Pesticides News The journal of Pesticide Action Network UK An international perspective on the health and environmental effects of pesticides
No.96 November 2014
PAN UK staff scientist Stephanie Williamson with agronomist Henry Imbacuan of the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Photo: PAN UK)
In this edition • • • • • •
Growing coffee without endosulfan in Latin America: using cultural controls Toxic glyphosate herbicides fly under the EU's regulatory radar New National Pollinator Strategy – A welcome approach but too weak on pesticides Innovative food spray shows results in non-pesticide cotton production in Ethiopia Pesticides, suicide and depression Children and pesticides
No.96 November 2014
Growing coffee without endosulfan in Latin America: (1) using cultural controls PAN UK recently collected farmers’ experiences in managing coffee pests in Latin America without the use of the highly toxic insecticide endosulfan. In the first of a series for PN, Staff Scientist, Stephanie Williamson describes how farmers are keeping pests in check by good field hygiene. The listing of endosulfan by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) in 2011, triggered its inclusion on the prohibited lists of a number of supply chain standards schemes, such as 4C, Rainforest Alliance and Utz Certified. Fairtrade had already prohibited its use by certified farmers since 2005. However, this poses a challenge for many farmers who have been reliant on endosulfan until now. How can they shift to safer forms of pest management, without risking economic losses in their coffee yield or quality? To address this challenge, PAN UK set out to learn how farmers certified under standards such as Fairtrade have found effective alternative methods for controlling the principal coffee pest targeted by endosulfan, the Coffee Berry Borer (CBB) Hypothenemus hampei. CBB is a tiny beetle which bores into ripening coffee berries, causing serious quality losses or yield reduction in the harvested beans if not adequately controlled.
over-ripe or dry berries left in the groves at the end of the season. When and how to do these sanitary practices (also known as cultural controls) depends on the climate and coffee production characteristics in different regions. Cultural controls in zones with continuous flowering
A coffee berry after attack by a coffee berry borer (Photo: PAN UK)
• cultural controls based on field hygiene practices • biological controls, applying biopesticides based on the fungus Beauveria bassiana • physical controls, using traps baited with methanol/ethanol as an attractant
In addition, almost all farmers monitor their coffee plots to assess if and where borers are present and in PAN UK’s project on Growing what numbers. This field observation Coffee without Endosulfan informs their decision-making on interviewed owners or managers from when control actions are needed. 21 certified farms about their pest Most farmers combine two or more of control methods in two regions – these methods in an IPM strategy Colombia and Central America (El which enables them to prevent the Salvador and Nicaragua). Farms pest from causing serious economic chosen covered large estates, medium damage, with reduced or zero and small scale family farms, shaded insecticide use. and unshaded coffee groves, and with Since the beetles survive from one varying levels of CBB attack. season to the next inside berries that Farmers reported three effective have either dropped to the ground or methods of controlling CBB without been left on trees after harvest, one of endosulfan or other hazardous the most effective ways to control this pesticides: pest is to collect and remove any ripe, www.pan-uk.org
Colombian coffee growing is characterised by almost continuous flowering, which means that some berries will be developing and some maturing in each farm at most times of the year. Making sure that the ripe ones are picked regularly, however small the quantity, is important to keep CBB reproduction rates low, by removing the borers multiplying inside ripe berries. Just as important is cleaning out any remaining overripe and dried berries after harvest to remove these breeding sites. All nine Colombian farms interviewed are carrying out cultural controls along the lines of the National Coffee Growers’ Federation general recommendation for regular and frequent picking and good sanitary controls. These two activities are: i. Regular picking, i.e. the timely picking of mature berries, fit for sale ii. Post-harvest sanitation collecting ripe, over-ripe and dry berries left on trees after the two major harvests, and those on the ground. Most farmers interviewed are doing some form of picking every 15 days, and some more frequently. Many highlighted the importance of regular and timely pickings as probably their most important tool for borer IPM, along with good sanitation 2
Pesticides News of left-over berries. Three of the nine farms interviewed are able to manage borer at acceptable levels using only cultural controls. These are two small farms, both at high altitude, where CBB attack is generally lower with cooler temperatures, and one medium sized farm. Two other farms complement these controls with biopesticides, while another two make occasional insecticide use on infested hotspots. The two remaining farms, both large estates, are in the process of replacing insecticide use with biopesticides.
No.96 November 2014 prohibitive. Rather, they see them as an essential part of their CBB management strategy and an investment for good quality coffee. One farm manager emphasized that without proper sanitation measures to reduce borer breeding potential, neither chemical nor biological control methods will work effectively.
Achieving good picking practices and post-harvest clean-up requires training of workers and close supervision, as well as good farm organisation, planning, monitoring Several farms treat all berries from and evaluating how well the tasks regular, small pickings to kill any have been done. Several large and medium farms motivate their workers borer and prevent them re-infesting the plots. They take care to collect by running competitions, rewarding these in covered containers (to the best work teams and paying a decent daily rate for the task. Farm prevent adult beetles from flying back into the groves) and then either managers and owners view the place berries in boiling water for a benefits of thorough field hygiene as few minutes or in sealed containers exceeding the costs, especially when they are able to gain a better price for for 1-2 days so that gases released from the fermentation process kill the their coffee through improved borer, before the berries are quality. processed. Small-scale farmers explained it Cost and labour aspects means paying close attention to the groves, using decision making tools, It was not possible to obtain much and making sure to carry out tasks at data on labour requirements or costs the right time. Encouraging of carrying out sanitary controls. This neighbouring farmers to do timely was mainly because for much of the controls too helps to prevent borer year, farmers will be able to sell infesting across farm boundaries. some or maybe all of the beans Several farmers emphasised the collected in this activity. In other importance of regularly renewing words, they are at least partly trees (every 5, 6 or 7 years) as compensating for the labour contributing to borer management. collection costs. It was clear from the interviews that neither small nor Carrying out cultural controls is quicker and easier in plots with trees large-scale farmers view the labour that are not too tall or dense, helping costs of cultural controls as the farmer to save labour costs, in addition to the productivity benefits from rejuvenated trees. The smallholders interviewed were able to afford the loss of income from newly planted plots (which take 3 years to reach fruiting stage) by growing a variety of other crops for food and for sale and keeping Bored berries in a sealed container to livestock. ferment and kill the borer (Photo: PAN UK)
Cultural controls in zones with one
main harvest period Unlike Colombia, green berries are not present year-round in Nicaragua and El Salvador. There is a marked dry season in the months after coffee harvest, when no developing berries are present. The rainy season then triggers a welldefined major flowering although much smaller, earlier flowerings may also occur. The main cultural controls used in the region to reduce CBB levels are: i. A major clean-up of groves after harvest, to remove any berries left on the trees (mainly over-ripe or dried ones, those missed by the pickers, plus a few late ripening ones) and collect fallen berries. This activity serves to reduce the number of breeding sites for the borer during the dry season so that in the next season borer population levels are much lower when the new generation of berries become susceptible to attack. ii. Collecting any early ripening berries, in one or more picking rounds 1-3 months before harvest. These berries result from early, minor flowerings and are very often attacked by the borer as they reach the attractive stage. This selective removal of already bored or highly pest-attractive berries from the grove serves mainly to protect the berries of the main harvest by reducing the number of borers reproducing in the grove and their potential to infest more berries. Four of the 12 farms visited in Central America are able to manage borer adequately with cultural controls alone. These include one small sized and three medium sized farms. Two of these farms are at high altitude in a low pest pressure area, the other two are in a low-medium pressure area. The majority of farms (67%), however, complement sanitary collections with either use of trapping or application of biopesticides, or both. 3
No.96 November 2014
Case study: Las Brisas farm, Risaralda Dept. Colombia The climate in this zone encourages rapid borer multiplication and levels may easily reach 6-8% even with decent cultural controls. Coffee with over 3% borer damage suffers a price reduction and some buyers demand stricter quality levels. However, Don Guillermo Londoño took an active decision not to rely on insecticides when he bought this 25ha farm some years back, even though CBB levels were up to 18% on some of the plots and extension service agents urged him to spray. Instead, he developed his own CBB management system, based on intensive sanitary picking at pest hotspots, complemented with biopesticide applications to the ground beneath the foliage, to control any borers surviving in fallen berries. He and his farm manager have trained two young women to work regularly on hotspot berry collection and monitor groves to check whether control actions have succeeded in reducing CBB levels. They carry out rigorous controls every 3-4 weeks after major and minor harvest periods, on identified hotspots (trees with more than 5/100 bored berries from sampling) and their 6-8 neighbouring trees, removing all berries from the ground and any overripe or dry berries on the branches. This system achieves 1.5% CBB levels Farm owner Don Guillermo even in seasons with very high attack rates. Although labour-intensive, Don Guillermo Londoño (Photo: PAN UK) benefits from better berry-bean yield ratios and selling quality coffee at a higher price. In 2010 he gained Rainforest Alliance and Utz certifications and has joined a speciality coffee producers’ association, with clients interested in top quality and environment-friendly practices.
Farm manager, Juan Pablo Salguero at Las Brisas farm, Colombia, shows his CBB monitoring record book. Careful observation of each plot on a regular basis allows him to identify ‘hotspots’ of borer infestation, where more intensive sanitary berry collection is needed. (Photo: PAN UK)
Both activities are labour-intensive to carry out well. Clearing as many berries as possible out of the plots after harvest requires the most labour (estimated 10-14 days per ha) but many farmers avoid the cost of this labour by allowing local people to come and collect these berries for free. The berries will be a mixture of unripe, overripe and dried berries and the unpulped berries can generally be sold as low-grade coffee to local traders or mills. The income www.pan-uk.org
generated, while not large, can be an important benefit for workers or poorer people who tend to do this work. It enables farmers to achieve a reasonable clean-up at almost zero cost, requiring just a little supervision, and helps to set good relations between the farmer and the labouring community. A minority of farmers interviewed prefer to pay for this clean-up because they feel it is done better by their workers. Picking early ripening berries is
Don Guillermo avoids use of herbicides, maintaining a moistureconserving mulch of plantain leaves with non-competitive broad-leaved weeds and leguminous plants between his coffee trees, which help the Beauveria fungus work well in this shady micro-climate. He is proud that he has not used any insecticide for over 10 years on his coffee and now produces insecticide-free plantain, grown along the coffee plot borders and as intercrop rows. less intensive, although workers need to go carefully row by row, selecting the few ripe or bored berries per tree. Just over half of farmers do two sanitation rounds, 4-6 weeks apart, as berries from the early flowerings mature. As quantities picked in a day are small, this work is usually paid by day rate. Estimates varied widely for labour required, from 0.75 to 7 person/days per ha, averaging 3.75 days per ha per round. Most (63%) farmers put these 4
Pesticides News berries into boiling water in order to kill any borer inside. Experiences vary on whether any useful beans can be salvaged from these pickings. Three farmers said almost all the beans will be useless. Four others explained that some can be dried and carefully selected for sale, or used for home consumption. Only two farmers viewed sanitary picking as expensive. The majority (63%) considered the task as an essential investment in gaining coffee quality by reducing borer levels. Several explained that the benefits gained in CBB reduction
No.96 November 2014 controls in controlling CBB? They can be very effective if done well and at the correct times. A third of farms interviewed in Colombia and Central America are able to manage CBB at acceptable levels with only cultural controls. In places or years with medium-high CBB pressure, most farmers will need to complement cultural controls with other methods. In a parallel online survey the project conducted 51% of 45 respondents from 12 coffee producing countries rated these methods ‘very effective’ and 39% as ‘reasonably effective’, including in
need? Labour time is considerable but the results in reducing amount of damaged beans and limiting CBB reproduction in following seasons are well worth the cost. How easy is it to implement? Easy as long as workers are supervised and motivated to do a good job. Some farms use special incentives. Small farms can easily do these tasks with family members and/or 1 or 2 part-time workers. Regular tree pruning and renewing plots every 6-7 years makes cultural controls quicker, easier and therefore cheaper. Does it need much training before it can be used? On large farms, it needs careful organisation, planning and supervision. Farms aiming to replace chemical use with more intensive cultural controls and biological products find it is best to have dedicated, trained workers for these tasks.
Nicaraguan coffee farmer Maritza Colindres removes early ripening (red) berries to protect her main crop of berries (Photo: PAN UK)
were well worth the cost incurred. One farmer estimated that spraying endosulfan twice would be more expensive than labour costs for sanitary picking. The practice does require careful supervision and some farmers like to check themselves that workers are doing it properly.
high CBB pressure zones.
How much does it cost? This depends partly on whether any of the coffee collected can be sold and recompense part of the labour costs. For sanitary collections, some of the berries will be too damaged to sell. In Colombia, regular harvesting of ripe berries every 15-21 days will Several farmers recommended to generate income. Clean-up picking avoid too much shade in zones with may produce some 2nd grade beans. frequent cloud cover as CBB levels In Central America two rounds of build up in dense, humid plots with picking early ripening berries costs excessive shade. These farmers on average US$38 per ha, compared prune back trees after harvest and/or with US$27-35 (including labour) remove branches from shade trees on for one application of endosulfan a regular basis. (conventional farms may apply 2-3 Summary of findings times per season). How effective are cultural www.pan-uk.org
How much labour time does it
In conclusion, good cultural controls are the backbone of any effective IPM strategy for Coffee Berry Borer. No chemical, biological or trapping methods will work well or cost-effectively without grove sanitation. Further information Read the farm case studies and guidance materials on cultural and other IPM methods via www.panuk.org/projects/growing-coffeewithout-endosulfan Watch the project video Growing Coffee without Endosulfan: Video no. 1 Cultural Controls at: http:// youtu.be/gw4h3POzcgM Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org This project was conducted in partnership with the 4C Coffee Association www.4ccoffeeassociation.org and kindly funded by FAO, the Sustainable Coffee Program powered by IDH and the ISEAL Alliance. 5
No.96 November 2014
Toxic glyphosate herbicides fly under the EU's regulatory radar A recent article published in the Ecologist has highlighted the dangers inherent in some of the co-formulant substances used with the active substance glyphosate to make it a more efficient weed killer. The results of this investigation, reported below, give rise to even greater cause for concern about the ongoing use of glyphosate, in all its varieties, in agriculture and on the streets and pavements where we live. The widely used herbicide glyphosate has been judged 'safe', write Pete Farrer & Marianne Falck. But by the time it's used, it's in a 'formulation' with toxic surfactants, which escape EU regulation despite their known dangers. Germany alone has forbidden the use of the most dangerous surfactant - but is keeping its evidence secret.
greatly increases the chances that it will be ingested by humans and farm animals. It is now used to desiccate cereal, pulse and oilseed crops prior to harvest - where it produces residues in some of our staple foods [ii]
A proper, health-oriented regulatory system must look at the synergistic effects of chemical mixtures, and on that basis what we have at present falls far short.
It is also used extensively on GM crops engineered to be 'Roundup Ready'. This does not (yet) take place in the EU, however such crops dominate in North and South America and account much of the soy and maize imported to the EU for animal feed.
Earlier this year, Germany declared the active substance glyphosate, a component of many herbicides, as 'safe' in its draft re-assessment report.
But whilst active substances are tested and regulated on a European level, pesticide formulations, such as RoundupÂŽ, are not.
Germany's words have weight as it is acting as the Rapporteur Member State for this active substance. But an investigation into the report has exposed another story - it is far from 'safe'.
Because of an initial suspicion [iii] that the surfactant called POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine) might be toxic for humans, animals and the environment, the German authorities have taken their own protective action.
It is well known that glyphosate is one of the most tested active substances, and is seen as a simple and cost-effective way of controlling weeds in a variety of situatuions.
In the meantime, the EU has failed to take any action at all. "Given the alarming results of independent studies [iv], this is simply shocking", says Martin HĂ¤usling, Member of the Greens / European Free Alliance Group.
Glyphosate is the active substance in the most widely used herbicide worldwide called RoundUpÂŽ, sales were valued at US$ 5.46 bn in 2012 "Even though I have been criticising and are expected to reach US$ 8.79bn The European Food and Safety [i] by 2019; it is big business. Authority for many years because of its conflict of interest with the However, the active substance alone agricultural industry, it would be is not sprayed by farmers, councils or wrong to blame them alone. The 'you' in gardens and driveways. national authorities play a big role in Because to work efficiently, it needs this process." additional chemicals called 'surfactants'. But in Germany, things are different A shocking omission The widespread use of glyphosate www.pan-uk.org
Medicine (BgVV) has called upon Member States in the European Union not to accept glyphosate products containing the surfactant POEA based on the high cytotoxicity [v] of the compounds. However Monsanto and Cheminova who at the time were jointly submitting glyphosate for re-approval - quickly disputed all the evidence that was presented [vi]. A 1999 report stated: "Accordingly, in the formulations for which toxicological data has been submitted as part of the joint dossier of Monsanto and Cheminova, surfactants of this type are not contained any more." [vii]. But the Agro-Chemical companies continued to manufacture and sell products containing POEA. A spokesperson of Monsanto praised surfactants like POEA because "the amount of active ingredient needed per treated area can be reduced." He also stressed that "the development of new products requires several years of research and development and review by competent public authorities and Europe has some of the highest standards in the world." These "high standards" seemingly have started to fail, because since 1999 there was scientific consensus that the single active substance approach to risk assessment was flawed.
Finally in 2005 the EU revised the Residue Directive and changed it into Regulation (396/2005) and made Cumulative Risk Assessment mandatory "as soon as methods to Since the late 1990's, the German assess such effects are available [art Federal Institute for Health Protection 14.b]." [viii] of Consumers and Veterinary 6
Pesticides News The next step would be a framework developed by European Food and Safety Authority. But very little has happened since then.
This time, the representative formulation that has been presented by the agro-chemical industries European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF), does not contain the surfactant The 'single active substance' POEA [xiv]. Only by coincidence? approach to risk assessment is flawed Or was it the least toxic formulation By 2008, more evidence on this that the GTF could find? specific surfactant was mounting. A Germany acts - but key data remain paper by J. M Brausch et al. in 2007 under lock and key [ix] "found all POEA formulations to be extremely toxic". This year the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and This prompted the German other German safety authorities Environmental Agency (UBA) to published their draft re-assessment request more study data specifically report (RAR) on glyphosate and the about chronic toxicity. What followed representative formulation, in the was a "very intense professional process re-assessing hundreds of dispute"[x] between the UBA and studies and public domain literature. agro-chemical companies, as a source from UBA stated. Then the UBA did something exceptional. They included a chapter The result: The companies did not 'Further toxicological data for other submit any data, but agreed to replace potential co-formulants' [xv] about POEA in the glyphosate formulations the surfactant POEA to make sure all - however this resulted in the UBA Member States are informed that still not having the data to prove nearly all toxicological endpoints chronic toxicity. investigated are clearly more toxic Two years later the German Federal than glyphosate alone. Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) By the end of this year all carried out its own toxicological formulations containing POEA will evaluation of the glyphosate-POEA have been removed from the German formulation, after a German forestry market. So what happened in worker developed chest pain with Germany for them to move from rapidly increasing severe respiratory 'restricted' to formally 'banned'? distress and fever up to approximately 38Â°C. Answer: we don't know. All requests for a list of which companies had to His pathology revealed "toxic replace POEA, exactly when, and inflammation of the lungs" that was which surfactants are now used significantly different from bacterial instead has been declined by German infection [xi]. authorities on the basis that the This resulted in the German information constitutes 'Trade authorities prohibiting the usage of Secrets'. certain glyphosate formulations with "The protection of public health must a high content of POEA for the have the highest priority - and not the production of animal feeds in order to interests of companies or authorities", avoid a risk of toxins being passed commented Martin HĂ¤usling. "The through the food chain [xii]. But how public must have the right to check are these formulations tested? that. The European Precautionary Each time glyphosate is risk assessed Principle is even as important as the in the EU it is done by the Freedom of Information." presentation of one 'representative What about the rest of us? formulation' from the vast quantity available on the market [xiii]. There are only 91 glyphosate www.pan-uk.org
No.96 November 2014 products registered in Germany [xvi] - of which only one remaining product contains POEA, which will be removed by the end of the year. But there are 424 glyphosate products registered in the UK [xvii] and it is not known exactly how many of these products contain POEA). Rosate 36 is one of UK's most widely used herbicides in agricultural, horticultural, industrial, amenity and forestry herbicides in use that contain the surfactant POEA. The discussion about the surfactant POEA shows that the classic method of testing and regulating individual active substances for toxicity does not work. Or as a source from the BfR said: "We should have a deeper look at coformulants in the future. The formulation of glyphosate and POEA is an important lesson in that there might be specific surfactants, which can increase the toxicity of the active substance. We don't assume this is common, but it is an increasingly important factor within the field of toxicity which we are aware of." But this story is not about just one surfactant. What is now known is that surfactants can be synergistic with glyphosate. When chemicals are synergistic, the combined effect of two chemicals is much greater than the sum of the effects of each agent given alone. Even Monsanto say in one of their own patents [xviii]: "By exploiting a newly discovered synergistic interaction between two classes of surfactant applied together with the glyphosate, surprisingly enhanced herbicidal effectiveness is obtained by this method." But the formulations remain secret! Due to 'data confidentiality' or putting it bluntly 'data secrets', it is not known what these surfactants are, how much more toxic the formulations might be, or even how 7
Pesticides News many different potentially toxic products there are. The European Court of Justice ruled [xix] in 2013 that the European Commission should disclose industry safety and compositional studies on the pesticide glyphosate, which are currently hidden from the public under data secrets.
No.96 November 2014 The EU's own documentation admits: CRD/PRiF/Documents/Results%20and "Current EU legislation does not provide for a comprehensive and integrated assessment of cumulative effects of different chemicals taking into account different routes of exposure". [xxii]
It is known that UBA reported POEA in 2012 as an "unacceptable coThe Commission has appealed formulant" for a so called 'negative against the ruling [xx], but Croplife list' [xxiii] to the European America, The National Association of Commission. Again nothing Manufacturers of the United States happened. A spokesperson for the and The American Chemistry Council European Commission has only have submitted an application to revealed that "The European intervene [xxi]. Commission is currently preparing a request to the EFSA about POEA." It could be viewed as significant that the EU is protecting industry, by not It has taken 15 years from initial revealing the content of emissions of suspicion that a glyphosate pesticide formulations into the formulation was toxic, to approach a environment. situation that it could be banned within the EU, and not just one Pesticide formulations - as the Member State. German Safety authorities explained are regulated on a national level. But Tougher pesticide regulation of the scientific studies that are surfactants and formulations must be presented for approval are carried out the next step. by the manufacturers themselves. Pete Farrer and Marianne Falck are Only the authorities have access to investigative journalists and film these studies and have not been producers, collaborating on the full verified by independent scientists. length investigative documentary Hungry for Pesticides, currently in No EU framework for assessing production. formulations Pete is also a farmer - an experience "Any regulatory system that treats which led him to investigate the entire chemicals in isolation is necessarily topic of pesticides, herbicides and flawed", commented Zac Goldsmith, their health impacts. the Conservative MP for Richmond Park & North Kingston. This article is a part of an investigation for the film. Please "Chemicals interact with others when support the investigation and the film they're put out into the environment, - www.hungry4pesticides.com/#! and they interact when mixed with legalfeehelp/cxrm others in different chemical formulas." "A proper, health-oriented regulatory system must look at the synergistic effects of chemical mixtures, and on that basis what we have at present falls far short." The bad news is there is still no legal framework at EU level to assess formulations on a regulatory basis. www.pan-uk.org
References [i] According to a new market report published by Transparency Market Research, 'Glyphosate Market for Genetically Modified and Conventional Crops - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2013 - 2019'. [ii]http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/Resources/
%20Reports/2013/BNA %20Q4%202013%20FINAL.pdf [iii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238089929/ Glyphosate-RAR-08-Volume-3CA-CPB-6-2013-12-18-San p799 - German forestry worker - Pers comm (UBA) [iv] Summary of the relevant literature on surface active substances in glyphosate-based formulations RAR - http://www.scribd.com/ doc/238090225/Glyphosate-RAR-13Volume-3CA-CP-B-9-Appendix-2013-12-18 [v] http://www.moleculardevices.com/ applications/areas-research/cytotoxicity [vi] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238082880/ FULLREPORT-GLYPHOSAT-05 p20-21 [vii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238082880/ FULLREPORT-GLYPHOSAT-05 p20 [viii] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do? uri=OJ:L:2005:070:0001:0016:en:PDF [ix] Brausch, J. M., & Smith, P. N. 2007. Toxicity of Three Polyethoxylated Tallowamine Surfactant Formulations to Laboratory and Field Collected Fairy Shrimp, Thamnocephalus platyurus. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52(2), 217-221 [x] Pers comm. (UBA) [xi] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238089929/ Glyphosate-RAR-08-Volume-3CA-CPB-6-2013-12-18-San p799 - German forestry worker - Pers comm (UBA) [xii] Pers comm. (BVL) [xiii] https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/ prodsearch.asp [xiv] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238082730/ Glyphosate-RAR-01-Volume-1-2013-12-18San p98 [xv] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238089929/ Glyphosate-RAR-08-Volume-3CA-CPB-6-2013-12-18-San p835 B.6.13.3 Further toxicological data for other potential coformulants [xvi] https://portal.bvl.bund.de/psm/jsp/ [xvii] https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/ prodsearch.asp [xviii] http://www.google.com/patents/ WO2001017358A1?cl=en [xix] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/ document.jsf? text=&docid=142701&pageIndex=0&doclang =en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid =59034 [xx] http://www.ashurst.com/publicationitem.aspx?id_Content=9722 [xxi]http://www.nam.org/~/ media/18A3D55120154CD790089B40F1611 C32/ European_Commn_v_Stichting_Greenpeace_i ntervention.pdf
Pesticides News [xxii] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/HTML/? uri=CELEX:52012DC0252&from=EN [xxiii] [REG] 1107/2009 - Article 27: Coformulants -http://www.euissuetracker.com/ en/focus/Pages/Plant-Protection-ProductsRegulation.aspx
No.96 November 2014 [xx] http://www.ashurst.com/publicationitem.aspx?id_Content=9722 [xxi]http://www.nam.org/~/ media/18A3D55120154CD790089B40F1611 C32/ European_Commn_v_Stichting_Greenpeace_i ntervention.pdf
[xxii] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/HTML/? uri=CELEX:52012DC0252&from=EN [xxiii] [REG] 1107/2009 - Article 27: Coformulants -http://www.euissuetracker.com/ en/focus/Pages/Plant-Protection-ProductsRegulation.aspx
New National Pollinator Strategy – A welcome approach but too weak on pesticides The long awaited National Pollinator Strategy was released by Defra Minister Liz Truss in November to eager anticipation amongst all those concerned with the plight of pollinators in the UK. PAN UK broadly welcomes the Strategy, but Defra’s reluctance to address the role of pesticides in pollinator declines ultimately make it a missed opportunity, writes PAN UK Policy Officer Nick Mole. The Strategy acknowledges that pesticides can play a role in pollinator declines, offers little new to address this, instead it sticks to the UK government line of “business as usual”. Of great concern is the assertion on page nine of the Strategy document that “Pollinators face many pressures, including....use of some pesticides (if not used in accordance with the law and authorisation conditions.) This is ignores the numerous studies which have clearly demonstrated that certain neonicotinoid pesticides have caused serious harm to pollinators even when used in accordance with the law and authorisation conditions. The same case can be made for many pesticides that are used within the guidelines set by law and regulatory advice but still cause harm.
effects of neonicotinoids on bees and other pollinator species. It appears that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence (see amongst others: www.iucn.org/ news_homepage/?16025/SystemicPesticides-Pose-Global-Threat-toBiodiversity-And-EcosystemServices) showing the harm that these chemicals can do is not good enough for Defra to come to a decision on. Instead they recommend further research into the effects of neonicotinoids to be overseen by the pesticide industry: the very people that manufacture and profit from the use and sale of these chemicals. Is there a clearer example of foxes looking after the hen house?
study into IPM in Wales, for example, highlighted that much more This alone is enough to undermine could be done to improve its uptake; the legitimacy of the Strategy and is a especially in arable crops. Many of huge disappointment. PAN UK has our European neighbours are way Defra claims that the “tough EU repeatedly called on the government ahead of the UK in terms of IPM regulatory regime” on pesticides to change its stance on neonicotinoids implementation, and are working ensures that unacceptable effects to and come into line with other with farmers to develop sustainable the environment do not occur when countries – not just in the EU but systems for managing pests, diseases pesticides are used properly. globally. However they appear deaf and weeds based on ecological Implying UK government support for to our appeals and prefer to side with science. We want the Strategy to the EU regulatory regime, when in their friends in the agrochemical trigger such a move in the UK, but fact it has consistently fought tooth industry instead. this requires recognition from Defra and nail against well justified PAN UK welcomes the inclusion of that the UK’s current over-reliance on restrictions on the use of pesticides Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in pesticide must be reversed, and for and was particularly and bitterly the Strategy as one of the key steps the UK government to put in place opposed to any restrictions on the use for the Strategy. But it is policies to drive this change. of the bee toxic neonicotinoids! This disappointing that Defra offers no is hypocrisy writ large! The UK government needs to change new government support to increase its thinking pesticides completely, not The Strategy also states that there is a IPM uptake. Such support is only for the benefit of pollinators, but need for more research into the desperately needed. A recent ADAS www.pan-uk.org
Pesticides News also for human health and the environment in general. Business as usual in regard to pesticides is simply not acceptable.
No.96 November 2014 For a range of views on the new Strategy please visit the UK Bee Coalition website where some of the leading UK NGO’s give their views on the National Pollinator Strategy
and its strengths and weaknesses. http://www.ejfoundation.org/bees/ NPS
News in brief Innovative food spray shows results 8-10 quintals per hectare this season. in non-pesticide cotton production in In fact, they are at the very highest Ethiopia end of cotton yields achieved by smallholder farmers anywhere in A PAN UK project intended to Africa. reduce pesticide use and improve the profitability of cotton production for It should, however, be noted that it smallholder farmers in the Ethiopian is unlikely that these high yields will Rift Valley area has shown in only its be maintained once the technology is first year that it is possible, without widely adopted. One reason for the pesticides, to produce cotton yields high yields is that the PAN Ethiopia that at least match - and often exceed team gave intensive one-to-one - those achieved by conventional support to the farmers managing the pesticide-based cotton growers. trial plots and ensured that regular insect monitoring took place and that This success has been achieved by the food spray was applied correctly adapting an innovative food spray, and at the right times. prepared using cheap, locally produced ingredients, to help manage Indeed, the conventional control pests without harmful chemical fields within the trail plots also pesticides, and which has already achieved higher yields than normal, proved successful in PAN UK cotton suggesting that the farmers took projects in Benin, west Africa. better care of the trial plots. “Real life” farmers will not receive such The food spray, developed by PAN intensive support. However, it should UK, the Australian Cotton Research be noted that in all but one case, the Institute and our west African project food spray combinations achieved partner, OBEPAB, is designed to higher yields than conventional pilots attract beneficial insects into cotton indicating that it is an appropriate fields and encourage them to remain technology for the region. there to prey on insect pests that attack the cotton. Pesticides, suicide and depression The PAN Ethiopia project team established a total of nine trial plots three each in the project areas of Shelle Mille, Chano Mailla and Faragusa. The results of the pilot projects were remarkable. The minimum average yield from the trial plots was 16.45 quintals of seed cotton per hectare (1quintal=100kg), and the highest yield was 23.03 quintals per hectare. These figures are very high and are around twice the yield being achieved by conventional growers in the region most of whom only managed between www.pan-uk.org
“Preventing suicide: a global imperative” is the first World Health Organisation report of its kind, aiming to increase awareness of the public health significance of suicide and suicide attempts and to make suicide prevention a higher priority on the global public health agenda. The ingestion of pesticides is among the most common methods of suicide globally, with around 30% of being due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middleincome countries. The report acknowledges that many suicides occur impulsively in moments of crisis and, in these circumstances, ready access to the means of suicide, such as pesticides can determine whether a person lives or dies. You can read the report at www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ releases/2014/suicide-preventionreport/en/ Pesticide Exposure and Depression
New research demonstrates a strong relationship between the use of Suicide by intentional pesticide pesticides and depression in farmers. ingestion is among the most common In particular, farmers were methods of suicide globally, and substantially more likely to kill pesticide-related debt is often cited as themselves as a result of their a contributory cause for many depression. smallholder farmers committing The research found that subjects suicide in the developing world. who used certain types of pesticide Moreover, pesticides have been were at an increased risk of linked to depression among those depression. One specific class of handling pesticides. pesticide, organochorines, was Two recent important reports have associated with a 90% higher chance drawn attention to these problems. of being diagnosed with depression. WHO calls for coordinated action to You can read the full report, reduce suicides worldwide Pesticide Exposure and Depression 10
Pesticides News among Male Private Pesticide awash with pesticides in their Applicators in the Agricultural Health mother's womb. They inhale or ingest Study, at ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307450/ more of these toxic chemicals than adults from food, water, air, and any News from around the Network surface they could touch, crawl or Children and pesticides play on. And, due to their developing Pesticide Action Network Asia & the bodies, are particularly vulnerable to harms posed by pesticides. Their Pacific (PANAP) have launched a children, their children's children and campaign to highlight the effects of future generations increasingly face a pesticides on children. highly polluted environment that Children are borne pre-polluted -
No.96 November 2014 threatens their overall well-being. Pesticides disrupt hormone functions (endocrine disruption), cause physical abnormalities, damage internal organs or systems, and adversely impact intellectual and behavioural development. Read the PANAP report Protect Our Children from Toxic Pesticides at www.panap.net/sites/default/files/ children-and-pesticides-booklet.pdf
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.