Written evidence submitted by Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign

Brief Comments

1.1  The UK Pesticides Campaign is submitting these brief comments to the Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to ensure that the facts regarding the existing UK and EU pesticide regulations are clear.

1.2  The UK Pesticides Campaign has not been in a position to examine in any detail the various proposals that are being discussed as part of the TTIP negotiations. In any event, it appears that much of the TTIP negotiations are being held “behind closed doors” and so it is not clear what is actual fact regarding TTIP, and what is speculation, in view of the lack of access to the relevant source documentation for citizens to be able to consider.

1.3  However, the UK Pesticides Campaign has noted that reports have stated that some of the policies being discussed could impact pesticide regulations in both the US and the EU.

1.4  For example, an article in the Guardian on 7th January 2015 at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/07/ttip-trade-agreement-pesticides-toxics-health-environment stated the following:-

      “International trade agreement proposals could roll back protections from harmful pesticides in the US and EU, according to a new report expected to be released Wednesday”;

      “As part of the transatlantic trade agreement being negotiated behind closed doors, trade groups have recommended policies – under the banner of lifting trade barriers – that could impact pesticide regulations in both the US and the European Union. The proposals put forward by CropLife America and the European Crop Protection Association would reduce protection compared to the more stringent pesticide standards already in place in the EU and in individual US states, said the Center for International Environmental Law, or Ciel”;

      “‘If adopted, these recommendations will thwart pesticide regulation that is vital for protecting workers, consumers and communities,’ said Erica Smith, the report’s lead author.”

      “In the EU, as well as in individual EU member countries and US states, the industry recommendations would relax regulations and standards that protect health and the environment, Smith said.”

      “Debbie Barker, international director at the Center for Food Safety, said the recommended policy’s risk-assessment-based approach runs “counter to the EU’s precautionary principle approach toward agricultural pesticide approvals”. Adopting the risk-based approach, Barker said, “would result in a downward spiral of safeguards vis-à-vis agricultural chemicals currently in place in the EU”.”

1.5  The UK Pesticides Campaign has serious concerns over the way that the existing national and EU regulations for pesticides are being portrayed by certain parties, as the impression that is being given is that the current system is robust and offers a high level of protection.

1.6  Yet this is simply not the case and the UK Pesticides Campaign has previously provided evidence regarding the health risks and acute and chronic adverse impacts of pesticides to the Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC’s) inquiry on Pollinators and Pesticides.

1.7  The fully referenced detailed written evidence provided by the UK Pesticides Campaign, along with the links to the oral evidence, can be seen at:- http://www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk/evidence.htm and so I won’t repeat it all here.

1.8  However, for the benefit of new members that have joined the EAC since that inquiry was undertaken, and for ease of reference for those members that were involved in that inquiry, the Executive Summary from the Written Evidence of 9th Nov. 2012 is as follows

• All chemical pesticides are deliberately designed to be toxic, that is their purpose, and therefore all chemical pesticides have inherent hazards for human health.

• The dangers of pesticides can clearly be seen on the data sheet for each pesticide product that can carry various warnings such as “Very toxic by inhalation,” “Do not breathe spray; fumes; vapour,” “Risk of serious damage to eyes,” “Harmful, possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation,” and even “May be fatal if inhaled.”

• It is now beyond dispute that pesticides can cause a wide range of both acute, and chronic, adverse effects on human health, including on the health of residents exposed to them. This includes irreversible and permanent chronic effects, illnesses and diseases.

• Approx. 80% of pesticides used in the UK each year are related to agricultural use.

• The majority of poisoning incidents and acute adverse health effects recorded annually in the Government’s own monitoring system are from agricultural pesticides used on crops.

• The Government has repeatedly failed to take action when faced with, including in its own monitoring system, evidence of actual harm, as well as the risk of harm, to human health from crop-spraying under the current policy and approvals regime.

• Yet EU law requires that pesticides can only be authorised for use if it has been established that there will be no harmful effect on human health. It also requires a proactive approach to reviewing authorisations after approval, including that authorisations shall be cancelled and pesticides prohibited where there is a risk of harm.

• The Government’s monitoring system currently only considers the acute effects of individual pesticides and therefore does not, in general, monitor or deal with either (i) chronic ill-health effects caused by pesticides or (ii) the effects of mixtures of pesticides. The fact that there has been, to date, no specific monitoring or collection of data in the Government’s monitoring system in relation to the chronic effects, illnesses and diseases reported by people is a situation that has previously been criticized in a number of official reports dating back to 1987 and Government has still not changed its policy to rectify this.

• The reality of crop spraying in the countryside is not merely related to exposure to one individual pesticide or to one single group of pesticides, as agricultural pesticides are rarely used individually but commonly sprayed in mixtures (cocktails) – quite often a mixture will consist of 4 or 5 different products. Each product formulation in itself can contain a number of different active ingredients, as well as other chemicals, such as solvents, surfactants and co-formulants (some of which can have adverse effects in their own right, before considering any potential synergistic effects in a mixture(s)). Studies have shown mixtures of pesticides (and/or other chemicals) can have synergistic effects.

• Scientific papers have concluded that “the total emissions of pesticides may range from several percent up to almost all the applied quantities” and in relation to vapour that, “Volatilization may represent a major dissipation pathway for pesticides applied to soils or crops, accounting for up to 90% of the application dose in some cases”, and that “Volatilization may last for a period of several days to a few weeks (or sometimes even longer), and sometimes exhibits a diurnal cycle”.

• Scientific studies have found pesticides miles away from where they were applied and have calculated health risks for residents and communities living within those distances.

• The existing UK Government policy and approvals system fundamentally fails to protect people in the countryside from pesticides, particularly rural residents.

• There are serious flaws in the approach to exposure and risk assessment for public health.

• The fact that, to date, there has never been any assessment in the UK of the risks to health for the specific exposure of those who live in the locality of pesticide sprayed fields, and/or who go to school in the locality of sprayed fields, means that under EU law pesticides should never have been approved for use in the first place for spraying in the locality of residents’ homes, schools, children’s playgrounds, among other areas.

• Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of pesticide exposure because their bodies cannot efficiently detoxify chemicals, as their organs are still growing and developing. Also when children are exposed at such a young age they will obviously have a longer lifetime to develop long-term chronic effects after any exposure.

• The Government previously failed to act on its own findings of 82 exceedances of the EU limits set for exposure (the AOEL), in some cases the AOEL was exceeded up to 20 to 30 times over, which is an order of magnitude higher, when any exceedance, on the Government’s own previously stated case, and most importantly under EU law, would lead to immediate action of authorizations being refused (or trigger prohibition/revocation if the AOEL exceedance is discovered after approval).

• The Government’s previous estimated exceedances of the AOEL clearly demonstrated that products have been in use in the UK which resulted in residents (and others in the countryside) being exposed to levels greatly in excess of the AOEL, year after year.

• Yet the UK Government has not, to date, taken any action to prevent the exposure and risk of harm for residents in these circumstances, and has violated its obligation under EU law to prohibit the use of pesticides where the AOEL is known to be exceeded.

• The UK Government has continued to refuse to introduce any statutory conditions of use to protect residents and others from exposure. Such conditions of use would include, most importantly, the prohibition of the use of pesticides in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, children’s playgrounds, nurseries, hospitals, amongst other areas. Yet such a measure is absolutely crucial for public health protection; especially that of vulnerable groups, including babies, children, pregnant women, and those already ill.

• Therefore, in relation to the health of rural residents and communities, the UK Government has, to date, knowingly failed to act, has continued to shift the goalposts, cherry picked the science to suit the desired outcome and has misled the public, especially residents, over the safety of agricultural pesticides sprayed on crop fields throughout the country. The Government’s continued line that there is no evidence of harm from pesticides, as well as no risk of harm, is just untenable and inexcusable. The evidence is there and has been there for a considerable time, the Government is just determined not to act on it. The Government’s response to this issue has been of the utmost complacency, is completely irresponsible and is definitely not “evidence-based policy-making.”

• The failings in the UK Government’s policy and approach to exposure and risk assessment regarding human health, and related and repeated inaction, is also comparable to the serious concerns that have been raised regarding the UK Government’s policy and approach to exposure and risk assessment in relation to other species, such as bees.

• Bees and other species, just like residents and other humans, could be exposed to innumerable mixtures of pesticides, repeatedly, throughout every year, and for years.

• In relation to the risk of harm to bees from pesticide mixtures, a US study in 2010 highlighted the potential synergistic effects on bee health from mixtures and combinations of different pesticides as the researchers found 121 different pesticides and metabolites within 887 wax, pollen, bee and associated hive samples. Therefore aside from the individual products that carry warnings of a risk to bees on the product label and safety data sheet information (such as ‘harmful’, ‘dangerous’, ‘extremely dangerous’ or ‘high risk’ to bees), there will also be the risk of adverse impacts on bee health from the cumulative effects of multiple exposures to mixtures of different pesticides.

• The reality of pesticide spraying in the countryside is not reflected in any of the risk assessments under the UK Government’s existing approach, whether for humans or bees.

• The principal aim of pesticide policy and regulation is supposed to be the protection of public health and the environment. Yet the Government, DEFRA, PSD (now CRD), and ACP, have all continued to base decisions in relation to pesticides on the protection of industry and business interests as opposed to what is absolutely required as the number one priority of pesticide policy and regulation – to protect public health.

• Sales of pesticides in the UK alone for 2011/12 was £627 million, and reports have put the value of the world pesticides industry at around a staggering $52 billion.

• There are clear conflicts of interests in relation to those advising DEFRA Ministers over the pesticides policy agenda, especially regarding the Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) that receives approx. 60% of its funding from the agrochemical industry. This is broken down into the fees charged to companies for applications, and a charge on the UK turnover of pesticides companies. For a number of years now this has resulted in the CRD receiving around £7 million or more per year from the agro-chemical industry.

• A number of ACP members have links to the pesticides industry. For eg., some members may undertake consultancy work, have shares in and/or receive funding for research support. This has always been an inappropriate structure, as so-called “independent” advisors cannot possibly be classified as independent if they have financial or other links with the very industries they are overseeing in relation to the hazards to human health.

• Ministers have also been receiving advice from the Pesticides Forum for many years, and yet year after year the Forum wrongly asserted in its annual reports that, “the use of pesticides is not adversely impacting on the health of UK citizens or the environment.” Considering the grossly inaccurate statements that the Pesticides Forum continued to make, effectively denying the adverse health and environmental impacts of pesticide use, then it is also of serious concern that it is intended that the Forum be responsible for the monitoring and review of the UK’s Action Plan on pesticides once it has been adopted.

• The UK’s policy and approvals regime is based on a wholly inappropriate structure and it goes some way to explaining why the pesticide industry has, for many years, had such control over successive Governments’ policy decisions on pesticides, particularly in relation to the use of pesticides in agriculture. Successive Governments’ have continued to reflect the position of the pesticides industry in all policy decisions taken to date on pesticides, (at least since the UK Pesticides Campaign has been in existence since 2001).

• The only real solution to eliminate the adverse health and environmental impacts of pesticides is to take a preventative approach and avoid exposure altogether with the widespread adoption of truly sustainable non-chemical farming methods. This would obviously be more in line with the objectives for sustainable crop production, as the reliance on complex chemicals designed to kill plants, insects or other forms of life, cannot be classified as sustainable. Therefore it is a complete paradigm shift that is needed, as no toxic chemicals that have related risks and adverse effects for any species (whether humans, bees or other) should be used to grow food.

1.9  It is important to reiterate the following crucial facts from this previous (2012) Summary.

1.10          EU legislation regarding the authorisation of pesticides (formerly EU Directive 91/414 and now EU Regulation 1107/2009) requires that before pesticides can be approved for use, risk assessments must be undertaken to establish that there will be no immediate or delayed harmful effect on human health. This must apply to all the necessary exposure groups, including operators, workers, residents living in the locality of sprayed fields, as well as other members of the public exposed (eg. bystanders).

1.11          Yet to date, the official method used by regulators for assessing the risks to people from crop spraying - and under which many thousands of pesticide products have been approved across the EU - has been based on the model of a short term 'bystander', occasionally exposed, to just one pesticide at any time.

1.12          This clearly does not address the real life exposure of people who actually live in sprayed areas, as exposure for residents, as opposed to a mere bystander, is both repeated acute and chronic exposure over the long term, it is cumulative, and is to innumerable mixtures and cocktails of pesticides used on crops. (NB. There are approx. 2,000 products currently approved for agricultural use in the UK alone).

1.13          This means that pesticides have been approved for decades without having first assessed the actual exposure and risks specifically for residents living near sprayed fields.

1.14          This includes the astonishing fact that there has been no assessment at all for babies and children that live in the crop-sprayed areas, nor pregnant women, or people already ill

1.15          Considering how many millions of citizens not only in the UK, but also across Europe, will be living in this situation then this is without a doubt a catastrophic public health and safety failure on a truly scandalous scale.

1.16          Therefore it is imperative that the facts regarding the fundamental failings of the existing system for regulating pesticides are clear to all members of the EAC, as it is quite incorrect for other parties to be giving the impression that the current policies and regulations for pesticides are robust and that they would be weakened by the implementation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement, when in fact some sectors of the population (such as residents) have never had any protection from pesticides at all, not only here in the UK, but seemingly in other EU countries also.

1.17           I would reiterate the UK Pesticides Campaign has not been in a position to examine in any detail the proposals that are being discussed as part of the TTIP negotiations, but was concerned to ensure that all EAC members are aware of the already existing failings.

1.18           For further information on the lack of protection for residents from pesticides see:-

      The article I had published in the Ecologist on 4th December 2014 entitled “Negligent and unlawful: EFSA's latest guidance on pesticide use and exposure” http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2661835/negligent_and_unlawful_efsas_latest_guidance_on_pesticide_use_and_exposure.html I would urge all members of the EAC to see the latest developments regarding the failure to protect residents including at the EU level, as detailed in this Ecologist article

      The UK Pesticides Campaign evidence to the EAC 2012/2013 inquiry Pollinators and Pesticides at:- http://www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk/evidence.htm

1.19          Another recent article that may be of interest to EAC members (as it followed the publication of the Government's 'National Pollinator Strategy') is the article I had published in the Ecologist on 6th November 2014 entitled ”Agricultural pesticides - the gaping hole in the UK's 'Pollinator Strategy'” at:- http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2623579/agricultural_pesticides_the_gaping_hole_in_the_uks_pollinator_strategy.html

Adverse health impacts reported

1.20          For the last 14 years the UK Pesticides Campaign has collected reports of both acute adverse health effects, as well as chronic long-term effects, illnesses and diseases, in rural communities where residents live in the locality of sprayed fields. The reports cover all different age groups from the very young (including babies and children) to the elderly.

1.21          The most common chronic long-term illnesses and diseases reported to the campaign include various cancers, (especially breast cancer among rural women, as well as cancers of the prostate, stomach, bowel, brain, and skin), leukaemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, neurological conditions, (including Parkinson’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis (MS), and neurological damage), along with many other medical conditions. It is important to stress that there are a number of cases where the individuals involved do have confirmation from either their doctor (or other medical professional) that the acute and/or chronic adverse health effects are caused by exposure to pesticides used on fields in their locality.

1.22          The UK Pesticides Campaign has not only been contacted by rural residents and communities in numerous countries across Europe who are exposed to agricultural pesticides sprayed in their localities, (eg. UK, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, amongst others), but the campaign has also been contacted by rural residents and communities exposed to agricultural pesticides in other countries around the world including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, China and India.

1.23          This is not surprising considering that there has never been any risk assessment for the specific exposure scenario of residents, not only here in the UK, but seemingly anywhere in the world. Therefore pesticides should never have been approved for use in any country for spraying in the locality of residents’ homes, schools, playgrounds etc.

1.24          As said earlier, this is an absolute scandal, and on a global scale. Rural citizens worldwide have been put in a massive guinea pig-style experiment and for which many residents have had to suffer the serious and devastating consequences of.

1.25          It is now beyond dispute that pesticides can cause a wide range of both acute, and chronic, adverse effects on human health. This includes irreversible and permanent chronic effects, illnesses and diseases. Scientific studies have concluded that long-term exposure to pesticides can disturb the function of different systems in the body, including nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, renal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. See for example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X13000549

1.26           More than enough evidence already exists for the urgent introduction of mandatory measures, around the world, for the protection of residents’ health, and that are very long overdue. Such measures would include the prohibition of the use of pesticides in substantial distances in locality of residents’ homes, schools, children’s playgrounds etc.

The Prioritisation of Non-chemical Methods

1.27          There is no doubt that the widespread use of pesticides in farming is causing serious damage to the environment, wildlife and, above all, human health. A long-term approach is needed, rather than inadequate measures aimed at addressing problems only in the short-term. This problem is not going to be solved by simply papering over the cracks as the whole core foundations and structure on which the current policy and approvals system operates is inherently flawed. For example, it would not solve the very deep seated and fundamental problems that exist by merely reducing the use of pesticides as just one single exposure could lead to damage to the health of humans, bees or other species; nor will the problems be solved by merely substituting one pesticide for another.

1.28          The only real solution to eliminate the adverse health and environmental impacts of pesticides is to take a preventative approach and avoid exposure altogether with the widespread adoption of non-chemical farming methods. This would be more in line with the objectives for sustainable crop production, as the reliance on complex chemicals designed to kill plants, insects or other forms of life, cannot be classified as sustainable.

1.29          Considering the health and environmental costs of using pesticides it makes clear economic sense to switch to non-chemical farming methods. It is a complete paradigm shift that is needed, as no toxic chemicals that have related risks and adverse effects for any species (whether humans, bees or other) should be used to grow food.

1.30          As I have previously and correctly pointed out to EAC members, the system called Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is not the same as non-chemical methods. IPM is a system that still uses pesticides to some degree (whichever definition one goes by). In reality, and in practice, IPM does not necessarily involve lower pesticide use. Therefore the problems with pesticides will not be solved by IPM. It is a complete paradigm shift that is needed to shift policy away from the dependence on pesticides altogether.

1.31          The significance of the consequences for rural citizens across the EU exposed to the cocktails of poisons sprayed on crops clearly requires the adoption of a preventative approach, to ensure that the protection of human health is the overriding priority. Under EU law there can be no balancing of interests with the multi-billion pound pesticides industry, or other related big business, when it comes to public health protection.

About the UK Pesticides Campaign

1.32          The UK Pesticides Campaign (www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk) was founded in 2001 and is the only campaign across Europe that specifically exists to highlight the exposures and risks, and acute and chronic adverse health impacts, of pesticides on residents and communities, as well as on other members of the public exposed. I myself, as the Founder and Director of the UK Pesticides Campaign, have lived next to regularly sprayed fields for over 30 years, and I therefore have the direct experience of living in this situation.

1.33          The work of the UK Pesticides Campaign is widely recognised both nationally and internationally,[1] and has led to a considerable number of prestigious environmental awards and nominations.[2] The UK Pesticides Campaign is also a member of the EU Transparency Register as a stakeholder representing rural residents and communities.

1.34          Over the last 14 years the UK Pesticides Campaign has produced extensive written and visual materials, and has made a number of presentations across Europe, to highlight the fundamental failure to protect public health, in particular rural residents and communities, from exposure to agricultural pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, schools, children’s playgrounds, and public areas. The visual materials produced include two videos entitled "Pesticide Exposures for People in Agricultural Areas – Part 1 Pesticides in the Air; Part 2 The Hidden Costs" to illustrate chemical exposure and the acute and chronic adverse impacts on rural residents and communities exposed.[3]

19 February 2015