77 - Pesticide Action Network UK

PESTICID_19486:Pesticides News Template.qxd 12/9/07 16:53 Page 1 

The journal of 

Pesticide Action 

Network UK 

An international perspective 

on the health and 

environmental effects 

of pesticides 

Quarterly September 2007 

Pesticides 

News No 77 

Editorial 2 

European regulation 

3 Paraquat: towards a global ban? 

Pesticide exposure 

4 New research into bystander and 

resident exposure 

6 Pesticides pollute Paris 

Integrated pest management 

7 Does IPM pay off in Europe? 

Developing countries 

10 Pesticide users at risk 

12 Senegalese farmers discuss pesticide 

issues 

19 Web to Field to Web – a web resource 

for remote rural areas 

Organic cotton 

16 When organic means fair: the case of 

cotton 

Company news 

22 Corporate watch 

News 

9 Inhalation of organophosphate sheep 

dip is hazardous to health 

11 EU legislation for better control of 

pesticides – how to help 

15 DuPont settles more Benlate suits 

21 Congress bill put forward to ban Chileʼs 

most dangerous pesticides 

Book reviews 

23 The move to ecological farming 

23 Pesticide science and safety 

Pesticide Action Network UK 

Development House 

56-64 Leonard Street 

London EC2A 4LT, UK 

Tel +44 (0)20 7065 0905 

Fax +44 (0)20 7065 0907 

Email admin@pan-uk.org 

www.pan-uk.org 

www.pan-international.org 

links to all PAN Regional Centres 

Traditional market vendors, Castor retail market, Dakar, Senegal 

Photo: PAN Africa


Editorial 

Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

2 

Pesticides contaminate the water we drink and the air we breathe. Yet while 

many countries routinely monitor water sources, little attention is paid to 

contamination of air. In the UK, rural residents have been vocal in their claims 

that repeated exposure to pesticide spray drift from nearby agricultural land has 

seriously damaged their health. In 2005 the Royal Commission for Environmental 

Pollution criticised the way the exposure of rural residents is calculated in the 

current risk assessment. New research now suggests that in some circumstances 

human exposure could indeed be under-estimated (page 4). 

In another example of air pollution we report that pesticides have been found 

in the air around Paris. Agricultural pesticides have previously been detected 

in the air of Lille, Orleans and Toulouse, major cities in France which are 

surrounded by agricultural land. Now Airparif, the official body responsible 

for monitoring air in the Paris region, reports that 30 pesticides have been 

detected around Paris, 19 of which were right in the city centre (page 7). 

The notorious herbicide paraquat which is responsible for countless agonising 

deaths in the developing world every year, received EU approval in 2003 for 

its continued use in Europe. We now report on a successful legal challenge 

brought by the government of Sweden (page 3). On 11 July 2007 the European 

Court of First Instance delivered a landmark judgement that the EU’s 2003 

approval did not satisfy the requirements relating to the protection of human 

health. Although paraquat’s lethal footprint is largely stamped over the 

developing world, decisions taken in the developed world can have a massive 

impact on decision/making elsewhere. We hope that this will be a significant 

step towards a global ban on this chemical. 

We report on an exciting initiative to promote non-chemical pest management 

(page 19). OISAT, the Online Information Service for Non-chemical Pest 

Management in the Tropics, provides free pest management information to 

anyone with internet access. The project has been piloted in Kenya where it 

farmers have been trained in computer skills and internet access in rural areas 

has been approved. Farmers try out the pest management techniques reported in 

OISAT and their experience of the techniques is fed back into the system which is 

then continually improved and updated. With 

sufficient continued support this online database 

could play a significant role in encouraging nonchemical 

pest management in the tropics. 

Organic cotton is generally hailed as a way to free 

farmers from the need to use the toxic insecticides 

associated with cotton growing. Less well known is 

that fact that the organic cotton supply chain is a 

model of ethical trading. We describe how organic 

cotton distributors and retailers are forging a new path where the farmers at the 

end of the supply chain receive much more equitable treatment (page 16). The 

entry of major high street retailers into the organic cotton market brings the 

promise of expanded markets. But will these retailers enforce the unfair trading 

conditions that are standard in conventional fibre markets? 

Pesticide Action Network – Regional Centres 

AFRICA 

PAN Africa 

BP 15938, Dakar-FANN 

Senegal 

Tel: (221) 825 4914 

Fax: (221) 825 1443 

panafrica@pan-afrique.org 

www.pan-afrique.org 

ASIA/PACIFIC 

PAN Asia and the Pacific 

PO Box 1170 

10850 Penang, Malaysia 

Tel: (60-4) 657 0271 

Fax: (60-4) 658 3960 

panap@panap.net 

www.panap.net 

EUROPE 

PAN Europe is facilitated 

by PAN UK and PAN 

Germany 

www.pan-europe.info 

sofia-paneurope@pan-uk.org 

PAN Germany 

Nernstweg 32 

22765 Hamburg, Germany 

Tel: (49-40) 399 191022 

Fax: (49-40) 390 7520 

info@pan-germany.org 

www.pan-germany.org 

www.pan-international.org 

links to all PAN Regional 

Centres 

Online subscription 

Subscribers can now benefit 

from an online searchable 

version of Pesticides News 

(September 1993 to the current 

issue) with the following 

username and password 

(changed twice a year): 

Username: subscriber 

Password: isoproturon 

LATIN AMERICA 

RAPAL (PAN Latin America) 

Coordinadora Regional 

Av. Providencia N o 365, depto. 

N o 41 

Providencia, Santiago de Chile 

Tel/Fax: (56-2) 341 6742 

rapal@rapal.cl 

www.rap-al.org 

NORTH AMERICA 

PAN North America 

49 Powell St., 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102, US 

Tel: (1-415) 981 1771 

Fax: (1-415) 981 1991 

panna@panna.org 

www.panna.org 

Whoʼs who at 

Pesticide Action Network UK 

Linda Craig 

Director 

Nick Mole 

Coordinator UK/European Projects 

Dr Roslyn McKendry 

Editor, Pesticides News 

National Project Officer 

Elliott Cannell 

PAN Europe Coordinator 

Damien Sanfilippo 

International Project Officer (Cotton) 

Sheila Willis 

International Project Officer (Disposal) 

Dr Stephanie Williamson 

International Project Officer 

(Food and Fairness) 

Ruth Beckmann 

Project Information Officer 

Oscar Martinez 

Finance Manager 

Martin Cooke 

Information/IT/Outreach Manager 

Ed Payne 

Senior Administration Officer 

Diane Gangadeen 

Accounts 

Articles published in Pesticides News 

promote health, safety, environmental 

commitment and alternatives to 

pesticides as well as debate. The 

authorsʼ views are not necessarily those 

of the Pesticide Action Network UK. 

Initials at the end of articles refer to staff 

contributions to Pesticides News. 

Abbreviations and acronyms used 

ACP Advisory Committee on Pesticides 

CRA Comparative Risk Assessment 

EA Environment Agency (UK) 

EC European Commission 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US) 

EU European Union 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 

FFS Farmer Field School 

FSA Food Standards Agency 

HSE Health and Safety Executive 

ILO International Labour Organisation 

IPM Integrated pest management 

LD 50 lethal dose for 50% of population 

μg/kg parts per billion 

MRLs Maximum Residue Limits 

mg/l parts per million 

NGO Non government organisation 

OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation 

and Development 

OP Organophosphate (pesticide) 

PAN Pesticide Action Network 

PIC Prior Informed Consent 

PN Pesticides News 

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 

© Pesticide Action Network UK 

Please credit Pesticide Action Network UK 

when quoting articles 

ISSN 0967-6597 Printed on recycled paper


European regulation Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

Paraquat: towards a 

global ban? 

Following the recent annulment of the EU authorisation of paraquat, 

the regulatory status of one of the world’s most controversial 

herbicides is once again up for debate. Elliott Cannell of PAN 

Europe examines the implications for the EU and the broader 

international community. 

On 11 July 2007, the European Court of First 

Instance delivered a landmark judgement on 

the controversial herbicide paraquat. Ruling 

that the European Commission’s (EC) 2003 

approval of the pesticide did not satisfy the 

requirements relating to the protection of 

human health, the Court overturned Directive 

2003/112, thereby annulling the authorisation 

of paraquat across the European Union (EU) 1 . 

The verdict represents an historic victory 

for Sweden, which spearheaded a legal challenge 

to revoke the EU-wide approval of 

paraquat, supported by Denmark, Austria 

and Finland. All four countries resolved to 

retain their national bans on the sale and use 

of the herbicide, despite Brussels’ authorisation 

of paraquat four years ago. 

While the Court’s ruling will undoubtedly 

reinforce Sweden’s resistance to the use of 

paraquat, as well as bolstering the five other 

EU states (see box) with a national prohibition, 

the immediate implications for the rest 

of the EU remain unclear. The Court’s annulment 

has left the 15 European member states 

which previously used paraquat with no clear 

consensus position. 

Furthermore, this period of legal limbo 

may well endure for some considerable time. 

On the one hand, the EC has until 11 

September to mount an appeal. Such a challenge 

would substantially extend the current 

period of regulatory ambiguity. But worse 

still, paraquat manufacturers may seek to 

further delay a consolidated EU-wide ban by 

requesting that the pesticide be totally reassessed 

under Directive 91/414 – a process 

which last time went on for over a decade. 

Paraquat use in Europe 

Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Finland 

each imposed their own national bans 

prior to the 2003 EU-wide approval 11 . 

Slovenia and Hungary also retain legislation 

preventing the use of paraquat, but 

joined the EU after Sweden had launched 

its legal challenge. Belgium, France, 

Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Ireland, 

United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, 

Spain, Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, 

Slovakia and Romania all allowed the 

sale and use of paraquat in 2005 12 . Latvia, 

Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Luxembourg 

and Cyprus have no ban on paraquat, but 

are not known to use it. Norway and 

Switzerland have banned paraquat, but 

are not members of the EU 13 . 

With no apparent agreement on how to 

interpret the interim legal situation, the regulatory 

status of paraquat within the EU, and 

to some extent the direction that the community 

will eventually follow, will now be 

determined by the way individual member 

states define their own regulatory responses 

at a national level. Crucially, they must 

decide whether to suspend paraquat until 

Brussels can decipher a new common position, 

or to maintain sales during the intervening 

period: a situation which leaves the 

European debate on something of a knife 

edge. 

With the EU authorisation annulled, the 

EC has written to Member States instructing 

them to ‘quite urgently – if not immediately 

– revoke their authorisations’ 2 . Hence national 

policy makers sympathetic to the prohibition 

of paraquat are in a strong position to 

suspend sales. Germany and France immediately 

suspended the sale and use of paraquat, 

including pre-existing stocks 3 . The 

Netherlands immediately revoked the authorisation 

of paraquat, demanding that sale and 

application of pre-existing stocks be terminated 

by 1 December 2007. 

The United Kingdom by comparison has 

acted much more conservatively, announcing 

its intention to revoke the authorisation of 

paraquat, but delaying such action whilst it 

clarifies whether this should be implemented 

immediately, or at the end of the appeal period 

4 . Furthermore, in what seems a total contravention 

of the widely accepted ‘precautionary 

principle’, the UK has written to the 

Commission expressing that it does ‘not 

believe that it would be equitable to remove 

the compound from the market’, were its 

manufacturers to request a new scientific 

assessment of the pesticide. 

International implications 

While global paraquat sales exceed US$ 400 

million 6 , Europe represents a comparatively 

limited customer base. Of the 3.4 million 

farmers said to use paraquat, less than 15% 

are based in the EU 7 , and Europe accounts 

for just 8% of global sales 8 . 

Instead, the majority of paraquat is used 

by farmers in developing countries with 

those in Asia or Central and South America 

accounting for almost 75% of global usage 9 . 

A 2003 assessment placed Brazil, China, 

Thailand, India, Guatemala, Colombia, 

Malaysia, and Mexico all among the world’s 

biggest consumers of the herbicide, with 

Spain being the sole European representative 

among the global top 10 10 . Both Brazil and 

China account for more sales individually 

than the entire European block. 

From an international development perspective, 

the significance of a potential EUwide 

ban is further diminished when factors 

such as availability of safety equipment, 

health and safety protocols, and access to 

medical facilities are taken into account. For 

unlike their counterparts in the developing 

world, many of whom endure some of the 

worst standards in health and safety, 

European agricultural workers experience 

relatively low levels of occupational exposure 

to hazardous pesticides. 

Of what significance then is a European 

ban on paraquat, when those most at risk from 

poisoning are farmers working in the developing 

world? The answer to the question is 

‘politics’. While the mathematics suggest the 

EU market is relatively small, its political 

ramifications are enormous. Just as paraquat 

manufacturers seized upon the EU approval 

of paraquat in 2003 to persuade Malaysia to 

reverse its ban, the prohibition of paraquat in 

the EU would provide labour rights and environmental 

campaigners with powerful ammunition 

to push for a global ban. Thus, the positions 

reached over the coming few weeks, by 

each of the 15 EU paraquat-using states, may 

prove highly significant. 

References 

1. ‘The Court of First Instance Annuls The 

Directive Authorising Paraquat As An Active Plant 

Protection Substance’, Court of First Instance of 

the European Communities, 11 July 2007, 

http://www.curia.europa.eu 

2. Short Report on the Meeting of the Standing 

Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health 

(Phytopharmaceuticals Section) held on 12-13 July 

in Brussels, 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/committees/regulatory/scfc 

ah/phytopharmaceuticals/sum_1213072007_en.pdf 

3. ‘BVL lässt Zulassung für paraquathaltige 

Pflanzenschutzmittel ruhen’, Bundesamt für 

Verbraucherschutz und Levensmittelsicherheit, 17 

July 2007, www.bvl.bund.de 

4. ‘Revocation of authorisations for all products 

containing paraquat: changes to Regulatory Update 

21/2007’ Pesticides Safety Directorate, 21 July 

2007 www.pesticides.gov.uk; Pers. comm., Matthew 

Burns, PSD, 27 July, 2007 

5. Letter written by UK Pesticides Safety 

Directorate to Ms Patricia Brunko of the European 

Commission dated 21 Augtust 2007 re: Paraquat. 

6. Agranova Alliance, Crop Sector Reviews, 2003, 

www.agranova.co.uk 

7. EU court bans paraquat, Agrow World Crop 

Protection News, 16 July 2007 www.agrow.com 

8. Dinham B, The Perils of Paraquat, Pesticide 

News 60, June 2003, 4-7 

9. Ibid 

10. Ibid 

11. Stop Paraquat, Berne Declaration, www.evb.ch 

12. Paraquat Information Centre, 

http://www.paraquat.com 

13. Op cit 11 

Elliott Cannell is PAN Europe Co-ordinator, 

elliott-paneurope@pan-uk.org 

For up-to-date information on the regulatory 

status of paraquat within the EU, see 

Paraquat Watch at www.pan-europe.info 

3


Pesticide exposure Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

New research into 

bystander and resident 

exposure 

Two research projects on potential exposures of bystanders and 

residents to pesticides used on arable crops have recently been 

completed. Clare Butler Ellis of Silsoe Spray Application Unit 

summarises the results and implications. 

PAN UK has frequently reported on the concerns 

of some UK rural residents about the 

health impacts of repeated exposure to pesticides. 

In 2005, an important independent 

investigation by the Royal Commission on 

Environmental Pollution (RCEP) criticised 

the way that risks to rural residents and 

bystanders are currently evaluated during the 

risk assessment process 1 . Two criticisms 

were that firstly, there have been changes in 

sprayer practice since the data were obtained 

on which the current exposure assessment is 

based, which potentially result in higher levels 

of spray drift. Secondly, the way in which 

potential inhalation of vapours is included in 

the assessment needs to be more transparent. 

Earlier in 2005, the UK government's 

Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) commissioned 

two research projects to obtain up-todate 

data on potential bystander and resident 

exposure to pesticides during and following 

application to arable crops (full reports are 

available on the Defra website 2,3 ). In addition, 

the PSD has now commissioned a more 

detailed study to develop a bystander and 

resident exposure assessment model 

(BREAM) 4 . The results from BREAM are 

not yet available, but the results of the earlier 

two projects have some implications for 

the development of the new model, and are 

summarised here. 

Previous experimental work to assess 

bystander exposure has relied on the use of 

‘tracers’ to quantify spray drift. These are 

typically inert chemicals that are stable and 

can be accurately quantified at very low concentrations. 

They have significant advantages 

over the use of pesticide formulations 

in the sensitivity and reliability of the measurements 

made. However, they give no 

information about volatilisation and vapour 

concentrations, and there is no guarantee that 

their spray drift behaviour is typical of all 

commercial pesticide formulations and tank 

mixes. Both projects were therefore based on 

the use of commercial formulations, rather 

than a tracer chemical. 

of drift – a fine spray and a boom at 0.7 m 

above the crop. The other equipment gave 

lower-than-average levels of spray drift – a 

coarse spray from an air-induction nozzle 

and a boom at 0.5 m above the crop. 

Forward speed of the sprayer was 12 km/h 

and boom width was 24 m, both greater than 

has typically been used in experimental work 

in the past. Measurements were made up to 

8.0 m downwind of the treated area (Figure 

1) of: 

● spray deposits on paper strips attached to 

wooden laths on the ground 

● airborne spray collected on fine polyethylene 

lines 

● bystander deposits collected on mannequins 

dressed in cotton clothing 

● inhalable spray, using suction samplers 

Two nominally similar experimental runs 

with the high-drift nozzles gave very different 

levels of spray drift. This is shown in 

Figure 2 for the spray deposited on the 

ground between 0 and 2 m from the treated 

area. Although the wind speed was higher 

with the first run (mean wind speeds, measured 

3.0 m above the ground, of 3.3 m/s and 

2.19 m/s for runs 1 and 2 respectively), such 

a large difference in drift would not be 

expected. This highlights one of the difficulties 

with obtaining experimental data, in that 

there is a large amount of variability, which 

can dominate other effects and make drawing 

conclusions very difficult. The data by Lloyd 

and Bell, on which the existing exposure 

Figure 1. Mannequins, horizontal collecting 

lines and suction samplers adjacent to the 

treated area 

Photo: Silsoe Spray Application Unit 

assessment is based 5 , consisted of 51 experimental 

runs resulting in a good estimate of 

mean drift under their particular conditions. 

However, when they measured drift for each 

run they used a large number of passes along 

the same track by the sprayer, effectively 

averaging out some of the variability due to, 

for example, gusts of wind, so their data it is 

not necessarily representative of the potential 

‘one-off’ exposure of someone accidentally 

caught in the spray. The data in Figure 2 

show that there is a chance of both very high 

and very low levels from similar application 

conditions. 

When bystander exposure (evaluated 

from deposits on mannequins) is compared 

with Lloyd and Bell (Figure 3), it can be seen 

firstly that the highest deposit at 8 m from 

the sprayed area was at the top end of Lloyd 

and Bell’s data; the other 8 m measurements 

were lower than Lloyd and Bell’s mean. 

Secondly, at 2 m from the sprayed area, 

deposits on mannequins are much higher – 

on average eight times higher – than at 8 m. 

There appears to be potential for ‘one-off’ 

exposures to spray drift to be significantly 

higher than the 0.1 ml spray liquid used in 

the current exposure assessment. It is not 

clear from this limited set of data whether the 

change in application conditions that has 

happened in recent years has increased drift 

4 

Epoxiconazole 

The first set of experiments applied a fungicide, 

epoxiconazole, to a 1 hectare (ha) plot 

through two different sets of equipment, one 

designed to give higher than average levels 

Figure 2. Deposits of epoxiconazole on the ground, expressed as the percentage of the applied 

dose, at distances up to 2.0 m from the sprayed area from the three experimental runs. Error bars 

show standard deviation.



Table 1. 24-hour mean 

concentrations of trifluralin (ng/l), 

measured 2 m from treated area. 

Position Height Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 

relative to above 

treated ground 

area (m) 

East 0.7 5.4 6.5 19.7 

East 1.5 2.2 2.4 n/a 

North 0.7 5.8 3.5 16.4 

North 1.5 2.9 1.8 13.2 

Figure 3. Deposits of spray liquid on mannequins, ml spray liquid, compared with data (Lloyd and 

Bell 6 ) on which the current exposure assessment is based. Error bars show maximum and minimum 

values 

significantly. 

Table 2. Estimated exposure of 

trifluralin (μg) for bystanders at 2 

m downwind of the treated area* 

Position of Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 

exposure 

relative to 

treated 

area 

East Child 44.8 54.0 163.5 

East Adult 33.4 36.5 n/a 

North Child 48.1 29.1 136.1 

North Adult 44.1 27.4 200.6 

* based on a mean daily inhalation rate of 8.3 

m 3 for children and 15.2 m 3 for adults 

Trifluralin 

The second set of experiments applied a herbicide, 

trifluralin, that is known to be relatively 

volatile. The chemical was not incorporated 

into the soil following the 

application, contrary to label recommendations, 

in order to ensure high levels of vapour 

that could easily be detected. Measurements 

of airborne and deposited spray were made, 

and in addition, suction samplers were used 

to measure airborne concentrations of vapour 

at 2 m from the edges of the treated area both 

during spraying and for up to 72 hours following 

the application. 

Measurements of spray, both airborne 

and ground deposits, were so low that the 

majority were below the limit of quantification. 

However, measurable levels of vapour 

were detected over the 72 hours. 

There were three experimental runs, with 

the first two showing similar levels of airborne 

vapour (Figure 4) and the third much 

higher (Figure 5). There is a consistent pattern 

of concentration, with diurnal peaks and an 

initial peak immediately after application. 

The current exposure assessment for 

vapours assumes a 24-hour mean concentration 

of 15 ng/l 7 . Table 1 shows the highest 

24-hour mean concentration for the three 

experimental runs. In all cases, the highest 

concentration was achieved during the first 

24 hours, and was considerably lower during 

the following two days. 

It is important to note that in all cases, the 

concentration was higher at the 0.7 m height 

(corresponding to a child) than at the 1.5 m 

height (corresponding to an adult). Even 

with the difference in average breathing rate 

between a child and adult (8.3 m 3 /day and 

15.2 m 3 /day respectively 8 ) the data suggest 

that children could have higher exposures 

than adults (Table 2). 

Only during run three did measured concentrations 

exceed the value used in the current 

exposure assessment. Clearly this is a 

single, and possibly worst-case, measurement 

and we do not know at this stage 

whether, and how frequently, these levels are 

achieved in practice. 

Calculation of worst-case potential exposures 

requires a more sophisticated assessment 

than we have shown here. For example, 

a period of vigorous activity, and higher 

inhalation rate, coinciding with the peak concentration 

shown in Figure 5 would result in 

much higher exposures than are estimated in 

Table 2. However, this would not be sustained 

over more than a few hours. Thus it is 

important to obtain good data on the pattern 

of concentration over time, and to combine 

this with a realistic worst-case model of 

‘bystander’ behaviour. 

These measurements were made 2 m 

downwind of the treated area: consideration 

of probable worst-case behaviour is unlikely 

to conclude that a bystander or resident 

would remain at this distance for 24 hours. 

There are few data available relating to the 

reduction of pesticide concentration with distance 

from the sprayed area or the effect of 

the size of the sprayed area, although data on 

other area sources of pollution may be available 

and the use of plume-dispersion models 

would also provide some information. This 

will be explored further as part of the 

BREAM project. 

Conclusions 

Results from these two studies have made a 

useful contribution to the data needed to 

Figure 4. Airborne concentrations of trifluralin to the north and east of the 

treated area, run 1. Run 2 data was similar, but slightly lower. Wind was 

predominantly from the south west. 

Figure 5. Airborne concentration of trifluralin to the north and east of the 

treated area, run 3. 

5



Pesticides pollute Paris 

An alarming study by Airparif, the official body responsible for 

monitoring air in the Paris region, has revealed the presence of 30 

different pesticides in the air around the city. Twenty were detected in 

the city centre. Francois Veillerette reports. 

Dozens of pesticides have been found in the 

air around Paris. The city's 10.5 million residents 

could be inhaling traces of pesticides 

including those associated with cancer and 

endocrine disruption, according to Airparif, 

the body responsible for surveying air quality 

in Paris. 

The administrative Paris region is 48% 

agricultural land with cereals grown on 

60% of this and intensive rape cultivation 

on a further 10%. An estimated 1,235 

tonnes of pesticide active ingredients are 

used on this land each year. Of this 54% are 

herbicides, 18% are fungicides and 2% are 

insecticides. Most pesticides are used within 

agriculture (91%) with the remaining 9% 

used in private gardens, and for amenity 

uses such as on railways or roads. 

It is known that up to 75% of pesticides 

sprayed can end up in the atmosphere due 

to drift and/or volatilisation. Indeed pesticides 

have been found contaminating the air 

of other cities surrounded by agricultural 

land, such as Lille, Orléans and Toulouse. 

In spring 2006, Airparif analysed the air 

around the Paris region for the presence of 

80 different pesticides, analysing over 

5,200 air samples in total. Thirty pesticides 

were detected (see box) with the largest 

number (29) found in the famous agricultural 

zone of ‘Beauce’. In Coulommiers (a 

rural town in the Paris region) 23 different 

pesticides were found, in Chelles (a suburban 

town) 20 were found, while in both 

Gennevilliers (an urban area close to Paris) 

and Les Halles (right in the city centre) 19 

were found. Depending on the location, 39 

- 45% of these pesticides were herbicides, 

35 - 39% were fungicides and 17 - 22% 

were insecticides. Most of the pesticides 

found in the air were for agricultural use 

(24 out of 30), the remaining six being 

divided between those licensed for nonagricultural 

use (dichlobenil, chlorpyrifos 

ethyl, oxadizon) and those without any current 

licence (gamma-HCH, metolachlor 

and tebutame). The number of pesticides 

found varied according to the time of sampling 

with only five found at the beginning 

of March 2006 rising to 19 found in the second 

week of May 2006. This remained stable 

until June and then dropped. 

The pesticides found in the city centre 

were more frequently due to non-agricultural 

uses than those found in the countryside. 

Concentrations found in the centre of 

Paris were smaller (61% of the concentrations 

were classified as small) than those 

found in the agricultural area of Beauce 

(where only 45% of the concentrations 

were classified small). The pesticide found 

at the highest concentration was 

chlorothalonil (305 ng/m 3 ) at Bois Herpin. 

These higher concentrations of pesticides in 

rural air were due to the high pesticide use 

in intensive agriculture in these areas. 

Concentrations of non-agricultural pesticides 

were higher in the centre of Paris (and 

other cities) than in rural areas. Lindane 

was found at highest concentrations in the 

city centre: its use is not authorized in agriculture. 

More needs to be known about the long 

term effects of airborne pesticides inhaled 

over a long period of time. Although water 

sources are regularly tested for the presence 

Pesticides present in 

the air around Paris 

Pesticides used on crops: acetochlor, 

aclonifen, endosulfan, alachlor, azoxystrobine, 

carbofuran, chlorothalonil, cyproconazole, 

cyprodinil, ethofumesate, 

fenoxaporpo-ethyl, fenpropidine, fenpropimorph, 

folpel, lenacil, 

pendimethalin, tebuconazole, tetraconazole, 

trifluralin, dichlorvos, ethoprophos, 

propachlor, spiroxamine, vinclozolin 

Pesticides essentially used for nonagricultural 

use: dichlobenil, chlorpyrifos-ethyl, 

oxadiazon 

Pesticides not registered for use: 

gamma-HCH (lindane), metolachlor, 

tebutame 

of pesticides there is no legal requirement 

to monitor pesticides in air and no legal 

maximum admissible concentration for 

these compounds in air. 

Air pollution by pesticides is another 

way that people may be exposed to these 

chemicals, many of which have dangerous 

properties. Trifluralin, pendimethalin and 

lindane are all considered possible carcinogens 

by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. Trifluralin and 

pendimethalin are listed as endocrine disruptors 

(Colburn list). 

A general move towards low input agriculture 

is urgently needed in France to 

lower the exposure of millions of people to 

dangerous cocktails of pesticides through 

food, water and air. 

More details on the Airparif study can 

be found at http://www.mdrgf.org/news/ 

news072706_Pesticides_Airparif.html (a 

link to several official Airparif documents 

is at the bottom of this webpage). 

François VEILLERETTE, MDRGF Chair, 

www.mdrgf.org; mdrgf@wanadoo.fr 

6 

develop a robust exposure assessment for 

bystanders and residents. There is evidence 

that suggests that in some instances, shortterm 

exposures could exceed the exposure 

values used in the current risk assessment. It 

is not possible at this stage to establish how 

frequently this may occur in practice for the 

following reasons: 

● there is a high level of variability in spray 

drift that would require a large number of 

experimental measurements to be made to 

determine the probability of a given level of 

exposure 

● there are a number of variables that will 

influence spray drift and although we have 

some knowledge of their effect, the way they 

interact is not well understood 

● the variables that influence vapour emissions 

from fields are not well understood and 

therefore it is not possible to extrapolate 

from a single experiment to other situations 

Future research as part of the BREAM 

project will help address these three issues 

through the development of a model that can 

be used to explore the factors influencing 

exposure and to make some estimation of 

exposure probability distributions. 

References 

The Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution 

is an independent scientific advisory group which 

advises the UK government on a range of 

environmental issues. 

1. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 

Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and 

Bystanders, September 2005, 

http://www.rcep.org.uk/pesticides.htm 

2. Defra Project report PS2006: The assessment of 

the risk of bystander contamination during the 

application of pesticides to field arable crops in 

typical UK conditions, http://www2.defra.gov.uk/ 

research/project_data/Default.asp 

3. Defra Project report PS2008: Measurements of 

bystander contamination during and post the 

application of pesticides relevant to arable crops in 

typical UK conditions Part 2: studies with a volatile 

formulation, http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/ 

project_data/Default.asp 

4. Defra Project PS2005: The development and 

validation of a Bystander and Residential Exposure 

Assessment Model (BREAM) http://www2.defra.gov. 

uk/research/project_data/Default.asp 

5. Lloyd GA and Bell GJ, Hydraulic nozzles: 

comparative drift study. Confidential Report: 

Operator Protection Group, Agricultural Science 

Service, MAFF, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, 1983 

6. Ibid 

7. Hamey PY, Pesticides Safety Directorate. 

personal communication 

8. EPA, Exposure Factors Handbook Vol. 1 – 

General Factors, EPA/600/p-95/002Fa August 

1997. Published by Office of Research and 

Development, National Centre for Environmental 

Protection, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington DC 

Clare Butler-Ellis is Applications Project 

Manager at the Silsoe Spray Application 

Unit, 

clare.butler-ellis@thearablegroup.com


Integrated pest management Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

Does IPM pay off in 

Europe? 

While the environmental and public health benefits of reducing 

pesticide use are widely accepted, the economic practicalities are still 

debated. During his research with German, Dutch and Danish farmers 

Walter Dirksmeyer identified a number of profitable low pesticide 

technologies. However, institutional constraints have limited their 

uptake. Adoption of a pesticide reduction programme with ambitious 

quantitative targets could help promote their uptake. 

In open field vegetable production, large 

quantities of pesticides are used. Low pesticide 

use strategies and non-chemical pest 

control technologies are often only adopted 

by a small proportion of producers even 

though such methods are generally available. 

One possible reason may be that farmers 

lack economic incentives to adopt such 

technologies. 

To analyse the economic benefits at the 

farm level, a range of pest control technologies 

were compared from the farmers’ point 

of view. Farmers from Denmark, Germany 

and the Netherlands were asked to identify a 

wide range of alternative pest control technologies. 

Carrot (Daucus carota), leek 

(Allium porrum) and onion (Allium cepa) 

were selected for the analysis. Table 1 

shows the area planted, amount produced 

and the production value of the crops 1 . 

Pesticide registration 

In European Union (EU) member states the 

legal framework for national pesticide registration 

legislation is provided by EU directive 

91/414/EEC. However, some differences 

among the three countries exist. For 

example, the authority responsible for registering 

pesticides is different in each country. 

In Denmark pesticides are registered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, in 

Germany they are registered by the Federal 

Office of Consumer Protection and Food 

Safety while in the Netherlands they are 

registered by the Board for the 

Authorization of Pesticides. Although in all 

three countries pesticides are usually registered 

for ten years, a shorter registration 

period of four to five years is possible in 

Denmark for the more toxic pesticides. The 

number of active compounds registered 

varies considerably between the three countries. 

In 2001, 149 active ingredients were 

registered in Denmark, 198 in the 

Netherlands and 273 in Germany. Hence in 

terms of pesticide availability German farmers 

have more choice than their colleagues 

in Denmark or the Netherlands. 

Pesticide reduction 

programmes 

All three countries have initiated programmes 

to restrict the use of pesticides further 

than directive 91/414/EEC. Denmark’s 

first Pesticide Action Plan came into force 

in 1986 2 . It was accompanied by different 

supporting measures such as a requirement 

to re-register all pesticides, the introduction 

of a pesticide tax and increased support for 

organic farming. Quantitative reduction targets 

were defined. A similar pesticide reduction 

programme was implemented in the 

Netherlands in 1990 3 although it was not 

accompanied by a pesticide tax. In Germany 

Table 1. Area planted, amount produced, and production value of carrot, 

leek and onion in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands in 2000 

Type of Vegetable DK GER NL 

Area Planted (ha) 

Carrots 1563 9375 7714 

Leek 426 2082 3184 

Onions 944 7532 19979 

Amount Produced (1000 tonnes) 

Carrots 62 432 385 

Leek 7 59 95 

Onions 29 317 908 

Production Value (€/ ha) 

Carrots 11959 7894 n.a. 

Leek n.a. 12180 11289* 

Onions n.a. 3908 6228* 

* Data from 1997; n.a.: not available 

Release of sterilized male onion flies 

Photo: De Groene Vlieg 

a pesticide reduction programme was 

launched as late as 2004 4 . But in contrast to 

the other two countries the German pesticide 

reduction programme was not explicitly 

anchored in national legislation and no 

mandatory quantitative reduction targets 

were defined. Thus the introduction of this 

programme can be regarded merely as a 

first step in increasing awareness among 

German farmers of the problems associated 

with pesticide use. This programme does 

not force farmers to change their pest control 

habits by creating economic incentives 

or pressure ,or by legislative regulations. 

In parallel to the late enforcement of a 

pesticide reduction programme, Germany 

also has weaker integrated pest management 

(IPM) regulations than Denmark and 

the Netherlands. In Germany no nationwide 

governmental regulations for IPM exist, 

while in Denmark strict rules are defined. 

Furthermore in Denmark the IPM rules are 

adjusted and approved annually. If a low 

pesticide use technology has proven feasible 

for controlling a particular pest this 

technology is translated into an IPM rule 

thus continuously tightening Danish IPM 

regulations. In Denmark the produce 

becomes certified on an annual basis. The 

IPM specifications in the Netherlands are 

weaker than in Denmark but markedly 

stronger than in Germany. 

Monitoring carrot fly populations 

Photo: De Groene Vlieg 

7



8 

Field survey 

To generate a database for economic analysis 

a field survey of 134 vegetable producers 

in Denmark, Germany and the 

Netherlands was carried out. This focused 

on carrot production in Denmark and 

Germany, and leek and onion production in 

Germany and the Netherlands. It showed 

that vegetable producers in all three countries 

had similar pests to cope with although 

infestation levels varied (Table 2). 

Low pesticide use technologies for pest 

control are used most frequently in 

Denmark and the Netherlands. They include 

supervised control for carrot flies and cutworms 

in Danish carrot production. Intense 

monitoring activities provide the basis for 

timing pesticide applications. These procedures 

are often carried out by advisory services 

or specialized companies. Sterile 

insect technology is applied to control onion 

fly in the Netherlands. Infestation levels are 

intensely monitored in the field and sterilized 

male onion flies released if certain levels 

are exceeded. This interrupts their life 

cycle thus preventing the development of 

natural onion fly populations. 

By contrast, in Germany low pesticide 

use technologies are rarely used in carrot, 

leek and onion production. Instead pests are 

predominantly controlled by calendar 

spraying, that is by routine pesticide sprayings 

at regular intervals. An exception is the 

control of carrot fly: pesticide applications 

are timed according to warnings from an 

advisory service. This system is not as precise 

as supervised control but nevertheless 

requires fewer insecticide applications than 

the calendar spraying approach. 

In all three countries weeds are controlled 

non-chemically, especially in organic 

production, or alternatively by a combination 

of mechanical weeding and herbicide 

applications. If herbicide applications are 

Cutworm are one of the most serious pests affecting carrots 

optimally timed it is possible to reduce the 

recommended standard dosage to one third 

without sacrificing efficacy. No low pesticide 

use technologies were identified to 

control fungus. 

Crop monitoring is conducted by most 

of the vegetable producers interviewed but 

seemed to be less frequent in Germany. The 

most important prophylactic control method 

carried out in all crops and countries is 

adherence to a crop rotation, whose length 

is used as a proxy for its quality. Analysis of 

producers’ attitudes to pesticide use and 

non-chemical pest control revealed that producers 

in all three countries are pesticideoriented. 

This is particularly true for 

German vegetable producers. Surprisingly, 

the results of the field survey showed 

almost no differences in pest control practices 

between conventional and integrated 

farmers. 

The economics of pest control 

In order to assess the likelihood of different 

pest control technologies being adopted typical 

models of such technologies were 

Table 2. The main pests in carrot, leek and onion production in Europe 

Common Name Scientific Name Infestation Probability (%) 

DK GER NL 

Carrots 

Carrot Fly Psila rosae 76 40 n.a. 

Cutworm Agrotis segetum 24 16 n.a. 

Aphid 0 25 n.a. 

Carrot Blight Alternaria dauci 27 79 n.a. 

Powdery Mildew Erysiphe heraclei 0 45 n.a. 

Leek 

Onion Thrips Thrips tabaci n.a. 85 86 

Leek Moth Acrolepiopsis assectella n.a. 69 32 

Onion Blight Alternaria porri n.a. 60 32 

Onion Neck Rot Botrytis squamosa n.a. 17 38 

Leek Rust Puccinia porri n.a. 71 68 

White Tip Phytophtora porri n.a. 65 35 

Onions 

Onion Fly Delia antiqua n.a. 32 57 

Onion Thrips Thrips tabaci n.a. 31 30 

Downy Mildew of Onion Peronospora destructor n.a. 89 58 

Onion Neck Rot Botrytis squamosa n.a. 32 3 

n.a.: not available 

Photo: Peter Esbjerg 

established based on the field data collected. 

Control methods identified in Denmark and 

the Netherlands were transferred to German 

conditions and models were validated in a 

workshop with pest control experts. Using 

these models of control options for the main 

insect pests and weeds farm level economic 

analysis identified the efficiency of alternative 

pest control methods based on their 

net returns 5 . Results for conventional and 

integrated production were combined for 

modelling purposes. 

While modelling results showed no general 

differences between the three countries, 

results differed between crops and even for 

different pests at crop level due to the wide 

range of parameters influencing net return. 

For example, in Germany supervised control 

of carrot flies and cutworms is more 

profitable than routine pesticide applications. 

Furthermore carrot fly control based 

on warnings from the advisory service is 

more profitable and requires fewer insecticide 

applications than calendar spraying. 

Due to low onion fly infestation levels in 

Germany, neither seed coating, a common 

practice, nor the sterile male onion fly technique 

pays off. However, due to higher 

infestation probabilities in the Netherlands 

both methods for onion fly control are profitable. 

A threshold-based control measure 

was simulated for thrips control in German 

leek production. However, it is less profitable 

than routine spraying due to the 

slightly greater control effectiveness of the 

latter due to a constant latent thrips infesta- 

Onion fly damage 

Photo: De Groene Vlieg



tion and monitoring difficulties under field 

conditions. In all three countries, combined 

chemical-mechanical weed control using 

reduced herbicide dosages is efficient, compared 

to the application of full dosages or 

non-chemical weeding. It was also shown 

that the risk of low pesticide use technologies 

is not necessarily higher than that of 

routine pesticide applications. The simulation 

results revealed that low pesticide use 

control technologies may be more profitable 

than widespread calendar sprayings. 

Furthermore, it was shown that transborder 

transfer of pest control technologies such as 

supervised control can be beneficial both to 

vegetable producers, due to more efficient 

pest control, and to society due to reduced 

pesticide use. 

In a further part of the analysis, breakeven 

prices were determined. These are the 

pesticide prices that would change the most 

profitable pest control strategies to those 

requiring minimum pesticide use. This 

showed that pesticide prices would have to 

be increased by a factor of 13 to 54, mainly 

due to the labour required for non-chemical 

weed control. This increase is far beyond 

that imposed by any pesticide tax so far. 

Hence, it is unlikely that politically enforceable 

pesticide taxes will create enough economic 

pressure on vegetable producers to 

change their pest control practices towards 

those requiring minimum pesticide use. 

The simulation model was also applied 

to pest control in organic production systems 

in Germany. However, organic production 

systems suffer to a large extent from a 

lack of suitable pest control methods. 

Results show that the technologies identified 

in the field survey are profitable, even 

the sterile insect technology for onion fly 

control. This is contrary to conventional 

production and can be attributed to higher 

prices for organic onions. 

Additional influences on 

pesticide use 

German vegetable producers tend to continue 

applying pesticides routinely, although 

information about more profitable low pesticide 

use technologies is generally available. 

Therefore, a model was developed to 

identify factors other than economic profitability 

which determine pesticide use 

intensity. It was found that in addition to a 

rising number of pests, the factors that significantly 

increase pesticide application levels 

include the growing number of information 

sources for vegetable producers and 

their attitudes towards pesticide use and pest 

control. Hence, the information available to 

vegetable producers is significantly biased 

in favour of pesticides. In contrast, more 

frequent crop monitoring has a reducing 

effect on pesticide use levels. Surprisingly, 

the model results show no significant influence 

of crop rotation length on pesticide use 

levels. Most likely the reason for this is that 

the crop rotation length which was used in 

the model as a surrogate for its quality is 

inappropriate. A further unexpected observation 

was that the country itself has no significant 

effect on the pesticide use intensity 

despite the long-term existence of pesticide 

reduction programmes in Denmark and the 

Netherlands. It is likely that the effect of 

these programmes on pesticide use levels is 

balanced by other country-specific determinants, 

such as the existence of support 

schemes or differences in advisory systems. 

A similar model was applied to insecticide 

use in onion production due to the application 

of the virtually pesticide-free sterile 

insect technology for onion fly control. If 

widely adopted such methods could significantly 

reduce pesticide use. 

These results show that measures need 

to be implemented to improve the dissemination 

of profitable low pesticide use technologies 

like those identified in the previous 

section, such as information campaigns and 

demonstration farms. However, achieving a 

noticeable effect from such activities 

requires patience. The company offering the 

sterile insect technology for onion fly control 

in the Netherlands took more than 15 

years to convince a substantial share of 

onion producers of its benefits. 

Breaking Germanyʼs pesticide 

dependence? 

Low pesticide technologies are rarely 

applied in Germany even though they are 

profitable. This is an indicator that institutional 

constraints exist leading to the socalled 

‘path dependence’ that increases individual 

costs of a shift to low pesticide 

methods. For example, such costs could be 

caused by a biased information environment 

as discussed above. An external shock, such 

as the introduction of a powerful pesticide 

reduction programme, could potentially 

break this dependence. Although a pesticide 

reduction programme was recently 

launched in Germany, it does not create any 

pressure to lower pesticide use levels in vegetable 

production as important parts of such 

a programme are missing. These include the 

definition of a reduction target, the introduction 

of a pesticide tax and support for 

research and extension activities in the field 

of low pesticide use and pesticide-free pest 

control technologies. The development and 

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has 

recently published an information leaflet on 

sheep dipping, Sheep dipping – advice for 

farmers and others involved in dipping 

sheep, which states that inhalation of sheep 

dip vapour can be hazardous to human 

health. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence of 

the hazards of organophosphate (OP) use, 

this is the first time that the HSE, or any 

government body, has admitted that such 

substances are hazardous by inhalation. 

Given the potential acute and chronic 

adoption of such pest control methods could 

be supported by the introduction of a welldefined 

regulatory framework for integrated 

vegetable production. In this setting IPM 

aims at reducing pesticide use levels based 

on the most recent low pesticide use control 

technologies available. The successful pesticide 

reduction programme in Denmark 

demonstrates that such a strategy would be 

worthwhile. 

References 

1. Sources: Statistics Denmark, Production of 

vegetables in the open by crop, type and region, 

2004, http://www.statbank.dk/, access 13.09.2004; 

Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, 

Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Statistisches 

Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und 

Forsten. Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Münster- 

Hiltrup, 2002; zmp, Gemüse Marktbilanz - 

Deutschland, Europäische Union, Weltmarkt. 

Zentrale Markt- und Preisberichtstelle GmbH, Bonn, 

2002; Pedersen T, Statistics Denmark, email, 

14.09.2004; LEI-DLO, different years. 

2. The Bichel Committee, The Bichel Committee - 

Report from the Main Committee, 1999. 

3. Bijman J, Brouwer F, de Meere F, van Berkum S 

and von Schomberg R, PITA - Policy Influences on 

Technology for Agriculture: Chemicals, 

Biotechnology and Seeds - Netherlands National 

Report, 1998, pdf-file, http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/cts/ 

pita/netherland 

4. Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und 

Lebensmittelsicherheit, Verzeichnis zugelassener 

Pflanzenschutzmittel, 2004, htm-page, 

http://www.bvl.bund.de/pflanzenschutz/ 

psmdb/fr_ob_be.htm, access 08.09.2004. 

5. Details of data base and methodology can be 

found in Dirksmeyer PhD thesis (see below). 

Dr. Walter Dirksmeyer is an agricultural 

economist at the Federal Agricultural 

Research Center in Germany; walter.dirksmeyer@fal.de. 

This paper summarizes selected results 

from his PhD research which he prepared 

at the Institute of Horticultural Economics, 

Faculty of Economics and Management, 

Leibniz University Hannover, Germany: 

Economics of Pesticide Reduction and 

Biological Control in Open Field 

Vegetables – A Cross Country Comparison. 

Landwirtschaft und Umwelt: Schriften zur 

Umweltökonomik, Band 21, Editor.: Peter 

Weingarten, Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel 

KG, 246 pp. 

Inhalation of organophosphate 

sheep dip is hazardous to health 

negative health effects associated with OP 

use it is essential that the new advice presented 

by the HSE is not hidden away on its 

website but is actively circulated to all 

those using OPs in any capacity, particularly 

those in the sheep farming industry. 

(NM) 

1. Sheep dipping – advice for farmers and others 

involved in dipping sheep, HSE, 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/PUBNS/as29.pdf 

2. Farmers Weekly, 10 August 2007, 

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/08/10/105863/hs 

e-admits-to-op-dip-dangers.html 

9


Developing countries Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

10 

Pesticide users at risk 

Pesticide users in developing countries are advised to wear personal 

protective equipment during mixing and application. Such equipment 

should be available and affordable. But how easy is it to buy? A 

survey carried out in China, Indonesia and Pakistan found that 

dealers selling the herbicide paraquat do not sell essential protective 

gear. Barbara Dinham reports. 

The impact of many pesticides on the 

health of farmers and agricultural workers 

in developing countries is compounded by 

poor conditions and a lack of effective protective 

equipment. A survey of typical pesticide 

dealers selling paraquat in China, 

Indonesia and Pakistan found that few sell 

the personal protective equipment (PPE) 

recommendedon the label for spraying 

paraquat 1 . 

Surveys were carried out between 

January-March 2007 by local organisations 

familiar with agriculture in their regions 2 . 

Twelve stores were interviewed in both 

China and Indonesia, and 10 in Pakistan. In 

China the survey took place in Yunnan 

province, in Indonesia it took place in Java 

and in Pakistan in three locations in the 

Punjab. All stores interviewed sold the 

Syngenta product Gramoxone in a formulation 

of 18-20% paraquat. 

The International Code of Conduct on 

the Distribution and Use of Pesticides 3 sets 

global standards and gives clear guidance 

on the use of PPE, establishing that it must 

be available and affordable, as well as 

appropriate for the conditions under which 

the pesticides are to be handled and used: 

‘Pesticides whose handling and application 

require the use of personal protective equipment 

that is uncomfortable, expensive or 

not readily available should be avoided, 

especially in the case of small-scale users in 

tropical climates’ (Article 3.5). Both governments 

and industry are required to 

reduce risks by ‘promoting use of proper 

and affordable personal protective equipment’ 

(Article 5.3.1). 

Paraquat is a highly toxic pesticide. 

When used under poor conditions and without 

proper PPE, exposure to paraquat can 

cause a range of unpleasant symptoms 

including: localised skin damage such as 

dermatitis and burns, eye injuries, finger 

and toenail damage, nose bleeds, excessive 

sweating, nausea and vomiting 4,5 . In addition, 

although only classified by the World 

Health Organisation as ‘moderately hazardous’, 

ingestion of less than a teaspoon of 

the product is fatal as there is no antidote, 

and the high toxicity has led to both suicides 

and accidental deaths. Damage to the 

lungs may occur if paraquat is absorbed 

over time, and long-term exposure is associated 

with Parkinson’s disease 6 . These 

concerns have led many countries to ban 

paraquat. In Indonesia 18 pesticide products 

are classified for limited use and three 

of these contain paraquat. 

PPE for spraying paraquat 

Syngenta has said of PPE for paraquat 

products: During handling of the concentrated 

formulation the use of gloves and eye 

protection is recommended; a long-sleeved 

shirt, long trousers and boots should be 

worn during application. Separate washing 

of clothes used during spray operations and 

attention to personal hygiene by those handling 

all pesticides is also important 7 . The 

label on Gramoxone products in China 

called on users to wear long-sleeved 

clothes, trousers and boots, waterproof 

gloves and goggles when diluting the product; 

when applying users should wear longsleeved 

clothes, trousers and boots. 

Indonesian and Pakistani products had 

broadly the same instructions. 

However, label instructions on PPE may 

not be consistent across all countries. One 

comparison of paraquat products of similar 

concentrations found that the PPE required 

was generally less extensive in Malaysia, 

Thailand and Mexico than in the US or 

Germany and than the guidance of the 

European Union 8 . When paraquat was last 

authorised for the European Union (EU) 

market in 2003, the restrictions banned 

paraquat use for home gardeners and barred 

the use of knapsack or handheld applicators 

indicating these should be used ‘neither by 

amateur nor by professional users’ 9 ; conditions 

in most developing countries could be 

compared to household use – untrained 

users using knapsack sprayers – but applying 

stronger formulation under poorer surroundings. 

Even with these precautionary 

restrictions, in July 2007 the EU Court of 

Justice annulled the authorisation, stating 

that the decision was based on a flawed 

assessment of the chemical’s safety to agricultural 

workers, and omitted substantial 

evidence relating to environmental hazards 

(see p3, this issue). 

The Food and Agriculture Organisation 

of the United Nations (FAO) has developed 

a series of guidelines. The guideline on PPE 

in tropical areas outlines a range of measures 

to protect operators 10 . Work clothing 

is regarded as the ‘first line of defence’. The 

minimum requirement is lightweight clothing 

covering most of the body and boots or 

shoes; the most common additional protective 

equipment required is for gloves and 

eye protection when pouring, mixing and 

loading pesticide formulations; aprons, 

boots, face masks, protective garments or 

hats for protection against especially hazardous 

products. In addition, when mixing 

and loading pesticide formulations, face 

shields protect the eyes and face against 

splashes and can consist of a simple visor 

of clear transparent material. The guideline 

emphasises that pesticide PPE should not 

be worn for other purposes. 

Survey results 

The survey asked whether dealers gave 

advice to use PPE, sold appropriate protection, 

or could advise where to buy it. 

In China four of the 12 surveyed dealers 

said that they advised customers to use 

PPE. Three of these sold basic PPE of 

gloves, boots and in two cases an apron. 

Two could name where items of work 

clothing could be bought nearby. However 

dealers had poor knowledge of standards 

and suggested purchasing inappropriate 

masks from pharmacy stores. In the surveyed 

areas it was hard to access specialized 

PPE for pesticide application. Those 

wishing to purchase a full range of PPE 

would need to travel to a number of stores 

to be properly equipped. 

In Indonesia seven of the 12 stores selling 

pesticides sold some PPE, although the 

items available differed. One store, an 

authorised dealer, sold all items except the 

cover-all. The most common items in the 

other seven were gloves and masks, and 

five also sold boots. Of those not selling 

items, two did not know where they could 

be bought. Although a higher proportion of 

shops in Indonesia sold some items of PPE, 

the quality of the gloves was below standard 

and a full range of sizes was not 

always in stock, while the masks were 

poorly fitting. 

In Pakistan none of the dealers sold any 

items of PPE, nor did they know where 

these items could be bought. Some indicated 

that gloves and masks were available in 

the medical stores, but did not recognise 

that these would be unsuitable for heavy 

agricultural fieldwork or effective against 

chemical inhalation. 

Of the dealers surveyed, over 30% in 

Indonesia, 70% in China, and 100% in 

Pakistan do not sell the essential protective 

gear and cannot tell customers where to 

they might find such items (see Figure 1). 

In the shops selling some PPE (mainly 

gloves, mask and boots), there was little 

awareness that gloves must be strong and 

impervious, that masks must have an effective 

filter, or that these items require regular 

replacement. Sources of protective equipment 

are few and far between, requiring 

farmers to make long treks only to be confronted 

with prices that many cannot afford. 

A comparison with the detail of PPE 

specified on labels of Gramoxone products 

of a similar formulation in the United States 

or Germany found that products in this survey 

had less detailed instructions, suggesting 

‘double standards’ between the requirements 

in developed and developing



Figure 1: Stores selling PPE and knowledge of local availability (%) 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

China 

countries. No survey shops sold some of the 

US and German requirements (for example, 

respiratory mask, mask filter replacements, 

goggles and impermeable aprons) with the 

possible exception of the large supplier in 

Solo, Indonesia. 

Conclusion and 

recommendations 

The stringent guidance proper for PPE contrasts 

starkly with the easy access to 

paraquat from dealers who in the main do 

not sell PPE or do not sell items of an 

appropriate quality and size range, and cannot 

suggest where it can be bought. 

The areas surveyed were typical of the 

countries, and of many other developing 

countries. The pesticide industry has agreed 

to implement the Code of Conduct. 

Paraquat is a hazardous product, and a 

range of health problems are associated 

with exposure to the chemical. This survey 

indicates the difficulty facing farmers and 

agricultural workers in acquiring the PPE 

specified on the label, as well as a lack of 

awareness of the requirements. Article 3.5 

says: ‘Preference should be given to pesticides 

that require inexpensive personal protective 

and application equipment and to 

procedures appropriate to the conditions 

under which the pesticides are to be handled 

and used.’ 

Companies agreed to support the Code 

of Conduct by exercising responsibility for 

each product sold ‘through to its ultimate 

use and beyond’. However the sale of 

paraquat in regions where required PPE is 

not readily available and affordable suggests 

that users face an unacceptably high 

risk of poisoning. Additionally, the survey 

found that many dealers are not suitably 

trained and aware of the necessary PPE and 

hazard warnings. The conditions suggest 

the products should not be sold in these 

areas. 

Concerned with the results of this survey 

and the risks to paraquat users, the 

Indonesia 

Pakistan 

Berne Declaration and supporting organisations 

drew attention of the FAO to the 

results, and has asked it to request Syngenta 

to report on its ability to meet its obligations 

under the Code of Conduct when selling 

Gramoxone under the conditions of use 

identified in this report. 

The survey, ‘Pesticide users at Risk – 

Survey of availability of personal protective 

clothing when purchasing paraquat in 

China, Indonesia and Pakistan and failures 

to meet the standards of the Code of 

Conduct’ is available on the ‘Stop 

Paraquat’ website of the Berne 

Declaration, 

Switzerland 

www.evb.ch/en/p25012606.html 

1. Pesticide users at risk, Survey of availability of 

personal protective clothing when purchasing 

The European Parliament is currently considering 

new legislation to tighten controls on 

the use of toxic pesticides in EU member 

states. The legislation put forward by the 

European Commission has passed to the 

European Parliament where a number of 

strong amendments have increased the precautionary 

approach of the directive 1 . 

The measures proposed will help create a 

regulatory system that will move the EU away 

from its use of, and dependence upon, toxic 

pesticides. The proposed directive is strongly 

precautionary regarding human health and 

would require no-spray buffer zones alongside 

public areas and a 50% reduction in the 

use of the most toxic substances by 2013. 

Residents of the EU should write to their 

MEPs expressing support for the directive as 

it currently stands. Some of the key points to 

make are that the directive will: 

● introduce much improved protection for 

paraquat in China, Indonesia and Pakistan and 

failures to meet the standards of the Code of 

Conduct. A report by Barbara Dinham for the 

Berne Declaration, Switzerland; Pesticide Action 

Network Asia and the Pacific; Pesticide Eco- 

Alternatives Center, China; Gita Pertiwi, Indonesia, 

Lok Sanjh, Pakistan. Based on research by: Sun 

Jing, Pesticide Eco-Alternatives Center, China; 

Rossana Dewi R., Gita Pertiwi, Indonesia; Asim 

Muhammad Yasin, Lok Sanjh, Pakistan. Published 

by the Berne Declaration, Switzerland, May 2007. 

2. Pesticide Eco-Alternatives Center, China; Gita 

Pertiwi, Indonesia; Lok Sanjh, Pakistan. 

3. International Code of Conduct on the 

Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Revised version, 

FAO, 2002. 

4. Isenring R, Paraquat: Unacceptable health risks 

for users, Berne Declaration, Pesticide Action 

Network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific, PAN UK, 2nd 

edition, September 2006. 

http://www.evb.ch/en/p10285.html 

5. Wesseling C, van Wendel de Joode B, Ruepert C, 

León C, Monge P, Hermosilla H, and Partanen T, 

Paraquat in developing countries, International 

Journal of Occupational Health 7(4), 275-286, 

2001. 

6. Thiruchelvam M, Richfield EK, Baggs RB, Tank 

AW, and Cory-Slechta DA, The Nigrostriatal 

Dopaminergic System as a Preferential Target of 

Repeated Exposures to Combined Paraquat and 

Maneb: Implications for Parkinson's Disease, 

Journal of Neuroscience, 15 December, 2000, 

20(24):9207-9214. 

7. Brown R, Clapp M, Dyson J, Scott D, Wheals I, 

Wilks M, Paraquat in Perspective, Outlooks on Pest 

Management, December 2004 pp 259-267. 

8. Isenring R, op cit, pp 46-47. 

9. Commission Directive 2003/112/EC of 1 

December 2003 amending Council Directive 

91/414/EEC to include paraquat as an active 

substance, Official Journal of the European Union, 

6 December 2003. 

10. Guidelines for Personal Protection when 

Working with Pesticides in Tropical Climates, FAO, 

1990. 

Barbara Dinham is an independent consultant, 

barbara.dinham@googlemail.com 

EU legislation for better control of 

pesticides – how to help 

human health and the environment 

● not create unnecessary burdens regarding 

implementation for the farming community 

provided the correct support is given 

● not lead to reductions in farm productivity 

as it is clear that low input farming systems, 

IPM and organic production methods can 

maintain profitable productivity 

● lead to reductions in pesticide contamination 

of ground water and thus improve water 

quality throughout the EU 

Letters from constituents are a powerful 

way to influence the decisions that MEPs 

make. Every letter counts. 

For more details on the directive and for 

information on how EU citizens can identify 

and contact their MEP please visit the PAN 

UK website at www.pan-uk.org 

1. Directive of the European Parliament and of the 

council - establishing a framework for Community 

action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides 

11



12 

Senegalese farmers 

discuss pesticide issues 

Small-scale horticulture growers in Senegal face different challenges in 

producing crops for export and local markets. PAN UK and PAN 

Africa’s joint Food and Fairness project is working with farmers to 

identify their specific pest management challenges and pesticide issues. 

Siré Badji describes these from the perspective of the farmers. 

Over half the population of Senegal lives in 

rural areas. Like most of Africa, agriculture is 

central to their lives, and its produce is crucial 

to the economy of the country. Farmers 

grow cotton as well as horticulture crops like 

green beans and tomatoes for export. Millet, 

cassava, rice, maize and sorghum feed farming 

families and are sold on local markets. 

Often, the rewards for their labour are meagre, 

and the environment is tough. 

Most farmers now use pesticides to produce 

their crops, but it is the horticulture 

crops where use is generally greatest. 

Ironically this is the crop where high residues 

are most likely to harm consumers. Farmers 

are aware of this, but struggle to manage the 

hazardous chemicals because of insufficient 

information, training, resources and inadequate 

means of protecting themselves. 

Serious pest problems must be managed, but 

the cost of chemicals is high, and access to 

resources like water is difficult and costly. 

Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN 

Africa) works across Senegal and in 2005 

carried out surveys of smallholder growers 

[PN71 pp 12-13]. In addition, in 2006-2007 

PAN Africa facilitated several group discussions 

with farmers growing horticulture crops 

about their pest management problems and 

practices in two areas of the country. Both 

areas are in Les Niayès, a long, narrow fertile 

zone that stretches 250 km along the coast 

from Dakar to St. Louis in the North, which 

accounts for 80% of the Senegal's total vegetable 

production. The town of Sangalkam is 

now the major horticulture production zone 

in Les Niayès, lying about 80 km from the 

capital Dakar. Two groups of farmers from 

villages near Sangalkalm were interviewed – 

one had received training in Integrated Pest 

and Production Management (IPPM) while 

the other had not. The second village, 

Pambal, lies in the Thiès region, about 30 km 

from Dakar. This group of women farmers 

grows beans, tomato, cabbage, aubergine, 

cucumber and okra, mainly for the local markets 

but with some export of green beans to 

Europe. The women have not received training 

in IPPM or organic production. 

Watering vegetables is heavy and time-consuming daily work for many smallholder families, Les 

Niayes region, Senegal. 

Photo: © M.Mollica www.mimimollica.com 

Production problems 

Smallholder growers face many serious problems 

in producing and selling vegetables and 

in earning a decent income. The main production 

constraints mentioned by untrained 

farmers relate to natural resources and agricultural 

inputs. Much of the soil is heavily 

infested with nematodes, which can cause 

tomato and other crops to be stunted and produce 

low yields. Pesticides used by farmers 

to control nematodes are expensive and often 

hard to find, including carbofuran and ethoprophos. 

Maintaining soil fertility is hard 

since earlier government subsidy on synthetic 

fertiliser was withdrawn. Often farmers do 

not have the means to purchase fertilisers and 

it is the local vegetable traders which buy fertiliser 

and resell it to farmers at full cost. The 

cost of vegetable seeds and their quality are 

both major problems: farmers find often that 

seed does not germinate properly but the supplier 

denies any responsibility and the farmer 

loses out. 

Water availability is also a serious problem 

as many sources have become brackish 

and salty water can harm crops. Nevertheless, 

the problem is not generalised and one can 

still find good, fresh water in some areas. 

Water extraction is a constant challenge 

because of the cost of diesel for motor pumps 

for those that own them, while those without 

have to haul water manually, which is very 

heavy work. 

Storing and preserving fresh produce is 

difficult due to a lack of cool storage facilities, 

forcing farmers to sell their produce 

quickly to avoid it perishing. Unsold produce 

is therefore often given to livestock or sold at 

an extremely low price. 

All smallholders struggle to pay labour 

costs which are relatively expensive, costing 

between 45-75 euros per month. Another 

option is to share the harvest with the farm 

worker. Labour costs are a particular obstacle 

for women, who have less access to cash than 

their menfolk, and is one of the reasons why 

the plots of the Pambal women do not generally 

exceed 0.5-1.0 hectares. 

Farmers identified their most crucial 

problem as lack of access to credit, leaving 

them at the mercy of middlemen buying produce 

in rural areas. These intermediaries will 

often provide advance funding to farmers at 

the start of the season so they can purchase 

the inputs they need, and then return to purchase 

the harvest. These middlemen can fix 

prices which are rarely favourable to farmers, 

who have no negotiating power. 

Conventional farmersʼ pest 

management 

The main pest for all producers in Les Niayes 

zone is whitefly Bemisia tabacii. This attacks 

almost all vegetable crops, but is especially 

damaging in tomato particularly during the 

cooler period and causes significant losses. 

Conventional farmers make many insecticide 

applications but this is not an efficient 

method of controlling this pest. Certain farmers 

now use netting in nurseries to try to 

reduce infestation and loss. Others said that 

the insecticide imidacloprid is very effective 

but is relatively expensive at CFA 80,000 

(122 euros) per litre, which is beyond the 

reach of most smallholders. The Thiès 

women explained that if they carry out treatments 

but their neighbouring farmers do not,



whiteflies will re-enter their plots very rapidly. 

Other problem pests are aphids and a disease 

which none of the agronomists in the 

zone have been able to identify, which attacks 

the leaves causing leaf curl and loss of flower 

buds. 

The Pambal women described how many 

different types of treatments have been recommended 

for nematodes and they have tried 

these but without much success. They have 

observed that nematode damage is much 

more visible when they used specific sources 

of water to irrigate their plots. They also 

believe that certain plants or trees including 

papaya, baobab and eucalyptus can encourage 

the development of diseases and pests. 

The untrained Sangalkam farmers were 

concerned that they could not recognise 

pests. They often need advice from agronomists 

or more experienced farmers in order to 

recognise natural enemies of pests and understand 

that they should avoid eliminating these 

from their fields. They have problems with 

certain diseases which they have not been 

able to identify and in this case agronomists 

recommend cutting off affected parts or 

whole plants to prevent further disease spread 

through the field. 

To control insect pests they use a wide 

range of pesticides which they purchase on 

the open market, most commonly 

deltamethrin, dimethoate and methamidophos. 

To increase the effectiveness of the 

product, they often add diesel or liquid soap. 

PAN Africa is concerned about this practice 

because these mixtures are not always recommended 

and could increase toxicity and 

make the mixture more hazardous for farmer 

and consumer health. The majority of the 

farmers do not use appropriate protective 

equipment. Furthermore, the pesticide solution 

is prepared in a haphazard way without 

concern for application dose, much less for 

effects on health and environment. Farmers’ 

main concern is to stop pests and reduce 

damage to their crops as much as possible. 

However, several also use certain alternative 

pest control methods: mainly using neem 

leaves, as promulgated by advisers trained in 

IPM, and some use Biobit (Bacillus 

thuringiensis), a biopesticide, but say this is 

relatively expensive and not always effective. 

Two of the Pambal women also tried using 

neem seed against pests and appreciated that 

it can be useful. They learnt about this technique 

from other women who had taken a 

training course. 

Changes in knowledge and 

practice with IPPM training 

The trained Sangalkam farmers took part in 

IPPM Farmer Field Schools run by the FAO 

and the local research institute CERES locustox. 

They found the training extremely useful. 

Technical crop management planning 

improves production. They now use manure, 

which was a novelty for them, and apply 

chemicals more rationally. The training 

helped them to better value local natural 

resources, notably cow manure as fertiliser 

and plants with pesticidal effects such as 

Using netting to protect seedlings from whitefly attack instead of spraying insecticide, IPPM womenʼs 

group, Sangalkam district, Senegal 

Photo: PAN Africa 

neem and castor oil plants. In terms of economics, 

IPPM helps them to reduce production 

costs (reduced quantity of seed, reduced 

pesticide applications and reduced volume of 

synthetic fertilisers used compared with conventional 

methods). It also helps them to produce 

better quality fruit and vegetables but 

unfortunately these are sold at the same price 

as conventional produce. 

One member of the Niayes Horticulture 

Producers Association (FPMN) described his 

experience. ‘Green bean seeds are very 

expensive. With the IPPM training I've been 

able to gain experience in managing green 

bean sowing and now I only use 30 kg seed 

per hectare instead of 75 kg recommended in 

the conventional system protocols. I can do 

this by sowing at distances of 40cm between 

rows and 20cm within rows. I’ve applied just 

two treatments using Batic (B.t. biopesticide) 

and I only made these applications after seeing 

infestations. I managed to harvest a good 

yield of 15 tonnes per hectare. I made real 

benefits in reducing the cost of production 

and I obtained good quality and yield’. 

IPPM training has made farmers much 

more aware of issues around pesticide use 

and of the need to avoid bad practices and the 

risks of exposure they used to run before. 

One grower expressed this well: ‘Before the 

training I just managed my crop any old way, 

I used to use any pesticides that I could get 

hold of, and I didn't pay attention to the 

importance of recommended doses, I just 

needed to see insects in the field to unleash a 

treatment. With the IPPM project I've understood 

that my previous practice was suicidal 

and now I've adopted IPPM and good agricultural 

practice’. Farmers highlighted the 

value of special topics on pesticides, pollution 

and environment discussed and debated 

during the training. 

Some of the trained farmers have transferred 

some of their know-how to crops not 

targeted by the project, practicing IPPM on 

crops such as sweet pepper and bissap (hibiscus 

flowers used to make a traditional fruit 

drink). Other farmers continue to make comparisons 

between farmers’ conventional practice 

and IPPM in their own field. The main 

changes in practice are: permanent observations 

of the field, which is time consuming; 

abandoning the practice of seed broadcasting 

(which was easy and quick) for sowing in 

defined rows; being able to manage larger 

areas well; and working out application 

thresholds. 

But change in behaviour was highlighted 

as one of the main constraints to adoption – 

some trained farmers have not totally abandoned 

their former practices. It is also difficult 

to persuade untrained farmers to adopt 

good agricultural practice and to change their 

behaviour regarding their use of pesticides. 

Using IPPM requires more time in the 

field and a considerable amount of labour to 

prepare soil, do field scouting and prepare 

natural fertiliser and botanical extracts for 

pest control. Alternatives to pesticides are not 

well known or disseminated. Only neem, castor 

oil plant and chilli pepper are used for pest 

control and some crop diseases. Farmers said 

it was difficult to work out pest thresholds 

and decide when it is necessary to apply and 

how to choose the best natural or chemical 

pesticide to be used. Control of nematodes 

remains a real problem. For certain farmers, 

using powder from castor oil seeds spread 

over the soil and applied to crops seems to 

work effectively against many pests. 

Unfortunately the efforts of IPPM producers 

are not recognised or rewarded in 

terms of price or favoured markets and differences 

between production practices are not 

distinguished in the market. Consumers are 

not informed of the dangers related to poor 

pesticide practices in horticulture so the 

efforts of IPPM farmers to produce and market 

better quality in its broadest sense is often 

in vain. 

Pesticides and health impacts 

Both trained and untrained farmers from both 

13



fields, one containing pesticides and another 

with drinking water - one of his friends who 

came late confused the drinking water with 

the pesticide. Mrs S in Goram village talked 

about a case where a farmer had just sprayed 

several large fields and went home without 

taking off his work clothes before cuddling 

his two children. A few moments later, both 

children started to vomit. The family thought 

this was due to cholera and it was only at the 

hospital they realised that it was due to pesticide 

poisoning. Mr G in Keur Massar village 

declared that he had been a victim of poisoning 

after distributing the fungicide maneb to 

farmers. Although he removed his gloves and 

washed his hands well before buying some 

cakes he suffered direct poisoning effects 

(vomiting and excessive sweating) after eating 

them. 

Farmers observed that pesticides can 

damage soil and the environment. The IPPM 

training curriculum emphasised awareness of 

the harmful effects of pesticides. IPPM farmers 

certainly appreciated how much their 

training has helped them to reduce risks of 

poisoning and to better protect their health 

and that of their families. The Pambal 

women’s group are calling for training in 

alternatives to pesticides so that they can 

reduce their production costs and preserve 

human health and the environment. 

14 

Traditional market vendors, Castor retail market, Dakar, Senegal 

areas said that they were well aware of the 

risks that pesticides can pose to health. They 

cited numerous poisoning incidents linked to 

the use of pesticides, frequently due to lack of 

protective clothing. The majority said that 

they do not use any form of protection 

because of its cost. A mask, safety glasses, 

gloves and boots cost around 25 euros. 

Certain farmers have received some training 

in pesticide handling, however, they continue 

to treat their crops without any form of protection. 

Farmers in each group called for protective 

equipment to be subsidised by government 

agencies (as is done for lifejackets for 

Senegal’s fishermen) or the farmers' federations. 

In contrast, some export companies 

such as SEPAS buy protective clothing sets 

for the small and medium size growers registered 

as their suppliers and provide training in 

safety issues and good agricultural practice. 

Several farmers in the Sangalkam groups 

had personally experienced health problems 

linked to pesticides or knew of family members 

who had been victims of poisoning following 

misuse. Some of them continue to suffer 

chronic ill-health symptoms, such as 

persistent coughing, frequent headaches and 

skin problems. One farmer who applied pesticides 

without any protection told how one day 

after spraying he had not bothered to change 

his clothes or to wash and by the time he 

returned home he was having breathing problems 

and skin allergy. He partly recovered but 

still suffers persistent repercussions from this 

incident. Farmers recounted the tragic case of 

a young local woman who after applying pesticides 

used the pesticide bottle as a water 

container to wash herself. Half-an-hour later 

Photo: PAN Africa 

she was haemorrhaging in the genital area and 

was rushed to hospital, where doctors were 

unable to save her life. 

Farmers described how they eat charcoal 

or drink milk to mitigate mild symptoms, 

while in the case of serious poisoning, they 

will consult the doctor or go to an emergency 

health centre. Poisoning and ill-health are 

very frequent. PAN Africa highlights that pesticides 

can be absorbed rapidly by the body, 

especially via the skin, which is why it is 

absolutely essential to have protective equipment 

throughout preparation and application. 

One woman from Pambal reported how 

one of her farm workers almost died after 

poor handling of pesticides. Several women 

had experienced problems when using pesticides 

or had relatives or friends who had suffered 

poisoning symptoms. They said that certain 

symptoms such as headache, nausea, 

generalised fatigue and skin problems were 

due to poor handling of pesticides. One 

described the case of one of her husband’s 

farm workers, who had not properly closed 

his knapsack sprayer and the pesticide 

drenched him. After spraying, he spent the 

rest of the day with the wet, contaminated 

clothing still on. Two days later he became 

extremely weak with very violent diarrhoea 

and was rushed to the local clinic where they 

were able to save him. 

Mr D from Beer village first realised the 

dangers that pesticides pose in 1992 when he 

lost all his goats which browsed on a field of 

green beans just treated with deltamethrin. Mr 

S from Nagga village reported a case where a 

farmer had invited some of his friends to help 

planting potatoes. He had two buckets in the 

Pesticide hazard perceptions in 

the marketplace 

Untrained farmers were broadly aware of the 

risks that pesticide residues in food pose for 

consumers and that European importers were 

concerned about this issue. As the majority of 

farmers which PAN Africa met do not work 

with export companies they do not need to 

comply with EU requirements. In terms of 

maximum residue limits, they admitted they 

do not understand the concept very well but 

know that it means respecting the pre-harvest 

interval for all chemical products used. 

Nevertheless, they do not always respect this 

period if the local traders oblige them to harvest 

produce at short notice. This practice 

poses a serious risk for Senegalese consumers’ 

health. Farmers are conscious of this 

but they often have to organise their picking 

schedule according to market price and 

demand, without considering harmful effects 

for consumers. However, they said that local 

consumers should also play a role and 

demand better quality products like European 

consumers do, free from, or with reduced levels 

of, pesticides, and be willing to pay higher 

prices. The farmers are willing to conform 

to EU requirements in terms of pesticide safety 

issues and respecting good agricultural 

practice but explained that to do this they 

need to have closer contacts with European 

importers or to be working closely with 

exporters. They deplored the fact that at 

national level there are no initiatives geared 

towards consumers to improve demand for 

higher quality produce. 

Discussing client quality demands, IPPM 

farmers described how their main purchasers, 

the local traders known as bana bana, look for



quality in terms of zero pest damage, broken 

rind or any sign of disease and produce 

should be fresh, ripe and beautiful in cosmetic 

appearance (size, colour, grade). They also 

look for produce with a minimum of nitrogenous 

fertiliser because excess of this will 

reduce shelf-life and they may look at seed 

variety as certain varieties last longer than 

others do. These quality criteria relate solely 

to issues of profitability for the bana bana, 

they do not take into account good agricultural 

practice. For produce destined for export it 

is different, because buyers from export companies 

generally provide the inputs to be used 

and will monitor farmer practice during the 

season so that the farmer is obliged to follow 

the quality and pesticide controls required. 

In order to be able to produce crops without 

pesticides, farmers need to receive support 

in IPPM training on how to manage pests 

effectively without overuse of pesticides. It is 

equally important to create markets for produce 

which is organic or with reduced pesticide 

levels. They feel that the role of consumer 

associations and the government 

should be to support them to produce alternative 

quality produce and thereby protect the 

health of the whole population. 

PAN Africa met with some market stall 

holders from three different open markets in 

Dakar, selling wholesale and retail vegetables 

and fruit for local consumers, to discuss their 

perceptions of produce quality and safety. For 

most retail stall holders, cosmetic appearance 

is the main criterion affecting consumer 

choice for vegetables. In answer to the question 

whether they know that pesticide 

residues can be found in fruit and vegetables, 

the majority responded in the negative. 

Nevertheless, a few of them did say that they 

were aware of some risk, but that this did not 

directly concern them and that it was really 

up to farmers and agricultural extension staff 

to do everything to avoid pesticide residues in 

produce at the consumer stage. Stall holders 

explained that residue issues do not influence 

their supply source because consumers are 

not interested in these aspects of quality, 

which is why they could not give any information 

on produce traceability in their marketing 

channels. 

None of the produce traders interviewed 

was aware of the authorised EU maximum 

residue limits in fruit and vegetables and they 

were not really interested in the technical 

aspects of production. None had received any 

training in pesticide use or with regard to preharvest 

intervals to avoid residues being 

found in fruit and vegetables. Several commented 

that local horticulture produce sometimes 

perished very quickly and that this 

could be due to high levels of synthetic fertiliser 

used by farmers. 

Conclusions 

Clearly, there are many serious problems in 

current pesticide handling and pest management 

among untrained smallholders producing 

for the Senegalese market, compounded 

by a lack of awareness or interest in avoiding 

residues among local traders and consumers. 

Organic women growers sell their produce directly to consumers at the weekly market inThiès, 

Senegal 

Photo: Elhadji Hamath Hane, AGRINAT 

In July 2003 the Florida Supreme Court 

reinstated a decision finding DuPont and 

Pine Island Farms guilty in a case involving 

John Castillo. Back in 1989 his mother Mrs 

Castillo was walking near agricultural land 

in Florida with her young daughter and was 

drenched by a cloud of spray drift from a 

passing tractor. Unknown to her at the time 

she was pregnant with her son John who 

was subsequently born in June 2000 with 

no discernible eyes. 

The pesticide which had drenched Mrs 

Castillo was the fungicide Benlate, containing 

benomyl. Subsequent research showed 

that pregnant rats treated with benomyl 

gave birth to offspring with anophthalmia 

or microophthalmia (no, or small, eyes). A 

case was brought against the manufacturer, 

DuPont, and the owners of the farm, Pine 

Island Farms. The evidence was judged 

sufficient to find them guilty in 1996. An 

appeal by the companies, although initially 

successfully, was overturned in July 2003 

with the court awarding US$4 million to 

This contrasts with the much greater awareness 

and action to control residues and dangerous 

pesticide handling in the export horticulture 

sector. 

The experience of IPPM or organic training 

is that residues can be reduced or eliminated 

and human health can be protected, 

although farmers need more support in the 

most effective ways to manage pests and diseases 

without using harmful pesticides, as 

well as market incentives. PAN Africa is 

now conducting a survey of consumers, 

traders and retailers in Dakar and Thiès in 

order to find out more about their perceptions 

of quality and their criteria for selecting 

fresh produce. This detailed information 

will form the basis for designing an 

awareness programme for building local 

market demand for safer and healthier horticulture 

practice among Senegal’s thousands 

of smallholder growers. 

Siré Badji works on the Food and Fairness 

project at PAN Africa in Dakar, Senegal. 

sirebadji@pan-afrique.org www.panafrique.org. 

More details of the project 

findings from Senegal can be found on the 

Food and Fairness project web pages 

http://www.pan-uk.org/Projects/Fairness/ 

DuPont settles more Benlate suits 

John Castillo. 

However, John Castillo was not the 

only victim of this chemical. Families in 

many countries have been affected and 

many additional legal cases have been 

brought against DuPont. 

DuPont has now agreed to settle several 

lawsuits relating to birth defects. A number 

of claimants will share a US$9 million 

payout from the Delaware-based DuPont 

according to documents lodged with the US 

Securities and Exchange Commission following 

a nine-year legal battle. DuPont has 

also agreed to settle five cases of alleged 

crop damage in Hawaii for US$8.5 million. 

Additional cases are outstanding. 

1. Care A, Court finds DuPont product responsible 

for birth defects, Pesticides News 62, pp16-17, 

2003. 

2. DuPont settles more Benlate suits, Agrow 520, 

p2, 2007. 

3. Watson J, Victims of fungicide receive payout, 

Scotland on Sunday, 12 August 2007. 

15


Organic cotton Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

16 

When organic means 

fair: the case of cotton 

By converting to organic, cotton farmers not only improve their 

health and environment but also often enjoy a better income and 

better trading conditions with distributors and retailers. The entrance 

of organic cotton to the High Street now brings new opportunities and 

challenges. Will organic cotton farmers benefit from expanding 

markets or will High Street retailers impose less equitable trade 

relationships? Damien Sanfilippo reports. 

Cotton production is crucial to the economy 

of many developing countries. When West 

African nations gained their independence in 

the late 1950s, they saw cotton farming as an 

engine for economic development: white gold 

would earn them self-sufficiency. In India, 

cotton spinning and weaving became the 

symbol of the anti-colonial movement: 

Mahatma Gandhi wanted a cotton spinning 

wheel in every house. Half a century later, 

these would-be cotton fairy tales lack a happy 

ending. More cotton farmers live in India than 

any other country, but most of them barely 

cling to survival. Unable to pay back their 

debts to pesticide suppliers, hundreds have 

committed suicide in recent years. According 

to the Human Development Index, such West 

African countries as Benin, Burkina Faso, 

Mali, Chad and Cote d’Ivoire, for which cotton 

accounts for the great majority of their 

export revenue, remain among the 15 poorest 

countries in the world. 

Poisonous cotton pesticides 

In addition to failing to improve the economic 

security of the citizens of these countries, 

conventional cotton production has a devastating 

impact on their environment and on the 

health of farmers and their communities. 

Chemical-intensive cotton production damages 

biodiversity, contaminates soil and water 

resources, and depletes soil fertility and structure. 

More hazardous pesticides are sprayed 

on cotton than on any other crop 1 . The damage 

goes well beyond the cotton fields. 

Researchers at James Cook University recently 

exposed a potential catastrophe-in-themaking 

that nobody dared suspect until now: 

pesticides used on Australian cotton farms 

may be contributing to the progressive 

destruction of one of our planet’s most magnificent 

and fragile ecological treasures, the 

Great Barrier Reef. Evidence is also slowly 

emerging that pesticide contamination of 

water bodies might explain why amphibians 

Productivity of organic cotton: case studies 

A 2004 study revealed that in a village of Andhra Pradesh, India, during a bad cotton season, 

newly converted organic cotton farmers were still able to make a profit, whereas their 

conventional neighbours lost money. This was mostly due to a 75% reduction in pest management 

costs 1 . 

Another study from 2005 on an experimental farm of Nagpur Central Cotton Institute in 

India, revealed that over a three year period, and after a six year conversion period, organic 

cotton farming produced a significantly better yield than conventional, gave a better fibre 

length, and resulted in greater carbon content in the soil 2 . 

Another study over a two year period in Madhya Pradesh, India, showed that organic 

cotton farmers obtained a similar yield than their conventional neighbours, and benefited 

from a significantly better gross margin 3 . 

Evaluations of several organic cotton projects in West Africa (Benin, Mali, Burkina Faso, 

and Senegal) show that organic cotton is profitable, and frequently report that experienced 

organic cotton farmers can obtain yields significantly higher than their conventional neighbours, 

therefore benefiting from a much greater income 4,5,6,7 . 

1. Raj DA, Sridhar K, Ambatipudi A, Lanting H, Case Study on Organic Versus Conventional Cotton IN 

Karimnar, Andhira Pradesh, India. Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, 

2004. 

2. Blaise D, Yield, Boll Distribution and Fibre Quality of Hybrid Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as 

influenced by Organic and Modern Methods of Cultivation, Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 192, 

248—256, 2006. 

3. Eyhorn F, Mader P, Ramakrishnan M, The Impact of Organic Cotton Farming on the Livelihoods of 

Smallholders - Evidence from the Maikaal BioRe project in Central India, Research Institute of Organic 

Agriculture, Frick, Switzerland, 2005. 

4. Matthess A, van den Akker E, Chougourou D, Midingoyi Jun S, Le coton au Bénin, Compétitivité et 

durabilité de cinq systèmes culturaux cotonniers dans le cadres de la filière, Deutsche Gesellschaft für 

Technische Zusammenarbeit, 2005. 

5. Kouevi TA, and Vodouhe DS, Rapport de consultation: Analyse comparée du coton biologique et du 

coton conventionnel, OBEPAB, 2006. 

6. Merceron F, Traore D, Zgraggen N, Rapport dʼactivité 2005, Helvetas Mali, 2005. 

7. Rapport annuel coton bio Burkina Faso, Helvetas Burkina Faso and Union Nationale des Producteurs de 

Coton du Burkina Faso, 2005. 

in particular are mysteriously disappearing 

worldwide. 

But corals and amphibians are not the 

only species affected. The full and exact 

extent of acute pesticide poisonings among 

cotton farmers and their families is unknown, 

as it is rarely monitored nationally, and has 

never been monitored globally. However, a 

Pesticide Action Network survey documented 

67 deaths in only two districts of Benin during 

the 2001 cotton growing season 2 . At this 

rate, the global figure for cotton farmers in 

developing countries would total 16,100 

deaths annually. It is reasonable to suspect 

that this figure is actually an underestimate. 

Among those who die or are made ill from 

pesticide poisoning, few make it to a hospital, 

and even fewer are correctly diagnosed. Even 

less is known about the extent of damage 

caused by the chronic effects of pesticide 

exposure, although many of the chemicals 

have been linked to infertility and cancer. 

Origins of organic cotton 

Surprisingly, the social, environmental and 

health impacts of conventional cotton production 

have only been addressed very recently. 

The most broadly effective response to these 

problems is organic cotton. From its humble 

and recent beginnings on some Turkish and 

American cotton farms less than 20 years 

ago 3 , organic cotton has rapidly spread all 

over the world and to the mass market. There 

is almost no major newspaper or magazine in 

Europe or America that has not covered a 

story about organic cotton. But what the 

media fails to report is how wide-ranging its 

benefits are. Organic cotton is not only gentler 

on the environment. It challenges the 

mechanisms of the oldest and most unethical 

of global industries, the textile industry. In 

doing so, it also offers a novel trade model. 

Unfair trade 

It is important to understand how the textile 

industry managed to get away, until very 

recently, with unethical trading and environmental 

practices. Textile supply chains are 

extremely long, complex and opaque to the 

point that consumers, located at one end of 

the chain, can be completely ignorant of its 

beginning: fibre production and the cotton 

farmers. A few years ago, when consumers 

first peeked down the supply chain, they discovered 

sweatshops. With the public gaze 

upon them, retailers in the West tried to take 

responsibility: not an easy task, as most major 

clothing retailers have well over 2,000 suppliers. 

Fibre production is still much further 

down the supply chain than cut-and-sew operations, 

and the nature of the industry makes it 

nearly impossible to trace the origin of the 

fibre. 

Several months ago, campaigners from 

the UK-based Environmental Justice 

Foundation uncovered the horrendous conditions 

in which cotton is produced in 

Uzbekistan, the world’s third largest exporter. 

In a well-documented report, they revealed 

the environmental ruin and quasi-enslavement 

of a whole nation for the benefit of a small



ruling class 4 . Shocked, some retail executives 

tried to figure out whether, indeed, there was 

Uzbek cotton at the beginning of their supply 

chain. Try as they might, many simply could 

not find out. Spinning mills buy from cotton 

traders dealing in cotton from all over the 

world. They blend the fibres irrespective of 

origin. When the yarn leaves the factory, it is 

no longer traceable to one point of origin. 

This lack of traceability makes it all too 

convenient for retailers to turn a blind eye to 

the conditions surrounding fibre production. 

In the case of the clothing industry, corporate 

social and environmental responsibility does 

not yet apply to the misfortune of small-scale 

cotton farmers. Fifty million cotton farmers 

are an integral part of this textile industry; yet 

they are anonymous and invisible. 

The highly segmented system also keeps 

prices down at farm gate level. Clothing 

retailers shop around for the cheapest manufacturers, 

who shop around for the cheapest 

fabric, and so on. Cotton farmers, at the end of 

the chain, are squeezed to the maximum. The 

actual cost of cotton fibres in a garment sold 

on the high street is typically less than two 

percent of the retail price. In order to increase 

their yields and thus their profit, many farmers 

get caught in a trap of increasing pesticide 

use as over time pests develop resistance to 

pesticides and farmers’ incomes plummet. 

The unfair competition created by subsidies 

to American and European farmers further 

drives the price of cotton down. This cycle 

keeps cotton farmers from the developing 

world in a perpetual state of poverty and 

indebtedness— good news for the agrochemical 

companies, which make US$2.2 billion 

selling cotton pesticides each year 5 . 

Is organic better? 

No pesticide use 

How can organic cotton break this cycle? 

Organic cotton is grown without the use of 

chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and 

GM (genetically-modified) seeds. Organic 

farmers aim to restore a natural balance within 

the farm by emphasizing healthy and wellstructured 

soils. Pests are not systematically 

destroyed by poisons. With careful management 

and an understanding of the role of 

predatory bugs and good agricultural practices, 

such as crop rotation, farmers can contain 

pest damage and enhance yields. 

Biodiversity and wildlife are preserved 6 . The 

benefits of organic cotton to the environment 

and to the health of farmers and their families 

are instantly recognizable and have been documented 

elsewhere. 

Organic cotton marketing makes its UK debut in high street window dressing 

Photo: Damien Sanfilippo 

Fairer supply chain 

But the benefits are more wide ranging too: 

organic cotton allows farmers to engage in a 

much more equitable trade. First of all, organic 

cotton offers farmers direct financial benefits. 

Farmers obtain a better income through 

the combined effect of premium pricing and 

lower production costs thanks to abstaining 

from buying chemicals (see box). Savings on 

health care further secure their financial situation 

7 . Crop rotation, an underlying principle 

of organic agriculture, allows farmers to 

diversify their source of income, thus mitigating 

the risk associated with cotton’s highly 

variable market price (while contributing to 

community food security). Cotton farmers in 

Benin were recently asked to indicate their 

prime motivations for going organic. The survey 

revealed that, although farmers appreciated 

increased income, better health, and environmental 

benefits, a surprising motivation 

topped their list: the organic cotton supply 

chain pays them on time, usually soon after 

the cotton is collected from the village. 

Conventional farmers typically wait for 

months—sometimes a whole year—before 

they get paid, thus worsening their debt problems. 

Although many modern day suppliers in 

all sectors, faced with the all-powerful purchasing 

power of supermarkets and giant 

retail chains, have resigned themselves to 

waiting 90 days before payment, none would 

accept such a considerable delay—none could 

survive it. 

As a consequence, organic cotton offers 

farming households more financial stability. 

But it also offers a more equitable division of 

the family income between husbands and 

wives. While women are often discouraged— 

sometimes banned—from conventional cotton 

farming, they usually, enthusiastically 

engage in organic cotton production, as it 

does not entail exposure to chemicals and the 

associated high rates of miscarriage. 

It can even be claimed that organic cotton 

has changed the nature of the whole supply 

chain. In order to produce a t-shirt labelled 

100% organic cotton, the organic fibre needs 

to remain completely separate from any conventional 

cotton fibre and, as a consequence, 

cannot enter the conventional supply chain. In 

the 1990s, organic cotton pioneer companies 

had no choice but to build their own supply 

chains from scratch. In doing so, they invented 

a whole new model of textile supply chains 

based on the revolutionary (for the textile 

industry) concept of partnership. 

In the vertically integrated supply chains 

thereby created, farmers became business 

partners, on a par with spinners, weavers, 

manufacturers, retailers, and so on. Every 

partner plays his or her part to ensure the success 

of the business. In return, contributions 

and fair returns are shared among all partners. 

In this system, all partners have a voice and 

discuss each one’s needs, requirements and 

aspirations. In sharp contrast to the conventional 

system, farmers are celebrated. 

Retailers commit to buying the farmers’ harvest 

at a reasonable price and may assist farmers 

through pre-financing. For their part, 

farmers commit to providing retailers with a 

supply of quality, organically-certified cotton. 

In this way, smaller retailers have been able to 

secure their supply, despite the recent fibre 

shortage caused by large companies entering 

the market. Lastly, through the correspondence 

between the organic field certification 

and the final label on the garment, a link is 

established between the farmer and the consumer: 

the chain is finally closed. Thanks to 

organic cotton, consumers can see the face of 

the farmer in the cotton they buy and wear. 

Risk sharing 

Another advantage to undertaking a partnership 

is being able to share risk. Risks are 

immense throughout the textile industry, but 

they are especially great at the fibre production 

stage. Agriculture always is always 

threatened by uncontrollable vicissitudes. 

Cotton especially is notoriously subject to 

pest infestation and adverse weather, which 

affect both yield and quality. Small-scale 

farming amplifies these factors. In comparison, 

the cotton spinning mill is protected by 

being able to spread its risk over a variety of 

suppliers from different regions. This principle 

holds even truer with quality, as fibres can 

easily be blended together to achieve 

homogenous quality. 

A farmer of rainfed organic cotton produces 

his or her crop in the most sustainable 

manner; but these farmers are also the most 

vulnerable. No financial or legislative ‘nets’ 

are in place to break their fall. In effect, they 

are penalized for sustainable production. If 

we, as a society, consider rewarding companies 

that reduce energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions, we should likewise 

17



18 

assist farmers who are making an even deeper 

commitment to sustainable practice with 

much more at stake. 

Instead of support, farmers get outrageously 

high interest rates. Most banks are 

not enthusiastic about giving microcredit 

loans to farmers at the best of times. Since 

banks view the use of pesticides as a form of 

security, they are even more loath to loan to 

organic cotton farmers. And because there is 

no assurance that it will rain, they are especially 

reluctant to loan to rainfed organic 

farmers. Only by charging extremely high 

interest rates do they feel they can justify 

making such high-risk investments. These are 

rates that the farmers are expected to bear for 

at least six months while they wait for their 

crop to grow and then wait for their clients to 

pay them. Most of these farmers are already 

extremely poor, yet they have no choice but to 

shoulder most of the risk associated with producing 

a cotton garment, of which they only 

receive a tiny fraction of the profit. Possibly, 

the most important thing that a retailer can do 

to secure the position of sustainably cultivated 

cotton and the farmers whose lives are tied 

to it is to arrange for input advances on the 

harvest. Pre-financing is at the heart of realizing 

a fair trading model. This, and investing in 

infrastructure, is what pioneering organic cotton 

companies have done. 

Aid through trade 

Finally, the cultivation of organic cotton suggests 

a new model of efficient humanitarian 

aid through trade. Both humanitarian development 

aid and cotton growing were introduced 

to Africa with good intentions, but in 

fact both often appear to do more harm than 

good. Many observers argue that, over the last 

50 years, most foreign development aid in 

Africa has enriched the powerful at the cost of 

ordinary people. In contrast, organic cotton 

projects empower farmers by offering them 

the training they need to farm their land in a 

sustainable, safe and economically sound 

way. These farmers are offered the choice, 

and they choose to grow cotton organically. 

They understand how it improves their livelihood. 

African organic cotton farmers prefer to 

continue working hard and developing their 

own pest management methods rather than to 

pay for the expensive and often inappropriate 

technologies from abroad (such as chemicals 

or GM seeds) marketed as work-reducing 

miracle products. Organic cotton is a marketoriented 

approach: farmers see the rising 

demand from the EU and US for sustainable 

and ethical goods and respond to the opportunity 

of premium market access. 

When consumers purchase African organic 

cotton products, they directly benefit the 

farmers. The money goes directly to helping 

Africans realize their own goals for their own 

lives, communities, and ultimately nations. 

Foreign aid, on the other hand, is sometimes 

burdened with an ulterior motive: introducing 

or maintaining the donor country’s political 

influence in the region. The USAID’s stated 

strategy with respect to cotton in West Africa 

is to ‘help’ these countries adopt biotech technologies: 

GM seeds sold by US-based companies. 

Despite its de facto inefficiencies, the 

French help maintain the tighly controlled 

cotton supply chain (filière) they set up in 

their old colonies in the 1950s. Pouring 

money into this system prevents its collapse, 

but also preserves French influence. However, 

it means that less development aid is spent 

exploring a genuinely viable alternative, for 

instance GM-free sustainable agriculture, 

either organic or following the principles of 

Integrated Crop Management. In the long run, 

replacing aid with fairer and more equitable 

trade is the most efficient way to reduce the 

inequalities between North and South. In our 

increasingly globalized world, so much of the 

world’s peaceful future depends on our ability 

and willingness to reduce such inequalities. 

Challenges of the High Street 

Now, the organic cotton sector is facing its 

greatest challenge to date as it enters the mass 

market. Huge orders placed by Nike and Wal- 

Mart provide great opportunities to expand 

the sector and benefit farmers. However, they 

could also overwhelm the fledgling industry 

with their own agenda, upsetting the balance 

that organic farmers have so recently managed 

to strike. Will the giant players continue 

to use the ethical and equitable trading practices 

set up by the organic cotton pioneers 

thus keeping organic cotton ‘fair’? Or will 

they try to replicate the unfair practices that 

they usually impose on their suppliers? 

Crucially, will they uphold the pre-finance 

support? It seems very unlikely that major 

retailers will do this. They premise their existence 

on the power they get from their size, 

and the ability to pay late gives them a crucial 

advantage. To do otherwise would go completely 

against their natural trading practices. 

But disaster is not inevitable. 

We—civil society, organic cotton farmers, 

and organic cotton pioneers—are watching 

the entry of organic cotton into the mass market 

with fear and anxiety, but also with hope. 

After all, it was we who lobbied the giant 

retailers, demonstrating how unethical their 

cotton was while praising organic cotton as 

the best alternative. We set in motion what has 

become a global battle for ‘green’ credentials 

with respect to cotton. 

This battle has mostly escaped our control, 

but we can offer some last, crucial pieces 

of guidance. In a nutshell, these companies 

who are so used to dictating the business 

agenda, need to really listen to the farmers. 

They need to demonstrate that they actually 

understand the principles of the organic agriculture 

model, not just the opportunistic marketing 

it brings them. They need to promote 

organic agriculture in the fields, not only the 

labels on the shelves of their outlets. This 

requires just three small contributions: 

● Retailers need to provide, or ask their suppliers 

to provide, firm commitments to cotton 

farmers to buy part of their upcoming harvest, 

at a fair price. This will facilitate access to 

credit and provide financial institutions with 

the insurance they need to provide inexpensive 

loans to farmers. It is difficult for large 

retailers to commit to purchasing the totality 

of the foreseen harvest, as the risks of crop 

failures are too great. However, a commitment 

to buy 60% of the harvest would give farmers 

security. Anything below 30% would not. 

● Retailers also need to bring along their 

own banks. While ‘ethical’ banks are on the 

rise, major ‘conventional’ banks also need to 

provide credit to small farmers from the 

developing world. Giant retailers have the 

power to educate their banks. 

● Finally, part of understanding the organic 

agriculture model is to recognize the fundamental 

principle of crop rotation and mixed 

cropping. Already, the demand for certified 

organic cotton is increasing much faster than 

the demand for the rotation crops. This presents 

a major threat to the organic system, as 

it pushes farmers to increase cotton production 

to the detriment of the rotation crops. By 

encouraging this, retailers are in effect 

destroying the organic agriculture system, as 

well as threatening food security in the cotton 

growing regions. Therefore, retailers need to 

buy the products of the organic farm as a 

‘package’, which includes not only cotton, but 

also the wide variety of associated rotation 

crops, which may include vegetables, ground 

nuts, shea nuts. 

If giant retailers are willing to listen to 

farmers, they will find that they too can 

become ethical members of the organic cotton 

chain who participate in keeping fair trading 

practices at the heart of organic cotton. In this 

way, the ‘white gold’ fairy tales may come 

true after all. (DS) 

1. EJF, The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton, 

Environmental Justice Foundation in collaboration 

with Pesticide Action Network UK, London, UK, 

2007. 

2. Glin L, Kuiseu J, Thiam A, Vodouhe DS, Ferrigno 

S, Dinham B, Living with Poison: Problems of 

endosulfan in West African cotton growing systems, 

Pesticide Action Network UK, 2006. 

3. Myers D, and Stolton S, Organic Cotton: From 

field to final product, Intermediate Technology 

Publictions, The Pesticide Trust (now Pesticide Action 

Network UK), 1999. 

4. EJF, White Gold: The true cost of cotton, 

Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK, 2005. 

5. EJF, 2007, op cit. 

6. Sanfilippo D, My Sustainable T-Shirt: A guide to 

organic, Fair Trade, and Other Eco Standards and 

Labels for Cotton textiles, Pesticide Action Network 

UK, London, UK, 2007. 

7. Hodgson A, The high cost of pesticide poisoning in 

northern Ghana, Pesticides News 62, 2003. 

This article appears in FutureFashion 

White Papers, a collection of papers taking 

a unique and comprehensive look at 

the challenges facing the fashion industry. 

It examines some of the most pressing 

environmental issues of our time, 

from the true cost of our obsession with 

fast fashion and cheap, throwaway 

clothes, to the solutions being offered by 

the most innovative thinkers. 

FutureFashion White Papers ed. Leslie 

Hoffman, Earth Pledge, 270pp, published 

October 2007, around £20, 

www.earthpledge.org. Obtain from 

Chelsea Green +1 800 639 4099.



Web to Field to Web - a 

web resource for 

remote rural areas 

Sharing experiences and information can be difficult across rural 

communities, especially in developing countries. Farmers are not 

well-served by telephones, the internet or libraries. But new 

technologies and solar powered computers could change that. 

Building on these possibilities, a new PAN Germany initiative is 

helping to put valuable information on pest recognition, response and 

management strategies for tropical crops at the service of farmers. Its 

consultations on how to expand the audience are generating ideas to 

improve dissemination. Gabriele Stoll reports. 

OISAT, the Online Information Service for 

Non-chemical Pest Management in the 

Tropics, was developed by PAN Germany 

and released to the public in July 2004 on 

www.oisat.org. Since then this service has 

received world-wide recognition and more 

than 100,000 web hits per month. 

In order to ensure access to OISAT, a 

strategy was identified to stimulate its use 

through agricultural training and extension 

services serving poor farmers in remote 

areas. PAN Germany conducted a pilot project 

to study which factors contribute to successful 

adoption of OISAT by these services. 

ʻFrom Web to Field to Webʼ 

The concept ‘From Web to Field to Web’ to 

encourage integration of OISAT into training 

and extension services consists of the 

following six components: 

● information search on the OISAT database 

● training in pest and beneficial insect identification, 

computer use and OISAT search 

● field validation of OISAT-derived information 

● 

● 

● 

assessment of field validation results 

documentation of best practices 

feedback of best practices to OISAT 

It is important that information in 

OISAT is carefully field-tested so that only 

pest management practices which have 

proven successful in specific locations are 

promoted. With the help of extension workers, 

the practices described in OISAT may 

also have to be adapted and local traditional 

knowledge included. 

Experiences from the field will also be 

fed back to the OISAT database. Therefore, 

documentation of the best practices is a prerequisite 

for reporting back on proven practices 

from the field. This will enrich the 

database with real field experiences and 

contribute to valuable South-South information 

exchange. 

OISAT pilot design 

The pilot project was conducted in Kenya 

and its design was largely developed by the 

Kenyan partners through various stages of 

consultation. The key features were 

● one organisation acted as coordinating 

partner within Kenya and with PAN 

Germany 

● four implementing partners, representing 

agricultural training and extension services, 

collaborated locally with seven focal farmers 

and other interested community farmers 

● each implementing partner had an extension 

officer to work directly with the focal 

farmers 

● each implementing partner ran a farmer 

resource centre staffed with an assistant, 

who could also be a focal farmer 

● the energy supply at the farmer resource 

centres derived from solar energy and 

mobile technology 

● farmer discussion forums and farmer 

exchange visits acted as a platform for sharing 

experiences and for verifying the technologies 

tested 

Table 1 

Type of outreach at farmer resource centres 

Training in the use of computers to access 

OISAT 

Photo: ALIN (Kenya) 

Throughout the pilot project, it was 

examined how the six components of the 

OISAT concept could be implemented by 

agricultural training and extension services. 

Each of the four implementing partners was 

a well established training and extension 

organisation. 

Outcome of the pilot project 

In a final workshop of the two-year pilot 

project, a number of parameters were 

analysed. 

Location of internet/OISAT access 

For all farmer resource centres the site chosen 

was easily accessible by farmers and 

community members. A search visit generally 

took a minimum of two hours. 

Information searches were conducted mainly 

in the evening just before dusk. The number 

of searches increased before the 

rains/planting. 

Technical equipment for accessing 

OISAT via the internet 

Access to the internet varied. Only the 

Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF) 

No of contacts 

Type of visitors at the farmer resource centres: Ministry of Between 500 and 1300 

Agriculture (MOA) staff from the district and divisions, 

visitors depending on 

students, teachers, local farmers, NGO representatives the FRC 

Multipliers (NGO staff, researchers, students) and visitors > 200 (SACRED Africa) 

Open day, launch of the farmer resource centre, field days; Between 200 and 500 

all implementing partners conducted these activities 

visitors attended per 

event 

Farmer Sharing Forum KIOF: 5 meetings with 7 

The farmer sharing forum met between once only and monthly farmers from 4 villages. 

depending on the farmer resource centre. These are very useful 35 farmers participated 

for spreading OISAT information among farmers. 

on average 

Farmer-to-farmer dissemination is considered the best method 

for dissemination because of the direct interaction between the 

teacher farmer and student farmer. Adoption is highest 

here. However it is very slow and will take a long time to reach 

the same number of farmers reached using the above methods 

19



20 

Women trained in the use of computers 

farmer resource centre had stable access. 

The Arid Lands Information Network 

(ALIN) farmer resource centre had internet 

access through worldspace radio. All other 

farmer resource centres used a CD-Rom for 

information searches due to lack of access to 

the network. At all farmer resource centres 

the technical equipment was generally adequate, 

even though at times it was not fully 

functional. A reliable power supply is essential 

and must be ensured. Maintenance of 

equipment should be taken into consideration. 

Therefore, training on maintaining and 

repairing the solar power system is needed. 

Trainings conducted 

Trainings have been offered in the use of 

computers, how to search the OISAT database 

and insect identification (pests and beneficial 

insects). It was recommended after 

the pilot project that trainings should be 

organised so that new users receive an intensive 

introductory training. Follow-up trainings 

should be offered regularly as not all 

information can be internalised by the users 

after the introductory trainings. Also new 

questions will arise which can be addressed 

during the follow-up trainings. 

Outreach 

The outreach varied and was not identically 

reported by all farmer resource centres. 

However, their feedback gave a good 

overview of the achievements of each 

farmer resource centre (Table 1). 

OISAT information repackaged 

During a consultative regional workshop at 

ICIPE (Africa Insect Science for Food and 

Health) at the beginning of the OISAT project, 

the ‘repackaging of information’ was 

strongly stressed. The presentation of the 

information in OISAT was considered 

appropriate in the sense that it is intended for 

trainers and extension workers. However, 

workshop participants suggested that information 

from the OISAT database should be 

incorporated into locally relevant communication 

tools in order to reach the most farmers. 

In a preparatory workshop for the pilot 

project at SACDEP (Sustainable Agriculture 

Table 2. OISAT information repackaging 

Repackaging Responsible Assessment 

partner 

Community Development Programme), a 

decision was made to ‘repackage information’ 

as part of the pilot project to test this 

recommendation. A summary of the various 

ways in which OISAT information was 

repackaged is presented and an assessment 

is given in Table 2. 

The importance of the repackaging 

became obvious after the participants reported 

that about 60% of visitors to the farmer 

research centres are illiterate. Participants 

recommended that OISAT information be 

transformed into locally relevant forms and 

language that make it communicable also to 

this large user group. 

It is now recognised that an in-depth 

analysis of local communication channels, 

including local culture and customs, should 

be conducted in advance of any further 

OISAT dissemination work. A strategy for 

the repackaging of OISAT information 

should be developed with a clear plan for 

external costs, local contributions and monitoring 

for effectiveness. 

Major articles and ALIN: 5 Mostly done at the institutional research centre, 

publications KIOF: various which is well equipped to put information and 

SACDEP: various field activities into writing suit 

able for print media. It can attain very wide distrib 

ution and since they are produced regularly, con 

tinuous updates can be published. 

Translation into KIOF Very effective. Must be done professionally. 

Kikuyu 

Printed hand-outs SACDEP Distribution of systematic information. Stationery 

is expensive but handouts can be shared among 

farmers reducing costs considerably. 

Reproducing and ALIN: 10 The institutional research centre reproduced 

distributing OISAT 

CDs 


more OISAT Info CDs and distributed to 10 local 

development organizations upon request after 

they read published articles on OISAT. 

Radio programmes ALIN 

In collaboration with the Agricultural Information 

KIOF 

Centre, the Kyuso 4th farmers forum was 

featured in the national channel KBC radio, 

SIKIO LA MKULIMA ʻThe Farmerʼs Earʼ. This 

programme helped to spread OISAT news 

nationally as many farmers listen to get farming 

advice. There was also overwhelming feedback 

from local communities 

Videos 

Real life demonstrations are very effective. 

Sometimes the language used was not under 

stood by all and needs dubbing or sub-titling into 

local dialects. Videos enhance the understanding 

of listeners as they both listen and watch. 

However the cost of production is high and needs 

specialised equipment for the presentation. 

Local traditional ALIN The Kyuso farmers changed traditional songs to 

songs 

report on OISAT during the launch of the farmer 

research centre. 

Diploma training KIOF Very effective as it reaches multipliers. 

TV (Sauti Ya KIOF Very effective but can be costly. 

Mkulima) 

Tracking the effect is difficult.



Table 3. Field validation experiments 

Information source 

OISAT Local Source Crop Pests Practice Assessment 

Cow urine Tips on Potato, Blight, weeds, Add ash to cattle Effective 

and ash weed tomato, aphids, spider urine, cover and 

control kale, mites leave for 7 days. 

eggplant 

Dilute 1:5 to apply 

Mexican Cutworm Maize, Aphids, Half fill a container Effective 

Marigold control using potato, weevils with finely chopped 

papaya kale, Mexican Marigold. 

petiole and eggplant, Fill the container 

sticks. bean with water. Leave 

for 7 days then spray. 

Mexican Marigold can 

also be mixed with 

grains in storage to 

keep off weevils. 

Chillies Maize stalk Maize Stalk borer Mix ash with ground Effective 

and ash borer dry chillies. Apply to 

the funnel of kneehigh 

maize to keep 

stalk borers off 

Feedback to the OISAT database 

During the discussions at the final workshop 

of the pilot project, the representatives of the 

implementing partners recognized that the 

field validation trials were the most difficult 

part and that the methodology should be 

elaborated more clearly. It was recommended 

that this could be conducted in collaboration 

with a research institution and/or the 

government. The farmer field schools can be 

taken as a model. 

Table 3 shows field-validation experiments 

conducted by the implementing partner 

KIOF. 

Recommendations 

Participants in the pilot project came together 

for a final workshop to discuss the outcomes 

and recommendations of the project. 

They recommended that to achieve more 

reliable results, the effects of pest control 

treatments by extension workers should be 

monitored more frequently than in the pilot 

project. Consistent record keeping and documentation 

of tested practices is also needed. 

A number of improvements in the field 

validation were suggested such as improvements 

in design; improved collaboration 

between extension worker and farmer; role 

Demonstration of OISAT in a public place 


of extension worker in the field validation; 

competencies; mobilization of indigenous 

knowledge through the pilot project; legal 

implications. 

OISAT sustainability strategy 

PAN Germany needs to envision a strategy 

to enable OISAT to become self-sustaining. 

The participants of the final workshop of the 

pilot project suggested the following areas 

as relevant for the sustainability of the 

OISAT concept 

● integration of OISAT into existing local 

institutions 

● regular farmer sharing forums. These are 

an effective way to keep everyone on track 

● supplementary support, particularly in the 

provision of relevant equipment for farmer 

resource centres, such boosters for power supplies, 

equipment to improve internet access, 

and also in holding more farmer trainings 

● generating income for farmer resource 

centres by offering commercial computer 

lessons, typing/printing services, phone 

charging, family pay phone, and sale of seeds 

● use continuous training strategies with 

intensive introductory trainings and subsequent 

training for the improvement of skills 

● internet services, though not yet very stable, 

are the easiest way to access information 

in the rural areas 

Next steps 

Two main approaches are being pursued. The 

first is to scale up the dissemination process 

in Kenya. This involves the improvement of 

the phase ‘from Field to Web’ by involving 

research institutions. Beyond this, OISAT 

may be integrated into an internet service initiative 

of the extension service of the Kenyan 

Ministry of Agriculture. 

The second approach is to develop an 

‘OISAT Introductory Workshop’. This workshop 

will be offered as a paid service to agricultural 

training and extension services. 

During the workshop, a tailor-made working 

strategy will be elaborated for integrating the 

OISAT concept into any specific training and 

extension service. This service of providing 

workshops will be available from 2008 and 

can be requested from PAN Germany. 

Dr Gabriele Stoll, PAN Germany; 

gabriele.stoll@ginko.de 

Congress bill put forward to ban 

Chile’s most dangerous pesticides 

A new bill has been put before congress in 

Chile to ban their most hazardous pesticides 1 . 

Bill number 4877-01 introduced by congressmen 

Marco Enríquez-Ominami, Sergio 

Aguiló, René Alinco, Marcelo Díaz, Roberto 

León, Fulvio Rossi, Alejandro Sule and 

Eugenio Tuma seeks to ban the use of WHO 

class 1a and 1b pesticides (extremely hazardous 

and highly hazardous). 

Attending the ordinary meeting of the 

Agriculture Committee on 17 July 2007, 

María Elena Rozas, Coordinator of Alliance 

for a Better Quality of Life (RAP-AL) and 

Alicia Muñoz, Secretary General of the 

National Association of Rural and Indigenous 

Women (ANAMURI), stated ‘there is no way 

to guarantee that pesticides in WHO groups 

1a and 1b will not cause serious hazards to the 

environment and to human health. Cancelling 

the registration of these toxic substances will 

prevent further poisonings and deaths in 

Chile. OECD countries have banned or 

severely restricted these pesticides, and even 

the FAO has been asking developing countries, 

for many years, to ban their use as soon 

as possible. 

Putting a bill before congress is just one 

step in making a new law. Indeed the delegate 

of ANAMURI recalled that in 2000, Deputy 

Adriana Muñoz and other Representatives 

introduced a bill aimed to protect rural workers 

and their communities from the use of 

pesticides, which still is not law. 

In 2005 there were 785 cases of pesticide 

poisoning reported in Chile, 19 of which were 

fatal. In 668 cases the pesticide involved was 

identified, 23% of these (153) were associated 

with WHO class 1a or 1b pesticides 2 . 

The class 1a and 1b pesticides associated 

with the 2005 poisoning fatalities were 

paraquat, methomyl, coumaphos, carbofuran 

and metamidophos. Other pesticides involved 

were sulphur, dimethoate, diazinon and 

aldicarb. 70% of the cases were suicides, the 

rest were unintentional occuring at work. 

1. Press release, RAP-AL, 17 July 2007 

2. Health Secretary, Exposure Surveillance Net 

(REVEP, Ministerio de Salud) 

21


Company news Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

22 

Corporate watch 

While recent reports suggest that organic agriculture can produce 

yields parallel to or higher than conventional agriculture, pesticides 

and genetically engineered crops continue to dominate farming. 

Barbara Dinham provides an update on the strategies employed by 

agribusiness to maintain their markets. 

In 2004 it seemed as though pesticide sales 

had entered a new period of growth, with 

global sales of US$32,665 representing the 

largest single year increase for 10 years 

(4.6%) 1 . However, in the following two years 

sales followed previous patterns. In 2005 

sales dropped by 4.5% and in 2006 by a further 

2.5% (Table 1). 

The annual review of the industry association, 

CropLife International 2 , suggests the 

market decline in 2006 was affected by 

adverse weather in major markets of Brazil, 

North America, Northern Europe, India and 

Australia (Table 2). In addition, consistently 

low commodity prices meant that farmers 

invested less in pest control. 

According to CropLife, some reduction in 

pesticide sales in North America came from 

increased planting of genetically engineered 

(GE) seeds – the US accounts for 59% of all 

GE crop sales and Canada 6%. However, this 

outcome is not reflected elsewhere. A recent 

study in China found that farmers growing 

insect-resistant GE cotton reduced their pesticide 

use for three years, but by 2004 were 

spraying at the same level as conventional 

farmers 3 . 

The top six agrochemical companies – 

Bayer, BASF, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and 

Syngenta – are all engaged in genetically 

engineered (GE) crop research and sales, 

though some, particularly Monsanto, have a 

Figure 1. Increased sales of 

genetically engineered seeds 

1996-2006 (US$ million) 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Figure 2. GE crop sales, 2006 (%) 

Oil seed rape 

Cotton 

Maize 

Other 

Soybeans 

larger stake than others. The erratic expansion 

of GE crops continued in 2006 with an 

increase of 14% sales (and 12% planted area) 

on the previous year; with the exception of 

two years, this is in line with 10-14% annual 

increase since 2000 (Figure 1). Most GE sales 

are of herbicide-tolerant varieties which represented 

over 57% of the value of the sector in 

2006. GE crops are still planted in only 22 

countries, and 95% of sales are in just six 

(US, Argentina [18%], Brazil [11.5%], 

Canada, India [3.5%] and China [3.5%]) 4 . 

Three crops dominate sales: soybeans, maize 

and cotton, followed by oil seed rape (canola) 

(Figure 2). 

Playing the market 

Reports from corporate analysts such as 

Agrow provide insight into the strategies 

companies adopt to maintain their profits 

under relatively slow sales conditions. A 

review of the top 20 companies in 2006 suggests 

that companies expect increases in pesticide 

sales to come from developing regions 

such as China, and some countries in Latin 

America, Asia and Eastern Europe 5 . 

The company response to level markets 

has been to grow through mergers and acquisitions, 

with the result that 95% of the global 

market is now in the hands of 20 companies, 

with the top six controlling around 75%. 

Between them, Bayer and Syngenta control 

38% of the market. The top companies are 

highly research intensive. A 2005 study 4 indicated 

that 10 leading agrochemical companies 

spent US$2.25 billion, or 7.5% of sales, on 

research and development (R&D) in 2004. 

About half is spent on new product development, 

and the balance covered the regulatory 

costs of maintaining existing products. 

Analysts point out that one result of these 

sluggish market conditions is a focus on integration 

rather than product development. 

Some companies, for example BASF, now 

aim to develop only one new active ingredient 

a year, and Monsanto has abandoned the 

development of new chemical actives to focus 

on sales of GE crops 5 . 

With fewer new products coming onto the 

market companies are expanding their product 

areas through focusing on non-crop markets 

and in the more profitable developing 

countries with large markets. While some of 

the older products are now out of patent and 

being produced by generic producers, these 

pesticides are still largely manufactured by 

their original producers, boosting their profits. 

The tight regulation of pesticides also benefits 

the research-based companies. For example, 

the review of agrochemicals on the market in 

Table 1. Pesticide sales by 

sector 2005-2006 (US$ million) 

2005 2006 Change 

% 

Herbicides 14,863 14,805 -0.4 

Insecticides 7,763 7,380 -4.9 

Fungicides 7,491 7,180 -4.2 

Others 1,073 1,060 -1.2 

TOTAL 31,190 30,425 -2.5 

Source: CropLife Annual Review 2006-2007 

Table 2. Pesticide sales by 

region 2005-2006 (US$ million) 

2005 2006 Change 

% 

NAFTA* 7,792 7,379 -5.3 

Latin America 5,348 5,203 -2.7 

Asia 7,722 7,405 -4.1 

Europe 9,119 9,217 1.1 

Middle East/ 

Africa 1,209 1,221 1.0 

TOTAL 31,190 30,425 -2.5 

*US, Canada, Mexico 

Source: CropLife Annual Review 2006-2007 

the European Union under Directive 91/414 

has raised the demand for data, and it will be 

difficult for the non-research generic producers 

that do not have resources to generate this 

data to re-register their products. 

While pesticide sales in agriculture seem 

likely to remain stable, GE seeds and noncrop 

sales are growth areas, and the top companies 

are in a position to continue their influence 

on agricultural development. 

References 

1. Dinham B, Agrochemical markets soar – pest 

pressures or corporate design?, Pesticides News 68, 

June 2005. 

2. CropLife International, Annual Review 2006-2007, 

www.croplife.org 

3. Shenghui Wang, American Agricultural Economics 

Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting, California, 

2007. Reported by Lang S, Seven-year glitch: Cornell 

warns that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing 

money due to 'secondary' pests, Chronicle OnLine, 

Cornell University, 26 July 2007 

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July06/Bt.cotton. 

China.ssl.html 

4. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- 

Biotech Applications (ISAAA), Global Status of 

Commercialised Biotech/GM Crops 2006, ISAAA 

Brief 35-2006, 

5. Agrow’s Top 20: 2006 edition, Informa UK Ltd, 

May 2006. 

6. Phillips McDougall, Agrochemical Industry 

Research and Development Expenditure, Consultancy 

Study for CropLife International, September 2005, 

http://www.croplife.org/librarypublications.aspx?wt.ti 

=Publications 

7 Agrow, op cit, p60. 

Barbara Dinham is an independent consultant, 

barbara.dinham@googlemail.com 

Agrowʼs Top 20: 2007 edition is 

due out in October 2007. For 

details www.agrowreports.com


Book reviews Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

The move to ecological 

farming 

This engaging and well-written book provides 

a detailed analysis of one of the 

emerging scientific and social movements 

in response to American agriculture’s 

dependency on pesticides, use of which has 

doubled since Rachel Carson published 

Silent Spring 45 years ago. It explores how 

agricultural and science policy contributed 

to the early enthusiasm for pest management 

paradigms dominated by chemicals 

and the long journey towards more ecologically-based 

strategies, with a focus on 

training and support for farmers. Warner 

highlights how the greatest obstacle to ecologically 

informed alternatives has not 

been a shortage of ideas but a dearth of 

practical education initiatives to help farmers 

learn about them. The author describes 

the institutional ethos of the conventional 

agricultural science and extension in the 

US, particularly in the land grant universities, 

before looking at the emergence of different 

models of pest management learning 

partnerships in orchard systems, spurred 

partly by problems of pest resistance to 

insecticides and partly by growing concerns 

over health and environmental 

impacts of pesticide dependency. Chapters 

cover the partners and practices in these 

partnerships and how these new multistakeholder 

networks function, in relation 

to research, extension and marketing. 

Unlike conventional extension, these initiatives 

start to reverse the logic of industrial 

agriculture and bridge the gap between 

research and the practical needs of mainly 

small and medium scale farmers. 

It focuses on the development of biointensive 

Integrated Pest Management of 

almonds, walnuts, apples, pears, plums and 

wine grapes, mainly in California but also 

arable crops and potato production in 

Wisconsin and Iowa. It stresses how agroecological 

practice cannot be simply “transferred” 

but requires facilitation of social 

learning in experimentation and knowledge 

exchange. Most of the initiatives extend 

beyond pest management to broader 

aspects of crop, soil, nutrient and water 

management. The pioneers did not set out 

to promote organic agriculture but rather to 

help conventional growers re-imagine their 

orchards as ecological systems. 

Pesticide reduction, notably of hazardous 

organophosphates, has been considerable. 

For example, Californian almond 

growers (who grow 80% of the global 

almond crop) achieved the greatest volume 

of voluntary OP use reduction in US history, 

from winter dormant season application 

of around 227 metric tons in 1992, to just 

over 45 tons by 2000. OP use in pears in 

2002 was 18% of 1998 levels, with 

pheromone mating disruption more effective 

and economical than reliance on OPs. 

The book also makes clear that while 

the partnerships have moved far beyond the 

cultural strategies of 1970s style IPM, to 

analyse the entire farming system and manage 

it in an ecologically optimal way, farmers 

still operate within the constraints of 

economic monoculture. Most practices, 

such as use of pheromone traps for decision-making 

and mating disruption of pests 

like the codling moth, release or encouragement 

of beneficial insects, cover cropping 

and habitat management for pest, 

weed and disease suppression, require 

either more labour or expert monitoring, or 

are more expensive. Growers need time to 

build confidence in the techniques, public 

and private sector support and incentives to 

encourage uptake, and a receptive market. 

Some of the success in OP reduction in 

Californian almonds is due to switching to 

pyrethroid insecticides, which although 

less harmful to mammals and less disruptive 

to some beneficial insects, are acutely 

toxic to aquatic organisms. The author is 

also frank about the difficulties in convincing 

individual growers to undertake the 

regular and detailed monitoring essential to 

manage an ecologically-informed system, 

especially when better knowledge of agroecological 

conditions costs growers money. 

Furthermore, as growers shift to agroecological 

strategies, they undertake new agronomic 

risks and these can be problematic in 

today’s supply chains adapted to industrialised 

agriculture and consistency of results 

from reliance on agrochemicals. This book 

makes essential reading for all those interested 

in working with farmers to implement 

ecologically-informed practices. 

Agroecology in Action. Extending alternative agriculture 

through social networks. Keith Douglass 

Warner, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

US, 2007, 291 pp, $25.00. 

Pesticide science and 

safety 

This new book from Professor Graham 

Matthews is a masterly compendium covering 

five decades of the history of pesticides. 

The book addresses major aspects of 

public concern relating to health and the 

environment, spray drift and exposure. 

While a relatively slim 230 pages, it is 

densely packed with scientific data, wellchosen 

examples and photos and manages 

to be both concise and comprehensive. The 

focus is on both the UK and tropical agriculture. 

Matthews has extensive experience in 

developing countries, and acknowledges 

the ubiquitous problems of scarce 

resources and lack of enforcement of pesticide 

regulation, which perpetuates the 

practices of untrained pesticide users handling 

highly toxic pesticides. The result is 

exposure to concentrated products when 

preparing to spray. The book graphically 

details the implications. Hands are the most 

exposed part of the body. Impermeable 

gloves are recommended but poor glove 

hygiene is a big problem. A person mixing 

and loading can be exposed to 6300 mg/kg 

ai (milligrammes per kilogramme active 

ingredient) if not wearing gloves and 51.1 

mg/k ai when wearing gloves. The whole 

hand could be coated in pesticide, and 

some products need to be removed with a 

solvent, such as 95% ethanol. Some may be 

absorbed before skin is washed. Leaking 

gloves and sweating increases the problem. 

Spray operators not using gloves should 

only apply less hazardous pesticides and 

have a bucket of water readily available to 

wash hands immediately. How often are 

these standards achieved? 

The book covers in detail overlooked 

issues relating to application technology 

and the arcane world of nozzles and droplet 

size. Graham Matthews has made a major 

contribution to improving application technology 

and its maintenance. While often 

ignored, this is critical to the use of pesticides 

and he has raised awareness globally. 

Poor equipment results in high levels of 

wastage. Even in the UK, when the first 

8000 sprayers were tested 50% needed 

remedial treatment. Faults were due to 

leakages (33%) poor hosing (15%), 

worn/inaccurate nozzles (20%), and inaccurate 

pressure gauges (14%). In developing 

countries spray equipment is rarely 

checked or serviced. 

Use of personal protective equipment 

(PPE) is essential when applying pesicides, 

but the difficulty of wearing heavy PPE in 

tropical areas is widely recognised. The 

book neatly summarises studies demonstrating 

that fabric can be treated to reduce 

sorption and penetration of a pesticide, and 

that fabrics without barrier protection 

absorbs spray liquid and will fail to provide 

protection once saturated. Nor does laundering 

always remove pesticide residues in 

a garment and between 1-40% may remain 

in the clothing. 

The evidence and erudition in this book 

are impressive, if worrying for pesticide 

users in tropical areas. In spite of concerns 

it strikes an optimistic note, calling for 

improved overalls and better training and 

certification. The underlying conviction is 

that pesticides are essential: ‘without such 

technologies, the area of land devoted to 

agriculture would need to be increased, and 

this would cause serious ecological damage.’ 

Pesticides – health, safety and the 

environment is a fitting legacy from 

Professor Matthews, passing on a lifetime 

of knowledge and experience. It should be 

on the bookshelves of all those with a serious 

interest in pesticides. Nevertheless, not 

everyone would agree that the well-documented 

problems can be adequately 

addressed, particularly in developing countries. 

It is a pity that the conclusions are not 

tempered with greater support for less hazardous 

alternatives and the benefits of 

wider adoption of agroecological pest management 

strategies. 

Pesticides: Health, Safety and the Environment, 

Graham Matthews, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, 

248pp, £79.50. 

23


Pesticide Action Network UK Pesticides News 77 September 2007 

PAN UK – Making a difference 

Pesticide Action Network UK works to 

eliminate the dangers of toxic pesticides, 

our exposure to them, and their presence 

in the environment where we live and 

work. Nationally and globally we promote 

safer alternatives, the production of 

healthy food and sustainable farming. 

Pesticide Action Network UK is an 

independent, non-profit organisation. We 

work around the world with like-minded 

groups and individuals concerned with 

health, environment and development to: 

● Eliminate the hazards of pesticides 

● Reduce dependence on pesticides and 

prevent unnecessary expansion of use 

● Increase the sustainable and ecological 

alternatives to chemical pest control 

Please send me the Pesticide 

Action Network UK Annual Review 

2005. 

Please send a full publications list. 

You can subscribe to Pesticides 

News and buy our publications at 

www.pan-uk.org 

Recent publications 

A Cotton Reader. Vol 1 

99pp, vol 2 74pp, download 

from www.wearorganic.org; 

hard copies £10 per volume 

Living with poison. Problems 

of endosulfan in West Africa cotton 

growing systems, 2006, 

48pp, £12, or download from 

www.wearorganic.org 

The alternative pesticide 

residues report - 2005 

Download pdf from www.panuk.org/Projects/Food/index.htm 

Periodicals 

Subscription/supporter details 

£160 – Full corporate subscribers (commercial organisations 

and government departments) can receive up to four copies of 

Pesticides News and Current Research Monitor. Other benefits 

include all new PAN UK publications and books free of charge. 

£90 – Basic corporate subscribers receive one copy of 

Pesticides News and Current Research Monitor. 

£50 – Non-commercial subscribers (non-governmental/nonprofit/academic 

organisations) are entitled to Pesticides News, 

Current Research Monitor, Greenfly and the PEX Newsletter. Noncommercial 

subscribers can also become PAN UK supporters. 

£25 – Individual subscribers are entitled to Pesticides News, 

Current Research Monitor, Greenfly and the PEX Newsletter. 

Individual subscribers can also become PAN UK supporters. 

Become a PAN UK supporter 

Individuals and public interest groups are invited to become 

supporters. As a PAN supporter you will receive discounts on 

all new publications and books, and access to our extensive 

library. By ticking here to support PAN UK you are adding 

your voice to those concerned about health and the environment 

and helping to make a difference. Thank you for your 

support. 

❑ I wish to become a PAN UK supporter. 

My Sustainable Tee Shirt, a 

consumer guide to organic, fair 

trade and other eco-standards 

and labels for cotton textiles, 

2006, 36pp. Download from 

www.wearorganic.org. 

Pesticides in your food. Our 

popular poster, fully revised: 

everyday foods and pesticide 

concerns. A3 free (send A4 sae), 

A2 poster £5. 

The List of Lists, a 2005 

update of our popular briefing 

collating pesticide hazard lists. 

Pesticide News – the most comprehensive quarterly source of information on pesticide 

problems and alternative developments. Extensive articles, resources, book reviews 

and news on UK, European and global issues. 

Current Research Monitor – an invaluable resource for researchers. This lists up-todate 

scientific and specialist research covering the impact of pesticides on health and 

the environment. Includes abstracts, research lists and conference details. 

PEX Newsletter – quarterly information and news sheet for people whose health has 

been affected by pesticides or who are concerned about the health effects of pesticides. 

Greenfly – the supporters newsletter keeps you informed of our activities and gives 

ʻaction tipsʼ to help reduce pesticide hazards (twice a year). 

Subscriptions to PAN UK 

Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT, UK 

Tel 020 7065 0905, Fax 020 7065 0907 

International Tel +44 20 70650905 +44 20 7065 0907 

Email admin@pan-uk.org, www.pan-uk.org 

Full Corporate (£160) 

❑ Pesticides News ❑ Current Research Monitor 

(No. of copies: 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑) £ 

Basic Corporate (£90) 

❑ Pesticides News ❑ Current Research Monitor £ 

Non-Commercial (£50) 

Pesticides News ❑ Greenfly ❑ CRM ❑ PEX ❑ £ 

Individual (£25) 

Pesticides News ❑ Greenfly ❑ CRM ❑ PEX ❑ £ 

PAN UK supporter 

The above rates enable supporters to make savings on multiple 

publications. If you wish to receive only the PEX Newsletter or 

Greenfly tick the supporters box and indicate below. 

PEX (£10) ❑ Greenfly (£10) ❑ £ 

Publications (tick boxes) £ 

❑ I wish to receive email updates (free) 

TOTAL £ 

Signed 

Name 

Organisation 

Address 

Date 

Cheque enclosed ❑ Debit/credit card ❑ 

Expiry 

Issue No (Switch only) 

24 

Postcode 

Email 

Country 

You can also subscribe by paying direct into our bank account: 

Pesticide Action Network UK A/c no. 6501 0734 00, The 

Cooperative Bank, City Branch, (No. 08-02-28) 80 Cornhill, London 

EC3V 3NJ, UK.


??????????? Pesticides News 75 March 2007 

25

77 - Pesticide Action Network UK

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?