Magazine - EU vote out 22 pesticides
SEARCH
POPULAR ARTICLES
NEWS ALERTS
Want to get news alerts delivered direct to your inbox?
Edit your email preferences.
RECENT COMMENTS
By Editor in Industry on 15th Jan 2009 9:00
The European Parliament has voted to tighten rules on pesticide use and ban at least 22 chemicals deemed harmful to human health.
The UK government, the Conservatives and the National Farmers' Union all oppose the new rules, saying they could hit yields and increase food prices. The rules have not yet been approved by the 27 member states' governments.
The draft law would ban substances that can cause cancer or that can harm human reproduction or hormones.
Under the new rules, any use of pesticides near schools, parks or hospitals would be either banned or severely restricted. Wholesale aerial crop-spraying would also be banned. The EU has stated throughout that the aim of this legislation is to ensure a high level of both human and animal health protection and that of the environment while, at the same time, safeguarding the competitiveness of EU agriculture.
The 22 substances are linked to cancer, can damage the reproductive and nervous systems, and also disrupt hormones.
The argument over their use has been raging for years, and the battle to get the ban approved in the European Parliament saw a huge lobbying campaign by farming groups as well as the chemical companies that manufacture pesticides.
Dire warnings were issued about the collapse in Europe's agricultural production should the legislation go ahead - a 100% fall in carrot production in the UK alone; a devastating effect on pea production; problems for farmers growing wheat and potatoes.
One particular bug-bear is the change in the legislation from an assessment of risk to one of hazard - in other words, if there is any threat to health whatsoever, a pesticide will be banned.
Neil Parrish is a British Conservative MEP, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Parliament - and a farmer.
He says the new legislation is badly thought through. "I think it goes too far," he says. "I think it's taking chemicals off the market which, if they are used properly, are not a problem. He adds: "These chemicals have a hazard, but if they are properly used under a risk basis, and there are proper withdrawal periods, then we can grow our crops."
Buffer zones would also be mandatory to protect aquatic environments and drinking water from pesticides.
The Soil Association backs the EU's bid to cut the use of chemicals it says can cause cancer and infertility.
Italian Green MEP Monica Frassoni said the vote was "a victory for the Greens and environmentalists, who managed collectively to resist enormous pressure from the industry".
National Farmers' Union deputy president Meurig Raymond said The lack of sound science behind the plans is a major concern," he said.
"We cannot support measures which reduce the tools available to farmers and growers to produce crops and that could ultimately jeopardise future food supply and security."
British Labour MEP Glenis Willmott however pointed to an important safeguard clause in the package. It says a substance needed to tackle a serious danger to plant health can be approved for up to five years, even if that substance does not meet the new safety criteria.
Manufacturers' pressure
The proposals have already been scaled back after Europe's pesticides industry warned they would remove from the market products that had been used without problems for years. Most pesticides currently on the market will be valid until at least 2015, giving pesticide manufacturers time to reformulate their products. Even so, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said "We are being asked to agree to something here when nobody knows what the impact will be.
While we have managed to secure some improvements surrounding the use of certain pesticides, the UK does not support these proposals."
Labour and Conservative MPs are calling for a full impact assessment of the proposed changes before the measures are approved.
Conservative Robert Sturdy MEP said: "We must have safer pesticides that are used responsibly but banning products that are safe when used correctly will add to already volatile food prices and food shortages.
The outcome of the vote was as follows:
Both compromise packages were voted through. The vote on an impact assessment in relation to the Regulation was not allowed to take place as this had not been tabled at the 1st reading of the legislation in November 2007.
The highlights of the Compromise package re: the Regulation text are as follows:
-Substances banned - the following active substances: POPs, PBT, vPvB, CMR 1&2 and endocrine disruptors (ED) will all be banned. But there will be a derogation for endocrine disruptors which would allow them to be authorised for use for five years if they are required to control a serious danger to plant health. This is the same as the proposal made by the Member States.
-Endocrine disruptors -Throughout the process there has been a great deal of discussion about the definition of endocrine disruptors. This is the main bone of contention for the British Government which has stated throughout that a proper (i.e scientific) definition of endocrine disruption has not been established. The trialogue discussions sought to introduce an interim definition of ED such that substances which are judged to be Carcinogenic 3 (C 3) Reproductive Toxicity 3 (R3), shall be considered to have endocrine properties.
-The compromise package has removed bee toxicity, immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity from the list of cut-off criteria. They will now be evaluated in the risk assessment process.
-If an active substance is considered to be a candidate for substitution it can be authorised for use for seven years with the option of re-applying for authorisation for another seven years.
The Member States will now adopt the Regulation as amended by the EP's compromise. This is likely to take place within the next month. It will then be published by the European Union in the spring and implemented by the Member States towards the end of 2010.
Source: BBC and press release
BBC News
Read more articles in Industry,
by Editor
or from January 2009.
There are 12 comments on this article
15 Jan 2009 by andy dixon
Consider that 97% of agricultural chemicals are used by amateurs, i.e. home gardeners. There is a reason for this. An amateur will often wrongly diagnose a pest/disease/disorder. On applying the wrong chemical and finding no improvement, they tend to apply more hoping to improve the situation. It`s this over-application which makes the chemical find it`s way into our water supplies. An example i recently saw was a neighbour who called on me for advice after applying massive amounts of selective herbicide to try and control crested hair grass (Koeleria ssp) in her lawn. It did eventually work and also killed off all the Ryegrass as well. Can you imagine how much chemical ended up entering the water table?
There is a reason for the precise application rates that applies to most of the chemicals we use. It`s because the chemical is taken up by the plant/pest/disease and none is left over to enter the water supply.
There should be one rule for them and one for us.
I also wonder if the PA certification system should me more selective as to the chemicals we are allowed to use. For example, I am apparently allowed to use chemicals on potatoes, peas etc. What do i know about potato and pea pests? Nothing! I`m a greenkeeper. vice-versa, would i expect a farmer to recognise fusarium? No.
15 Jan 2009 by PNCawood
Andy your facts are wrong. 97% of agricultural products are not used by amateurs. they simply are not approved for that use, or supplied in the same format! There is a clear and distinct difference between the type of and pack size of products available in B & Q or a garden centre to sort out domestic weeds compared to the types of arable pests and diseases. The example you use illustrates nicely how the label matters. Anyone who read the label of a SELECTIVE herbicide should have noticed that only broad leafed weeds not grasses would be controlled. that is why the selective herbicide didnt work - the product label would have told your neighbor this.
The EU vote poses a grave and serious threat to the ability of all pesticide users, in sports turf or agriculture to continue to operate at current levels of excellence.
Gentleman hand weeding may become a necessity!
Watch this space.
A weed is a plant whose virtue is yet to be dicovered.
15 Jan 2009 by andy dixon
I meant 97% as the total amount, not 97 out of 100 products. As you said, the selective herbicide (be it 2-4D,Dicamba, Mecoprop or whatever) would only control broad-leaf (or to be more precise, dicots as opposed to monocot) plants. That was exactly the point i was trying to make. My neighbour didn`t know the difference. All she knew was it wasn`t a desirable species in that situation (surely the definition of a weed) so she thought a selective weedkiller for lawns would solve her problem.
15 Jan 2009 by andy dixon
p.s. Is dicovered a sports surface that has reached the point where the dicots have overtaken the monocots?
15 Jan 2009 by jontaylor
Andy D,
You're still away with the fairies when you suggest 97% by any measure is used by amateurs.
You might do well to look at WHO wrote this legistlation and then assess their personal agenda.
(Clue - they belong to the German Green party)
The ciderman rolls
15 Jan 2009 by andy dixon
what percentage would you say then? In my experience a decent greenkeeper uses, say in the case of herbicides, the weeds as an indicator. i.e if you have Trifolium or Achillea ssp, you raise N levels, If you have Plantago or Taraxacum ssp, you aerate and drop irrigation levels.. The amateur will tend to just go to B&Q and spray year after year.
16 Jan 2009 by dr sam harding
Worldwide 50% of all pesticide usage is on one crop alone - cotton - definitely not for amateurs!
Surely the whole point about pesticide safety is that the phrase 'safe if used as directed' assumes that people are all perfectly informed and never make mistakes! If only that were true. Mistakes happen, and our increasing reliance on pesticides has only pushed our costs up and up till we grow in a political and commercial climate that allows little room for alternatives.
People are always fearful of change - and there are always those who refuse to consider alternatives, but if we can afford set-aside to protect the environment, then we can afford to produce less intensively in an environment that is environmentally friendly, and no longer needs separate set-aside to allow wildlife etc. to co exist.
Do we really want to continue to use chemicals that are known to affect our health, causing cancers, reproductive problems and endocrine affects? Or could we start finally to look at the bigger picture. The suggestion that for example, carrot production will drop by 100 percent if chemicals are withdrawn is just ridiculous - there are perfectly good strains that are resistant to carrot fly, and these can be further bred to produce a wider range. And there are increasing numbers of commercial growers using really simple alternatives, such as fleecing. Lets stop getting emotional, and start looking at facts, stop burying our heads in the sand, and begin to be constructive. Agriculture and horticulture survived perfectly well before the recent introduction of chemical pesticides, and will do so again - if we just open our minds and start using our brains. Plant Doctor
16 Jan 2009 by andy dixon
I`ve got to agree somewhat. In the case of bowling greens, and i`ve had many, i`ve sprayed twice in the last seven or eight years, both times herbicides. That was only when i first took the greens over. We should all be using cultural controls wherever possible. Nine times out of ten a pest/ disease or disorder is there because of a cultural problem. For example, moss and Juncus bufonis was a major problem on many greens (mostly those with automatic irrigation systems and inexperienced greenkeepers i noticed) last year due to the wet weather. Hence, the answer should be to aerate more and stop irrigating. I didn`t water my greens once last year and when some students (from Merrist Wood) came to see them for training, they were amazed that i had 8-10" of root penetration on such old (100 yr plus) greens. Chemicals should ALWAYS be a last resort. Cricket squares is a little more difficult as it`s a requirement of the game that it`s going to be a heavy clay, compacted root zone. Even then, spot treatment is more environmentally friendly than spraying the whole square. As for moss, who enjoyed using the recently banned Diclorophen? I did five greens in a day, wearing a particle mask (not a requirement but through experience) and then was vomiting outside the office at the end of the day. Seriously unpleasant stuff. As for Chlordane? God knows what that did to the "friendly bacteria"
16 Jan 2009 by andy dixon
p.s.I meant 97% in the uk. Last time i checked, we didn`t grow that much cotton! We tried wool but the sheep kept falling out of the trees!
16 Jan 2009 by Howard Banks
Andy
The UK agricultural pesticide market is approx £350 million
The UK amenity i.e turf mkt is less than £20 million
The uk Home and Garden Market less than £10 million
16 Jan 2009 by Grassman2011
Weeds are weeds, yes grow grass better, fewer weeds, hand pull any others.
Most desease appears to be encouraged with over fertilising and overwatering.
But worms in clay cricket soils, can somebody please enlighten me as to how we deal with the problem.
I believe there were products before chlordane, but that is before my time. Help please, help.
16 Jan 2009 by andy dixon
Cultural controls. Brush/switch before mowing. Powered brushing (or scarifying with the blades set just above the surface, preferaby with a set of thatch control, not removal blades) when dry, just before mowing. Use covers wisely, remembering that casting worms only come to the surface because they are effectively drowning. Aerate as much as is practical in the off-season. Reduce thatch (which the worms live off). This is a whole other subject but start bt fertilising and irrigating sensibly and not `hacking wickets` down. Remember to not remove more than a third of the leaf in one go, reducing root die back and thus providing the worms with more food. Mowing with a contra-rotating or normal comb in the season set to soil surface height or a grooved front roller. Adjust Ph levels to more favour the grass species (normally Lolium perrenne, more difficult in the case of Fetuca/Agrostis dominated heathland squares as these favour a similar level of acidity as worms). That should be a start. Your comment about disease is VERY much a generalisation and even varies with the same disease, i.e.Corticium, Fusarium, depending upon the time of year. Hope this helps.
Want to post a comment in response to this article?
Login now, or register if you are not a Pitchcare member.
