Your Daily Poison - Pesticide Action Network UK

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 which are often highly toxic or are known or suspected to cause more long term health effects including the disruption of hormones (endocrine disrupting chemicals). Of the 94 pesticides detected in food according to official UK data for 2004: ◆ 34 have been identified by the World Health Organisation as acutely toxic; ◆ 37 have been identified by international authorities as suspected carcinogens; ◆ 22 have been identified by international authorities as suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals, implicated as possible causes of chronic disease, including cancer and reproductive disorders. According to guidance generated by the Pesticide Residues Committee 23 , ‘The choice of pesticides to be sought is primarily influenced by: ◆ Pesticide use ◆ Potential for residues based on use pattern and the physico-chemical properties of the pesticide ◆ Analytical capabilities ◆ Toxicological profile of the pesticide ◆ Existence of MRLs [see page 22] A range of sources of information are used including data from previous monitoring (UK and elsewhere, Rapid Alerts), Pesticide Usage Surveys (UK only), pesticide registration data, UK and Codex MRLs [see page 22] and other intelligence, including contributions from [PRC] members. Generally the emphasis is on insecticides, fungicides and post harvest treatments since these have the greatest potential for residues. A range of approximately 80 - 100 pesticides can be sought using a multi-residue method. Other pesticides need to be analysed separately. Single method pesticides are therefore relatively expensive. Lower reporting limits are also more expensive. Research and Development is separately funded to develop/validate methods of analysis for pesticides new to the PRC so that these can be incorporated into the routine monitoring programme, ideally into the existing multi-residue method.’ This means that pesticides which can only be detected through the single method are less likely to be included in tests. Herbicides and compounds which have low reporting limits – can be detected at the lowest levels – are also less likely to be included because of their cost. Thus these pesticides could be present in our food but never tested for by government. In the approvals process tests are conducted only under controlled conditions. All newly registered substances should be included in the PRC monitoring programme because, unless they are tested for, it cannot be known if they will show up as a residue under practical conditions. David Mason, of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), one of the laboratories contracted by the PRC to carry out the analyses, was also a member of the PRC’s Analytical Sub-group. It is the group’s task to scrutinise a list of proposed analyses from PSD. Although the CSL website states ‘Because we know from experience which residues we need to look for in any given foodstuff, we can offer you a package of analysis tailored to your needs’, it is unlikely that the data exists to enable any agency to know accurately and comprehensively which pesticides are in foodstuffs. Asked how the CSL knows which pesticides to look for in any foodstuff, David Mason said 24 ‘Residue testing can never be more than spot checking. You have to strike a balance between the number of samples, the number of tests and the budget available – this is always the problem. My own view is that on a spectrum of either knowing a lot about a few samples, or much less about a lot of samples, the latter is better. We use usage data rather than what has been approved for use, because if, for example, three herbicides are put on the market one year, and all three are initially used, in time just one may be the popular one that farmers are using.’ David Mason confirmed that there could be a time-lag of a year or more between the approval of a new pesticide and its inclusion in the PRC monitoring programme. As part of the licensing agreement, companies have to submit analytical methods, but, according to Your daily poison
David Mason, ‘official laboratories including CSL develop and validate tests for the new pesticides using multiple residue methods if possible and that takes time. Now the companies have to submit, as part of the dossier for a new pesticide, an analytical method for use in multi-residue testing methods if possible. It is much easier to include a pesticide in the PRC programme if it is amenable to multi-residue testing.’ The PRC has recently disclosed in a reply to PAN UK 25 some ‘illustrative costings’ of increasing the numbers of samples tested. To increase the sample size of only 45 food items (the number currently tested) to 300 would raise the cost of the monitoring programme more than three-fold to over £7 million. The PRC considered this in 2002, but has not yet increased the numbers of samples tested. Although the PRC ‘brand name annex’ publications, which list the retailer and brand name for samples tested help to drive down residues by ‘naming and shaming’ food retailers, the vast majority of food residue results are inaccessible to the public. Supermarkets and food suppliers have their own self-funded testing programmes, results of which are only disclosed in a limited way. Put together these exceed the government’s programme in size. Conclusions These residue results reflect the fact that no progress has been made in reducing pesticide usage in the UK, and is urgently needed. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has had a residue minimisation plan since 2002 which is limited to a few crops. Consumers continue to express their preference for food without residues, and multiple retailers are responding to this pressure. For example, the Co-op explicitly promotes a claim that it is ‘Leading the way on pesticide reduction’. Sales of organic products continue to grow much faster than sales in the non-organic grocery market and in 2004 reached £1.213 billion, an 11 per cent increase on the previous calendar year. Increasing sales of organically produced food suggest that future progress is possible. the second UK pesticide exposure report 11
Page 1 and 2: YOUR DAILY POISON: THE SECOND UK PE
Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .
Page 5 and 6: 1 Pesticide exposure in the environ
Page 7 and 8: ◆ A baby girl of 9 months was fou
Page 9 and 10: Exposure to spray-drift, pesticide
Page 11: 2 Food residues PAN UK has conducte
Page 15 and 16: environment in the cycle of precipi
Page 17 and 18: conference that a Europe-wide biomo
Page 19 and 20: 5 Conclusions and Recommendations T
Page 21 and 22: APPENDIX 1 Pesticide usage trends i
Page 23 and 24: APPENDIX 3 The regulatory testing a
Page 25 and 26: APPENDIX 4a ‘The human health inc
Page 27 and 28: APPENDIX 4c PAN UK survey: pesticid
Page 29 and 30: Local authority Number and nature o
Page 31 and 32: APPENDIX 5b Food residues (UK testi
Page 33 and 34: Food Pesticide WHO hazard OP WHO Cl
Page 41 and 42: APPENDIX 6a Pesticides in the publi
Page 43 and 44: APPENDIX 6b PAN UK survey: pesticid
Page 45 and 46: APPENDIX 7 Members of the All Party
Page 47 and 48: development in the womb. As a resul
Page 49 and 50: pollution stems from steroid hormon
Page 51 and 52: APPENDIX 10 Copies of PAN UK questi
Page 53 and 54: the second UK pesticide exposure re
Page 55 and 56: the second UK pesticide exposure re
Page 57 and 58: References 1. Craig A, People’s P
Page 59 and 60: 57 Your daily poison:

Your Daily Poison - Pesticide Action Network UK

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?