[3. July 2021] A new scientific analysis (1) concludes that the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) claim that glyphosate is not genotoxic cannot be justified on the basis of manufacturers’ studies. Of the 53 industry-funded studies used for the EU’s current authorization of glyphosate, 34 were identified as „not reliable“, 17 as „partly reliable“ and only 2 studies as „reliable“ from a methodological point of view.

Several civil society organizations from the successful European Citizen Initiative (ECI) „Stop Glyphosate“ (2) are calling on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to take into account these new findings in the new authorization procedure of glyphosate, which are very worrying from an environmental and health point of view (3).

Genotoxicity studies indicate the risk of cancer and reproductive damage posed by a chemical. Public authorities that were involved in the previous European authorization procedure – namely the German Health Authority BfR and EFSA – wrongfully accepted these industry studies as key evidence of the absence of glyphosate genotoxicity. EFSA used this flawed science as a basis to contradict the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s 2015 conclusion that glyphosate does in fact “probably cause cancer”.

The current approval of glyphosate on the EU market is expiring on 15 December 2022. A first screening of industry’s 2020 new glyphosate application dossier shows that 38 of the 53 genotoxicity studies on “pure” glyphosate submitted in the previous assessment have been submitted once more to the EU authorities by Bayer Agriculture BV, on behalf of the Glyphosate Renewal Group.

Angeliki Lyssimachou, Environmental Scientist at the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said: “This new scientific analysis shows yet again that the European Union’s claim to having the most rigorous pesticide authorization procedure in the world has to be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The authorization procedure in place is evidently not rigorous enough to detect errors in the execution of the regulatory studies that are blindly considered the gold standard. Yet these were at the heart of the 2017 EU-market approval of glyphosate, and they have now been submitted again in an effort to water down scientific evidence that glyphosate may cause cancer and is a danger to human health.”

Helmut Burtscher, Biochemist at GLOBAL 2000 said: “If you subtract from the 53 genotoxicity studies, those studies that are not reliable and those studies that are of minor importance for the assessment of genotoxicity in humans, then nothing remains. Nothing, except the question on what basis the EU authorities have claimed that glyphosate is ’not genotoxic‘. Did they have a crystal ball?”

Peter Clausing, Toxicologist at Pesticide Action Network Germany (PAN Germany) said:  “A rigorous authorization procedure is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to protect the health of the people and the environment. In 2017 the authorities of the European Union violated their own rules to ensure an outcome that pleased the chemical industry. Not much is achieved, if rules and recommendations are on paper, but not applied.”

Nina Holland, Researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory said: „The last re-approval process of glyphosate caused huge controversies, as Monsanto was shown to be undermining the science regarding the harmful effects of glyphosate. This new scientific review puts once more a finger on a sore spot: that national regulators and EU authorities alike do not seem to pay close scrutiny when looking at the quality of industry’s own studies. This is shocking as it is their job to protect people’s health and the environment, not serve the interests of the pesticide industry.“

Eoin Dubsky, Campaigner at SumOfUs said: “People are sick of glyphosate, and we’re sick of being lied to. That’s why SumOfUs members funded this important analysis, and why we’ll keep campaigning until this herbicide is banned. How could EFSA give glyphosate a thumbs-up based on such shoddy scientific studies, when IARC warned that it’s genotoxic, and probably cancer-causing too?”

ENDS

You can find the scientific study here

You can find a Q&A on the study here

You can find a short backgrounder on what happened so far in the glyphosate dossier here

For more information and interview requests:

Helmut Burtscher, Biochemist at GLOBAL 2000: helmut@global2000.at and +43 69914200034

Angeliki Lyssimachou, Environmental Scientist at Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL): angeliki@env-health.org and +32 496 392930

Nina Holland, Researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO): nina@corporateeurope.org and +32  466294420

Peter Clausing, Toxicologist at Pesticide Action Network Germany (PAN Germany): peter.clausing@pan-germany.org and  +49 176 4379 5932.

Eoin Dubsky, Campaigner at SumOfUs: eoin@sumofus.org and +31 641636410

Notes to the editor:

(1) The scientific analysis was conducted by Armen Nersesyan and Prof. Siegfried Knasmueller, two renowned experts on genotoxicity testing, from the Institute of Cancer Research at the Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna. No less than 34 out of 53 industry-funded genotoxicity studies used for the EU’s current authorization of glyphosate were identified by the scientists as „not reliable“, because of substantial deviations from OECD Test Guideline, which can be expected to impair the sensitivity and accuracy of the test system. As for the rest of the 53 studies, 17 were „partly reliable“ and only 2 studies „reliable“.

(2) Stop Glyphosate – European Citizens‘ Initiative to Ban Glyphosate

(3) The European Commission and member states are gearing up to review the current approval of glyphosate, which expires on 15 December 2022. The industry has started the process to renew it. The assessment of the application for EU renewal of glyphosate was performed by the AGG, consisting of the authorities for the assessment of active ingredients of France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden (the last assessment procedure was handled by Germany alone). The assessment was sent to EFSA on 15 June and was based on a dossier submitted last summer by the applicants, the Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG). See: pesticides_aas_agg_report_202106.pdf (europa.eu)

Glyphosate is the most widely-used pesticide in the world. Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides has been linked to certain types of cancer, as well as to adverse effects on the development and hormonal system.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate „probably causes cancer“. Yet in 2017, glyphosate was reauthorised on the European market until December 2022 by representatives of European governments. This decision was criticised heavily by civil society groups and scientists alike for lacking transparency and scientific objectivity, being predominantly based on industry-sponsored studies and overlooking findings from academic independent literature.

Back in 2015 – 2017 civil society and members of the European Parliament managed to reduce the glyphosate authorization in the European Union from 15 years to 5 years. More importantly, the campaign raised awareness on the toxicity of glyphosate-based products, the major problems underlying the pesticide authorization system and how there are alternatives to glyphosate in agriculture.

In March 2019 four Green Members of the European Parliament got a positive ruling from the ECJ (https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/ecj-ruling-a-victory-in-the-fight-for-health-transparency-and-the-environment ) stating EFSA should publish all (secret) studies around the cancer risks of glyphosate. NGO SumOfUs requested 54 genotoxicity studies from EFSA and started a crowd funding action to be able to pay independent scientists to screen these studies.

„Green recovery“ from COVID-19 crisis demands healthy and sustainable food system

Press release from Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, Brussels, Belgium, 20 April 2020.

Contact in the first instance:
Dr Angeliki Lyssimachou, PAN Europe +32 496392930; angeliki@pan-europe.info

A new peer-reviewed paper authored by a group of experts in law, policy, and toxicology has identified systemic failings in Europe’s pesticide risk assessment process.

The experts have proposed a comprehensive agenda for far-reaching reform after their paper outlined how these failings could seriously undermine ambitions for sustainable agriculture and a “green recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Calls for such a “green recovery” have arisen from 13 European climate and environment ministers, from 180 policy makers, business leaders, researchers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and from WWF. On 16 April, Frans Timmermans, executive vice-president of the European Commission in charge of the European Green Deal, added his voice, demanding an end to old, polluting models of production and a shift to a “circular, sustainable and highly competitive economy”.

These thought leaders agree that business as usual is not an option.

Regulatory failings

According to the new paper, published in the European Journal of Risk Regulation, Europe is consistently failing to implement and enforce its own regulations on pesticides. While the EU’s pesticides Regulation 1107/2009 is, in theory, one of the most stringent in the world, it has yet to achieve its aim of “an independent, objective and transparent assessment of pesticides and achieve a high level of protection for health and environment”. The paper presents a series of recommendations to resolve these problems.

Focusing on glyphosate as a case study of scientific and regulatory controversy, the paper highlights:

• Widespread misuse and misinterpretation of scientific research, with cherry-picking of favorable studies, plagiarism and uncritical repetition of findings presented as independent validation, and misuse of statistical and analytical tools
• Ongoing failure to address mixture effects, including of additives which, even though they can change the toxicity profile of the active ingredient, are not part of the pesticide approval process
• Failure to properly address conflicts of interest within regulatory agencies, undermining the independence and objectivity of pesticide assessments.

As a result of these failings, multiple pesticides are passing through the regulatory process and being authorized in spite of their potential to harm human and animal health and the environment.

Proposed solutions

The authors find that for the most part, the law itself is not at fault. Instead, the problem lies with a failure on the part of regulatory bodies to implement or enforce the hard or „soft“ laws governing how pesticides are regulated.

The authors propose ways to improve the system, requiring changes in the way in which regulators carry out the risk assessment process, as well as in the way that current scientific knowledge and scientific analytical tools are applied.

These include:

• Wider use of “systematic review” methods to ensure objectivity and transparency in evaluating scientific research results
• Proper use of the “weight-of-evidence” approach to integrate different lines of evidence, so that, for example, different types of evidence indicating that a pesticide is carcinogenic are not evaluated and dismissed separately but are considered together in an integrated fashion
• Evaluating the toxicity of pesticide formulations as sold and used rather than just the isolated “active” ingredients that are tested and assessed for safety in regulatory purposes – since the formulations can be far more toxic

Details of the new paper

Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions

Claire ROBINSON, Christopher J. PORTIER, Aleksandra ČAVOŠKI, Robin MESNAGE, Apolline ROGER, Peter CLAUSING, Paul WHALEY, Hans MUILERMAN and Angeliki LYSSIMACHOU

DOI: European Journal of Risk Regulation, 16 April 2020

The new paper is published as the EU Commission prepares to publish its Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy as part of the European Green Deal. F2F aims to „secure a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system“ and will include „measures to significantly reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides“.

As well as the F2F, the Commission will publish its long overdue REFIT evaluation of the EU pesticide legislation assessing “if the regulations meet the needs of citizens, businesses and public institutions in an efficient manner“ and giving recommendations on future actions. Concerns have been raised that REFIT appears to be focused on making EU regulations „better“ for industry and that the pesticides regulations will be deliberately weakened as a result.

The publication of F2F as well as the REFIT of the pesticide Regulation has been postponed due to the COVID-19 crisis, and the farmers‘ association COPA-COGECA has lobbied for the publication to be delayed until autumn – or for an impact assessment to be carried out first.

But Claire Robinson, editor at GMWatch and first author of the new paper commented, „COVID-19 has shown us that human health must be the priority and that sustainable food production is crucial. We cannot afford more delays in implementing a healthy, sustainable, and resilient food system.“

This call is backed by an open letter signed by 40 NGOs, asking the Commission not to further delay the F2F publication and “to show that it is actively steering the EU towards a greener future, of which sustainable and resilient food systems are an essential part”.

Quotes from the authors

Dr Apolline Roger, Law and Policy Advisor, ClientEarth, Brussels, Belgium, said: „The pesticides Regulation has great elements. For the most part, it is not the law that needs to be reformed, but the way it is implemented. We detail the reforms that are needed in our recommendations.“

Prof Christopher Portier, Senior Contributing Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, and former Director, US National Center for Environmental Health, USA, said: “Scientific rigour and complete transparency are critical to both the evaluation of data used in regulatory decision making and to the trust the public will have in those evaluations. This article describes improvements that will strengthen both scientific rigor and transparency.”

Paul Whaley, an academic at Lancaster University in the UK specializing in novel methods for evaluating health risks from chemical exposures, said: “The European Food Safety Authority has been a world-leading agency in proposing reforms to how scientific research is used in pesticide risk assessment, particularly in applying systematic review methods to analyze evidence of potential health risks. The problem is, these reforms are being implemented too slowly and too unevenly, leaving too many chemicals being assessed with methods which are obsolete, opaque, and produce unreliable results.”

Dr Peter Clausing, toxicologist at the Pesticide Action Network Germany, said: „The ‚weight-of-evidence‘ approach is an important concept to consolidate scientific data. Our paper shows that there is considerable room for improvement in the way the European authorities make use of this concept during risk assessment of pesticides.“

Professor Aleksandra Čavoški, University of Birmingham, said: “EFSA has made significant strides in improving its independence policy with the aim of preventing the revolving door effect. However, EFSA’s independence policy does not go far enough to prevent conflicts of interest that may result from the provision of research funding.”

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) today congratulates the countries moving to ban Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) that are harming people and the environment, as the global organisation releases the  6^th edition of  the PAN International Consolidated List of Banned Pesticides. The Bans List provides a basis for political action, providing a long list of pesticides that many countries have found too hazardous for use and for which they have found alternatives.

This new consolidated list of hazardous pesticides comes during the 2022 Conference of Parties meeting of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (BRS), in which pesticides listing is discussed. As the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Council holds its 170th session, PAN International also calls on Member States of the FAO Council to make urgent progress on the goal to phase-out HHPs globally by 2030.

The latest edition sees the addition of 73 new pesticide active ingredients newly banned by governments in at least one of 168 countries because of threats to human health and/or the environment.  The European Union and UK once again scored highest with the number of pesticides banned (464*), followed by Turkey (212) and Saudi Arabia (201) which banned more than 200 currently used pesticides. Brazil (133) is the stand out country in Latin America. Indonesia (62) and Cambodia (60) scored highest in Asia, but the region is a long way behind.

Despite this good news, there is an urgent need for all countries to take strong action to ban more hazardous pesticides, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America where most of these pesticides are used. The recent review of unintentional acute pesticide poisoning (UAPP) found that 44% of the global farm workforce is acutely poisoned by pesticides every year. The percentage of farmers and farmworkers being poisoned every year rises sharply to 51% for South East Asia and nearly 65% for South Asia – correlating with the failure of many Asian countries to ban the pesticides causing the problems.

“It is encouraging that 39 countries have now banned chlorpyrifos ahead of the expected listing of this highly toxic pesticide under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants for a global ban. It is anticipated that by next year, many more countries are likely to have banned it,” said Dr. Meriel Watts, Director of Policy and Science at PAN Asia Pacific. Chlorpyrifos is linked to brain damage and is especially toxic to children.

Other bans of note are Sri Lanka’s ban of glyphosate, bringing the total of countries that have banned the widely used herbicide linked to cancer and other diseases to four. Paraquat, the most highly toxic of all herbicides in use, is now banned by at least 58 countries.

The FAO Council, in 2006, recommended a progressive ban on HHPs. The FAO, UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Health Organization (WHO) started to develop a Global Action Plan on HHPs; however, there is little progress on this plan for the international community to eliminate HHPs and phase-in alternatives.

“It has long  been acknowledged by international institutions like UNEP, FAO and SAICM that global action is needed to tackle the health and environmental problems caused by HHPs. The Bans List shows that although some countries have made a good start,  many countries have a long way to go. We need political will to implement a clear phase-out strategy with the goal to ban HHPs in agriculture by 2030,” said Keith Tyrell, PAN International Chairperson and PAN UK Director.

Global efforts to ban and phase-out HHPs are also being undermined by increasing corporate influence in the UN, as exemplified by the partnership between FAO and the pesticide industry association CropLife International.  On behalf of 430 civil society and indigenous peoples organisations from 69 countries, PAN International submitted a letter of appeal to members of the FAO Council ahead of its meeting. In the letter, the FAO Council was asked to direct the FAO Director-General to rescind the agency’s partnership with CropLife, following recommendations made by UN Special Rapporteur Michael Fakhri during the Human Rights Council 49^th Session. PAN and 10 other global civil society and Indigenous peoples organizations also submitted a briefing report to FAO Member States addressing the conflict of interest and incompatibility of FAO’s partnership with CropLife.

Marcia Ishii, Senior Scientist and Regional Coordinator for PAN North America, explained, “FAO must lead the way by taking decisive action to phase-out HHPs globally and support the growing desire among Member States to transition to agroecology, an approach that enables farmers, workers and communities to create healthy, climate-resilient food and farming systems without the use of toxic pesticides. However, so long as FAO pursues partnerships with the world’s largest pesticide companies, as detailed in PAN’s Briefing submitted to Member States last week, the organization will fail utterly to deliver the kind of visionary responsible leadership that the world needs.”

“A lot of highly hazardous pesticides are banned in Europe as they are regarded as too hazardous for people and the environment. We know that highly hazardous pesticides threaten a range of human rights including the right to health, clean water and a dignified life. But despite this, the export of banned pesticides to the Global South is common practice. We therefore call on all exporting countries to fulfil their human rights obligations and stop exporting these highly hazardous pesticides,” said Susan Haffmans, Senior Advisor from PAN Germany.

“A large proportion of pesticides classified as ‘extremely hazardous,’ most of which are banned in the European Union, are still marketed elsewhere in the world, particularly in Africa. These products carry high risks for the health of farmers and have deleterious consequences for agriculture and biodiversity. These chemical pesticides are still used in Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Morocco, and more widely in Africa, even though they are considered toxic for human health and the environment. While some decision makers do not know enough about the impacts of these products, those who are aware of their effects and still allow these products to enter national markets are willingly putting our lives in danger,” said Maimouna Diene, PAN Africa Regional Coordinator.

Javier Souza, Regional Coordinator of PAN Latin America, meanwhile said, “The continued use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides in agricultural activities and at the household level, for example in pets and for the management of insect vectors of disease, is an affront to socio-environmental health as it impacts on all living beings. We are not condemned to use these pesticides. On the contrary, agroecology is a paradigm to produce healthy and wholesome food at a lower cost than using pesticides, and above all, without environmental impact. FAO and governments should support, with information and other public policies, the transition to other agro-food systems capable of producing food for everyone, respecting food sovereignty and all human rights and adapting to climate change.”

*The figure 464 for the EU and the UK is constituted as follows: 195 banned + 269 specifically ‘not approved’ pesticides which are Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) and/or  banned  by  another  country. For more information, see Explanatory Note.

Reference:

• Dr. Meriel Watts, PAN Asia Pacific, meriel@merielwatts.net
• Susan Haffmans, PAN Germany, susan.haffmans@pan-germany.org
• Javier Souza Casadinho, PAN Latin America, javierrapal@yahoo.com.ar
• Keith Tyrell, PAN UK, keith@pan-uk.org
• Maimouna Diene, PAN Africa maimounadiene@pan-afrique.org

PAN International calls for investment in agroecology

Press release.

April 30, 2018. On May 2, experts from around the world will gather in Rome for a global symposium on soil pollution. The event, organised jointly by several UN agencies, offers an important opportunity to highlight the urgent need to invest in soil health, according to the leaders of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International.

PAN leaders from all of the network’s regional centers participated in the recent UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Symposium on Agroecology, and note the important connections between the two events. Specifically, PAN applauds the concept note for the Soil Pollution symposium, which highlights pesticide use as an important cause of soil pollution: “The three major pathways responsible for the introduction of diffuse pollutants into soil are (i) atmospheric deposition, (ii) agricultural inputs, and (iii) flood events. Causes of pollution tend to be dominated by the transport of pollutants by erosion processes (wind and water erosion and sedimentation), and excessive nutrient and pesticide applications, heavy metals, POPs and inorganic pollutants.” (FAO and ITPS, 2015a).

The Global Symposium on Soil Pollution is being organised by FAO’s Global Soil Partnership, along with the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS), the Secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, the UN Environment Program and the World Health Organization.

It aims to provide scientific evidence to support action to prevent and reduce soil pollution for increased food safety, food security and nutrition and ecosystem services. It also calls for the restoration of polluted sites, with the first step being implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management.

PAN International welcomes the joint initiative, and urges participants to fully recognize the damaging effects of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs), and calls on those developing the voluntary soil guidelines to include an overall objective of phasing out HHPs and reducing dependency on agricultural pesticides.

“This month marks the 10-year anniversary of release of the UN and World Bank-sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science & Technology for Development report,” notes Henriette Christensen of PAN Europe. “This pathbreaking report was approved by all participating European, Asian, African and Latin American countries, and called for increased investment in agro-ecological approaches to pest management and action to reduce pesticide dependence.”

“Since the 2015 international year of soils, public awareness has grown about the fundamental importance of healthy soil,” says Dr. Margaret Reeves, senior scientist at PAN North America. “Vibrant, diverse soil biology is a critical driver of soil function — ensuring plant access to nutrients, air and water, and resistance to pests and diseases. There’s a growing body of scientific evidence showing the harmful impacts of petroleum-derived pesticides and fertilizers on this critical soil biology.” (1)

“FAO is working with countries to phase out HHPs, which are defined according to a set of criteria established by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management,” adds Sarojeni Rengam of PAN Asia and the Pacific. “In 2015, the 4th International Conference on Chemicals Management recommended that in taking action on HHPs, emphasis should be on promoting agroecologically based approaches. There should therefore be close collaboration between these two areas of work.”

“We must see coordination among international agreements to avoid the continuous contamination of soils with pesticides and other chemicals, and proceed rapidly with the soil remediation,” agrees Javier Souza, the Regional Coordinator for PAN Latin America. “The science of agroecology reminds us that healthy soils are integral to resilient and sustainable agroecosystems — which in turn enable the feeding and development of healthy people.”

Ndéye Maïmouna Diene, PAN Africa’s director, highlights the particular importance of effective decontamination of polluted sites. “Africa is a continent that faces pollution problems due mainly to ongoing use and abuse of extremely dangerous pesticides,” says Diene. “We call for the establishment of policies that preserve the health of our people, our soil and the environment. We are convinced that agroecology is the safest way to fight pollution in the continent.”

“Healthy soils underpin all agricultural production,” adds Keith Tyrell, director of PAN-UK. “Excessive use of agrochemicals is damaging soil quality and undermining our ability to feed ourselves in the long term. We need to switch to more sustainable, agroecological farming systems that conserve and improve soil quality, now.”

PAN leaders also note that actions under three existing global instruments focused on chemicals have significant potential to address soil pollution:

• The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade;
• The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); and
• The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

In addition, the Third Session of the United Nations Environmental Assembly adopted a resolution in 2017 calling for accelerated collaboration to address and manage soil pollution, The declaration aims to work towards a pollution- free world.’

Note (1):  For instance does a recent EU wide study show that glyphosate persists

For more information:

PAN Africa, Ndéye Maïmouna DIENE, maimounadiene@pan-afrique.org, 221775449689

PAN Asia Pacific, Sarojeni Rengam, sarojeni.rengam@panap.net

PAN Latin America, Javier Souza Casadinho, javierrapal@yahoo.com.ar, 11 15 3617 1782

PAN North America, Kristin Schafer, kristins@panna.org, 10119165883100

PAN Germany, Susan Haffmans, susan.haffmans@pan-germany.org, 49(0)40-3991910-25

PAN United Kingdom, Keith Tyrell, keithtyrell@pan-uk.org, 447588706224

PAN Europe, Henriette Christensen, henriette@pan-europe.info, +3223186255

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International is a network of over 600 participating nongovernmental organizations, institutions and individuals in over 90 countries working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. PAN was founded in 1982 and has five independent, collaborating Regional Centers that implement its projects and campaigns.

Brussels, Hamburg, 17.10.2019. Press release. A new review of carcinogenicity assessments of pesticide active ingredients shows 40 percent of them are not carried out in compliance with existing European guidelines, leading to possible continued exposure of farmers and consumers to cancer-causing pesticides [1]. In 30 percent of the cases significant details were missing from the dossiers, raising uncertainties about how European authorities came to a conclusion.

The report ‘Chronically underrated – A review of the EU carcinogenic hazard assessment of 10 pesticides’, released today by Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany and the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) analysed the carcinogenicity sections of the draft Renewal Assessments Reports (RARs) of ten pesticides [2]. The review, performed by senior toxicologist Peter Clausing, focused on how the sections describing carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice in the EU assessment documents complied with the applicable guidelines and guidance documents of the EU and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

“After discovering a considerable number of flaws in the carcinogenicity assessment of glyphosate, it was the logical next step to investigate whether similar problems occurred with other pesticides. Analysing these ten RARs has made it clear that at least three of the pesticides should have been classified as ‘presumed’ human carcinogens, rather than just ‘suspected’ human carcinogens”, explained Susan Haffmans, Senior Advisor on Pesticides at PAN Germany.

The carcinogenicity classification triggers the regulatory fate of a pesticide active ingredient. Pesticides classified as ‘suspected’ human carcinogens can be marketed, while those classified as ‘presumed’ human carcinogens cannot or must be withdrawn [3].

Our report shows that:
– For three pesticides, the outcome of our review was similar to that of the European authorities: chlorothalonil, diuron, forchlorfenuron;
– For three pesticides, the outcome of our review differed from that of the European authorities and we found that the classification should be upgraded: folpet, pirimicarb and thiacloprid;
– For one pesticide, our review found that severe data gap should have been identified by the European authorities and a flawed decisive carcinogenicity should not have been accepted: phosmet;
– For three pesticides, our review found that reports were not sufficiently informed to allow any conclusive external review: captan, chlorpropham, dimoxystrobin.

“The current rise of non-communicable diseases including cancer means that Europe cannot afford the health price of flawed pesticides classifications”, commented Genon K. Jensen, Executive Director of the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL). “Committing to a rigorous implementation of European laws should be a founding block of reaching Europe’s zero-pollution objective to prevent diseases and protect people, starting with farmers, from substances toxic to their health.”

PAN Germany and HEAL call on the European Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen to pay particular attention to a more rigorous application of existing pesticide legislation and guidance documents. In her recent confirmation hearing at the European Parliament, the Commissioner-designate for Health Stella Kyriakides already agreed Europe needs to reduce dependency on pesticides and stimulate the take-up of low-risk and non-chemical alternatives [4].

Contact:

Dr. Peter Clausing, Executive board member Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany, peter.clausing@pan-germany.org

Yannick Vicaire, Chemicals and Health Policy campaigner Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) , yannick@env-health.org

Notes to editor:

[1] Chronically Underrated, Peter Clausing, October 2019.
[2] The ten pesticides reviewed included Captan, Chlorotalonil, Chlorpropham, Dimoxystrobin, Diuron, Folpet, Forchlorfenuron, Phosmet, Pirimicarb and Thiacloprid.
[3] Article 3.6.3 of regulation 11/072009 states: “An active substance, safener or synergist shall only be approved, if, on the basis of assessment of carcinogenicity testing carried out in accordance with the data requirements for the active substances, safener or synergist and other available data and information, including a review of the scientific literature, reviewed by the Authority, it is not or has not to be classified, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as carcinogen category 1A or 1B…”
[4] Answers to the European Parliament questionnaire to the Commissioner-Designate Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner-designate for health

Other publications on this topic from Dr. Peter Clausing include:
– Clausing et al. (2018): Pesticides and public health: a review of the regulatory approach to assessing the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the European Union. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 72, 668–672
– Pesticide Action Network Europe (2018): Ensuring a higher level of protection from pesticides in Europe

The Pesticide Action Network Germany (PAN Germany) is a nongovernmental organisation informing about the negative consequences of pesticide use and promoting environment-friendly and socially fair alternatives. PAN Germany is part of the PAN International network. Our work comprises critical analyses of pesticides and their use, policy advice practical advice for farmers and consumers.

The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) is the leading not-for-profit organisation addressing how the environment affects human health in the European Union (EU) and beyond. HEAL works to shape laws and policies that promote planetary and human health and protect those most affected by pollution, and raise awareness on the benefits of environmental action for health.

CHRONICALLY UNDERRATED? A review of the European carcinogenic hazard assessment of 10 pesticides

Datum: 21. Oktober 2019 289.03 KB

This report, commissioned by Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany and by the Health and Environment...

Download

.well.c2a3 .btn.wpdm-download-link{ padding: 11px 30px;font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .media-body{ font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .wpdm_icon{ height: 42px; width: auto; }

Summary: CHRONICALLY UNDERRATED? A review of the European carcinogenic hazard assessment of 10 pesticides

Datum: 21. Oktober 2019 80.39 KB

Glyphosate, one of the world’s most widely used pesticides that has been linked to multiple negative...

Download

.well.c2a3 .btn.wpdm-download-link{ padding: 11px 30px;font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .media-body{ font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .wpdm_icon{ height: 42px; width: auto; }

Zusammenfassung: CHRONISCH UNTERBEWERTET? Eine Überprüfung des EU-Bewertungsverfahrens zur Krebsgefahr von 10 Pestiziden

Datum: 21. Oktober 2019 88.71 KB

Glyphosat, eines der meistverwendeten Pestizide der Welt, das mit verschiedenen negativen Auswirkungen...

Download

.well.c2a3 .btn.wpdm-download-link{ padding: 11px 30px;font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .media-body{ font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .wpdm_icon{ height: 42px; width: auto; }

Resumen: ¿INFRAVALORACIÓN CRÓNICA? Una revisión de la evaluación de la Unión Europea sobre el riesgo carcinogénico de 10 pesticidas

Datum: 21. Oktober 2019 273.16 KB

El glifosato, uno de los pesticidas más utilizados en el mundo y que ha sido relacionado con múltiples...

Download

.well.c2a3 .btn.wpdm-download-link{ padding: 11px 30px;font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .media-body{ font-size: 11pt; } .well.c2a3 .wpdm_icon{ height: 42px; width: auto; }

Reminding the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of its obligations to uphold human rights, 430 civil society and Indigenous peoples organizations from 69 countries across the globe today called on the FAO Council to rescind the agency’s partnership with CropLife International, the industry association representing the world’s largest pesticide manufacturers.

Ahead of the FAO Council’s 170th session that begins on June 13, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) submitted to members of the Council a letter co-sponsored by 10 other global networks, and on behalf of the 430 organizations, urging it to take immediate action in the Council session.  This demand builds on the ongoing concerns expressed by civil society and Indigenous People’s organizations, and on recommendations made by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food during the Human Rights Council’s 49th session, namely: “to review the agreement with CropLife International with an eye to human rights concerns” and “to consider directing the Director-General of FAO to rescind the agreement.“

In the letter, the 430 organizations expressed concerns about how CropLife member companies (BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, FMC and Syngenta) have “interfered in national policy and exert enormous pressure on governments that take measures to protect people and the environment from pesticide harms.”

In October 2020, the FAO signed a Letter of Intent with CropLife to cooperate on a broad range of areas, as part of the agency’s Private Sector Engagement Strategy. “FAO deepening its collaboration with CropLife International directly counters any efforts toward progressively banning Highly Hazardous Pesticides, as recommended for consideration by the FAO Council as early as 2006,” the letter stated.

“This partnership has been in effect for over a year and a half now, and FAO’s efforts to push global action to phase-out and ban HHPs have ground to a halt,” said Keith Tyrell, Chair of PAN International. “As the signers underscore in this letter, Member States and the FAO must promote agroecology, a viable approach for generating ecologically-based food and farming systems without the use of toxic pesticides.”

The letter pointed out that FAO’s own due diligence process indicates that companies involved in human rights abuses can be excluded from potential partners. The organizations assert that the “use of hazardous pesticides is inconsistent with the rights protected by the United Nations to: Health; Clean, healthy and sustainable environment; Safe working conditions; Adequate food; safe and clean water and sanitation; A dignified life; and Rights of Indigenous Peoples, women, children, workers, and peasants and other people working in rural areas.”

In addition, a briefing report entitled “Addressing the Conflict of Interest and Incompatibility of FAO’s Partnership with CropLife International”- detailing the necessity to end what civil society and Indigenous peoples call the “Toxic Alliance” between the FAO and the pesticide industry – was submitted to the FAO Council by PAN and 10 other global organizations spearheading the campaign.

A separate briefing report entitled “Corporate Capture of FAO: Industry’s Deepening Influence on Global Food Governance,” which featured contributions by PAN International, was also submitted to the FAO and Member States in time for the FAO Council session. The report highlighted the partnership with CropLife as among the case studies exemplifying the trend where corporations are being given increasing influence at the expense of states, small scale food producers, Indigenous Peoples and civil society.

Links to letter to the FAO Council:

• English: https://bit.ly/LetterFAO2022
• Spanish: https://bit.ly/CartaFAO2022
• French: https://bit.ly/LettreFAO2022

 Link to the Briefing Report to FAO Member States: https://bit.ly/ToxicAllianceBrief  

Worldwide poisonings up from 25 million in 1990 to 385 million today

For immediate release: December 9, 2020

In a comprehensive study, scientists report that pesticide poisonings on farms around the world have risen dramatically since the last global assessment 30 years ago. Based on an evaluation of available poisoning data from countries all over the world, the researchers conclude that there are about 385 million cases of acute poisonings each year, up from an estimated 25 million cases in 1990.

This means that about 44% of the global population working on farms — 860 million farmers and agricultural workers – are poisoned every year.

The systematic review of unintentional acute pesticide poisonings was published today in the peer-reviewed  journal BMC Public Health. The article, entitled “The global distribution of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning: Estimations based on a systematic review,” is the first such global estimate since 1990.

“These findings underscore the urgency of reducing and eliminating the use of highly hazardous pesticides,” says Kristin Schafer, coordinator of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International. “These pesticides are causing the unacceptable poisoning of those who produce our food, but also chronic health effects such as cancer and ecological impacts such as the collapse of biodiversity. Time for global action is long overdue.”

The study found that the greatest number of non-fatal poisoning cases was in southern Asia, followed by Southeast Asia and East Africa. The highest single national incidence was in Burkina Faso, where nearly 84% of farmers and farm workers experience unintentional acute pesticide poisonings annually.

Total fatalities around the world from unintended pesticide poisonings are estimated at around 11,000 deaths per year. Nearly 60% of which occur in just one country, India, indicating serious problems with pesticide use, according to the researchers.

“Pesticide poisonings are a public health crisis that must be addressed,” said Sarojeni Rengam, Executive Director of PAN Asia Pacific. “Beyond the immediate suffering, poisonings can also reflect exposure that cause long term, chronic health effects. It’s shocking and shameful that this problem has gotten worse rather than better over the past 30 years.”

The authors of the new study conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature published between 2006 and 2018, selecting a total of 157 papers after assessing over 800 papers for eligibility according to set criteria, and additional data from the WHO cause-of-death database. The data covered 141 countries in total. Most studies focused on occupational poisonings, particularly of farmers and agricultural workers.

“We realize there are limitations in the data on pesticide poisonings,” notes Javier Souza, PAN Latin America’s coordinator. “But this study clearly shows this as a serious, global problem that warrants immediate action. Highly hazardous pesticides must be phased out by 2030 to meet global Sustainable Development Goals, and we must shift to healthier and more resilient systems like agroecology. ”

The estimated number of global nonfatal unintended pesticide poisonings in the current study is significantly greater than previous estimates. This is in part because the current study covers a greater number of countries, and also because there has been an 81% increase in pesticide use since 1990 (an estimated 4.1 million tonnes of pesticides were used worldwide in 2017). The researchers point to underreporting to explain the relatively low estimates of fatalities. Underreporting is also an issue for pesticide poisonings overall, as many country-specific reporting systems lack a central reporting point or lack a legal mechanism requiring incident reporting.

The authors conclude that the heavy burden of non-fatal unintended pesticide poisonings, particularly for farmers and farmworkers, brings into focus the current policy bias towards focusing only on fatalities, and the need to more seriously address the overall pesticide poisoning problem in international and national policies and regulations.

Note to reporters: While this study did not cover pesticide poisoning suicides, an estimated 14 million people have died from suicide using pesticides since the Green Revolution in the 1960s. A recent systematic review of data on suicides from 2006-2015, which this review did not cover, found that pesticides accounted for 14-20% of global suicides leading to 110,000-168,000 deaths annually during the period 2010-2014.

*****

Media contacts:

• Ahna Kruzic, PAN North America, ahna@panna.org, 510 927 5379
• Ilang-Ilang Quijano, PAN Asia Pacific,quijano@panap.net

Available for interviews:

• Sarojeni Rengam, PAN Asia Pacific – Sarojeni.rengam@panap.net
• Susan Haffmans, PAN Germany – Susan.haffmans@pan-germany.org
• Javier Souza, PAN Latin America (Spanish) – javierrapal@yahoo.com.ar
• Maimouna Diene, PAN Africa (French) – maimounadiene@pan-afrique.org

 Pesticide Action Network International (PAN) is a network of over 600 participating nongovernmental organizations, institutions and individuals in over 90 countries working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. PAN was founded in 1982 and has five independent, collaborating Regional Centers that implement its projects and campaigns. You can find more information at http://pan-international.org.

Montevideo, 26.03.2019. Press release.

On the eve of the upcoming 3^rd Open Ended Working Group  of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), PAN redoubles its call for a global legally binding mechanism for the lifecycle management of pesticides, either as a new standalone treaty or as a legally binding protocol within a new overarching chemicals framework to phase out Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs).

PAN expresses its deep concern that SAICM has failed to achieve sound management of pesticides and that pesticide poisoning continues in countries all around the world. PAN is releasing updated versions of two documents underlining the strong need for a legally binding treaty to ban HHPs. These are a PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (1) and a PAN International Consolidated List of Banned Pesticides. These two documents together show the large numbers of hazardous pesticides used around the world and the very uneven nature of regulation of hazardous pesticides around the globe.

An example illustrating such uneven regulation of pesticides is the highly toxic pesticide monocrotophos. Of the 154 countries for which information was available for the Consolidated List of Banned Pesticides, at least 112 have banned the insecticide monocrotophos, but its use in other countries continues to harm many people. It was responsible for killing 23 school children in India in 2013, implicated in the deaths of cotton growers in India in 2018, and in numerous other poisonings – despite the WHO calling on India to ban it 10 years ago. This is just one example of a HHP that should have been banned long ago, but remains in use and continues to poison people in countries where it is still used. PAN asks that companies still manufacturing monocrotophos should stop its manufacture and all remaining countries should ban it.

This situation occurs in many countries around the world, and Ms. Maimouna Diene, Director of PAN Africa says, “In many African countries we see high rates of poisonings of farmers and communities by HHPs. It is not possible to adequately protect communities, as well as their air, soil and water unless a legally binding mechanism for regulating HHPs is developed.”

Ms. Sarojeni Rengam, Executive Director of PAN Asia Pacific (PANAP) echoes this frustration and says  “The continued use of HHPs in Asian countries causes widespread poisonings of children, farmers, women and agricultural workers.  Recently PANAP and partners interviewed 2025 respondents in 7 countries, and found that 7 out of 10 people interviewed were poisoned by pesticides (3).  Rural people are poisoned by pesticides such as paraquat, lambda-cyhalothrin, chlorpyrifos and glyphosate.” She expressed dismay at the lack of action to prevent occupational poisonings and said “Continuing the sad saga of occupational pesticide poisonings of agricultural workers, a record number of such cases were reported last year in the Yavatmal district in Maharashtra state of India.”

Mr. Javier Souza, Regional Coordinator of PAN Latin America says „The use of HHPs in agriculture has led to frequent exposure and accidental poisoning of children throughout Latin America, for example when pesticide applications are made near schools or homes. Empty pesticide containers are discarded in the fields and rivers, contaminating the drinking water and increasing the plastic pollution of the sea because the users do not return them to their manufacturers, often violating current regulations.”

The lack of accountability of transnational pesticide corporations for the HHPs they produce and sell, especially in the Global South, led Ms. Susan Haffmans of PAN Germany to say “It is absolutely unethical that European countries like Germany, Switzerland, France and U.K. continue to export pesticides banned for use in these countries due to their toxicity. The exports to countries in the Global South continue to put communities there in danger from the hazards of exposure to HHPs.”

Ms. Kristin Schafer, Executive Director of PAN North America added “The consolidation of the pesticide industry has created giant corporations that have no interest in voluntary control measures, and put profits above all else. Years of evidence show us that these corporate actors aggressively undermine policies that protect public health and the environment. It’s time for the global community to act.”

PAN International calls on the global community to step up to the challenge and protect people across the world from HHPs by putting in place a legally binding treaty against HHPs.

Available for interview:

Dr. Meriel Watts, PAN Asia Pacific +64-21-1807830; meriel@merielwatts.net

Ms. Susan Haffmans, PAN Germany susan.haffmans@pan-germany.org, +49(0)40-3991910-25

Ms. Sarojeni Rengam, PAN Asia Pacific, sarojeni.rengam@panap.net
Javier Souza Casadinho, PAN Latin America, javierrapal@yahoo.com.ar ,+11 15 3617 1782

Ms. Kristin Schafer, PAN North America kristins@panna.org

Ms. Maimouna Diene, PAN Africa maimounadiene@pan-afrique.org

(1) The PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides is available at: http://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/PAN_HHP_List.pdf

(2) The PAN International Consolidated List of Banned Pesticide is available at: http://pan-international.org/pan-international-consolidated-list-of-banned-pesticides/

(3) Rights and Poisons is available at: https://panap.net/2018/10/of-rights-and-poisons-accountability-of-the-agrochemical-industry/

Press release
[07.09.2022]

After more than two years without a face-to-face meeting, representatives from governments, the private sector, industry and civil society from around the world met in Bucharest from August 29 to September 2 for one week of intensive work on a new framework for the sound management of chemicals, including pesticides and waste.

Since 2006 the Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (SAICM) under the responsibility of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) strives for the sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycle.

Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) were identified as “Issue of Concern” under this framework. SAICM had an ambitious goal that by the year 2020, chemicals are produced and used in ways that minimize significant adverse impacts on the environment and human health. However, this goal was not achieved. In the last decades, chemical production has increased exponentially and has created escalating problems of waste and pollution with millions of people suffering the effects. As a result, the international community has been engaged in drafting a new ambitious framework to address the problems and impacts of chemical and waste.

“Pesticides contribute significantly to all the current global crises – climate disaster, biodiversity loss, pollution – that are threatening the survival of the planet as we know it. The most harmful pesticides, defined as Highly Hazardous Pesticides, are long recognised as a major global problem. With a lot of support from NGOs, progress in identifying and banning some HHPs at the national level has been made, but we are still far away from the coordinated global progress towards a global-phase out of HHPs in agriculture. A future mechanism must resolve this,” said Susan Haffmans, senior advisor of PAN (Pesticide Action Network) Germany.

“High income countries and regions produce Highly Hazardous Pesticides that have been banned and severely restricted because of human health and environmental harms, and these are exported to developing countries. These pesticides cause massive poisonings of vulnerable groups including peasants, women and children, workers and indigenous peoples. We would like to see a strong target for all countries to stop the production and exports of substances banned in their own countries or region,” said Sarojeni Rengam, executive director of PAN Asia Pacific.

María Cárcamo of RAPAL (Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas de América Latina) Uruguay said, “Widespread pesticide use affect people’s daily lives, and cause contamination and destruction of the environment. Pesticides used in food, fibre, and energy production are in communal spaces, sprayed on the ground and by airplanes. Wherever you go, there are high levels of exposure. Coming from a Southern country, we receive pesticides that in many countries from other parts of the world are not used due to the impacts on human and environmental health. We would like to see stronger decisions and targets towards the elimination of these pesticides in the value chain.”

“Africa is the continent that suffers the most from the effects of pesticides, especially Highly Hazardous Pesticides. Their poor conditions of use are the cause of the emergence of certain non-communicable diseases such as cancer, congenital malformations, neurological disorders, diabetes, etc. At the end of the SAICM meeting, a glimmer of hope appeared in light of the commitment of civil society and the support of certain countries for a ban on HHPs in agriculture by 2030. Thus, we call on African governments to quickly commit to the implementation of national regulations for a total ban on HHPs in order to protect the health and environment of populations,” said Maimouna Diene, regional coordinator of PAN Africa.

For more information, read PAN International’s position paper to the SAICM IP4 Beyond 2020 Process

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International is a network of 600 CSOs and institutions in over 90 countries working to eliminate the harm caused by pesticides and to replace them with agroecology and non-chemical alternatives.

Reference:

• Susan Haffmans, PAN Germany, susan.haffmans@pan-germany.org
• Sarojeni Rengam, PAN Asia Pacific, sarojeni.rengam@panap.net
• Maimouna Diene, PAN Africa, maimounadiene@pan-afrique.org
• María Cárcamo, RAPAL Uruguay, coord@rapaluruguay.org