Pesticides (Chap 9)

Symposium (June 2018) on role of Pesticides in Sustainable Agriculture in EU. This will include examining the renewal of Glyphosate.

General Pesticides

French studies of nearly a thousand farms "failed to detect any conflict between low pesticide use and both high productivity and high profitability in 77% of the farms". They estimated that total pesticide use could be reduced by over 40% without any negative p&p effects in nearly 60% of farms.

Game & Wildlife APPG debate Precautionary Principle post Brexit. CPA v PAN. CPA said: "“risk assessment can deliver high environmental standards while producing more appropriate decisions than a hazard-based or precautionary approach because it allows the valuator to take into account a fuller picture of available information”. PAN said: " PP is a good principle and a common sense principle. It’s a driver for innovation and particularly in the pesticide industry.” (Much more in Chapter 9)

Pesticide Vigilance Science Magazine shows lack of post approval monitoring, agreeing with what was proposed in Bittersweet Brexit.

EU to ban pesticides on EFAs (Ecol Focus Areas - farms over 15 h must have 5% designated as EFA.)

Organic Regulation post-Brexit


Three quarters of public want stronger action on neonics. Three neonicotinoid pesticides were restricted from being used on flowering crops attractive to bees across the EU. However, neonicotinoid treated seeds are still widely used in other crops - such as wheat - and as a result are still entering the soil and water. Evidence shows that neonicotinoids used on crops like wheat can end up in wild flowers or flowering crops, thus posing an additional threat to bees - and that is why the European Commission now wants to extend the ban to all crops.

First study to show direct harm of neonics to songbirds. Birds fed with small quantities of neonics (equivalent of single corn seed) lost weight and more importantly got lost; this isn't helpful for migratory species.

Do bees loose their buzz? IPM for Brassicas

Matt Ridley argues that Neonics different from other insecticides as they are mainly used for seed dressing - thereby obviating the need to spray later. But this is exactly the point I make in the book - that this use is like routine use of antibiotics - that resistance will build up earlier, and in the insecticidal properties get everywhere rather than targeted on the pest when needed. So I argue for banning use as a seed dressing, but - under careful control - use when pest outbreaks - and the evidence from Royal Society backs this up. Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust back Ridley. Their neonic Guide

Michael Gove says we will keep present EU ban on neonics, when we leave the EU "The European Commission has now proposed the ban is extended to non-flowering crops. I asked the UK’s independent advisory body on pesticides to review the issue again. In their view, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that the risks posed by neonicotinoids are greater than previously understood. They advise that the evidence now supports the restrictions introduced in 2013"

Heavy neonic pollution of rivers uncovered as part of EU Water Directive's 'Watch List'. Five rivers were chronically polluted and two acutely so, most in the Eastern counties.

EU delays decision for blanket ban till early 2018.


The Problem with Glyphosate

Ever since the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report saying that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling pesticide Roundup, could 'probably' cause cancer, there have been many campaigns to get the stuff banned. However, journalist Kate Kelland, who works for the Reuters news agency, critiques the IARC saying they “dismissed and edited findings from a draft of its review of the weedkiller glyphosate that were at odds with its final conclusion that the chemical probably causes cancer." A key section of the IARC assessment underwent significant changes and deletions before the report was made public. One effect of the changes to the draft...was the removal of multiple scientists’ conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals.” She says there may be good reasons why these studies were ignored by IARC. Lots more in Chapter 9 of Bittersweet Brexit . French scientist calls for investigation into IARC's role. More from Accuracy in Public Health Research about data suppression in original IARC Monograph

Michael Gove said he would resist any ban on glyphosate Following inability to reach qualified majority on Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) about re-approval Gove says "The scientific picture on glyphosate is very different (from neonics). UK and EU scientists have clearly advised that it does not pose a risk to human health or the environment and that’s why the UK government supports its continuing approval."

Ask for Evidence Lesson Plan

How glyphosate ban would affect no-till farmers

EU countries vote 2:1 to allow Glyphosate for another 5 years UK, Germany & Poland (both previously abstained) voted to allow, France and Belgium against, Portugal abstained. Macron in France goes alone and promises ban in 3 years. This opens up a curious EU conundrum. If the EU votes to allow a substance, but France goes and bans it, is the reverse allowed? Where the EU bans a substance (or e.g GM crop), can a member state ignore the decision and allow it?

I cant help but think there needs to be a whole new set of clear criteria and tests agreed by all..see Chap 9 and 'Hazards Approach' for suggested way forward.

Copper Sulphate

Approval was renewed in Jan 2018 one of the 'data gaps' they addressed is mammalian toxicology area, "or toxicological information on the stabilisers used in the technical concentrates of some manufacturers. Estimated exposure of workers re-entering vineyards treated with copper-based formulations exceed the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL); considering the results of a repeated-dose toxicity study by inhalation, special care should be given for the protection of operators applying insoluble copper-based formulations." Further "an indicative consumer exposure calculated on the basis of available data ...resulted in a chronic exposure of 72.3% acceptable daily intake (ADI)." And Para 5 Ecotoxicology "data gaps were identified for further information to address the risk to birds and mammals, aquatic organisms, bees and other non-target arthropods and earthworms and other soil macro-organisms. A high risk was concluded for all the representative uses for birds and mammals, aquatic organisms and soil macro-organisms (critical area of concern)." Whether earthworms are more sensitive than soil macro organisms was not established.

Despite over 30 'data gaps', that consumer risks could not be finalised, and that there are three critical areas of concern, including 'high risk' to soil macro organisms (Para 9.2), copper sulphate got re-approval. It recommends Personal Protection for workers. Despite all this, copper sulphate is one of the chemicals that are allowed in organic farming.