Pesticide News - Issue 129

August 2022 | ISSUE 129

PESTICIDE NEWS

An international perspective on the health & environmental effects of pesticides

Tackling acute pesticide poisoning with technology

Implications of a rushed trade deal for the UK and India

Hopes for a pesticide-free London

A POWERFUL NEW TOOL AIMS TO TACKLE ACUTE PESTICIDE POISONING

By Dr Sheila Willis, Head of International Programmes, PAN UK The scale of acute pesticide poisoning

If the problem is so widespread, why do we know so little about it?

The term ‘pesticide’ covers a very broad range of products intended to kill pests, ranging from insects and rodents to weeds and fungi. As their chemistry is so varied, acute pesticide poisoning can be difficult for clinicians to diagnose but effects include respiratory issues, eye and skin lesions, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headaches, loss of consciousness, seizures and even death.

In reality, acute pesticide poisoning is a largely invisible problem. Many farmers suffer health impacts from pesticides without seeking any medical treatment. In poorer countries they may not be within easy reach of medical services or they may not be able to afford them. Many are so used to suffering adverse health effect from pesticides that they treat it as part of the job, experiencing severe headaches and rashes as a matter of course.

According to recent estimations, 44% of farmers and farmworkers are poisoned globally by pesticides every year.

This figure is shocking in itself, but only refers to acute pesticide poisoning and does not include fatalities, suicides or long-term chronic health effects, such as cancers, nervous system disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, fertility and reproductive disorders and serious developmental disorders in children.

Unfortunately, most countries lack the information they need from farmers to give them a true picture of what is happening on the ground and to support effective action to tackle it.

Even when incidents are diagnosed and treated, they are often not recorded in a systematic way by health services or shared with those responsible for health or agriculture within governments. Field surveys have emerged as valuable tools to complement clinical-based data. Such surveys collect data directly from exposed communities and focus on acute pesticide poisoning, but few organisations collect information directly from farmers as this is difficult work, often in remote, rural areas.

www.pan-uk.org | 2

Farmer spraying pesticides in a paddy field, directly affecting water courses. South India. Credit Gnanistock / Shutterstock.com Front cover: Pouring pesticide into a sprayer, Maharashtra, India.

Credit CRS Photo /Shutterstock.com

www.pan-uk.org | 3

Innovative mobile app launched After a decade of collecting information from farmers in remote locations using paper surveys, PAN UK has created T-MAPP (Tool for Monitoring Acute Pesticide Poisoning) with financial support from Laudes Foundation. It has been developed to make data collection more efficient and to support extension services and other relevant field workers to collect data directly from end users.

T-MAPP will increase the scale of acute pesticide poisoning data, as well as the speed of processing this data. It will also ensure that critical information is collected in a standardised way, so that it can be compared across locations and time.

It can work entirely offline and is able to submit data to an online database as soon as it is connected to the internet.

Dashboard statistics are generated as soon as the data is uploaded, meaning that partners in the field can track progress in real time with basic analysis immediately available. The app can work in various languages, currently including English, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Kiswahili, French and has been successfully tested with farmers in Benin, Tanzania, the Caribbean and India.

How will T-MAPP tackle the problem?

The data can be used in many ways. It can support national authorities, sustainability standards, civil society organisations and other groups working to address pesticide poisoning, helping to target resources for pesticide risk reduction more effectively.

It can also be used as a monitoring tool to measure progress over time or in different locations.

It can support decisions by national authorities and help them to comply with responsibilities to the chemical conventions. In Trinidad, for example, the pesticide regulator has found the information useful for triggering a review of certain pesticides to determine whether they should be withdrawn from use. In Maharashtra the information is being used in a public information campaign about the dangers of cocktails of pesticides in a certain area where this practice is particularly problematic. Most importantly, the app can help to raise awareness of a very hidden problem.

www.pan-uk.org | 4

MOISE AND CELESTINE'S STORY It is not just the farmers that are exposed to pesticide poisoning, but their families too.

These highly toxic chemicals are frequently stored in the home and there are many incidents where children are harmed or killed due to accidental spills or ingestion of pesticides.

While PAN UK was visiting with colleagues in Benin, and despite an arduous journey of several hours on unmade roads from their small cotton farm in Gahoungagon, Jidago Moise (below left) and his wife, Kenon Celestine (below right) took valuable time away from their work to meet with us. Why? Because they wanted to share their story.

They had taken on the back-breaking work of growing cotton in order to get a small cash income to support their family. They followed government extension agents’ advice about which pesticide products to use and when.

Despite the products being dangerous and expensive, and without any information on alternatives, they were anxious to protect their cotton.

When Moise suffered severe headaches and rashes from using the pesticides he felt he had no alternative but to continue.

Even if protective equipment had been available – which it was not – it was beyond the family’s means to buy it and also impossible to wear in the searing local temperatures. Then, tragedy struck. After an accidental spill of one of the pesticides, Moise’s son very sadly died. They were not able to get medical help in time to save him.

Moise and Celestine speak quietly and carefully, but it is absolutely clear that they are devastated by their loss and want to ensure that their experience prevents others from suffering the same fate.

Burning Amazon forest in Brazil to open space for agriculture.

Credit Pedarilhosbr/Shutterstock.com Front cover: Spraying pesticides in a soybean field in Brazil.

Credit FR Agro/Shutterstock.com

SOME OF T-MAPP'S RESULTS SO FAR The results from T-MAPP already show that farmers and farm workers are suffering shocking levels of acute pesticide poisoning which has very serious implications for their longer-term health and livelihoods. The app is able to determine which pesticide products are linked to high numbers of incidents, so that safer alternatives can be identified; which pests and crops are associated with high use of hazardous pesticides; ‘hotspots’ of high prevalence so that interventions can be targeted more effectively and risky practices that increase exposure to pesticides. The data can be disaggregated by gender, age, employment status, location and more in order to identify vulnerable groups.

We have received 2,006 surveys of cotton farmers from three countries (India, Benin, Tanzania) and results already show that 42% of cotton farmers and workers reported incidents of acute pesticide poisoning over the previous 12 months (in line with previously estimated data).

Of these, 12% reported severe incidents, which included permanent tremors, paralysis and permanent damage to eyesight. This widespread problem indicates high levels of exposure that may precede chronic health effects, such as cancers or Parkinson's disease.

The problem damages productivity and livelihoods as well as health. The majority of farmers who suffered incidents reported taking 1-3 days off work (61%) with 5% of these farmers losing 30 days of work or more.

The figure below shows pesticides associated with acute poisoning incidents reported by 258 farmers in Benin in 2021.

While the farmers report trade names, which are more familiar to them, we are able to link these with the active ingredients. Two formulations of ‘Pyro’ and ‘Cotonix’ are highly reported, for example.

These all contain Chlorpyrifos, which is a hazardous organophosphate pesticide known for its damaging effects on the nervous system.

www.pan-uk.org | 6

DRAMATIC RISE IN TOXIC PESTICIDES FOUND ON FRUIT & VEG IN SOLD IN EUROPE European citizens have been exposed to a dramatic rise in the frequency and intensity of residues of the most toxic pesticides on fruits and vegetables sold in the EU. A new report from Pesticide Action Network Europe contradicts official claims that toxic pesticide use is declining and exposes a complete failure by Member States to implement EU Regulation and protect consumers.

The report examines the extent of contamination of fruits and vegetables produced in the EU and also patterns of contamination over time. Researchers analysed the results of a Europe-wide programme of government sampling large enough to be considered representative of general public exposure. This revealed a dramatic upward trend of fruits contaminated with the most hazardous category of pesticides between 2011 and 2019. While kiwi fruits were almost free (4%) of these toxic substances ten years ago, almost a third (32%) are now contaminated. Likewise, half (50%) of all cherries sampled by officials were contaminated in 2019, compared to 22% in 2011.

This increase in the frequency of contamination goes hand in hand with an increase in the intensity and combinations of pesticides used. By 2019, half of the pears produced in Europe were contaminated with as many as five such substances, and this figure rises to 87% for pears grown in Belgium or 85% of Portuguese pears. Although scientists warn of growing evidence that such ‘chemical cocktails’ amplify human health impacts, such combinations are still not assessed by authorities.

The report focuses on the residues of a category of pesticides defined as “more hazardous” by the European Commission and are the single most dangerous and most heavily regulated category of pesticides, linked to a range of chronic diseases including cancers, cardiovascular problems and diabetes. They can also be highly toxic to the environment, poisoning rivers and other precious ecosystems.

The European Commission claims a 12% reduction in the use of these pesticides in 2019. However, evidence shows that the use of these pesticides in Europe is in fact rising, not falling. Laws are being ignored and consumers are being exposed to a rising tide of chemical exposure. Europe is clearly moving away, not towards more sustainable agriculture. While authorities content themselves with unreliable indicators of progress, the observable pesticide residues, their impact on human health and rapidly declining wildlife populations tell the real story.

The alarm call for strong political action to genuinely put the EU food system on the track to sustainability has been raised.

www.pan-uk.org | 7

INDIA TRADE DEAL COULD BRING SPIKE IN TOXIC PESTICIDES IN UK FOOD UK consumers could face dramatic increases in ‘Highly Hazardous Pesticides’ (HHPs) in food staples if the government rushes through a trade deal with India, according to research from Pesticide Action Network UK, Sustain Alliance and trade expert Dr Emily Lydgate.

This could see Indian-produced staples with illegally high levels of pesticides, such as rice, wheat and tea, reach the UK. The report highlights that:

The UK is looking to negotiate the new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in record time in order to ‘double trade with India by 2030’.

It is likely to face considerable pressure to water down pesticide standards from the Indian government, which is infamous for lobbying aggressively against protections.

•

•

• Josie Cohen, Head of Policy and Campaigns at PAN UK said: “Pesticide regulations aren’t bargaining chips, they are there to protect people’s health. Watering them down to secure a new trade deal would create serious public health risks at home whilst also making our farmers less competitive abroad. Deals of this size typically take years to complete - rushing through negotiations without fully thinking through the consequences is a recipe for disaster.”

Whilst negotiations are taking place behind closed doors, the new agreement looks likely to significantly increase food exports from India to the UK.

•

●India currently allows the use of 62 percent more ‘Highly Hazardous Pesticides’ (HHPs) than the UK. ●India tends to allow larger amounts of chemicals to appear in food than the UK. For example, common foods such as apples and grapes can contain 200 times the levels of the insecticide Malathion, which has been linked to cancer, infertility and birth defects. ●A new trade deal with India could mean an increase in Indian wheat exports to the UK. India allows wheat to contain 50 times the amount of chlorpyrifos than its UK equivalent. Chlorpyrifos was banned for use in the UK in 2019 due to evidence that it can harm children’s brain development. ●In 2021, 200 tonnes of Indian rice was rejected globally each month for containing pesticide residues that exceeded the legal limits of importing countries. With a relaxation of the rules, this produce risks ending up on UK shelves, especially given border controls are stretched following the UK’s EU exit.

"This deal could turn significant health risks to the UK public into a competitive advantage for Indian agribusiness over our own farmers. A deal with one of the world’s largest agri-producers risks undermining the considerable efforts being made to ensure UK farming is more sustainable. We must get the details right."

Vicki Hird, Head of Sustainable Farming, Sustain

www.pan-uk.org | 8

Credit Jack Sparrow /Pexels.com

www.pan-uk.org | 9

The deal is also likely to have major impacts on UK agriculture, with Indian farmers able to produce food more cheaply using toxic pesticides that are banned in the UK. The UK Government’s own expert body has warned that this double standard threatens to hand foreign agribusiness a competitive advantage and undercut UK farmers. Given India’s status as one of the world’s largest food exporters, it is unsurprising that the UK government has recognised in its own impact assessment that a deal with India will result in a fall of around £10m in domestic agricultural output.

Dr Emily Lydgate, Reader in Environmental Law at the University of Sussex, said: “The Indian government has a long record of lobbying to relax levels of permitted pesticide residues, and UK negotiators will inevitably face pressure to weaken domestic regulation. Indian produce regularly contains illegally high levels of pesticides, and with an already underresourced UK border force following Britain’s exit from the EU, an FTA that weakens the rules could pose a significant risk to public health.”

Negotiations on the UK-India trade deal are happening now. Email your MP and ask them to seek reassurance from the Government that the India trade deal will not be allowed to threaten consumer health or the future of UK farming.

Find our recommendations, detailed report and online action at: www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade-india

“Weakening pesticide standards in the UK has deadly consequences for farmers on the ground in India. Over 30,000 people die each year in pesticide-related deaths, and incentivising greater pesticide usage with relaxed laws and an expanded market will compound this problem even further.”

A.D. Dileep Kumar, CEO, PAN India

www.pan-uk.org | 10

UNAUTHORISED AND UNSAFE USE OF HAZARDOUS PESTICIDES IN INDIA

By A.D. Dileep Kumar, CEO, PAN India A new report from Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India, based on field data gathered from farmers, farm workers and pesticide retailers in seven Indian states, reveals a dangerous situation of use and regulation of four highly hazardous pesticides. It focuses on chlorpyrifos, fipronil, atrazine and paraquat dichloride.

While these pesticides are approved in India for specific crop-pest combinations, the study uncovered numerous unapproved uses both in food and nonfood crops. Chlorpyrifos is approved for 18 crops in India, while this study found that it is used on 23 crops. Fipronil is approved for nine crops and field use was recorded for 27 crops. Similarly, atrazine and paraquat dichloride are approved for one and 11 crops respectively, field uses have been noted in 19 and 23 crops respectively. Of serious concern is that the study uncovered agricultural departments, universities and the pesticide industry recommending unapproved uses.

The Maximum Residue Level (MRL) for agricultural produce is monitored based on approved uses and therefore, nonapproved uses largely remain unmonitored for MRLs, posing a serious food safety concern.

Many of the farmers and farm workers reported that they were not trained on pesticide use. The study revealed various practices that could result in pesticide poisoning, including inadequate storage of pesticide containers in or near homes, use of faulty/leaky spraying equipment and non-availability of recommended safety gear. Inadequate labelling and poor information on safety measures were also noted.

Pesticide use and practices documented in this study indicate a serious gap in regulation and accountability and points to poor governance in pesticide management in India.

This report recommends banning the four pesticides – chlorpyrifos, fipronil, atrazine and paraquat dichloride – considering their inherent toxicity as well as the widespread unsafe and non-approved uses occurring in the field. It further recommends expanding the monitoring of pesticide residues in farm produce and environmental samples to understand the level and extent of contamination.

Moreover, it demands the Ministry of Agriculture foster a paradigm shift with policy support to boost wider adoption of agroecology-based farming practices in India.

Dileep is a postgraduate in Zoology, and has completed the Post Graduate Diploma in Pesticide Risk Management from the University of Cape Town. Since 2013, he has been exclusively working on pesticides and related problems; has travelled across India and conducted field studies to understand the reality of pesticide use on the ground, and its public health and environmental impacts.

www.pan-uk.org | 11

RED TRACTOR STANDARDS ON PESTICIDES FAILING FARMERS, CONSUMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT Sub Standard, a joint report published by Pesticide Action Network UK, the Nature Friendly Farming Network and RSPB, reveals that Red Tractor – the UK’s largest food standards label – is lagging behind on tackling pesticides, undermining claims that its logo is a marker of stronger environmental protection.

The report highlights a range of improvements that Red Tractor urgently needs to make, else it risks finding itself irrelevant as the UK Government, major supermarkets and consumers increasingly focus their attention on pesticide reduction.

Red Tractor certifies around 50,000 farmers across the UK. Consumers will be familiar with its logo which appears on a wide range of UK produce including meat, dairy and vegetables.

Martin Lines, co-author of the report, farmer and Chair of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, said: “Our interviews with Red Tractor certified farmers have revealed that the standards are barely encouraging – let alone supporting – farmers to reduce their pesticide use.

There are many UK farmers working hard to switch to using non-chemical alternatives and it’s time Red Tractor, as our largest farm and food assurance scheme, becomes a key player in driving the transition to more sustainable farming systems. Farmers want – and need – their support to work with nature instead of against it.”

The report highlights some key

deficiencies within Red Tractor’s approach to pesticides, including the lack of any targets to reduce use. There are a number of techniques widely known to lessen the need for pesticides but, unlike some other farming standards, Red Tractor does not require its certified farmers to adopt them.

These include making use of beneficial insects to control pests, selecting pest and disease resistant crop varieties, rotating crops regularly and applying less harmful biopesticides.

Josie Cohen, Head of Policy and Campaigns at PAN UK, added: “If we’re to have any hope of solving the biodiversity crisis then we must move away from our dependence on pesticides. But Red Tractor standards continue to prioritise the use of chemicals, without placing limits on how much or where they can be used. Unlike many UK supermarkets, Red Tractor allows its farmers to use any legal pesticide product, regardless of concerns over impacts to human health or the environment.”

Interviews and surveys conducted with three of the UK’s largest supermarkets also revealed a major gap between how Red Tractor is viewed by consumers and retailers. Supermarkets explained that they see Red Tractor as a baseline standard which does not go beyond confirming that farmers are sticking to national pesticide laws and regulations. In contrast, the common public perception is that Red Tractor certified farmers operate under stricter obligations than their non-certified counterparts.

Steph Morren, Senior Policy Officer at

RSPB, said: “Confirming that farmers are abiding by the law should be a role for Government, rather than a private company like Red Tractor. People understandably expect standards to go beyond the law to offer a higher level of environmental protection – for wildlife and for society. We urge Red Tractor to strengthen its approach to pesticides so that farmers feel supported to reduce their use, and retailers and their customers can rest assured that a Red Tractor logo means that food has been grown more sustainably.”

to be resistant to making any major improvements on pesticides, and told us that they have no plans to implement any of our core recommendations. While this is disappointing, it enables us to focus our efforts to drive a massive reduction in pesticide use in UK agriculture elsewhere, primarily the UK Government and top ten supermarkets.

Soon after publishing the report in March, PAN UK, NFFN and RSPB met with Red Tractor to discuss the report’s recommendations and assess Red Tractor’s appetite for change.

Unfortunately, Red Tractor appears

Field of rapeseed. Credit Hans /Pixabay.com Old red tractor. Credit TMA Harding / Shutterstock.com

LONDON'S PESTICIDE PROBLEM New information, based on a series of Freedom of Information requests, reveals that local authorities are using twenty-two potentially harmful chemicals to remove weeds on the capital’s streets, parks and playgrounds.

The list includes seven pesticides with links to cancer and nine that contaminate groundwater, threatening aquatic wildlife.

Glyphosate was found to be the most commonly used pesticide with over twenty-six thousand litres – equivalent to 130 bath tubs – sprayed in London’s public spaces over the past three years. In 2017, the World Health Organization labelled glyphosate a ‘probable human carcinogen’

and the chemical has been the subject of a number of high-profile court cases in the US that have ruled that it does have links to cancer.

There are a range of effective nonchemical alternatives to pesticides available such as hot foam and brushes.

More than forty UK councils have already gone pesticide-free, including the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham in 2016, and most recently Lambeth.

Meanwhile other London boroughs – namely Barking and Dagenham, Bexley and Hillingdon – have almost no measures in place to reduce pesticide use and are lagging behind.

Tree pit sprayed with glyphosate – thanks to campaigning this will no longer take place in Lambeth. Credit: Janie Bickersteth

www.pan-uk.org | 14

YouGov polling released alongside PAN UK’s research reveals that half of Londoners would support a ban on the use of chemical weedkillers in their local area, with just 18% opposing. Roughly a third (32%) of Londoners responded that they didn’t know whether they would support a ban, highlighting the hidden nature of urban pesticide use which tends to go unnoticed since councils are not obliged to notify residents when spraying is taking place. This public support is mirrored among London decision-makers. In 2019, the London Assembly passed a unanimous motion urging the Mayor to stop using glyphosate on land under his control as soon as possible, and to call on London boroughs to do the same. In the run-up to the 2021 London Mayoral elections, candidates from all political parties publicly agreed that ending pesticide use was a vital step in meeting challenges linked to climate, nature restoration and the health and well-being of people using green spaces. They all committed to work towards phasing out urban pesticide use if elected.

While many councils have commitments in place to reduce or end their pesticide use in parks and other green spaces, more than two-thirds have no plans to stop spraying streets.

Emma Pavans de Ceccatty, PAN UK, says: “While it’s encouraging to see so many councils take steps to make parks safer for people and wildlife alike, there is a real lack of joined-up thinking. Our capital’s pavements remain largely forgotten and continue to be sprayed, often just meters away from people’s doorsteps and designated ‘wildlife-friendly’ spaces.

Councils are letting residents down and undermining their own positive efforts to support nature.”

PAN UK has launched a Pesticide-Free London Campaign which has already garnered the support of a number of organisations and local residents.

There are a series of events planned for September.

“We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis with species such as bees declining rapidly and pesticides named as a key driver. We also know that children are more vulnerable to the impacts of pesticides because their bodies are still developing. But despite these serious public health and environmental concerns, most London councils are routinely using chemical weedkillers for no other reason than keeping places looking ‘neat and tidy’.”

Nick Mole, PAN UK

www.pan-uk.org | 15

www.pan-uk.org | 16

www.pan-uk.org | 17

SOWING A PLASTIC PLANET

By Giulia Carlini and Dana Drugmand, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) We are increasingly living on a plastic planet. Due to the explosion in plastic production and use, plastic pollution has grown exponentially in recent years. Tiny particles of plastic — or microplastic — are accumulating across the planet in even the most remote areas, in the air, in water, in soil, in plants, and in animals, including in our bodies. Humans are ingesting and breathing plastics and the toxins they contain through this continued environmental exposure.

One of the least known and most concerning sources of microplastic pollution is their deliberate addition to synthetic fertilizers and pesticides used in industrial agriculture. New analysis from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) exposes a little known but growing driver of microplastic pollution in the environment, agricultural soils, and our food supply. The report, Sowing a Plastic Planet: How Microplastics in Agrochemicals Are Affecting Our Soils, Our Food, and Our Future, reveals the underrecognized threat presented by the increasing and intentional use of microplastics in agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. It also identifies priorities for halting this pervasive but preventable source of pollution.

Deliberately added microplastics are a new, dangerous facet of the toxic triad formed by agrochemicals, plastics, and the fossil fuels used to make them. Sold as sustainable, environmentally-friendly, and efficient, these slow- or controlledrelease fertilizers (SRFs and CRFs) compound the already significant harms of chemical-based pesticides and fertilizers by enhancing toxicity and increasing mobility. With mounting evidence showing microplastics have the potential to not only cross biological barriers in the human body but also to adsorb and transport other toxic chemicals, their intentional use in agrochemicals introduces a new array of health and environmental harms.

The industry’s rise points to a critical problem that must be part of national and international responses to the plastics pollution crisis, including upcoming negotiations for a global plastic treaty.

The analysis shows: • Agrochemicals are a significant source of microplastic pollution globally. In the European Economic Area (EEA) alone, 36,000 tonnes of microplastics are introduced into the environment through agrochemicals each year, accounting for more than 65% of microplastics intentionally added to the environment in that region. Industry production estimates suggest the problem is far wider than publicly reported.

• Concentrations of microplastics are thought to be greater in soils than in seas. Nearly one-third of all plastic waste lands in soil environments due to breakdown or intentional introduction.

Microplastic pollution is estimated to be four to twenty-three times greater in terrestrial soils than in marine environments.

• Microplastics are disrupting ecosystems, threatening food security and climate. Microplastic accumulation is occurring at a rate up to 50 kilograms per hectare (more than 40 pounds per acre) per year, affecting soil ecosystems, bacterial composition,

•

•

•

and organisms — all prerequisites for plant health. Its presence may impede soil’s ability to absorb and store carbon dioxide.

Agrochemicals coated in microplastics potentially compound the threats to human health from the chemicals themselves. Microplastics have the ability to cross biological barriers and often carry other toxins.

Farmworkers are at risk of inhaling them, and consumers may ingest contaminated food. Research shows that microplastics lead to increased neurotoxicity and cancer, among other health impacts.

Global demand and production of SRFs and CRFs are rapidly expanding.

The industry’s aggressive promotion of SRFs and CRFs as climate-friendly and ‘sustainable’ options has spurred accelerating consumer demand.

Estimates indicate 6% market growth year over year, reaching a value of $3.3 billion by 2026.

Governments should act now to close regulatory gaps and comprehensively ban the intentional use of microplastics in agriculture and other industries.

Tractor spraying pesticides on soy field. Credit: Fotokostic / Shutterstock.com

Giulia Carlini is a senior attorney in CIEL’s Environmental Health program, protecting communities and the environment from toxic exposure.

Her work focuses on regulating hazardous chemicals, particularly endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs).

Dana Drugmand is a Researcher in the Climate & Energy Program at CIEL. Her work focuses on investigating and analyzing trends in the oil and gas industry such as petroleum expansion and the role of plastics and petrochemicals.

THE UK IS LAGGING BEHIND EUROPE ON URBAN PESTICIDE REDUCTION

By Nick Mole, Policy Officer, PAN UK The UK government has been consulting on ways to revise the National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides since December 2020. The plan, which aims to lay out how and where we can use pesticides in the UK and how we might reduce the use and impact of pesticide use across all sectors, was expected by the summer of 2021. We are still waiting.

These constant delays are frustrating, particularly when it comes to nonagricultural / urban pesticide use. There is no need to use pesticides in our parks, gardens, playgrounds and housing estates, or on our pavements and road verges. And there is no need for these interminable consultations when the way forward is simply to phase out the use of urban pesticides.

In January 2017, France banned the use of pesticides in public spaces with the introduction of a piece of legislation known as Labbe’s Law. There were some exceptions to the law as pesticides were still allowed to be used on roads, railways and at airports. In January 2019, the French government extended the ban to include

the use, sale and possession of pesticides by non-professional users, i.e. the general public. The express aim of this new legislation is to reduce the risks associate with use by amateurs. The legislation has recently been extended once more with a ban on the use of pesticides to now include cemeteries, allotments, schools and hospitals. This further bolsters the French drive to reduce the use and impact of pesticides.

Secondly, the European Commission recently published an outline for delivering its Farm to Fork strategy to reduce the use and impact of pesticides by 50% by 2030.

As part of this strategy a proposal has been put forward to ban the use of all pesticides in public parks, gardens, playgrounds and ecologically sensitive areas. Pesticide use will also be banned within three metres of these areas. If adopted this new measure will apply to every Member State within the EU.

www.pan-uk.org | 20

Thirdly, the government of Guernsey announced that as of October 2022 the sale of products containing glyphosate to the public will no longer be permitted. This move follows concerns about the impact of glyphosate on the water supply and local environment on the island.

All of the above clearly demonstrates that government intervention on the use of urban pesticides is perfectly possible if the political will is present. However, it seems that in the UK, at least at central government level, the political will to make similar bold steps is lacking.

While many UK councils, from parish to county, are taking steps to reduce or phase out the use of pesticides under their control, there is no support from central government. Since 2009, PAN UK has

been calling on the government to phase out the use of non-agricultural pesticides and while other countries are making large steps in this direction, the UK is still consulting on whether or not they could do so.

If the UK government is really committed to halting and reversing biodiversity loss and making the UK a cleaner, greener place to live for all then banning the use of pesticides in urban areas, supporting councils and other land managers to do so, and ending the sale of pesticides to the public would be a good place to start.

We hope that when the National Action Plan is finally published it will include such measures.

www.pan-uk.org | 21

DEFRA FARM VISIT

By Sarah Haynes, Coordinator, The Pesticide Collaboration Flicking through google earth images on the projector, Martin outlines the changes he’s made to his farm over the past decade. Heat maps and hues of green tell stories of crop health, adjusted tramlines and new wildflower strips.

It’s early June, and The Pesticide Collaboration has organised a farm visit with ten people from various teams across the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), to talk about pesticide reduction and integrated pest management (IPM). Showing us around is Martin Lines, a Cambridgeshire-based arable farmer, and UK Chair of the Nature Friendly Farming Network.

Martin enthuses about the experiments he has trialled - sometimes out of necessity, sometimes out of curiosity: “My agronomist recommended that I spray for black bean aphid, but conditions were too wet and windy for a period of ten days, after which aphid numbers had dropped and ladybirds were eating them, so I decided not to spray and saw no detrimental impact on my gross margin. This got me thinking about the pros and cons of insecticide use, as insecticides were becoming less beneficial due to resistance and were taking out the beneficials that were doing the natural pest control. So I took the decision to do everything I could to control pests without insecticides and monitor the impacts on my yields and profit margins.”

www.pan-uk.org | 22

This farm tour with Defra coincided with decisions for the final tweaks to the new IPM standard in the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI). The new SFI is one of the much-anticipated post-Brexit farming schemes, and part of the government’s “public money for public goods” promise.

Translating broad promises into detailed policy obviously comes with challenges but as a Collaboration, up until this farm visit, we’d been concerned that Defra had lost direction and courage on what was possible for IPM, often citing a perceived lack of evidence that pesticides cause harm in the first place, or that meaningful change was too difficult.

Martin says there were some anxious moments when he first started, but profit margins have never suffered: “Prior to 2013, profit margins had stagnated, but the trend is now definitely upwards.” Martin says that overall, on his farm, crop yields are a

little lower, but the yield losses are more than made up for by the reduction in how much he spends on inputs to produce the food, and his farm is now more resilient to weather and market fluctuations.

Albeit having a lovely day out on the farm, and facilitating fascinating discussions from the comfort of haybales, it is always hard to know whether these visits actually influence policy. In this case we think it did, as shortly after this visit we were encouraged by the progress shared by Defra teams on the new IPM standard.

The attendees told us how inspired they had been, and how useful they found it to see real IPM on the ground. Here’s hoping our optimism is not unfounded, and the SFI heralds a new beginning that supports farmers to embrace change, farming with fewer inputs and creating more space for nature – after all we have a biodiversity crisis to solve.

www.pan-uk.org | 23

CONSOLIDATED LIST OF BANNED PESTICIDES UPDATED Pesticide Action Network (PAN) congratulates the countries moving to ban Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) that are harming people and the environment, as the global organisation releases the 6th edition of the PAN International Consolidated List of Banned Pesticides. The Bans List provides a basis for political action, providing a long list of pesticides that many countries have found too hazardous for use and for which they have found alternatives.

The latest edition sees the addition of 73 new pesticide active ingredients newly banned by governments in at least one of 168 countries because of threats to human health and/ or the environment. The European Union and UK once again scored highest with the number of pesticides banned (464), followed by Turkey (212) and Saudi Arabia (201) which banned more than 200 currently used pesticides. Brazil (133) is the stand out country in Latin America. Indonesia (62) and Cambodia (60) scored highest in Asia, but the region is a long way behind.

(UAPP) found that 44% of the global farm workforce is acutely poisoned by pesticides every year. The percentage of farmers and farmworkers being poisoned every year rises sharply to 51% for South East Asia and nearly 65% for South Asia – correlating with the failure of many Asian countries to ban the pesticides causing the problems.

It is encouraging that 39 countries have now banned chlorpyrifos, and Sri Lanka’s ban of glyphosate brings the number of countries that have banned the widely used herbicide linked to cancer and other diseases to four.

Despite this good news, there is an urgent need for all countries to take strong action to ban more hazardous pesticides, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America where most of these pesticides are used. The recent review of unintentional acute pesticide poisoning

Pesticide Action Network UK

ISSN 2514-5770

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

The Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD

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

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

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