Pesticides News The journal of Pesticide Action Network UK An international perspective on the health and environmental effects of pesticides
No.105 November 2016
Conducting field surveys in IPM food spray test plots, Benin (Photo: PAN UK)
In this edition • • • • •
EDCs - more delays in the EU over endocrine disrupting chemicals PAN-UK contributes experience and expertise at the PIC CRC meeting Pesticide-free towns campaign launches toolkit during workshop for UK councillors and council officers New guide to help cotton farmers control pests with beneficial insects News From The Network - PAN International launches glyphosate monograph and other news
No.105 November 2016
More delays in the EU over endocrine disrupting chemicals The European Commission’s draft proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has been widely criticised as being too weak. In this article, environmental toxicologists Dr Angeliki Lysimachou of PAN Europe, and Dr Rina Guadagnini of PAN UK, explain why the issue is so important.
In June, the European Commission, at long last, produced a set of draft criteria for the identification of EDCs, but it was so weak that it would only capture a tiny number – if any – of the pesticides on the market that have endocrine disrupting properties. This first proposal was effectively deadlocked as Member States voted against key elements in the Commission’s Standing Committee hearings. The European Commission is currently preparing an amended version of the proposal, which will be presented to the Member States at the next Standing Committee on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals are found in pesticides, childrens products, building 18th of November. PAN sources and electrical materials and many household items. tell us that the amended proposal is still too weak and Member States may have to request further had already been prepared in 2013 of the process set out in the PPPR amendments before it gets by the Environment Directorate of for establishing the criteria In fact, approved. the Commission (DG ENVI), but the mandate of the European had not been supported by the Commission was solely to How did we get here? other Directorates and had establish criteria to protect human In December 2015, the European received strong criticism from health and the environment against Court of Justice ruled that the industry. With the new the threat of endocrine disrupting European Commission was in Commission, the internal chemicals. However, the breach of the law for failing to responsibility for EDC criteria Commission should consider the produce a set of scientific criteria shifted from DG ENVI to the associated economic effects, for endocrine disrupting properties Directorate for Health and which is a key issue because, (of biocidal products) by Consumers (DG SANTE). It was according to the Endocrine December 2013 as required by the also decided that a large-scale Society – the global body Plant Protection Product impact assessment should be representing endocrinologists – Regulation (PPPR) in 2009, and conducted before any further steps endocrine related diseases from the Biocidal Products Regulation were taken. This study aimed to exposure to EDCs cost Europe (BPR) in 2012. The lawsuit was examine the ecological, economic 157 billion Euros Annually. brought by Sweden – supported by and societal impacts of various Many members of the European the European Council, the policy options. Parliament were very critical of European Parliament and the One effect of this impact the continued delay. They governments of Denmark, France assessment was to further demanded that the Commission and the Netherlands. The ruling postpone the new criteria until take immediate action and apply forced the Commission into summer 2016. The impact the criteria that were established in action. assessment was not a requirement 2013. Following the pressure from In fact, a set of scientific criteria www.pan-uk.org
Pesticides News the Parliament and the decision of the European Court of Justice, the European Commission finally published the criteria, together with the results of the impact assessment, on the 15th of June 2016. MEPs, NGOs and medical professionals have roundly condemned the proposal as too weak. According to the Endocrine Society the criteria will hardly capture any EDCs and will fail to protect human health and the environment from exposure to these chemicals. The heart of the problem is that
No.105 November 2016
chemical must demonstrate “known adverse effects relevant to humans” before it can be classed as an EDC. This is a much more demanding requirement than used to assess other hazardous properties. For example, a chemical can be considered a carcinogen if its effects are “known or presumed”. This distinction is important because most of the evidence on adverse effects come from animal experiments and in mammalian animal models that we can presume are also relevant for humans. Having to demonstrate “known” human harm from EDCs PAN Europe's specific criticisms of the current proposal means that we would have to wait 1. An unreasonably high and unclear burden of proof is now required to until real-life experience and epidemiological studies show identify a substance as an EDC. Both the adverse effect in humans or harm to populations before a non-target organisms and the endocrine mode of action (MoA) that pesticide can be classed as an gives rise to the adverse effect must now be known. EDC. 2. This is not in line with the PPPR that aims to protect humans, and the But as well as introducing such a environment from the adverse effects caused by EDCs regardless their demanding requirement, the MoA and is also not in line with endocrine research that shows that the Commission also proposed further MoA even for some very documented EDCs takes years to reveal watering down of the pesticide legislation by removing the 3. The change in the text (deleting the word “may” from “may cause wording “endocrine disrupting adverse effects”), to regulate only known EDCs is not in line with the properties that may cause adverse aim of PPPR. effect in humans“, and changing a 4. The criteria do not define what “known to cause an adverse effect safety standard of ‘negligible relevant to humans” or for non-target organisms “relevant at the exposure’ into ‘negligible risk’. population level” means leaving room for misinterpretation. This latter change, in effect marks the abandoning of the current 5. The criteria do not reflect the WHO definition that highlights that hazard-based approach to known or presumed and potential endocrine disruptors are of concern pesticide regulation and a return to and that EDCs cause a change in endocrine function rather than an the, much weaker, risk-based endocrine MoA. approach. The inevitable result of 6. The criteria lack categories compared to other hazard classes of PPPR these changes would be for and CLP, where known, presumed and suspected (category 1A, 1B and European citizens to remain 2 respectively) mutagenic, carcinogenic and toxic to reproduction exposed to pesticides with chemicals are recognised for regulatory purposes. endocrine disrupting properties. PAN Europe, in its response to the 7. The criteria don’t follow the Precautionary Principle that requires proposed criteria, concluded that action to be taken when there is some doubt. the Commission had exceeded its 8. The criteria give industry protocols a priority and exclude all the mandate and misinterpreted the endocrine disrupting research that has not yet been established in PPPR. It pointed out that the international protocols. PPPR is a mutual agreement www.pan-uk.org
the Commission has set an unrealistically high burden of proof to demonstrate harm from EDCs. This marks a worrying departure away from the accepted approach to setting risk levels and flies in the face of the precautionary principle, which holds that if there is evidence that a chemical may cause harm to humans and the environment but there is a lack of scientific consensus, then this chemical must be banned from pesticide products. The Commission’s proposal turns this on its head by requiring that a
Pesticides News between the European Parliament, the European Council and the Commission that recognises that pesticides “may involve risks and hazards for humans, animals and the environment” and aims to ensure “a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment”.
Our great concern is whether the Member States will insist on having scientific and hazard-based criteria. If the Commission makes minor changes to the proposal, but enough to convince most Member States to vote in favour, then European Citizens will have lost a battle to protect themselves, their children and their environment It highlighted that according to the from these dangerous chemicals. Regulation, “particular attention should be paid to the protection of What is the problem with vulnerable groups of the EDCs? population, including pregnant The endocrine system is a network women, infants and children”. of glands that produce chemical Something that is particularly messengers (hormones), which relevant for EDCs, which have the circulate across the body through capacity to alter the endocrine the bloodstream and transfer system of young organisms and information to specific organs to lead to permanent adverse effects regulate their function. and diseases. Metabolism, growth and development, tissue function, The proposal has struggled to sexual function, reproduction, proceed through the EU legal sleep, and mood are all tuned by process. The Commission has so hormones. The continuous and far been unable to win around the coordinated hormonal interactions European Parliament or Member have the key role of maintaining States. In November, PAN Europe our bodies in equilibrium. conducted an analysis of the Endocrine disrupting chemicals voting in standing Committee (EDCs) are substances present in meetings which shows that more the environment (air, soil, water than half of Member State votes supply and biota), food sources, (53%) oppose the requirement for personal care products, household EDC’s to demonstrate known materials and manufactured adverse effects, with just 23% of products that may interfere with votes in favour. Similarly, 45% the normal function of your have voted against the idea to drop body’s endocrine system. EDCs presumed endocrine disruptors, can disrupt the endocrine system with just 3% voting in favour. by mimicking, blocking or Opinion over the fundamental interfering with the action of shift away from hazard, to risknatural hormones. These based regulation is more evenly “hormone mimics/blockers” can balanced with 25% of votes trick the hormone system by supporting the proposal and 19% sending equivocal hormone opposing so far. signals, which can trigger The Commission has now abnormal processes in the body. amended its proposal aiming to We can find EDCs in every day secure a qualified majority of life. Some examples: Member States voting in favour. Pesticides: DDT (banned but its www.pan-uk.org
No.105 November 2016
metabolites are still present in the environment), Chlorpyrifos, Atrazine (banned in EU), 2,4-D, Glyphosate, Malathion Children’s Products: Lead, Phthalates, Cadmium Industrial Solvents or Lubricants and Their Byproducts: PCBs and Dioxins Plastics and Food/Storage Materials: BPA, Phthalates, Phenol Electronics and Building Materials: Brominated Flame Retardants, PCBs Personal Care Products/Medical Tubing: Phthalates, Parabens, UV Filters Anti-Bacterials: Triclosan Textiles/Clothing: Perfluorochemicals Very small amounts of EDCs are capable of interfering with or "disrupting" the natural action of hormones, causing them to pass the wrong "messages" to specific organs and resulting in alterations in morphology, physiology, growth, reproduction, development and behaviour. When the wrong hormonal signals are sent during the early-life stages of development, a whole cascade of events can be triggered and the "wrong programming" is set, which will inevitably result in disease and dysfunction later in life. This makes unborn babies (exposed through their mothers), infants and children, the most vulnerable to EDC exposure. Such changes have been linked to endocrine-related disorders such as reproductive failure, reproductive organ deformities and cancer, metabolic disorders (e.g. obesity and diabetes in mammals), immune dysfunction and cognitive impairment, diminished fertility and altered sex 4
Pesticides News differentiation (see box) among other effects. Endocrine disrupting chemicals are associated with an increase in hormone-related cancers, and with a decrease in sperm quality in
No.105 November 2016
Europe. These days, more than a quarter of the men in Northern Europe suffer from fertility problems, and cases of breast cancer in the Netherlands have increased by 30 percent since
1989. Other hormone-related disorders, such as cognitive deficit, autism and ADHD, have also been linked to early life exposure to these chemicals.
BOX: SEXUAL HORMONES AND ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION Androgens are hormones that stimulate or control the development and maintenance of male characteristics in vertebrates. These hormones in the embryo life induce the differentiation of penis, scrotum and prostate and lead the development of male secondary sex characteristics. Oestrogen is the sex hormone responsible for development and regulation of the female reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics. The precursor of oestrogens is an androgen called androstenedione. Progesterone is a female sex hormone involved in the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and embryogenesis of humans and other species. Disrupting the balance of these hormones can have heavy effects like impaired sexual development, decreased sperm count and increased abnormal sperm. Endocrine disruption can involve a range of developmental impacts including reproduction, pregnancy, development, behaviour, and hormone-related diseases such as breast and prostate cancer. Several pesticides are known to be EDC and a number of studies have demonstrated that both glyphosate and the Roundup formulation, the most used herbicides around the world including UK, do disrupt both oestrogens and androgens.
References (i) Draft regulation: Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protection products http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/betterregulation/initiatives/ ares20163071834_en (ii) Estimated Costs of EndocrineDisrupting Chemical Exposure Exceed â‚Ź150 Billion Annually in EU https://www.endocrine.org/newsroom/press-release-archives/2015/ estimated-costs-of-endocrinedisrupting-chemical-exposureexceed-150-billion-annually-in-eu (iii) Criteria for identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals: An Endocrine Society perspective. https://www.endocrine.org/~/media/ endosociety/files/advocacy-and-
outreach/society-letters/endocrinesociety-response-to-ec-criteriaconsultation.pdf?la=en (iv) PAN Europeâ€™s position on the EDCs roadmap http://www.pan-europe.info/sites/paneurope.info/files/public/resources/ briefings/2014-position-edcsroadmap.pdf (v) Bergman A, Heindel JJ, Jobling S, Kidd KA, Zoeller RT, editors. State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2013
commissions-criteria-proposalendocrine-disruption (vii) A list of pesticides and biocides that are EDCs is given in PAN Europe report on Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides http://www.pan-europe.info/sites/paneurope.info/files/public/resources/ reports/pan-report-impact-endocrinecriteria-2016.pdf Contacts
Dr Angeliki Lysimachou, PAN Europe firstname.lastname@example.org
(vi) EU member states block Dr Rina Guadagnini, PAN UK Commission's criteria proposal for endocrine disruption http://www.pan- email@example.com europe.info/press-releases/2016/11/ eu-member-states-block-
No.105 November 2016
PAN-UK contributes experience and expertise at the PIC CRC meeting This September, two members of the PAN-UK team, Dr. Stephanie Williamson (staff scientist) and Dr. Rina Guadagnini (toxicologist) shared information from PAN UK’s work on highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) with the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention. PAN UK’s Contributions Drawing on experience from two on-going projects in Costa Rica and six former Soviet Union countries, PAN UK’s scientists presented information on the conditions of use of two of the pesticides under discussion at the CRC – carbofuran and carbosulfan.
CRC delegates are often concerned about the availability of alternative methods of pest control and how farmers will manage if specific pesticides are withdrawn. The PAN UK team therefore took time to share information on IPM approaches and alternative control methods for Colorado beetle in potato (which is the pest that carbosulfan is most commonly used against in Georgia); for tackling whitefly on tomato and nematodes on pineapple in Central America.
Parties in May 2017.
Further, a Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulation (SHPF) of carbofuran suspension concentrate at or above 330g per litre was recognised as meeting the Rotterdam criteria. It was notified by Colombia as being responsible for a significant number of documented poisoning incidents. They outlined the reasons behind An assessment of 699 Costa Rica’s recent decision to occupational exposure poisoning ban carbofuran (all uses of which cases reported through the terminate at the end of 2016) and Colombian National System for shared the preliminary results Public Health Surveillance, in from a joint PAN UK and The Insecticides 2011, identified carbofuran as, far Rotterdam Convention study in Carbofuran and carbosulfan were and away, the most commonly Georgia that has identified both recommended for addition to reported active ingredient. In carbosulfan as the most frequently the PIC list in 2015 by CRC 2013, follow up surveys of 100 applied pesticide by workers on members. This meeting finalised people affected by occupational large farms. The project results the decision guidance document poisonings with carbofuran also reported on a serious for both pesticides ready for revealed that 95% involved poisoning incident from the national delegates to vote on at the products formulated as a insecticide. next Rotterdam Conference of the suspension concentrate containing 330g carbofuran per litre. The Colombian authorities then notified the Rotterdam Secretariat with the details of this health surveillance study and their proposal for its inclusion as a possible Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulation under the Convention. This case is a good example of how the Rotterdam Convention can help to identify particularly problematic products causing ill health when used under all too common conditions of limited education and poor handling practices. Dr. Rina Guadagnini (toxicologist PAN UK) presenting to the Chemical Review Commitee of the Roterdam Covention in Rome
The Herbicide Unfortunately, little progress was 6
Pesticides News made on atrazine, notified as having been banned in the European Union and in seven West African countries, for its hazards to health and the potential risks to the environment (atrazine can often end up in groundwater at levels above European permitted levels). CRC members could not reach agreement on whether the atrazine notifications from both regions meet the Convention criteria. The atrazine notifications will be included on next year’s CRC agenda for further discussion. PAN-UK’s view, and that of many CRC delegates, is that the atrazine notifications do meet all the criteria. However, CRC decisions require consensus, so a minority view against the notification, succeeded in blocking the listing.
No.105 November 2016
Many of the controversial elements to the discussion on atrazine revolved around critiques from the agrochemical industry, and some countries, of the European Union approach to pesticide regulation. In their opinion, the EU’s approach, – especially in relation to the EU Drinking Water Directive – is overly strict. The EU’s use of the precautionary principle to set permitted maximum levels in groundwater sources has resulted in levels being set at well below those in other regions. These critiques confuse and politicise the discussions and imply that developing countries should conduct detailed risk assessments, for which they simply don’t have the resources. The Rotterdam Convention guidance is clear that notifying countries only have to perform a basic, broad evaluation of risks, considering aspects of
hazardous properties of the pesticide, some judgment on likely exposure and particular risk factors relevant for the conditions of use in their country. Going Forward PAN-UK will continue to engage with the process and politics and make useful interventions where appropriate to support the Rotterdam Convention in line with our aim of helping to eliminate HHPs globally. For more information please see the PIC resource materials. http://www.pic.int/ Implementation/ResourceKit/ tabid/1064/language/en-US/ Default.aspx
Contacts Stephanie Williamson, Staff Scientist, PAN UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
PAN UK’s pesticide-free towns campaign launches toolkit during workshop for UK councillors and council officers. On 18th November 2016 tPAN UK is hosting a one-day workshop in Brighton to talk about how councils can work toward making their towns, cities or boroughs pesticide-free. The all-day event is open to local councillors, council officers and others involved in the use of amenity pesticides in towns and cities. The programme will cover a broad range of issues including the 'whys' and 'hows' of going pesticide-free and will include the launch of a new toolkit of resources designed specifically to make the process of going pesticide free as easy as possible. Here, Nick Mole, PAN UK’s UK Policy Officer, shares details of the toolkit and motivations behind the campaign. This workshop is being held as part of PAN UK’s national Pesticide-Free Towns Campaign, which was launched in the summer of 2015 to help communities stop the use of all pesticides in their local areas. There are currently over 20 campaigns across the UK (See Table 1) and more than 150 online petitions calling for towns to go
pesticide-free. PAN UK is being contacted on a regular basis by others wishing to start their own campaigns. In light of this growing movement, the workshop will provide a timely opportunity for councils to come together to share their experiences and discuss ways around some of the obstacles they face on the path to
becoming pesticide-free. In March 2016, Brighton & Hove Council voted unanimously to stop the use of glyphosate and work towards going pesticide-free by April 2017. Hammersmith & Fulham Council has gone pesticide-free and is trialling new, non-chemical methods of weed control. Meanwhile, Glastonbury, in Somerset, has the distinction of
Pesticides News being the first UK town to completely stop the use of glyphosate. Much of the motivation for the growth of the campaign has come from the ongoing public concern about the use of the controversial weed killer glyphosate. A recent Yougov poll found that 56% of UK citizens want to see a ban on glyphosate (2). In 2015, glyphosate was classed as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer; a body of the WHO. The IARC classification sparked a heated debate in the EU about whether or not glyphosate should be approved for use when its license came up for review earlier this year. As there was no clear consensus, with many EU Member States wanting to see the herbicide banned, the decision was taken to only approve it for an 18-month period to allow further studies into its toxicity to be conducted.
No.105 November 2016
For a review of the science to date please see PAN International’s recently published Glyphosate Monograph (1). But the PAN UK Pesticide-Free Campaign is not just about glyphosate; we are campaigning for an end to the use of all pesticides in urban areas of the UK. There is simply no need to use pesticides in our towns and cities when viable, sustainable alternatives exist. Around the world, there are more and more examples of towns that have gone pesticide-free successfully(3), (4) and we believe that the UK can follow suit. However, switching to a pesticide-free regime requires thought and preparation. A variety of obstacles often need to be overcome before the switch can be made. Our workshop will examine those obstacles and explore options for addressing them. So whether it is cost; a fear that new systems will not be as
effective; or just a reluctance to change, we will be seeking to allay these concerns and allow delegates to leave feeling that a pesticide-free future is possible. The workshop will see the release of a new resource: a “toolkit” for councils with practical advice and guidance on how to go pesticidefree. The toolkit contains information on all the aspects of going pesticide-free and sets out the steps to follow to work towards that goal. It aims to provide options and approaches that can be tailored to local situations and also answer questions about how to overcome the many obstacles that might get in the way of progress. The toolkit covers: the hows and whys of pesticide use by local authorities and the risks their use presents; the benefits of going pesticide-free for human health and the environment; examples of alternative approaches and their effectiveness; as well as sections
Table of Pesticde-Free Towns campaigns throughout the UK, thier progress and current status
Pesticides News on cost, efficacy and how to deal with invasive weed species under a pesticide-free regime. It includes a selection of templates and materials including sample pesticide policies, tips on how to communicate with the public and a draft report to cabinet. The toolkit will be launched at the workshop on 18th November and available to download from the Pesticide-Free pages of the PANUK website(5).
No.105 November 2016 References (1) The Glyphosate Monograph http://www.pan-uk.org/ attachments/545_Glyphosate %20Monograph%20Complete.pdf (2) Yougov Poll on Glyphosate Ban https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2016/apr/11/two-thirdsof-europeans-support-ban-onglyphosate-says-yougov-poll (3) Global pesticde-free zone map http:// www.momsacrosstheworld.com/ pesticide-free-map
(4) Glyphosate in the EU http://weedingtech.com/wp-content/ uploads/A-picture-of-Glyphosate-inthe-EU-infographic-02.06.16.pdf (5) PAN UK Pesticde-Free Pages http://www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-freetowns-and-cities/pesticide-freetowns-and-cities Contacts Nick Mole, Policy Officer, PANNick@pan-uk.org
New guide to help cotton farmers control pests with beneficial insects PAN UK has produced a new training manual on how to use food sprays and beneficial insects to reduce reliance on pesticides and improve profitability of smallholder cotton systems. Ten years ago, PAN UK began working with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) expert, Robert Mensah of the Australian Cotton Research Institute, to develop an
available materials – that enhances populations of beneficial insects in cotton fields. Building on his pioneering work in Australia, and working closely
Food spray method trial plots in Benin.
alternative pest control tool for African smallholder cotton farmers. The result was a yeast and sugar-based food spray – made using cheap and locally www.pan-uk.org
with PAN UK’s local partner OBEPAB, Robert set up field trials and experiments in farmers’ fields in Benin to develop a product that not only worked, but
that farmers were comfortable using. The results were impressive, with Beninese farmers trained in the food spray technique achieving higher yields and incomes. Between 2013 and 2016, the food spray technique was incorporated into PAN Ethiopia’s IPM training programme for smallholder cotton farmers in the Southern Ethiopian Rift Valley. Every step of the process was recorded to capture key lessons and understand how to integrate the approach into farmer training programmes. These records have resulted in the creation of ‘The Food Spray Manual’, a comprehensive guide providing practical advice on how to use food spray products in organic and IPM programmes. Aimed at extension agents and pest management professionals, it explains how to utilize natural enemies, mainly predatory insects which prey on pests, to support biological control and IPM on cotton, and how to conserve, sustain and utilize these natural 9
Pesticides News enemies to help control pests. The manual guides the user, step by step, through the process of sourcing materials, trialling the approach and integrating it into training programmes such as Farmer Field Schools. It also provides a clear introduction to the basic IPM elements required for a healthy pest management program. In this way, farmers are then able to work with nature to keep pest levels low and use pesticides only as a last resort – an approach that has been shown, again and again, to be an effective and economic way of controlling pests. The manual explains how the food spray method for cotton comprises three components: a. Adding a few rows of
No.105 November 2016
maize or sorghum to provide a refuge for natural enemies and to serve as a trap crop for key pests b. Attracting predatory insects by applying the food spray c. Protecting natural enemies by avoiding use of synthetic insecticides, especially early in the season Chapters include: instructions on how to prepare and apply the food spray; field monitoring to check on the balance between pests and predators; making the habitat more favourable for natural enemies; case studies from Ethiopia; key lessons learnt; and guidance on how to test the method on small pilot plots. Thousands of cotton farmers are already successfully using the food spray as part of their IPM
systems. However, with the help of this manual, hundreds of thousands more, including sustainable cotton initiatives, project managers, extension agents and field trainers, will be able to access and benefit from the technology. References
The Food Spray Manual – Using the Food Spray Method to Enhance Biological Control in Cotton: A Trainers’ Guide www.pan-uk.org/publicationsresources/the-food-spray-manual Contacts Stephanie Williamson, Staff Scientist, PAN UK. email@example.com
News from the network Pesticide Action Network is global, with groups on all continents (except Antarctica). Here we intend to give updates of what we are up to, with ‘News from the Network’. In this issue we share news of the launch of PAN International's Glyphosate Monograph and participation in the recent Monsanto Tribunal, PAN Europe's activities on SUDP and upcoming campaigns from PANAP. PAN UK also introuces a new funding initiative being launched this month. PAN International In October, PAN International launched its Glyphosate Monograph (1) – a review of the large, and growing, body of research documenting the adverse human health and environmental impacts of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides. The document underscores the need for a global phase-out of the world’s most widely used herbicide, commonly known by its original trade name Roundup, and should serve as a wake up call for regulators, governments and users around the world.
Adverse human impacts detailed in the review include acute poisoning, kidney and liver damage, imbalances in the intestinal microbiome and intestinal functioning, cancer, genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental reduction, neurological damage, and immune system dysfunction. Aggressive public relations and marketing by glyphosate’s developer, Monsanto, has resulted in the widespread perception that the chemical is ‘safe’. Registration processes continue to allow its use without raising
concerns about its safety, even as new data identifying adverse effects emerge. The monograph dispels this myth of ‘safety’ and highlights the urgent need to re-examine the authorization of products containing glyphosate. A full chemical profile is presented, along with the regulatory status of products containing glyphosate in many countries and information on viable alternatives. Glyphosate is included in PAN International’s “List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides” (2) targeted
Pesticides News for global phase-out. The global network is calling for the herbicide to be replaced by agroecological approaches to weed management in diversified cropping systems and non-crop situations. Glyphosate is sprayed on numerous crops and plantations, including about 80%
No.105 November 2016
glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen resulted in widespread concern about its continued use, especially pre-harvest and in public places. As a result, national bans and restrictions, and voluntary action by local authorities and retailers to curb use are rising dramatically.
provides information on a wide variety of non-chemical approaches to weed management in various situations.
PAN International also participated in the Monsanto Peoples Tribunal and Peoples’ Assembly in The Hague this October. The moral tribunal (3) was organized by civil society groups to protest the lack of available legal tools to hold Monsanto accountable for its actions. Specific charges included human rights abuses and ecocide, and the large-scale destruction of the environment. The Tribunal assessed specific allegations of harm made against Monsanto, and considered claims of human health and environmental damage caused by the company throughout its history. The Tribunal also built upon the Dr Angeliki Lysimachou (PAN Europe) and Dr Peter Clausing (PAN Germany) findings of the Permanent present the Glyphosate Monograph on behalf of PAN International. People’s Tribunal (PPT)(4), held five years ago in Bangalore, India of genetically engineered, or GE Environmental impacts detailed in and organized by PAN crops, as well as a pre-harvest the monograph are no less International. desiccant, which results in high concerning, and include adverse Dr. Peter Clausing, from PAN food residues. It is also widely effects on ecosystem functioning, Germany, gave evidence to the used in home gardens and public pollination services, biological tribunal (5) (6) and criticized the places including roadsides, and controls, soil fertility and crop arguments which regulatory semi-natural and natural habitats. health. Residues are widespread agencies (BfR, EFS) used to deny Due to its widespread use in the environment, including in the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. residues are now detected in rainwater, surface and ground Meanwhile, Francois Veillerette, different types of foods, drinking waters, and the marine from PAN Europe spoke as part water, wine and beer; and even in environment. Glyphosate can of the “Poisoning Life” non-food products derived from persist in some soils for up to 3 workshop, speaking about GM cotton. The extent of human years; and there is some evidence “pesticides in people: a exposure is confirmed by the of bioaccumulation. widespread contamination that presence of glyphosate in human threatens the health of present and urine wherever it has been tested, Resistance to glyphosate is now future generations”. Angeliki principally in Europe and North recorded in 35 weed species and Lysimachou, from PAN Europe America; it has also been found in in 27 countries, mostly caused by and Koen Hertoge of PAN Italy, breast milk in the USA. the repeated use of glyphosate on both contributed presentations to GE crops, no-till agriculture, and the workshop on ‘Pesticides and The 2015 classification by the amenity use. The monograph also Toxic Chemicals: How to ban International Agency for contains a useful section on them’. Research on Cancer (IARC) of alternative weed management and www.pan-uk.org
No.105 November 2016
PANAP launches campaign to protect children for pesticides to coincide with international childrens day
Sarojeni V. Rengam, from PAN Asia & the Pacific, highlighted PANAP’s work to tackle the problems of glyphosate use in Asia at a special side event to launch PAN International’s Glyphosate Monograph. , She was joined by Peter Clausing who provided details about the carcinogenicity research and Angeliki Lysimachou who presented on the subject of endocrine disruption.
for the European Commission to ensure serious monitoring and guidance on the implementation of the SUDP and similarly reminded them that it has been almost two years since the deadline for publication. Therefore they are requesting that the Director General for Directorate on Health and Food Safety, Mr Prats Monne, answer on what date and in what form the the report will be published. An answer is yet to be received.
intended for application via the wind. School children are continuously being exposed to the pesticides from adjacent or neighbouring farms via pesticide drift. PANAP is calling for: 1. A 2km buffer zone to protect children from toxic pesticides. This would be a comprehensive zone where pesticides cannot be applied. 2. Assistance for farmers, particularly in these zones, to switch to agroecology so they can replace pesticides with nonchemical methods of management. 3. A ban and phase out of Highly Hazardous Pesticides – especially the “Terrible Twenty”. – Known to cause irreversible damage to the developing brains of children and are linked to attention deficit disorders, autism, birth defects and cancer.
This month will also see the launch of PAN-UK’s new online shop. PAN-UK has teamed up with Teemill who print beautiful and bespoke designs on top quality organic cotton products, such as tee shirts, hoodies and PAN Europe tote bags. The company has an PAN Europe is keeping up the Coming Up award-winning ‘seed to shop’ pressure in Brussels to strengthen This coming Nov 20th to Dec 3rd traceability program for all their the implementation of the – PANAP have an on-going products and an impressive Sustainable Use Directive on campaign to highlight the impacts sustainability approach to Pesticides (SUDP). Alongside of pesticides on children (7). This business. PAN UK is working others it submitted an open letter year, the focus will be on with the design department at expressing concern about the pesticide free buffer zones around Teemill to produce a range of delay to the publication of the schools. Schools are meant to be garments celebrating and report on the implementation of a safe environment for children, highlighting the important issues the EU Directive on the but many school children in Asia we work and campaign on. Please Sustainable Use of Pesticides (both rural and urban areas) are have a browse of our designs and (SUDP) that the European exposed to pesticides while treat yourself or your loved ones Commission was due to submit to learning. One of the main causes to a fantastic new garment this the European Parliament and the of pesticides exposure is due to Christmas and help support Council of Ministers on 26 “pesticide drift – the physical PAN’s work. www.pan-uk.org November 2014. movement of pesticide droplets The letter highlighted the need from the farm source to a site not www.pan-uk.org
Pesticides News References (1)Glyphosate Monograph http://www.pan-uk.org/publicationsresources/glyphosate-monograph (2)PAN International’s “List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides” http://www.pan-germany.org/download/ PAN_HHP_List_150602_F.pdf (3)Information on The Tribunal http://www.monsanto-tribunal.org/ main.php?obj_id=281601562
No.105 November 2016
(4) PPT Indictment and Verdict http://pan-international.org/wp-content/ uploads/ Peoples_Tribunal_on_agrochemical_T NCs_-_indictment_and_verdict.pdf (5)The 31 August 2015 Addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report on Glyphosate- A critical analysis http://www.pan-germany.org/download/ PAN_Germany_Addendum_analysis_09 112015.pdf
(6)PAN Germany: Comments on ECHA's CLH - Report regarding Carcinogenicity http://www.pan-germany.org/download/ PAN_Germany_Comment_on_CLHReport_regarding_Carcinogenicity_160 7.pdf (7)PANNAP campaign to protect children from pesticide drift http://panap.net/childrenandpesticide/? p=1526
Can you help support the vital work of PAN UK? Donate online You can donate to PAN UK online at: www.justgiving.com/pesticideactionnetworkuk
Donate by Standing Order To: Bank/Building Society___________________________ Address_______________________________________________________ Account No___________________________ Sort Code___________________________ Commencing on the__________________ Please pay the sum of _______ and repeat this each month/quarter/year to : PAN UK, Ac/No.6501 0734 00, Sort Code: 08 02 28. Name: ___________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________ Postcode: __________
Donate by Cheque Please make cheques payable to Pesticides Action Network UK and send them to:
Pesticides Action Network UK, The Brighthelm Centre, North Road, Brighton, BN1 1YD Gift aid declaration Please treat as Gift Aid donations all qualifying gifts of money made □ today □ in the future Please tick all boxes you wish to apply. I confirm I have paid or will pay an amount of Income Tax and/or Capital Gains Tax for each tax year (6 April to 5 April) that is at least equal to the amount of tax that all the charities or Community Amateur Sports Clubs that I donate to will reclaim on my gifts for that tax year. I understand that other taxes such as VAT and Council Tax do not qualify. I understand the charity will reclaim 25p of tax on every £1 that I give. Name: ___________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________ Postcode: __________ Signature___________________________ Date ________________ Please notify PAN UK if you: Want to cancel this declaration Change your name or home address No longer pay sufficient tax on your income and/or capital gains. If you pay Income Tax at the higher or additional rate and want to receive the additional tax relief due to you, you must include all your Gift Aid donations on your Self Assessment tax return or ask HM Revenue and Customs to adjust your tax code.
Pesticide Action Network UK, November 2016