Assumed safety of pesticide use is false: scientist

Theassumption by regulators around the world that it is safe to usepesticides at industrial scales across landscapes is false, according toa chief scientific adviser to the UK government.The lack of anylimit on the total amount of pesticides used and the virtual absence ofmonitoring of their effects in the environment means it can take yearsfor the impacts to become apparent, say professor Ian Boyd and hiscolleague Alice Milner in a new article.The damning assessment ofpesticide regulations that are meant to protect the global environmentfollows a growing number of highly critical reports including researchshowing farmers could slash their pesticide use without losses and a UNreport that denounced the “myth” that pesticides are necessary to feedthe world.“The current assumption underlying pesticide regulation –that chemicals that pass a battery of tests in the laboratory or infield trials are environmentally benign when they are used at industrialscales – is false,” state the scientists in their article published inthe journal Science. Boyd is chief scientific adviser to the UK’sdepartment of environment, food and rural affairs, where Milner alsoworks on secondment, but their criticism reflects their own views.“Theeffects of dosing whole landscapes with chemicals have been largelyignored by regulatory systems,” the scientists said. “This can andshould be changed.” They contrast this situation with pharmaceuticals,for which there is a system of rigorous global monitoring after a drugis approved in case adverse effects emerge.“Vigilance on the scalethat is required for medicines does not exist to assess the effects ofpesticides in the environment,” they said. They cite the UK as anexample of one of the most developed regulatory systems: “Yet it has nosystematic monitoring of pesticide residues in the environment. There isno consideration of safe pesticide limits at landscape scales.”Thescientists’ article also criticises the widespread use of pesticides aspreventive treatments, rather than being used sparingly and only whenneeded.Milner told the Guardian: “We want to start a discussionabout how we can introduce a global monitoring programme for pesticides,similar to pharmaceuticals. It can take years to fully understand theenvironmental impact.”“Any chemical you put into the environment hasthe potential to be widely distributed,” she said. “We’ve known thisfor decades, particularly through the early work in the 1960s – theSilent Spring, DDT and so on – and you can find chemicals in places thathave not been treated because of the connectivity of ecosystems. Thereare often quite unexpected effects (and) you often don’t see them untilthe pesticide is used at more industrial scales.”Matt Shardlow ofthe conservation group Buglife said: “Pesticides have got big on society– the thin veil of science around the approvals process has beenexposed and the marketing strategies are stronger than the products theytout.“If you think the biggest governments in the world are wrappedaround the pesticide industry’s fingers, that’s nothing compared to the35% of countries that have no regulation at all. It looks as if only aninternational convention can get pesticides back into a box that helpsrather than harms us. It can’t come soon enough.”The UK governmenthas repeatedly opposed increased European restrictions on widely usedinsecticides that are linked to serious harm in bees, but a partial banwas backed by other nations and introduced in 2013.However, theEnvironment Secretary, Michael Gove, said in July that changes topesticide regulation were being considered: “Certainly, it is the casethat anyone who has seen the (recent) scientific evidence mustinevitably contemplate the need for further restrictions on their use.”After Brexit, he said: “Informed by rigorous scientific analysis, we candevelop global gold-standard policies on pesticides and chemicals.”KeithTyrell, at Pesticide Action Network, said the current pesticidemanagement system was not fit for purpose: “We don’t know how apesticide will really impact the environment until it is too late. Itcan take years before enough scientific evidence is collected topersuade regulators to take action, and they will be fought every stepof the way by pesticide manufacturers who make millions from theseproducts.”The UN report in March was severely critical of the globalcorporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the“systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics”and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms andparalysed global pesticide restrictions”.Sarah Mukherjee, chiefexecutive of an industry group called the Crop Protection Association,said: “As (Boyd and Milner) themselves acknowledge, crop-protectionproducts are a fundamental component of a sustainable, productiveagricultural sector which seek to strike the right balance betweenprotecting the environment and providing a reliable supply of safe,healthy, affordable food.“Pesticides are amongst the most heavilyregulated products in the world. It takes up to 12 years and costs over£200mn to bring a new product to market. This process, involvingrigorous scrutiny by independent scientific experts, ensures plantprotection products are safe before they reach the market.”