Pesticide News - Issue 122

JULY 2020 | ISSUE 122

PESTICIDE NEWS

An international perspective on the health & environmental effects of pesticides

TOXIC TRADE Highly hazardous pesticides could be allowed back into the UK as part of a trade deal with the US

Unlocking the UK food system

Covid-19 impacts on cotton farmers in Ethiopia

Reversing the decline in insects

Toxic Trade

by Josie Cohen, Head of Policy & Campaigns, PAN UK

On 9th June we launched a new report looking at how trade deals threaten to weaken UK pesticide standards.

Toxic Trade – which we co-authored alongside Sustain and trade expert Dr Emily Lydgate – highlights how future trade deals with the US, Australia and India risk allowing more toxic pesticides to appear in larger amounts in UK food.

The report launched to much fanfare! It was featured in a wide range of media including The Telegraph, Independent, Financial Times and on BBC Radio 4.

More than a quarter of a million people watched our video, 5,000 sent emails to their MPs and it has already been mentioned a few times in parliament.

The Government is starting to take notice. They responded formally to the report’s recommendations on the day it launched, but have so far refused to commit to maintaining UK pesticide standards. So a fantastic start but still a long way to go…

UK pesticide standards at risk While far from perfect, UK pesticide standards are some of the strongest in the world in terms of protecting human health and the environment. UK safety limits for the levels of pesticides allowed to appear in food tend to be more stringent than in the majority of other countries outside the EU and, along with its European counterparts, the UK is more likely to ban a pesticide due to concerns over the harms it causes.

As a result of these relatively high standards, future trade deals with nonEU countries with weaker pesticide protections present a considerable risk to the health of UK citizens and the environment. Trade partners attempting to secure access to the UK market for their food exports have listed UK pesticide standards as a key sticking point and made it clear that weakening them is a priority.

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 2

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 3

What are the risks for UK health, environment and agriculture?

If UK trade negotiators bow to their demands then the increased risk to human health could be significant.

American grapes, for example, are allowed to contain 1,000 times the amount of the insecticide propargite than their UK equivalents. Propargite has been linked to cancer and classified as a ‘developmental or reproductive toxin’, meaning that it can negatively affect sexual function and fertility and can cause miscarriages. An Australian apple can contain 30 times the amount of buprofezin – an insect growth regulator classified as a possible human carcinogen – than a UK apple.

As well as finding themselves exposed to higher levels of pesticides in their diets, UK citizens could soon have no choice but to consume food containing pesticides that are currently banned from appearing in UK food. The US allows the use of almost 1.5 times the number of ‘Highly Hazardous Pesticides’ (HHPs) - a concept which originates from the United Nations - as the UK, while Australia allows almost double. The insecticide dimethoate is just one example. This Highly Hazardous Pesticide is banned in the UK due to potential human health risks, but allowed to appear in food produced in the US and Australia. Meanwhile, unlike the UK, the US and India continue to allow food to contain residues of the insecticide chlorpyrifos which has been shown to negatively affect the cognitive development of foetuses and young children.

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 4

Any weakening of UK pesticide standards via trade deals poses risks not just to human health but also to the environment.

Trade partners such as the US and India have a history of challenging the EU’s relatively precautionary approach to which pesticides are allowed for use, and the UK is already coming under similar pressure. Australia, the US and India all allow the use of pesticides which the UK prohibits because they are highly toxic to bees and pollinators, including neonicotinoids which are notorious for driving massive declines in bee populations. They also authorise pesticides known to contaminate groundwater and harm aquatic ecosystems, such as the herbicides atrazine and diuron.

If the UK Government is to achieve its ambition to “leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it” then it must resist efforts by trade partners to push the UK to authorise, or reverse bans on, pesticides which harm wildlife and contaminate water and soil. These risks also pose an economic threat to the future of UK agriculture. If UK food starts to contain higher levels of more toxic pesticides then British farmers will struggle to meet EU standards, thereby losing their primary export destination which currently accounts for 60% of UK agricultural exports. Equally concerning, British farmers could be undercut by a flood of imported crops grown more cheaply on a larger scale and to lower standards. It’s crucial that the Government protects British farming by defending pesticide standards, particularly in trade negotiations with agricultural powerhouses such as the US and Australia.

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 5

What do UK citizens want?

New YouGov polling published alongside this report reveals that the UK public is overwhelmingly opposed to any lowering of UK pesticide standards to meet the demands of other countries’ trade negotiators. 71% of respondents are ‘concerned’ that a trade deal with the US in particular will increase the amount of pesticides in the food they consume, with 43% of people ‘very concerned’.

The same figure (71%) agree that the UK Government must resist pressure in trade negotiations with the US to overturn bans on pesticides, even if this means the “best” trade deal cannot be reached. Meanwhile, 79% are concerned about impacts to health resulting from a lowering of UK pesticide standards with 77% worried about negative impacts on the environment.

What do the negotiating objectives of trade partners tell us?

The key findings of this report present an alarming picture and a closer look at the negotiating objectives of the UK and its future trade partners provides little reassurance. The US’ objectives in particular reveal a wide range of different tactics, all aimed at weakening UK pesticide standards to facilitate US food exports. These include efforts to persuade the UK to adopt weaker standards and abandon the Precautionary Principle – which states that action should be taken to prevent harms to health or environment as long as there are reasonable grounds for concern – as the basis for decisionmaking on pesticides.

In what would arguably undermine the UK’s aim to take back control of its trade policy following EU exit, US

trade negotiators are also pushing for conditions which require the UK to consult with the US Government and private sector (including the powerful US agrochemical industry) before introducing any new regulations or bans, including those designed to better protect health or environment. Another of the US’ stated objectives, if accepted, would prevent the UK from requiring other trade partners to raise their own pesticide standards in case this has a knock-on effect on US exports.

While the US is clear about what it hopes to achieve in a trade agreement, looking to the UK Government’s negotiating objectives reveals a more confusing picture. The UK objectives for a deal with the US include vague, but welcome, statements committing to maintain “…our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”. However, the objectives for the future relationship with the EU strike a very different tone and include some major red flags, suggesting that the UK Government is planning to diverge considerably from its current precautionary approach.

Meanwhile, the EU has been clear from the beginning that it will not allow imports of agricultural produce from the UK unless they meet its standards, including on pesticides. At some point, the UK Government is going to have to make a fundamental choice – does it want to maintain current levels of pesticide protections or bow to the US Government in trade negotiations? If the UK chooses the latter then conceding to similar demands in negotiations with other trade partners will be more likely, because the UK will have already set a precedent by watering down its domestic standards.

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 6

In terms of other trade partners, the UK-India Joint Working Group on Trade is yet to publish negotiating objectives and a deal appears to remain some way off. Similarly, despite talk of a UKAustralia deal being imminent, neither side has published detailed negotiating objectives. The very limited information that is currently available from the Australian Government talks about “…removing barriers to trade in goods” which can be jargon for lowering standards, but it provides no further detail and makes no mention of consumer protection or environmental or human health standards. However, Australia is Party to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership which follows the US’ approach to regulating pesticides, so could try to replicate this in a UK deal.

How does the current UK approach to pesticides differ from that of future trade partners?

There are a range of differences between the way the UK has chosen to govern pesticides and that of future trade partners. Arguably the most fundamental is that the UK currently takes an approach based on the view that some pesticides are intrinsically hazardous and therefore simply too dangerous to be in use. In contrast, nonEU countries follow an approach based on the belief that almost every risk can be mitigated. There are many examples of countries attempting to use the guise of ‘regulatory cooperation’ in trade negotiations to attack what is commonly known as the EU’s ‘hazard-based approach’. Whether the UK will be able to continue to withstand these attacks as it did previously as an EU member remains to be seen.

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 7

The divergence in the approaches of different trade partners also relate to numerous procedural aspects of the pesticide regime. For example, the US allows ‘conditional registration’ which means that pesticides which haven’t been through a full risk assessment are allowed to be used. At one point in 2012, more than 65% of pesticides authorised for use were conditionally registered.

Meanwhile, Australia and India have no set time period for reviewing pesticide approvals, meaning that harmful pesticides can remain in use indefinitely once authorised. In contrast, under the current UK system, pesticides are granted a maximum license of 15 years before having to go through a risk assessment process to be reapproved.

It is crucial that UK trade negotiators understand these differences so they are able to defend aspects of the UK pesticide regime designed to protect human health and environment.

How vulnerable is the UK to the demands of trade partners?

There has been much public uproar about the UK lowering its food standards via a trade deal with the US to accept ‘chlorinated-chicken’. However, the risks related to pesticides are equally significant and concerning. We know that weakening UK pesticide standards is a key priority for many potential trade partners and the UK may be particularly vulnerable due to political pressure to conclude trade agreements in order to recoup lost EU market access. In addition, the process of bringing EU pesticide regulations over into UK law has handed UK Ministers significant discretionary powers to water down standards in order to meet trade

partners’ demands. Meanwhile, there is currently almost no opportunity for parliamentary or public scrutiny of trade agreements, making it much more likely that countries with lower pesticide standards will be able to force down UK pesticide protections.

The UK Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan states that “We must

protect people and the environment from the risks that pesticides can pose”.

There is no doubt that, at this present time, trade deals pose the greatest threat to UK pesticide standards. It’s crucial that the UK Government remains strong in the face of pressure from trade partners and chooses to stand up for British consumers, farmers and wildlife by protecting our hard-won pesticide protections.

The UK is currently in the midst of trade negotiations with the US and planning to start trade talks with other countries soon.

However, there is currently almost no opportunity for MPs or the British public to scrutinise or influence trade deals. This lack of transparency makes it much easier for the Government to trade away our hard-won pesticide protections behind closed doors.

Our best hope is to make sure the Government understands that this is not what the British people want.

Visit our website to view the full report, read our recommendations and to email your MP today and tell them to protect your health and the environment by taking action against Toxic Trade.

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 8

www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade | 9

UNLOCKING THE UK FOOD SYSTEM

by Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy, City University of London

It is trite to say that Covid-19 has been a wake-up call not because it is not true but because the lessons might so easily be ignored. Some have argued that the food system must surely change after this shake-up. As we know, most recently from the EAT-Lancet Commission (on which I was policy lead), we could feed even more people healthily without damaging the environment, if – a big if – there were big changes in diet such as: a reduction of meat and dairy by the rich world; a reversal of the explosion of ultra-processed foods; and a priority in land use for plants direct to human consumption, coupled with ecosystems regeneration.1 It’s all possible and requires different strategies in all regions.

Policy analysts argue that we need to unlock the lock-ins.2 Policy has been dominated since the Second World War by the over-riding goal for farming to produce more. This ‘productionist’ paradigm has been tweaked in the last half century, but still dominates. In my recent book Feeding Britain I set out to see how my own country is doing. The short answer is not too well overall, but stirring in parts. Policy is adrift, with an uncertain direction for food security just when the EU is getting its act together

with the Farm to Fork strategy, the Green Deal and more. The UK has withdrawn, but is still fed 40% by Europe and has uncertainties about food standards.

Where agrichemical use fits into this is a long and messy tale, which readers might know well. Many researchers have built our collective understanding of how pesticides turned from wonders into problems.

Intensification as culture In the 1970s, the messages from agrichemical marketing often seemed to stress a war with nature. The brand names underlined this conflict. I parody: ‘Bug-combat’, ‘Plantkill’, ‘Wormexterm’.

The names and language expressed the philosophy that it was them or us, a conflict that farming had to win to survive. It tapped into the mistaken Social Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ metaphors, that for your chosen plant or animal to thrive, the rest needed to be exterminated or out-spaced.

The promise was simple: buy this product and it will be sorted (whatever the ‘it’ was). Science, technology and engineering were superheroes who would recast the world for man, yes man.

www.pan-uk.org | 10

As this macho cultural front was being pushed, reactions and doubts emerged.

The modern science policy movement – within which PAN was born – began countering the belief that technology would always resolve complex problems.

Technical fixes might buy some time but often compounded rather than resolved underlying tensions and didn’t sort out the primary causes. Intellectual urgency came from recognition that even massive technological superiority could fail. This happened when environmental damage began to be documented, only for findings to be dismissed as luddism.

Gradually, agrichemicals as part of the entire industrialisation of agriculture and food production began to be questioned both for their role in eco-destruction and abnormalities,3,4,5 and direct impacts on public health.6,7

Debates which began as them versus us, science versus non-science, and use versus abuse of science and technology have now shifted into a more subtle understanding of both the role of science itself and how expectations of science are societally framed. The agrichemical industries and their outpouring of pesticides, fungicides and insecticides are more on the defensive. The industries have mutated into ‘life sciences’, a more positive title than death science, to be sure. The language of ecology is common, not just in agrichemicals but across business.8 It’s a remarkable transition which many find hopeful; others detect a whiff of greenwash. But does this, too, belie a more complicated reality? I think it does.

www.pan-uk.org | 11

New forms for old?

In fact, intensification continues and the scale of the damage it wreaks becomes more alarming. Biodiversity destruction cannot be ascribed solely to agrichemicals, but they contribute.

Species collapse, insect decline, plant and bird life reduction are all ascribed in significant part to agri-intensification.

Feeding Britain summarises how the UK fares. The counterblast is: do you or do you not want to be fed? (The binary ‘us or them’ again.)

Critics of industrialisation of agriculture have long argued that, out of sight of the big commodity farm world, it is smallscale farming that actually feeds the world.

The respected and pioneering interagency 2009 IAAASTD report stated that in sub-Saharan Africa, 70% of agricultural production is subsistence farming. The FAO Secretary General has stated that family farms produce 80% of world food.9 More recent estimates suggest it is actually less, yet there does seem to be a broad truth that smaller scale operations produce more per hectare.

A large international study found that small and medium-sized farms (less than 50 ha) produce 51–77% of nearly all commodities and nutrients for which data could be assessed.10 A Canadian team (highly supportive of small farmers) used new mapping and other data sources from fifty-five countries and concluded that farms under 2 ha globally produce 28–31% of total crop production and 30–34% of food supply on 24% of gross agricultural area.11

www.pan-uk.org | 12

But small-scale farming also uses agrichemicals. It may be a ‘win’ for employment and output per hectare but not for biodiversity or occupational health. In Britain, meanwhile, farm units get ever larger. Somehow we must enable more people to live and earn a decent living from producing health on the land.

Figures on actual use of agrichemicals are, of course, in industrial vaults, but is estimated to be worth US $243 billion in 2019. A quarter of a trillion dollars is a lot of liquid hoeing. Figures continued to rise worldwide with a slight downturn in the late 2010s.12 It remains to be seen whether Covid-19 will reverse or maintain that trend. More responsible use of the agrichemical armoury might be the linguistic order of the day, but as PAN-UK has pointed out, the toxicity or potency of what is used has gotten stronger.13 So far, we cannot conclude there is the kind of big switch to organic or non-intensive systems of feeding people which might justify optimism.

What lies ahead?

Ahead, I see this patchiness continuing.

No ‘side’ being able to claim ‘victory’.

Whether we look at the global, continental, national or local level the food system is in strange times. A new generation of technical fix research and development offers new forms of intensification. Biotechnology is more than genetic modification. Precision agriculture and roboticisation also require a more controlled approach to farming. Information and software science has entered farming - Big Data for Big Farming. Whatever happens on the land, it is essential to realise that power and economic value have moved inexorably off the farm.

In the UK, farmers and growers receive about 8-9% of the gross value added in the food supply chain. There’s a fight between processors, retailers and food service.14 New disruptors such as delivery companies have rocketed into this triangle. They are software companies competing with farming. It’s a long way from farm and agrichemical use to note these companies, but their value is rising, when agrichemical companies levels or drops. It is a matter of markets and saturation points, rather than toxicity.

These systemic issues are what ought to be addressed at the 2021 UN Food System conference.15 In the UK a multiple disruption is underway, a coincidence of Brexit, Covid-19, climate change, ecosystems crisis, diet-related burden of ill-health and massive social inequalities. Brexit is completely realigning how the UK works; whose standards will operate?

Whose inspections, if any? The English Agriculture Bill has been celebrated as introducing a new public payment for public goods principle but actually turns agriculture into mostly an ecosystems oriented sector. Food barely features, let alone human health. As I explain in Feeding Britain, there’s a whiff of an old default policy mix re-emerging, in which English politics dominates the rest, and the UK generally assumes others should feed it. If not the EU, then by whom, I ask? The USA? Former Empire (Commonwealth)? Outer Europe?

Certainly not UK farms? And how? At the same time, the geopolitical context for the food system is daily becoming more risky. The global tensions between China, USA, Russia and Europe are manifest not just in the Middle or Far East but in trade.

Agri-food Trade politics will shroud what PAN-UK can and cannot do.

www.pan-uk.org | 13

References Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.

The Lancet 2019; 393(10170): 447-92.

2 IPES-Food. Breaking Away From Industrial Food and Farming Systems: Seven case studies of agroecological transition. Brussels: International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food, 2018.

3 Bull D. A growing problem : pesticides and the Third World poor. Oxford: OXFAM; 1982.

4 Carson R. Silent spring. Boston / Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin / Riverside Press; 1962.

5 Dinham B. The pesticide hazard : a global health and environmental audit. London ; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed Books; 1993.

6 WHO. Public health impact of pesticides used in agriculture. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1990.

7 Zierler D. The invention of eco-cite: agent orange, Vietnam, and the scientists who changed the way we think about the environment. Athens Georgia: University of Georgia Press; 2011.

8 Hawken P. The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability. Revised ed. New York, 8. NY: Harper Business; 2010.

1

ETC Group. Who will feed us? The Peasant Food web versus the Industrial Food Chain: ETC Group, 2017.

10 Herrero M, Thornton PK, Power B, et al.

Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health 2017; 1: e33-42.

11 Ricciardi V, Ramankutty N, Mehrabi Z, Jarvis L, Chookolingo B. How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security 2018; 17: 64-72.

12 Nishimoto R. Global trends in the crop protection industry. Journal of Pesticide Science 2019; 44(3): 141-7.

13 PAN-UK. The Hidden Rise of UK Pesticide Use: Fact-checking an Industry Claim. Brighton: Pesticides Action Network UK, 2018.

14 Lang T. Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix Them. London: Pelican; 2020.

15 UN. UN Food System Summit 2021: https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/foodsystems-summit-2021/. New York: United Nations, 2020.

9

This article is dedicated to the memory of Dr David Buffin, long-time researcher at PAN who left to complete a Phd under Prof Lang, with whom he worked afterwards.

David sadly died earlier this year after a long illness. Read his obituary on the last page of this publication.

Tim Lang has been Professor of Food Policy at City University of London’s Centre for Food Policy since 2002. Hill farming in Lancashire UK in the 1970s formed his interest in the relationship between food, health, environment, culture and political economy.

He is co-author of Sustainable Diets (2017), Food Wars (2015), Unmanageable Consumer (2015), Ecological Public Health (2012) and Food Policy (2009). He was policy lead on the EAT-Lancet Commission (The Lancet, 2019). His Feeding Britain (Pelican, 2020) explores the UK as a case study of a rich economy uncertain about food security. Probing the UK food system’s defences, supply, consumption and capacities, it concludes that, whichever risks are dissected, sustainability, health and social justice should be central to policy and planning.

www.pan-uk.org | 14

Reversing the Decline of Insects We’re proud to support The Wildlife Trusts, and PAN UK trustee, Professor Dave Goulson, on the launch of a new report 'Reversing the Decline of Insects'. The report comes at a critical time for insects. There is ongoing evidence for insect declines and the future of insects hangs in the balance as trade deals threaten to increase the use of insect-harming pesticides.

Furthermore, the Agriculture Bill is progressing through UK Parliament presenting a unique opportunity to ensure farmers pursue insect-friendly farming methods.

The Wildlife Trust joins us in calling on the Government to reverse the decline of insects by: 1. Setting an ambitious pesticide reduction target, as good as, if not better than, the EU’s target to reduce by 50% the overall use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides by 2030 2. No weakening of UK pesticide standards through future trade deals, including the UK’s current hazard-based approach to pesticide authorisations 3. Support for farmers to adopt Integrated Pest Management and other agroecological practices

Earth’s remaining five million insect species are now ‘threatened with extinction’.

The report cites examples of farmers, communities, councils and charities that are boosting insect populations and proving that it can be done. Our very own PesticideFree Towns Campaign has been featured, showcasing the amazing work campaigners are doing across the country to encourage councils to cut their use of pesticides on our pavements, verges, parks, playgrounds, and other urban spaces.

Find out more about becoming an insect champion at www.pan-uk.org/new-reportreversing-the-decline-of-insects

The declines in insect populations have had severe impacts on insect-eating birds, bats, and fish. Evidence shows that we have lost 50% or more of our insects since 1970, while 41% of the

www.pan-uk.org | 15

IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON COTTON FARMERS IN ETHIOPIA

by Sheila Willis, Head of International Programmes, PAN UK According to an April 2020 forecast by the World Trade Organization (WTO), ‘global trade volumes are expected to fall by between 13% and 32% in 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupts normal economic activity and life around the world.’ The economic fallout from the pandemic is likely to hit vulnerable communities in poor countries the hardest. This will likely have significant and unquantifiable effects, including on food supplies, social issues and security1.

The Government of Ethiopia has said that it anticipates that hunger and poverty could kill more of its people than the virus itself.

first organic certification, securing an average net income 64% higher than untrained farmers and this was set to increase in 2020.

Impacts on markets

Mitigating disruption

Ethiopia’s rural population (81%) largely relies on agriculture for their livelihoods.

Prior to the crisis, studies in Ethiopia showed that farming both food and cash crops was important for food security.

With support from TRAID, PAN UK works with PAN-Ethiopia to train smallholder farmers to adopt sustainable methods of cotton production in order to boost household income. In 2018, PAN-trained cotton producers gained the country’s

Throughout the crisis PAN’s field teams in Ethiopia have continued to work hard to support participating farmers. For the moment, restrictions have been lifted, but they are cautious. They are equipped with masks and they provide hand sanitisers and/or washing facilities at training events. All these events are conducted outdoors and numbers are limited to accommodate social distancing.

However, the COVID crisis has brought the international textile supply chain to a virtual standstill. In Ethiopia, for example, the organic cotton farmers managed to secure a lucrative contract for all the cotton they could produce this year. Sadly, when the pandemic hit, the buyer only purchased 16% of the cotton produced. With PAN’s help, they managed to secure other buyers but on reduced terms.

www.pan-uk.org | 16

Moving forward A recent International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC2) report noted that the decline in price of seed-cotton is ‘likely to have a direct impact on the household incomes and food security of cotton producers in Africa.’ Looking ahead, ICAC suggest that the likelihood of food crisis will put greater value on food crops, particularly for smallholder farmers. Cotton farmers have asked PAN for training on vegetable crops to help mitigate disruption to the cotton trade. The Government of Ethiopia is also eager to protect local food supplies in anticipation of widespread food insecurity caused by the economic downturn.

The pesticide industry lobby is likely to respond to the crisis by pushing donors and governments to provide farmers with subsidies in the form of pesticides and other inputs. This is not the answer.

Year after year, PAN’s trials and surveys show that, with effective training, farmers adopt low cost, sustainable approaches that substantially reduce their costs while achieving at least as good yields as local conventional farming practice.

Given that the supplies of pesticides are also disrupted by the pandemic, the importance of low cost, local solutions is greater than ever.

Mr Elias Ero is a smallholder farmer living in Omo Lante Village, Southern Ethiopia. His wife and four children depend on farming their half hectare of land for their food and livelihood.

All the children attend school. Cotton provides their only cash income and they also grow maize, teff and beans.

"I have attended the [PAN] training for the past six months and it helped me have better understanding of cotton production.” Elias says ‘generally the training helped us give much attention to our cotton crop, observe it regularly. The crop itself can tell us what it needs. My cotton as you see it looks so good and I am expecting a good yield provided that the weather is okay."

This interview was conducted in October 2019.

It is terrible to think of the impact of the COVID crisis undermining cotton markets for families like Elias’, after so much work and anticipation of a good crop. PAN is working hard to equip farmers like Elias with skills that will help them through the current crisis and beyond.

www.pan-uk.org | 17

continued...

Improving food security The average Ethiopian eats just 29% WHO recommended quantity of vegetables, which is linked to rising incidence of non-communicable diseases. Even before the current crisis, there was a need to increase supplies of healthy, fresh vegetables to local communities. For the last two years, with the support of the JJ Charitable Trust and IDH, PAN has been testing sustainable, low-cost methods of vegetable production in the Ziway area in Ethiopia. Vegetable producers in this area use hazardous pesticides very intensively. In 2015, 65% of farmers in Ziway reported pesticide poisoning.

Intensive practices put consumers at risk and are also linked to declines in fish stocks, soil quality and pollinators.

Sustainable farming practices address these problems. PAN’s vegetable field trials show that biological pest control plus good cultural practices reduce pesticide use by 60-80% and provide significant improvements in net income.

Sharing sustainable methods of vegetable production with the cotton producers PAN works with will help

these rural families to cope with the current crisis and emerge with skills and diverse farming systems that build resilience to future threats, whether from climate change, pandemics or other disasters. PAN is preparing to share locally tested methods of vegetable production with the 3000+ cotton farmers it supports in southern Ethiopia.

Most of the cotton farmers already grow vegetables, Kitchen gardens can be an important source of nutrition and income and they are more accessible to poorer families and women. Hard pressed rural families were already looking for ways to improve vegetable production and the COVID crisis has increased the urgency to do so.

PAN is well placed to respond and, thanks to TRAID’s support, has experienced teams in place and is ready to take up the challenge.

References 1

https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2020/apr/21/global-hungercould-be-next-big-impact-ofcoronavirus-pandemic 2 https://www.icac.org

COTTON IN AFRICA AT A CROSSROADS Despite the known problems with GM Bt cotton, many African countries are considering adopting it, based on the promise of financial benefits. A recent report

by Textile Exchange brings together the research on conventional and GM cotton production versus organic and "preferred cotton" (production that results in "improved environmental and/or social sustainability outcomes and impacts") production methods, which ban the use of GM seeds.

Find the full report online at: https://textileexchange. org/cotton-in-africa-sustainability-at-a-crossroads

www.pan-uk.org | 18

PESTICIDE-FREE TOWNS: A SHIFT IN MINDSETS

by Hannah Conway, Campaigner, PAN UK Now, more than ever, we look to nature for joy in the small things. During lockdown, the smallest pavement plant could have been the light in an otherwise dark day, time in the local park will have been an escape from cramped conditions for those without access to a garden. The media has been full of stories of nature thriving, and we have never needed our parks and green spaces more.

Over this period, for many councils it has been business as usual, spraying the pavements and parks with herbicides.

However, some councils have taken a different approach by letting the 'weeds' grow. There is now a battle of mindsets between those who want to see their parks mown, flower beds manicured and streets without a single ‘weed’; and those who embrace the wilder side of urban ecosystems, who see weeds as plants and who understand the importance of biodiversity for nature to thrive.

A recent survey found that 52% of adults in England would like to see more wildlife and a greater variety of plant life in their local green space2.

It’s no surprise then that after a short period of quiet, Pesticide-Free Towns campaigns have bounced back into action. Tower Hamlets has finally

convinced the council to agree to a chemical-free trial period in 2020-2021.

This is an incredible win, considering the council have been resisting for over five years! And just before lockdown, Balerno won a two-year pesticide-free trial period in the area. They have begun deploying their own community weeding taskforce in recent weeks - a fun, child-friendly, outdoor activity which can be carried out at a safe distance. New groups have also sprung up across the country in Stirling, Ealing, Portsmouth, Perth & Kincross, Barrow in Furness, Menheniot, Brandon, Wandsworth.

The shift in attitude is happening whether authorities and government want it to or not. PAN UK continues to call for a national phase-out of all non-agricultural pesticides. With around 70 active campaigns nationwide, 28 councils who have banned or are phasing out herbicides and 37 more who have implemented strong restrictions, we will just keep pushing until this door opens.

Get involved If you’d like to start a campaign please get in touch on: pesticide-free @pan-uk.org

www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-free | 19

OBITUARY: DR DAVID BUFFIN Dr David Buffin, who died in March aged 58, was a key member of the PAN team from 1989-2004.

In addition to critiquing the UK government regulation of pesticides, David was the editor of Pesticides News (PN) from 1992-2003 and was a key driver behind the Current Research Monitor (CRM) service. He was thorough and meticulous in bringing to the fore significant and robust research and reporting these through PN to reach a wider audience.

David publicised significant findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 1992 that ‘the spraying and application of non-arsenical insecticides entails exposures that are probably carcinogenic to humans’. At the time this finding was controversial, but it subsequently became a crucial part of

challenging the unprotected spraying of pesticides in many parts of the world.

David also played an important part of the campaign to ban lindane in the UK, finally achieved in 1999. In 2001, David became a joint coordinator for PAN Europe, and in 2002 - as the European he organised a Europe-wide conference bringing together regulators, officials and NGOs, to assert the need for even tighter regulation and to promote safer pest management.

After he stepped down as PN editor in 2003, David campaigned for a hazardbased assessment of pesticides, liaising with major supermarkets and other interests in the supply chain to introduce this approach. In 2004 he worked on a PhD at City University in European Regulation of pesticides in food, and subsequently became Programme Director for a Masters in Food Policy in 2009.

David is remembered with respect and affection by many PAN colleagues across the globe.

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

The Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD

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

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

Find out more about our work at: www.pan-uk.org ISSN 2514-5770

www.pan-uk.org