other organophosphates such as chlorpyriphos and malathion which are also found in many products which may have a cumulative effect on the body. Noone can conclude that all the food being sold in Europe is safe. The combined effects of pesticides are denied making the current risk assessment extremely flawed. Governments and government institutes tend to say food is safe, everything is under control and consumers need not worry. In their latest report EFSA is following this decade-long tradition. But people in Europe know better. In the EU barometer, which tracks the attitudes of EU citizens towards a range to topics, citizens of Europe (63%) still see pesticide residues as their number one health concern. The full report is available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc /1646.htm
Hans Muilerman, PAN Europe, hans@paneurope.info
17
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 18
Factsheet
Pesticides News 89
Pesticides banned in Europe Each year PAN UK receives numerous requests from journalists, researchers, NGOs and developing country food companies for information on which pesticides the EU has banned for health or environmental reasons. This information is not easy for the uninitiated or busy enquirer to access from EU official websites. Here PAN UK provide an up-to-date list of those pesticides which are banned or restricted within the EU along with the reasons for regulatory action. Finding out which pesticides are banned, restricted or not approved within the EU is not easy. It relates not only to pesticides withdrawn or not approved under the ongoing regulatory review of existing and new active ingredients (managed by DG Health and Consumer Protection) but also to the EU’s notification of specific bans to the Rotterdam Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Convention (handled by DG Environment and the EC Joint Research Centre). To fill this information gap, PAN UK first published a detailed briefing on ‘Which pesticides are banned in Europe?’ in 2007, updated in 2008. The value of this explanatory guidance to the EU decision making process along with the full list of active ingredients which qualify as bans has been much appreciated by many individuals and organisations, including Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade Labelling Organisation and Unilever. This factsheet updates the table of active ingredients, as of 15 July 2010. New additions since the 2008 PAN Europe factsheet are in bold in the table below. The major change since our April 2008 revision is a significant increase in the number of pesticides and formulations listed as banned or severely restricted, from 109 to 130 over the last two years. To add value to this update, we have included a short summary of the reason for the non-
18
authorisation decision, where information was available in the EC decision documents on their website. This allows the reader to quickly see which particular health or environmental hazards triggered a ban decision. For example, the EC decided this year to ban the herbicide butralin for agricultural use because of clear indications that its use is likely to cause harmful effects for humans, especially operators. Readers can refer to the official EC decision dossier for further details. Butralin has also been notified by the EC to the PIC Convention Secretariat under Europe’s legislation implementing PIC in the EU (Regulation 304/2003 and subsequent amending regulations). The 2007 decision to ban herbicide trifluralin is an example of environmental harm rationale, due to concerns of its impacts on aquatic life, volatility and slow degradation rate. Several pesticides that generated major disagreement among Member States on whether they should be banned back in 2006 are now listed, including procymidone, a fungicide which features under PAN International’s Highly Hazardous Pesticide (HHP) list for chronic hazards, including carcinogenicity, reprotoxicity and endocrine disruption1. This shows that protecting human and environmental health finally took precedence over narrow economic ‘interests’ in certain cases.
September 2010
PIC notification is particularly valuable as the reasons for EU bans are then circulated to regulatory authorities in all the signatory countries to the Convention, enabling them to make better informed decisions on whether they should permit imports or not. PIC information is increasingly used by progressive food and fibre companies and labelling schemes as a decision tool on how to reduce pesticide hazards in their supply chains. Another notable change is the inclusion of the controversial herbicide paraquat since its ban in the EU, following the successful court case by Sweden and other Scandinavian governments against its earlier approval by the EC. A further pesticide that has gained notoriety is the organochlorine chlordecone. While this old pesticide was never approved at EU level, or indeed used by most Member States, France made heavy use of it in its Caribbean territories of Martinique and Guadeloupe into the 1990s, leading to high levels of contamination and health impacts2. There has been one active ingredient removed from the list since it has regained EU approval: the herbicide diuron. Diuron features on the PAN HHP list for carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting hazards. Its use for weed control in urban areas and agricultural settings has been shown to lead to serious contamination of water sources, particularly in run-off from hard surfaces. 1. PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides, 2009. Via PAN Germany website h t t p : / / w w w. p a n - g e r m a ny. o r g / d ow n l o a d / PAN_HHP-List_090116.pdf 2. Pesticide threat looms over French West Indies. Martinique and Guadeloupe affected by chlordecone. P Benkimoum and E Nedelkovsi, Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 13 July 2010
The research for this fact sheet was done by Ross Pimentel under an eight week internship. PAN UK welcomes further short term, well qualified interns from the UK or abroad. Please contact Ruth Beckmann, Information Officer, if you are interested.
Substance
Use Limitation
Reasons for Decision
1,2-dibromoethane** (ethylene dibromide)
Ban
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health as well as unreasonable adverse influence on the environment.
1,2-dichloroethane** (ethylene dichloride)
Ban
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health as well as unreasonable adverse influence on the environment.
1,3-dichloropropene
Banned for agricultural use
Possible risk of groundwater contamination, for birds, mammals, aquatic organisms and other non-target organisms.
1,3-dichloropropene (CIS)(1Z)- Ban 1,3-dichloroprop-1-ene
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health and to adversely influence the environment and ozone layer.
2,4,5-T and its salts and esters**
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
2-Naphthyloxyacetic acid
Banned for agricultural use
Fulfills the criteria for clear indications of harmful effects on human or animal health or on groundwater.
2-aminobutane
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 19
Factsheet
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Substance
Use limitation
Reasons for decision
Acephate*
Ban
Potentially harmful effects on human and non-target organism health.
Acifluorfen
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Alachlor*
Banned for agricultural use
Clear indications of harmful effects on groundwater, and might give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health.
Aldicarb*
Severely restricted for agricultural use, banned for other uses
Possible risk to the environment, and clear indications of harmful effects on small birds.
Aldrin**
Ban and export ban
Ametryn
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Amitraz*
Ban
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Anthraquinone*
Ban
May be harmful to human health.
Arsenic compounds
Severely restricted for non-ag use including as a biocide
Classified as carcinogen.
Atrazine*
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to contaminate groundwater and may give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Azinphos-ethyl
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Azinphos-methyl*
Banned for agricultural use
Might give rise to harmful effects on non-target organisms.
Benfuracarb
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Bensultap
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Binapacryl**
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health.
Butralin*
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to cause harmful effects on human health and in particular on operators.
Cadusafos
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Calciferol
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Captafol**
Ban
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health.
Carbaryl*
Ban
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health. Potentially carcinogenic.
Carbofuran
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Carbosulfan
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Cartap
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Chinomethionate
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Chlordane**
Ban and export ban
Chlordecone
Severely restricted for nonagricultural uses including as a biocide
Chlordimeform**
Ban
Chlorfenapyr*
Banned for agricultural use Severely restricted for other uses
Chlorfenvinphos
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Chlormephos
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Chlorobenzilate**
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Chlozolinate*
Ban
Cholecalciferol
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Coumafuryl
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Crimidine
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
19
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 20
Factsheet
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Substance
Use limitation
Reasons for decision
Cyanazine
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Cyhalothrine
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
DDT**
Ban and export ban
DNOC and its salts (such as ammonium salt, potassium salt and sodium salt)**
Ban
Diazinon*
Banned for agricultural use, Severely restricted for other uses
Likely to cause harmful health effects on humans, and in particular on operators.
Dichlorvos*
Banned for agricultural use, Severely restricted as a pesticide
Likely to cause harmful health effects on humans, and in particular on operators.
Dicofol*
Ban
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health and have a highly unfavorable influence on the environment.
Dicofol containing <78% p,p` Ban -dicofol or >1g/kg of DDT and DDT related compounds*
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health and have a highly unfavorable influence on the environment.
Dieldrin**
Ban and export ban
Dimethenamid*
Banned for agricultural use
Could result in groundwater contamination.
Diniconazole-M*
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to cause harmful health effects on humans, and in particular on operators.
Dinobuton
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Dinoseb, its acetate and dinoseb salts**
Ban
Likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health as well as unreasonable adverse influence on the environment.
Dinoterb*
Ban
Dustable powder formulations Ban containing a combination of: benomyl at or above 7 %, carbofuran at or above 10 % and thiram at or above 15 %**
20
Endosulfan*
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment. The substance is also volatile.
Endrin
Ban and export ban
Ethion
Ban
Ethylene oxide (oxirane)**
Banned for agricultural use
Fenarimol*
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Fenitrothion*
Banned for agricultural use, Severely restricted for other uses
Likely to cause harmful effects on human health, particularly on operators.
Fenpropathrin
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Fenthion*
Severe restriction
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Fentin acetate*
Ban
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Fentin hydroxide*
Ban
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Fenvalerate
Banned for agricultural use
Ferbam
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Fluoroacetamide**
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Flurenol
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 21
Factsheet
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Substance
Use limitation
Reasons for decision
Flurprimidol*
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to cause harmful effects on the operator. No data was provided on the impurity profile of batches used in toxicological studies.
Furathiocarb
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
HCH (mixed isomers)**
Banned for agricultural use, Severely restricted for other uses including as a biocides
Haloxyfop-P-methyl ester Banned for agricultural use (Haloxyfop-R CAS:95977-29-0)
Possibility that it will enter into drinking water.
Heptachlor**
Ban and export ban
Hexachlorobenzene**
Ban and export ban
Hexazinone
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Iminoctadine
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Isoxathion
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Lindane (y-HCH)**
Banned for agricultural use, Severely restricted for other uses including as a biocide
Malathion
Banned for agricultural use
Maleic hydrazide, and its salts Banned for agricultural use
Mercury Compounds**
Banned for agricultural use, Severely restricted for other uses including as a biocide
Methamidophos*
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier. Do not comply with certain purity criteria and are likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health as well as a highly unfavorable influence on the environment.
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Methamidophos (Soluble liquid Banned for non-ag uses formulations that exceed including as a biocide 600 g active ingredient/l)**
These formulations are likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Methidathion
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Methomyl
Ban
Methyl-parathion**
Ban
Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Metoxuron
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Mirex
Ban and export ban
Monocrotophos**
Ban
Monolinuron
Banned for agricultural use
Monuron
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Nicotine*
Banned for agricultural use
Likely to cause harmful effects on human health.
Nitrofen*
Ban
Agricultural use particularly as a herbicide, is likely to give rise to harmful effects on human and animal health.
Nonylphenol ethoxylates (C2H4O)nC15H24O*
Ban
Omethoate
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Oxydemeton-methyl*
Banned for agricultural use
Consumer, operator, and bystander exposure is unacceptable.
Paraquat*
Banned for agricultural use
Parathion**
Ban
Likely to cause harmful effects on non-target organism health.
Pebulate
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
21
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 22
Factsheet
22
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Substance
Use limitation
Reasons for decision
Pentachlorophenol, its salts and esters**
Banned for agricultural use Severely restricted for other uses including as a biocide
Dangerous to humans and the environment, and in particular the aquatic environment.
Permethrin
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Phosalone*
Banned for agricultural use
Dangerous to humans and the environment, and in particular the aquatic environment.
Phosphamidon**
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Procymidone*
Banned for agricultural use
Dangerous to humans and the environment, and in particular the aquatic environment.
Propachlor*
Banned for agricultural uses Likely to cause harmful effects on human and animal health and the environment. There is concern about water contamination.
Propanil
Banned for agricultural use
Propham
Banned for agricultural use
Pyrazophos*
Ban
Quintozene*
Ban
Might have harmful effects on human and animal health and the envi ronment.
Scilliroside
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Simazine*
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Strychnine
Banned for agricultural use
Technazene*
Ban
Terbufos
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Thallium sulphate
Banned for agricultural use
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Thiocyclam
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Thiodicarb*
Banned for agricultural use
Increased risk of acute dietary risk for toddlers resulting from table grapes and for adults from wine. Potential risk for water pollution.
Tolylfluanid*
Banned for agricultural use, Might cause harmful effects on human and animal health, severely restricted as a particularly towards aquatic life. pesticide
Toxaphene**
Ban and export ban
Triazophos
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Tributyltin compounds**
Ban for other uses including as a biocide
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Trichlorfon*
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Tricyclazole
Banned for agricultural use
Might cause harmful effects on human health. Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Tridemorph
Ban
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
Trifluralin
Banned for agricultural use
Harmful to aquatic life and is not readily biodegradable. It is also highly volatile.
Triorganostannic compounds other than tributyltin compounds*
Severe restriction
Vamidothion
Ban
Vinclozolin*
Banned for agricultural use
Zineb
Banned for agricultural use
Might cause harmful effects on human health and the environment.
Insufficient data sent in by the notifier. Insufficient data sent in by the notifier.
active ingredients in bold are new additions since tPAN Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2008 factsheet * EU decision qualifying for PIC notification ** PIC EU websites accessed in July 2010 to compile this table are: EU pesticide authorisation directive 91/414 via http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/dir91-414eec_en.htm European Database Export Import of Dangerous Chemicals (EDEXIM) via http://edexim.jrc.it/index.php?id_left=0
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 23
Book reviews Organics – the history of a movement Written by Matthew Reed – researcher at the University of Gloucester – this book explores the history of the organic food and farming movement. It is an academic text founded in sociology and as a result is quite jargon heavy, but for all of his references to ‘cognitive frames’, or ‘discourses’, Reed has managed to produce a readable and engaging book. With a focus on the English speaking world, Reed tracks the growth of the organic movement from its origins in the UK in the early 20th Century to its global reach today and argues that it has gone through four distinct phases. During its first phase, between the two world wars, he characterises it as a network of individuals who were developing the ideas and philosophies that would come to underpin the movement. Two groups were key: scientists and physicians who were interested in the relationships between food and health; and members of the far right who emphasised the links between land, culture and race. Organic agriculture controlled by landed aristocracy was part of their vision for a new political order. Many in the contemporary organic movement will find its early links with right wing politics uncomfortable. Today, organic food is associated with social justice and holds that sustainability can only be achieved through greater equality. But back then, many in the movement felt that ‘social inequality between people was part of the natural order’. While this ideology may have been abandoned, Reed insists that many key themes developed at this time – like the importance of agriculture in rural life – remain at the heart of the movement today. After the start of the second world war, the movement entered its second phase and cast much of its political baggage aside. This phase saw the movement reinvigorated and its organisational structures – like the Soil Association – established. Much of the credit for this transformation goes to the towering figure of Eve Balfour who through her book The Living Soil set out the importance of healthy soils and organic husbandry. Balfour also emphasised scientific research and the need to support farm trials to establish the benefits of organic farming. Towards the end of this phase, during the 1960s and 1970s, the movement took a trip through counterculture. The radical politics of the sixties saw the rapid development of environmental thought, but Reed argues strongly that the organic movement was central to the development of the broader environmental movement, not the other way around. He identifies three pivotal figures – Barry Commoner, Edward Goldsmith and Fritz Schumacher – great green thinkers in their own rights, who shaped the movement at this time. These three men provided philosophical weight, but also brought the ideas to a much wider public. They brought the
Pesticides News 89
movement up-to-date and tackled contemporary concerns like pollution and limits to growth. The sixties and seventies brought activism to the movement. Green consumerism and harnessing the power of capitalism are the themes of the third phase which began in the late seventies, says Reed. He suggests that during this period the movement became part of the global food system through a mix of campaigning, lobbying and entrepreneurialism. Seen through this lens, organic products are part of a broader strategy to drive the movement forward. However, this has required the movement to get into bed with some actors – like transnational food retailers – that some find unpalatable. Its rapid growth and profit focus have brought conflicts and caused some to question the goals of the movement, says Reed. He explores the tensions between the traditional emphasis on research and promoting organic produce and ends up concluding that by combining campaigning and marketing, this phase has allowed the movement to develop more scientific evidence for organic systems than the earlier emphasis on pure research. Either way, it cannot be doubted that this strategy has successfully established organic agriculture as a viable alternative, and the book’s exploration of the history of organic certification and the development of legislation around it is a must read for any budding organic entrepreneur. The fourth phase is forming now, says Reed, and the dominant theme is peak food, or how to feed a growing population and address the challenge of climate change. Whether we are entering a new and distinct phase is questionable. It is always easier to identify turning points with hindsight, but Reed insists that the current organic movement is fundamentally different now. There is a realisation that ethical consumerism will not be the game changer it was thought to be. The economic downturn has seen organic sales decline. What is more, Reed argues that the focus on marketing has left the movement ill equipped to address the issues of social justice. This is a rash statement as many parts of the movement have campaigned long and hard on the social benefits of organic production. Reed argues that the movement has stalled and will need to reinvent itself and find a politics to regroup around. The movement has to decide whether its future is a socially neutral technical system; a commodity or brand; or whether it is about equity and sees itself as a socio-political alternative to the dominant farming and trading systems. The book provides good introduction to the movement and identifies how it remains relevant today. It is readable but feels like a collection of essays on related topics rather than a coherent flowing account of the movement. Rebels for the Soil: The rise of the global organic food and farming movement, Matthew Reed, 2010, Earthscan, ISBN 978-1-84407-597-3, 224pp, £49.99 hardback.
September 2010
Best practice for apple and pear production As part of its regular revision of technical guidelines, the European section of the International Organisation for Biological Control (IOBC) has published an updated version of its guidance document for apples and pears. Some revisions are to bring IOBC integrated production (IP) guidelines up-todate with newer pesticide handling requirements under GlobalGAP standards. As usual, the guidelines serve as a framework for setting specific regional or national standards. IOBC’s definition of Integrated Fruit Production is: ‘the economical production of high quality fruit, giving priority to ecologically safer methods, minimising the undesirable side effects and use of agrochemicals, to enhance the safeguards to the environment and human health’. The guidance covers: Conserving the orchard environment (biodiversity and ecological infrastructures); Site selection and preparation; Alleyways and weed-free strips; Rootstocks, cultivars, planting and training systems; Tree nutrition; Irrigation; Integrated Plant Protection; Harvest; Postharvest management and storage. Pest prevention measures emphasise planting field margins to attract predators of orchard pests. Chemical soil sterilisation is prohibited and herbicide use must be minimised, with no residual herbicides permitted. IP farmers must select varieties which offer good economic prospects with minimal use of agrochemicals: for example, Golden Delicious variety must not be planted on sites prone to russeting. Hand thinning of fruitlets is preferred to chemical agents and no synthetic plant growth regulators are permitted. For pest management interventions, biological and physical methods are preferred, such as granulovirus biopesticide for codling moth, Bt biopesticide for noctuid caterpillars, and pheromone mating disruption for codling and other moths. IOBC does not permit use of any pyrethroid or organochlorine insecticides or acaricides, any acaricides toxic to important predatory mites, nor any toxic, water polluting or very persistent herbicides (such as diquat). There are restrictions on synthetic benzimidazole and dithiocarbamate and sulphur fungicides. Growers must adhere to IOBC’s ‘traffic light’ pesticide lists and update themselves with IOBC’s data on side-effects of pesticides on non-target organisms. For post-harvest control of rots, non-chemical treatments must be used if available and use of synthetic agents is not allowed for superficial skin disorders. Synthetic fungicides may only be applied on cultivars which are moderately or highly susceptible to storage rots and which are intended for long-term storage. IP growers must also take cultural methods to minimise rot fungi spread. Guidelines for Integrated Production of Pome Fruits. IOBC Technical Guideline III, 4th edition, 2008. Eds. C Malavolta and J Cross, International Organisation for Biological Control, IOBC wprs Bulletin 47, 2009.
23
PN89b&w:Pesticides News Template.qxd
22/09/2010
15:25
Page 24
Pesticide Action Network UK PAN UK – Making a difference Pesticide Action Network UK works to eliminate the dangers of toxic pesticides, our exposure to them, and their presence in the environment where we live and work. Nationally and globally we promote safer alternatives, the production of healthy food and sustainable farming. Pesticide Action Network UK is an independent, non-profit organisation. We work around the world with like-minded groups and individuals concerned with health, environment and development to: Eliminate the hazards of pesticides Reduce dependence on pesticides and prevent unnecessary expansion of use ● Increase the sustainable and ecological alternatives to chemical pest control ● ●
Please send me the Pesticide Action Network UK Annual Review 2008. Please send a full publications list. You can subscribe to Pesticides News, donate to PAN UK and buy our publications at www.pan-uk.org
Pesticides News 89
September 2010
Recent publications Organic cotton systems reduce poverty and food insecurity for African farm families, 2010, available at www.pan-uk.org/ foodAfrica /index.html African partner leaflets 2010, about PAN’s partners in Africa, OBEPAB, Enda Pronat and the Yakaar Niani Wulli Organic Farmers Federation. available at www.pan-uk.org/ foodAfrica /index.html My Sustainable T-shirt, 2010, an updated version of PAN UK’s definitive guide to organic cotton and ecolabelling, available at www.wearorganic.org Hibiscus, cashew and cotton - what’s the
common thread? 2009, describes crops grown by African organic cotton farmers and how to support farmers’ livelihoods, available at www.pan-uk.org/ foodAfrica/index.html Moral Fibre, 2009, a guide to sustainable fashion for fashion students, available at www.WearOrganic.org List of Lists, 2009 our popular briefing collating hazard lists for pesticides, available at www.pan-uk.org/ Publications/publist/ listoflists2009.pdf PEX Information Sheets, for those affected by pesticide exposure, available at www.pan-uk.org/Projects/ Exposure/
Periodicals Pesticides News – the most comprehensive quarterly source of information on pesticide problems and alternative developments. Extensive articles, resources, book reviews and news on UK, European and global issues. Current Research Monitor – an invaluable resource for researchers. This lists up-todate scientific and specialist research covering the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. Includes abstracts, research lists and conference details. PEX Newsletter – quarterly information and news sheet for people whose health has been affected by pesticides or who are concerned about the health effects of pesticides.
Subscription details £160 – Full corporate subscribers (commercial organisations and government departments) can receive up to four copies of Pesticides News and Current Research Monitor. Other benefits include all new PAN UK publications and books free of charge. £90 – Basic corporate subscribers receive one copy of Pesticides News and Current Research Monitor. £50 – Non-commercial subscribers (non-governmental/nonprofit/academic organisations) are entitled to Pesticides News, Current Research Monitor, and the PEX Newsletter. £25 – Individual subscribers are entitled to Pesticides News, Current Research Monitor, and the PEX Newsletter. Signed
Date
Name Organisation
Country
24
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
Cheque enclosed ❑ Debit/credit card ❑
Address Postcode
Full Corporate (£160) ❑ Pesticides News ❑ Current Research Monitor (No. of copies: 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑) Basic Corporate (£90) ❑ Pesticides News ❑ Current Research Monitor Non-Commercial (£50) Pesticides News ❑ CRM ❑ PEX ❑ Individual (£25) Pesticides News ❑ CRM ❑ PEX ❑ Publications (tick relevant boxes above) Donation ❑ I wish to receive email updates (free) TOTAL
Subscriptions to PAN UK Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT, UK Tel 020 7065 0905, Fax 020 7065 0907 International Tel +44 20 70650905 +44 20 7065 0907 Email admin@pan-uk.org, www.pan-uk.org
Expiry Security code
Issue No (Switch only) (this is the three digit number on the back of you card)
You can also subscribe by paying direct into our bank account: Pesticide Action Network UK A/c no. 6501 0734 00, The Cooperative Bank, City Branch, (No. 08-02-28) 80 Cornhill, London EC3V 3NJ, UK.