Pesticides: cause for alarm

Published in Poisons Beware

From October 1st 2016, the sale of Roundup (Croatian Cidokor) and 11 other similar glyphosate-based herbicides was banned in the European Union. The ban should serve as a wake-up call to all users, supporters and promoters of pesticides.

Handle the earth with respect and care. It will pay dividends. Handle the earth with respect and care. It will pay dividends. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

The ban came under a Commission Implementing Regulation dated 1st August 2016 (ref. 2016/1313). Although glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicides concerned, the ban was specifically related to formulants, the subtances with which glyphosate is mixed for use. The Croatian Ministry of Agriculture announced the ban on both its websites on September 20th and 21st 2016. Registration holders were obliged to inform distributors, and ensure the removal of all stocks from the market by December 31st 2016.

Cause for celebration? Well...

When a substance on public sale and in common use is found to be dangerous, the normal practice is for that substance to be recalled from all suppliers and users immediately. Further sale and use of the substance is prohibited as soon as the ban comes into force. The manufacturer is usually ultimately responsible for the collection and (safe) disposal of the recalled product. A system is put into place nationwide, also publicized and enforced, to ensure that the hazardous product is removed from the public domain in the shortest possible time. None of this has happened in this case. Yet Roundup is undeniably dangerous.

Pesticide bans in practice in Croatia

Responsibility for overseeing the approvals, sales, distribution and use of pesticides in Croatia is shared between Ministries.

The Ministry of Agriculture is a main source of information for pesticide users. It has a search section on its website which provides information on all the pesticides which are approved for use in Croatia. It does not seem to provide a complete list of approved pesticides, although there is a list of the ones allowed for non-prodessional use. The search section identifies individual pesticides, with information about ingredients, usage and approval status, There are various options for searching. The simplest version is to type in the name of the product you are interested in, stating whether it is for professional or non-professional use. Under the search button ('Traži') the link to the product is shown.

How does the listing system work in practice?

Almost two months after the EU ban on sales of Roundup /Cidokor came into force, the Ministry of Agriculture still listed three Cidokor products without any obvious warning about the ban. Cidokor was in the sub-list of products which had lost their licence, which is a separate search. But anyone looking up Cidokor without knowing it was banned would have no reason to search beyond the information page, which shows the approvals as if they are still in force.

From the Ministry of Agriculture listing, 29th November 2016.

Under its English name, however, Roundup carried a warning in red letters that it was no longer approved. For Roundup Biactive, the red-letter heading stated that existing stocks could be used and sold up to the 'permitted date', which in the following paragraph was given as January 1st 2017, while stocks could be held in store until 1st January 2018. Odd, given that the product approval, first granted in Croatia in 1999, ran out on 1st July 2016. So Roundup Biactive went into extra time as a result of the EU ban.

Another example is the insecticide Pyrinex 48EC. The approval for Pyrinex 48EC in Croatia was granted from September 25th 2015 and was due to last until January 31st 2019, for professional use only. However, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had been giving increasing warnings about the health hazards relating to Pyrinex's active substance Chlorpyrifos since 2002. A review in 2014, updated in 2015 detailed the unacceptable effects on human health, birds, fish and earthworms, and culminated in the substance losing its licence in September 2016. Pyrinex 48EC was added to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture's list of disallowed pesticides on March 25th 2016.The initial search for Pyrinex 48EC throws up two links: only one carries the red-letter warning that it has been de-registered, while the other does not.

From the Ministry of Agriculture list of approved pesticides, November 2016.

The list of chemical pesticides which are no longer registered in Croatia dates from present time back to 2011 on the Ministry of Agriculture website, and provides the following numbers: in 2016, 38 chemical pesticides were disallowed or de-registered up to the end of November; in 2015, 32; 17 on 2014; 260 in 2013; 96 in 2012; and 13 in 2011.

The Ministry of Agriculture granted the approval for Pyrinex 48EC at a time when the product's primary ingredient was already the subject of major concern by the very authority which had previously deemed it safe. Its approval therefore lasted some six months only. The period allowed for using up stocks was many times longer.

The question of leftover stocks

Despite time being allowed to sell and use up spare stocks, there will presumably be at least some left over. What will happen to those? Will they be collected and 'safely' destroyed? The signs are not good. As it is, there is little provision for safe disposal of empty pesticide packaging. Much of it ends up in the communal rubbish or worse still in the environment, contrary to existing laws.

Hazardous contents, hazardous packaging. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

The glyphosate story

Monsanto's Roundup was first marketed in 1974, although its active ingredient glyphosate had been discovered in 1950. In the United States, its approval in 1974 was for 'industrial non-crop use in agriculture'. Its permitted applications were quickly extended, and by 1980 Roundup was a worldwide bestselling weedkiller. Monsanto's US patent on glyphosate was allowed to expire in 2000. By 2012 the EU had registered some 2000 glyphosate-based herbicides made by many different companies for use on croplands. Given the unwelcome presence of glyphosate in human urine, one could be forgiven for calling the ban on just 12 glyphosate herbicides as 'pissing in the wind'. Farcical but not funny.

Glyphosate's approval has always been the subject of controversy, sparking concern and criticism among independent scientists and environmentalists. Industry-sponsored unpublished 'safety' studies, conducted on animals, formed the main supporting evidence for official approval in the United States, Europe and consequently around the world. When the EU was asked in 2010 by Monsanto to re-approve the use of glyphosate in herbicides, the permit was due to expire in 2012. However, the review was delayed until 2015, with a further extension until June 2016. In the meantime, EU Parliamentarians recommended a total ban on the substance, but were thwarted by the European Commission, which initially proposed extending the permit for a further 15 years, a demand which was subsequently reduced to 18 months. Meanwhile, European Parliamentarians agreed to the Commission's proposals to ban the co-formulant POE-tallowamine, resulting in the ban on Roundup sales.

An independent study published in 2012 showed that important data indicating glyphosate's ill-effects had been suppressed from the evidence used for approval. Almost simultaneously with the EU's ban on Roundup in 2016, the American EPA approved a dicamba-based herbicide developed by Monsanto for use on its next generation of biotech (genetically modified) crops. The new herbicide was developed in response to the increasing problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds. As dicamba had allegedly caused serious environmental problems in its previous use, the approval of the new version was greeted with widespread concern.

Powerful lobbying, forceful marketing

The agrochemical industry is rich and powerful. It is exceptionally skilful in dominating the market, quelling opposition, and recruiting support from politicians and scientists. Pesticide advertising is widespread and shamelessly misleading. The agrochemical companies have succeeded in creating the ultimate spin in relation to proofs of safety. One of their biggest promotional successes was to re-define poisonous pesticides as 'plant protectors'. That euphemism has helped deflect attention from pesticides as poisons and potential health destroyers.

The 'Glyphosate Facts' website: a smooth, attractive cover-up?

At the end of November 2016, nearly two months after the EU ban on Roundup sales, the 'Glyphosate Facts' website made no mention of it. The Monsanto website, which covers most of the world, with Monsanto news given in a multitude of languages, was equally silent on the subject.

Concerned independent scientists, regulators and environmentalists are forced to argue the toss with a tireless, well-oiled propaganda machine. Arguments are bandied to and fro over decades. Meanwhile, untold damage is being done to land, sea and air, and human health problems are multiplying.

Caution should prevail

Pesticides should be proven beyond doubt to be completely safe before being approved for use. Most consumers believe that approved pesticides have been proved safe. This is not so. The evidence that they are not safe has been sidelined by the industry in many different ways. The burden of proof has been thrown on to the people opposing the development and use of dangerous pesticides. To make their task more difficult, words are being twisted to create impossible conditions for scientists seeking to establish risk evaluations and ill-effects. This was especially true when Euro-MPs were due to consider the European Commission's proposals for identifying and regulating hormone disrupting chemicals in December 2016.

Pesticide safety is always in doubt. As they are poisons, pesticides cannot be tested on humans. The human testing is done once the pesticides are put into use. We are the guinea pigs in practice (following in from the tragic dogs, rabbits, rats, chickens and countless other animals who have been tortured with force-fed pesticides for the sake of 'proving' the agrochemical industry's point). There is no such thing as 'sustainable use' of pesticides. For safety's sake, pesticides should not be used. That is the precautionary principle. The agrochemical industry has turned the precautionary principle on its head.

The organic way: rotavating for clean soil between vines. Photo Vivian Grisogono

The very limited EU restriction on a few glyphosate-based herbicides was a minimal response to long-held, well-founded, far-reaching concern. Its most useful effect will be to make people realise that dangerous substances are being used long-term in our environment, causing damage on many levels, including in the human and animal food chain. Proper safeguards are lacking; and the regulatory bodies are not dealing with the potential hazards effectively.

The fact that previously approved chemical pesticides are subsequently disallowed, especially after being in use for several years, should ring alarm bells round the world. Clearly there are deep flaws in the regulatory system which are putting public health at risk.

Do chemical pesticides work?

The short answer is no. Or more precisely, only in the short-term. Chemical herbicides have resulted in the proliferation of 'superweeds'; chemical rodenticides have been behind the rise of 'super-rats'; and following widespread use of chemical insecticides there are ever-increasing numbers of mosquitoes, and even 'supermoths'.

Freedom of choice

While the EU has to approve active substances in products such as pesticides, it is up to individual Member States to allow them to be sold on their markets. Member States have the right to 'grant, refuse or restrict the use of a specific product'. In July 2016, Malta became the first EU country taking steps to ban glyphosate-based herbicides outright, with many localities on Malta having already done so. It would be great news if local authorities in Croatia followed Malta's lead. Even better if the central government took the initiative of outlawing pesticides and promoting organic agriculture and proper sustainable care for the environment. If they did, there would certainly be significant savings in health expenditure.

Even if the powers-that-be do not want to lead the way, individuals can achieve much. If end-users stop buying chemical pesticides, the market will disappear. The EU ban on a handful of pesticides will achieve precious little in itself. But it might serve to alert even just a few people to the harm being done. It might persuade some to give up using pesticides. If so, it will have done a deal of good.

BEWARE, BE AWARE!

© Vivian Grisogono MA(Oxon) 2016

 

Media

You are here: Home poisons be aware Pesticides: cause for alarm

Eco Environment News feeds

  • Products withdrawn because of serious contamination are on the rise, report finds

    The number of meat and poultry products recalled in the US for potentially life-threatening health hazards has nearly doubled since 2013, according to a report by a consumer watchdog group.

    The US Department of Agriculture logged 97 meat recalls for serious health hazards in 2018, ranging from 12 million pounds of raw beef that made close to 250 people ill withsalmonella to the withdrawal of 174,000 pounds of chicken wraps for possible contamination with listeria.

    Continue reading...

  • Alaskans have been enjoying free, organic meat for the past 50 years. Should other places stop turning their noses up?

    My mother texts me four photos of a dead moose the week I leave Alaska. It is freshly hit. The pebbled pink brains fanning across the pavement have not yet grayed in the brisk autumn air. The animal will not go to waste. For the past 50 years, Alaska has been the only state where virtually every piece of large roadkill is eaten.

    Every year, between 600 and 800 moose are killed in Alaska by cars, leaving up to 250,000lb of organic, free-range meat on the road. State troopers who respond to these collisions keep a list of charities and families who have agreed to drive to the scene of an accident at any time, in any weather, to haul away and butcher the body.

    Continue reading...

  • As Hitachi and Toshiba abandon plans for new British nuclear reactors, Damian Carrington assesses the merits of the technology

    All sources of electricity face the same trilemma in the 21st century: carbon emissions, continuity of supply and cost. The UK government has placed a big bet on nuclear power, but reactors meet only two of the three challenges. Nuclear power is low carbon and a secure source of electricity – but it is hugely expensive.

    In the era of climate change, generating power without belching out carbon emissions is vital. While building nuclear plants and fuelling them requires concrete, transport and so on, the overall emissions are similar to windand solar power. All produce far less carbon than coal or gas-powered stations.

    Continue reading...

  • A complete overhaul of what we eat may be the only way to meet the needs of a planet in crisis. So what’s on – and off – the menu?

    The world faces many challenges over the coming decades, but one of the most significant will be how to feed its expanding global population. By 2050, there will be about 10 billion of us, and how to feed us all, healthily and from sustainable food sources, is something that is already being looked at. The Norway-based thinktank Eat and the British journal the Lancet have teamed up to commission an in-depth, worldwide study, which launches at 35 different locations around the world today, into what it would take to solve this problem – and the ambition is huge.

    The commissioners lay out important caveats. Their solution is contingent on global efforts to stabilise population growth, the achievement of the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement on climate change and stemming worldwide changes in land use, among other things. But they are clear that it depends on far more than just these basic requirements. The initial report presents a flexible daily diet for all food groups based on the best health science, which also limits the impact of food production on the planet.

    Continue reading...

  • Paris agreement for the sea recommended as rates of plastic pollution to skyrocket

    A new global agreement to protect the seas should be a priority for the government to stop our seas becoming a “sewer”, according to a cross-party group of MPs.

    Plastic pollution is set to treble in the next decade, the environmental audit committee warned, while overfishing is denuding vital marine habitats of fish, and climate change is causing harmful warming of the oceans as well as deoxygenation and acidification.

    Continue reading...

  • Scientist Brad Lister returned to Puerto Rican rainforest after 35 years to find 98% of ground insects had vanished

    “We knew that something was amiss in the first couple days,” said Brad Lister. “We were driving into the forest and at the same time both Andres and I said: ‘Where are all the birds?’ There was nothing.”

    His return to the Luquillo rainforest in Puerto Rico after 35 years was to reveal an appalling discovery. The insect population that once provided plentiful food for birds throughout the mountainous national park had collapsed. On the ground, 98% had gone. Up in the leafy canopy, 80% had vanished. The most likely culprit by far is global warming.

    Continue reading...

  • Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

    Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

    The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.

    Continue reading...

  • Campaigners say it will cut pollution, but opponents claim it will hit poor people hardest

    “I’m just really glad the ULEZ is coming. Children’s lungs can’t wait,” says Jemima Hartshorn, a Brixton resident who helped set up campaign group Mums For Lungs.

    Continue reading...

  • The continent’s largest land mammal plays crucial role in spiritual lives of the tribes

    On 5,000 hectares of unploughed prairie in north-eastern Montana, hundreds of wild bison roam once again. But this herd is not in a national park or a protected sanctuary – they are on tribal lands. Belonging to the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, the 340 bison is the largest conservation herd in the ongoing bison restoration efforts by North America’s Indigenous people.

    The bison – or as Native Americans call them, buffalo – are not just “sustenance,” according to Leroy Little Bear, a professor at the University of Lethbridge and a leader in the bison restoration efforts with the Blood Tribe. The continent’s largest land mammal plays a major role in the spiritual and cultural lives of numerous Native American tribes, an “integrated relationship,” he said.

    Continue reading...

  • Prospects for species look dire as federal science body finds that only one of the country’s 16 populations is believed to be stable

    Half of Canada’s chinook salmon are endangered, with nearly all other populations in precarious decline, according to a new report, confirming fears that prospects for the species remain dire.

    The reportby the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada concluded that eight of the country’s 16 populations are considered endangered, four are threatened, one is of special concern and the health of two remain unknown.

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds