5.1. Pesticides In Surface Water
Pesticides in the aquatic environment can come from a number of both point and diffuse sources. In many catchments the main source will be agriculture, whilst in others it may be industrial discharges, sewage treatment works or urban areas.
Pesticide concentrations in the aquatic environment are monitored routinely by the Environment Agency. Samples are taken from a range of sources; fresh waters, groundwaters, marine waters, trade effluents and sewage discharges. Pesticides are monitored for both statutory and non-statutory purposes and the pesticides analysed at a particular point can vary between years. For most pesticides a fixed monitoring point network does not exist but the monitoring programme in surface freshwaters is large and could be used as an indicator of the levels of monitored pesticides.
Several pesticide chemical suites are usually analysed in one water sample. A total of around 170 different pesticide active substances are analysed at over 3000 locations, commonly at a frequency of four or twelve times a year giving over 300,000 determinations. Many monitoring points have a limited range of analyses depending on the reason for monitoring.
Figure 5.1.1 is an analysis of the Environment Agency's pesticide monitoring as a whole. The two concentrations of 0.1µg/l and 0.5µg/l for many pesticides have no toxicological relevance. 0.1µg/l is the standard for any pesticide specified in the European Commission (EC) Drinking Water Directive and therefore is relevant to treated supplied drinking water rather than environmental quality. However, comparisons of environmental data with this standard do provide a good indication of those pesticides most likely to require action or treatment to comply with the Directive. This is also a useful way of looking at trends in levels of water contamination. Generally over 90 per cent of determinations for pesticides are below the limit of determination (LOD). The LOD may vary between pesticides and also by sample media and analysis method.
Figure 5.1.1. Frequency of detection of pesticides in surface freshwaters in England and Wales (source: Environment Agency)
Trends in individual pesticide levels in surface freshwaters are shown in Figure 5.1.2. These trends can be affected greatly by regulatory decisions regarding individual active ingredient usage. There may be a need to adapt the list of pesticides which are reported on to represent the most up to date monitoring information.
Figure 5.1.2 Trends in the detection of pesticides in surface freshwaters in England and Wales (Source: Environment Agency) (pdf)
Data publicly available from water companies on pesticides is generally from final treated water supplied as drinking water and hence contains very low or no residues of pesticides. Raw water monitoring data is more relevant to assessing the levels of pesticides in the environment but this is only carried out on a limited scale by the water companies. Where available, however, the data are likely to be on a more frequent basis on the local scale than is generally available from the Environment Agency's monitoring programme.
Pesticides in Surface Water : Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.1.1. | Indicators of surface fresh water contamination by pesticides as presented in figures 5.1.1. and 5.1.2. should be adopted by the Pesticides Forum. | High |
| R 5.1.2. | These indicators should be developed through further interpretation and statistical analysis of the data. This could include detailed consideration of particular pesticides in a range of catchments, selecting sets of points to be monitored in every year, selecting sites close to drinking water abstractions and taking a stratified random sample of the dataset. | High |
| R 5.1.3. | Water company data be collated where possible to establish whether this can be used to develop new or refine existing indicators. | High |
| R 5.1.4. |
The pesticide aquatic monitoring programme should be developed in line with the findings of the report of the Pesticides in the Environment Working Group. In particular, a fixed point monitoring network for pesticides should be established whereby every year an evolving suite of pesticides are monitored at the same sites and at the same time. | High |
5.2. Pesticides In Ground Water, Marine Waters and Sediment
The Environment Agency monitors pesticides in groundwater, marine waters and sediments. The monitoring of these sources is very limited in comparison to the surface fresh water programme. Data for monitoring of these sources is often heavily biased by monitoring effort in different years and therefore does not lend itself to presentation as an indicator. An indicator of levels in marine waters is possible but would probably concentrate on older pesticides included in the statutory monitoring programme for which consistent data are available. A groundwater monitoring network is currently being implemented and this may provide good consistent data for the levels of pesticides in groundwater.
Pesticides In Ground Water, Marine Waters and Sediment : Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.2.1. | The feasibility of developing indicators of groundwater, marine water and sediment contamination through modelling techniques should be investigated. | High |
| R 5.2.2. | An indicator of groundwater contamination by pesticides is developed once the groundwater monitoring network is established. | Medium |
Opportunities for targets
Targets could be established for both the overall contamination of surface freshwaters and for the occurrence of individual pesticides in water. Targets would be difficult to establish for groundwater because of the variable lag phase between application and contamination and the lack of scientific knowledge on movement of pesticides to groundwater.
5.3. Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Possible damage by pesticides to the aquatic environment is currently assessed by comparing concentrations in surface waters against a set of Environmental Quality Standards. The number of available EQS values varies as new ones are developed or old ones revised in the light of newer information. The number of EQS failures is heavily dependent on the targeting of monitoring effort and on whether an EQS exists for a particular pesticide. Monitoring for pesticides is not generally carried out in headwater streams where EQS failures from agricultural pesticides may occur. As such EQS failures, at least at the present time, are a poor indicator of the effects of agrochemical use on aquatic biodiversity.
5.4. Aquatic Pollution Incidents
Figure 5.4.1 presents substantiated water pollution incidents by pesticides reported to the Environment Agency. Substantiated incidents are categorised into three classes depending on the severity of the damage to the environment and all of these classes are included in the indicator data.
The number of incidents recorded depends largely on reports from the general public and, increasingly, the emergency services. As a result, the predominant types of pollution incident reported are those with greatest visual impact such as oil and dyes or where fish appear to be distressed. Incidents involving toxic chemicals such as pesticides may not be reported as they are not visible, and they often have greatest impact on invertebrate fauna, which is not immediately apparent. Recorded data are therefore likely to be an underestimate of the more substantive stresses that the aquatic environment is under.
Figure 5.4.1. Water pollution incidents involving pesticides in England and Wales (Source: Environment Agency)
Aquatic Pollution Incidents : Recommendations | Recommendation: | Priority for action |
| R 5.4.1. | The Pesticides Forum should adopt substantiated pollution incidents involving crop protection products as a useful indicator of responsible pesticide use. | Medium to High |
5.5. Aquatic Biodiversity
While there is a substantial amount of information collected on aquatic biodiversity in many cases it is difficult to relate this to any effects that pesticide use may be causing (e.g. see sections 6.1 - 6.3 for otters, salmon and General Quality Assessment indicators).
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) have funded work by the The Food and Environment Research Agency(FERA) to develop indicators of pesticide risk to the aquatic environment. This has led to the production of an indicator that divides the total area of pesticide applications into different risk categories and shows how these change over time (Figure 5.5.1.). The risk categories are based directly on the data and calculations that are used in regulatory assessments in the UK for acute risks to fish, Daphnia and algae. This makes it possible to interpret the categories in relation to established criteria for the acceptability of risk, as laid down in European regulations. Further refinements could be made to the indicator to include the risks to higher aquatic plants and chronic exposures.
Figure 5.5.1. Total area of pesticide application by risk category (Source: FERA)
Aquatic Biodiversity : Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.5.1. | The Pesticides Forum should adopt the FERAaquatic risk indicator as a measure of pesticide risk to the aquatic environment. | High |
| R 5.5.2. | The indicator should be refined further to include chronic risks and the risk to higher aquatic plants. | High |
Opportunities for targets
Targets could be established for the level of aquatic risk that pesticides pose using the FERA aquatic risk indicator. The number of pollution incidents could also lend itself to target setting although the influence of the degree of reporting would need to be taken into account.
5.6. Bioaccumulation
Some monitoring is carried out on the levels of certain pesticides in wild biota. The data are sparse and for a limited number of chemicals, but development of an indicator may be possible. For aquatic biota, fish muscle, shellfish tissue and National Marine Monitoring Programme (NMMP) data are available. Under the NMMP, bioaccumulation monitoring has been conducted at 38 sites in England and Wales (in 1999) representing all of the major estuaries. A range of contaminants was recorded from a variety of matrices, specifically; fish muscle, fish liver, shellfish tissue and fucus (seaweed). These data are likely to be the most suitable for the development of an indicator. Results from a spatial survey have shown that significant contamination of the biota in several estuaries does occur.
Bioaccumulation : Recommendation | Recommendation: | Priority for action |
| R 5.6.1. | Development of an indicator for bioaccumulation should be investigated. | Low |
5.7. Soil
The fate and behaviour of pesticides in soils is an active area of research. Current pesticide registration packages include data on the route and rate of degradation of pesticides in soil. Information on the potential accumulation and persistence in soil also has to be provided. However, routine post-approval monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not carried out. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does sample both vegetation and soil in support of enforcement as part of its pesticide investigation role under the Control of Pesticides (Amendment) Regulations 1997. Incident related sampling is used to investigate complaints and whilst vegetation is normally sampled a protocol has also been developed for sampling contaminated soil. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) carried out pilot determinations for 10 pesticides on soil samples in 1996 but no further investigations have taken place.
A number of research investigations have investigated the impact of long-term use of some pesticides in soil e.g. Bromilow et al (1996) in experiments at Rothamsted reported on a programme to investigate the impact of persistent pesticides on soil fauna, crop uptake and yield.
Overall there is insufficient data on soil contamination to develop an indicator at this time. It is possible that a proxy indicator could be developed based on physicochemical and usage data for current pesticides.
Soil : Recommendations | Recommendation: | Priority for action |
| R 5.7.1. | The feasibility of developing an indicator of soil contamination based on physicochemical and usage data for current pesticides should be investigated. | Low |
5.8. Atmosphere
Monitoring of a selection of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in air is carried out in the UK. However, pesticides are not generally routinely monitored. No monitoring data that would lend themselves to the development of an indicator are available. Various pesticides have been measured in rainwater, mainly as part of research projects. There is no monitoring network for chemicals in rainwater. It is possible that a proxy indicator could be developed based on physicochemical and usage data for current pesticides. This would be of limited value as it has been shown that atmospheric deposition of pesticides may originate from other countries.
Atmosphere : Recommendations | Recommendation: | Priority for action |
| R 5.8.1. | The feasibility of developing an indicator of atmospheric contamination based on physicochemical and usage data for current pesticides should be investigated. | Low |
5.9. Terrestrial Biodiversity (Vertebrates, Invertebrates, Plants)
Introduction
Since regulatory and other action relating to pesticide use is intended to reduce both risks and impacts, indicators for biodiversity should include measures both of the changing risks associated with pesticide use as well as of measured environmental impacts. Various risk measures are currently being developed, and those which may be used as indicators of trends are considered here.
Measures of environmental impact can be subdivided into measures of contamination (e.g. residue levels, where there is a close link between the measure and pesticide use, but the response of terrestrial wildlife populations and hence environmental impact may be uncertain) and measures of population change (where information on the trends in population size may be more robust, but the link with pesticide use may be less certain). Such indicators should include measures both of the scale of any effect (e.g. proportion of population affected) and its intensity (i.e. level to which individuals are affected). Because the measures of risk and of residues (contamination) in wildlife are related specifically to pesticide use, these are considered together as specific state indicators. However a range of factors, including pesticides, have effects on wildlife populations, so measures of population change are considered as non-specific state indicators.
Concerns over possible effects of pesticides on terrestrial biodiversity include risks relating to both direct and indirect effects. Whilst direct effects are likely mainly to be off-target effects, such as impacts of drift on non-crop habitats, they also include risks to biodiversity within the crop arising from particular routes of exposure (e.g. baits and seed treatments) and from sub-lethal or chronic effects, as well as direct effects on susceptible species of conservation importance, such as rare arable weeds. Indirect effects arise through the impact of pesticide use within the crop on food availability for wildlife (such as reductions in weed seed and invertebrate abundance within the crop), or changes to habitat structure, with consequences for species at higher trophic levels. Work to develop the responsible use of pesticides is directed at both these areas, and in particular action to improve targeting should reduce risks of off-target effects, whilst reductions in the use of broad-spectrum products and in unnecessary use (for example through uptake of forecasting and monitoring schemes) should contribute to reductions in indirect effects. Given the various factors which act to regulate or cause fluctuations in wildlife populations, action in other areas is necessary to restore biodiversity.
This section includes consideration of effects on terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Potential effects on soils are not considered here.
Indicators of risks to terrestrial systems
Extensive work on the risks to non-target organisms is part of a modern registration package. The direct risks of pesticides to birds are well recognised and form a part of the data evaluation for all pesticides at registration. The use of seed treatments provides a good example where risks have been intensively studied. In the case of many seed treatments absence of serious effects on wildlife in the field is dependent on risk reduction measures such as effective burying of seeds at drilling, as well as factors such as aversion by birds to seeds treated with certain insecticides.
It is only since the introduction of Directive 91/414 (which harmonises registration procedures within the EU) that beneficial insects other than bees have been included as requirements for testing during the registration process. Relevant data are required for epigeal polyphagous predators (ground beetles, rove beetles and spiders), aphid-specific predators (e.g. ladybirds, lacewings), predatory mites, and parasitoids. Data on canopy dwelling, diurnal, herbivorous insects are not routinely gathered, and the impact of pesticides on phytophagous species is not routinely assessed as part of the registration process. In the case of terrestrial invertebrates similar risk management methods as for aquatic situations may be applied, in the form of buffer zones for field boundaries (including advisory ones). In addition, label risk classifications exist in the form of warning phrases for hazards to bees.
Because there are few good measures of direct pesticide impacts on terrestrial wildlife that can be used in monitoring, indicators of changing risk are needed in addition to the direct measures of impact. A similar approach to that proposed for monitoring risks of pesticides to aquatic life (by FERA, see above) is probably possible, and further work to develop risk indicators for terrestrial systems is currently being considered by Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). A simple measure of changing terrestrial invertebrate risk might be scale of use of products with different risk phrases (scale of use in this case should be measured as treated hectares, not tonnage a.i.), e.g.:
In the case of terrestrial vertebrates, a similar measure of changing risk based on label hazard phrases would be possible. In this case the existing label phase such as requiring the burial of treated seeds and granules could be incorporated into the derivation of such an indicator.
An alternative hazard-based approach for measuring changing risk to vertebrates could be based on the toxicity:exposure ratio (TER) used in evaluations during pesticide registration/review. This is a measure of the acute hazard of the pesticide (based on the lowest Lethal Dose (LD)50 (lethal dose for 50% of the population) or other suitable end point) in relation to the maximum likely exposure encountered in the field. Depending on the nature of the evaluation, TERs > 100 or > 10 may be the trigger for acceptability of acute effect, but exposure estimates may be reduced by risk management methods. Again, work planned by DETR should provide an assessment of the feasibility of this approach and the Pesticides Forum should encourage its further development as a possible indicator.
As described for vertebrates, TERs could be calculated for invertebrates using registration/review data based on the data available for those representative species (although these are beneficial arthropods only) used in risk assessments for registration.
Unlike the risk indicators proposed for vertebrates and invertebrates, plants present a more fundamental problem because many of the plants occurring in arable fields could be potential target for weed control. Overall trends in herbicide use should give some measure of risk to plants, but this does not take into account differences in the susceptibility of different weed species. An alternative approach has been examined by Ewald and Aebischer, (1999) to measure changes both in herbicide use and in spectrum of weeds at risk. This approach was applied to datasets for herbicide use in the Game Conservancy Trust Sussex study area over the years 1970-1995. A plot of number of weed taxa classed as susceptible through to resistant to the herbicides used, shows that in this locality, although the area treated remained constant throughout the study, the number of weed taxa classed as susceptible increased over time.
Although the methodology used in this study has shortcomings, for example pesticide label information is not a comprehensive indicator of species potentially at risk, our recommendation is that a simple measure of risk along these lines should be developed further, given the importance of weed control (including herbicide use) on plant biodiversity. Further work is needed on the responses that may be needed to such an indicator of changing risk, including the requirements for advisory activity on timing of applications and product selectivity.
Recommendations
Measures of changing relative risk will enable an interpretation of the significance for the environment of the changes in usage pattern provided by the "Pressures" indicators. The subgroup therefore gives high priority to the further development and subsequent uptake of these indicators. It needs to be recognised, however, that action required to reduce hazard (and hence risk) lies with the regulatory authorities and manufacturers when developing new products, whilst uptake of risk management measures is an aspect which the work of the Forum could expect to address. Other ("Response") indicators are therefore needed which demonstrate action taken by users which reduce risk in the field (e.g. compliance with Local Environment Risk Assessment for Pesticides (LERAPS) requirements). These measures are discussed further in Section 8.
Terrestrial Biodiversity (Vertebrates, Invertebrates, Plants): Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.9.1. | The Pesticides Forum should encourage further work on the development of pesticide risk measures for vertebrates and invertebrates in the terrestrial environment, along the lines of those developed for aquatic risks, and should recommend that such risk measures are subsequently adopted as indicators of changes in risk over time. | High |
| R 5.9.2. | The Pesticides Forum should encourage the further development of a risk index for plants as a measure of overall risks to farmland plant biodiversity. | High |
5.10. Impacts On Terrestrial Wildlife (Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS)
The Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) provides a means of assessing the impact of pesticide incidents on wildlife in the field. Incidents arising from approved use are not frequent (although they have been in the past) but numbers of incidents arising from abuse of pesticides have not changed in recent years. WIIS data can be used to provide information on trends in pesticide incidents involving vertebrate wildlife (but for only a limited range of invertebrates). Trends in incidents involving pesticide abuse and misuse are relevant indicators for responsible use whilst incidents of approved use provide a potential indicator of the effectiveness of risk reduction measures. The fact that there has been little change in the level of abuse incidents should be of particular concern to the Pesticides Forum, since no level of abuse can be considered acceptable.
Table 5.10.1. Numbers of vertebrate related incidents and category of use 1993-1998 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 |
| Number of incidents | 190 | 191 | 175 | 196 | 170 | 173 |
| Abuse | 105 | 115 | 112 | 136 | 125 | 95 |
| Misuse | 22 | 21 | 21 | 19 | 21 | 45 |
| Approved use | 14 | 12 | 5 | 11 | 3 | 4 |
| Unspecified | 41 | 39 | 32 | 26 | 21 | 22 |
The only invertebrates monitored under WIIS are honey bees, reflecting the commercial interests of bee keepers to losses of income. There have been suggestions for expanding the scheme to bumble bees. Other pollinators/beneficials such as hoverflies, ladybirds, lacewings or other reasonably identifiable, high profile insects could also be included. Other beneficial invertebrates are not monitored by WIIS and have never been discussed e.g. chick food insects (sawfly larvae, Heteroptera, Carabidae).
WIIS has shortcomings in that only a limited range of taxa are surveyed, some groups are far more readily assessed than others (e.g. smaller spp. are not well-recorded), sub-lethal and chronic effects are not measured, and although analytical techniques are available for detection of a wide range of pesticide residues, only a limited range of pesticides can be included in the suite of analyses undertaken.
The Pesticides Forum should make recommendations for the further examination of possible changes to WIIS which would improve its value as an indicator. However as a measure of proportion of reported mortality incidents that are due to pesticides, it currently provides a useful measure of changing risk to vertebrates under the present categories of abuse, misuse and approved use incidents.
Recommendations
Despite its present shortcomings, as a readily available measure of the direct impact of pesticides on wildlife the Pesticides Forum recommends that high priority is given to the adoption of the Wildlife Incidents Investigation Scheme as an indicator. Whilst we have recommended that high priority is also given to re-examining and refining the information that is collected under WIIS, we consider also that equally high priority should be given to enforcement, regulatory and advisory action in response to the issues identified under the scheme.
Impacts On Terrestrial Wildlife (Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme WIIS): Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.10.1. | The Pesticides Forum should ask that the role of WIIS is examined with a view to improving its coverage of wildlife incidents. | High |
| R 5.10.2. | The Pesticides Forum should now promote the use of WIIS data as an indicator of pesticide impacts on wildlife. | High |
| R 5.10.3. | The Pesticides Forum should ask that further steps are taken to tackle the problem of pesticide abuse. | High |
| R 5.10.4. | The Pesticides Forum should encourage greater evaluation of the environmental impact of non-chemical crop protection and crop management practices in comparison with those of pesticides | High |
5.11. Pesticide Residues In Terrestrial Wildlife
There are rather few monitoring programmes which could provide information on temporal trends in contamination levels of wildlife. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) continues to provide funding towards surveys by Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) of residues in birds of prey and some aquatic bird species, including Dicholo-diphenol-trichloro-ethane (DDT) and dieldrin metabolites, which have run over 30 years. The surveys show a continuing decline in residues of these persistent pesticides and their metabolites in wildlife and so are important indicators of the success of previous policy and regulatory measures in addressing an issue of identified environmental impact due to pesticide use. Surveys of this group of pesticides are largely not now relevant to the work of the Pesticides Forum since current levels of exposure to such residues probably do not reflect current levels of usage. However, a survey, under the same scheme, of second-generation rodenticide residues in barn owls (and planned retrospectively for red kites also) over a 15-20 year period gives a valuable indication of the changing risk due to this group of pesticides. The survey shows that a high proportion of the barn owl population in Britain now has detectable levels of contamination by these pesticides:
Table 5.11.1. Percentage of barn owls with livers containing residues of rodenticides, 1983 - 1998 | 1983-4 | 1985-6 | 1987-8 | 1989-90 | 1991-2 | 1993-4 | 1995-6 | 1998 |
| number of owls tested | 20 | 76 | 64 | 141 | 162 | 139 | 109 | 54 |
| % with residues | 5 | 12 | 17 | 22 | 32 | 30 | 38 | 52 |
The Pesticides Forum should consider these data and make recommendations on their value as an indicator to the Biocides Usage Group (a sister group to the Pesticides Forum) since rodenticides are classed as biocides under the Biocides Directive. Surveys of other groups of wildlife have shown similarly high levels of contamination by rodenticides in mammals such as polecats and other mustelids. Given the widespread occurrence of contamination of wildlife by rodenticides, as well as the changing risks to wildlife following the spread of second-generation rodenticide resistance, the Pesticides Forum should recommend also that risk assessments for these products are revisited. Other contaminants in wildlife are measured routinely by CEH (such as lindane). There may be value in further investigating the availability of, or requirement for, such data as an indicator for a.i.s currently in use, such as molluscicides or seed treatments where exposure may be high and where risk management measures are needed to reduce exposure to acceptable levels. However, it should be recognised that levels of contamination per se, although they may provide an indication of exposure, are not necessarily an indicator of changes in wildlife risk. Any further development of monitoring and hence of indicators based on residues in wildlife should be targeted at areas of highest perceived risk to wildlife.
No long-term study of contamination of invertebrates exists.
Pesticide Residues In Terrestrial Wildlife : Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.11.1. | The Pesticides Forum should encourage appropriate organisations such as the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) Environment Panel to consider the role of long-term datasets of pesticide residues in vertebrates as pesticide indicators and recommend the continuation of and extension of such monitoring where it is likely to provide information of value to regulators. | Medium |
| R 5.11.2. | The Pesticides Forum should recommend that the Biocides Usage Group utilises the available datasets on rodenticide residues in wildlife in informing its own work towards the safe use of biocides and that risk assessments for this group of products are revisited. | High |
5.12. Operator And Human Exposure
Pesticides Incidents report
Data on operator or human exposure is collected by HSE field officers and reviewed by the Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel (PIAP). The primary aim in collecting this data is to provide specific feedback into the relevant approvals system to ensure that when those products are reviewed all the relevant data can be taken into consideration. However, the specific nature of the reports has resulted is some misunderstanding of the role of PIAP. In effect, this means that PIAP would report one incident regardless of the number of people or animals affected by a pesticide whereas Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) generally refer to exposure and hence would count individual humans or animals as separate cases.
Figure 5.12.1. HSE (Field Operations Directorate (FOD)) Inspectorate alleged ill-health incidents and other complaints 1992/93 to 1999/2000.
There is a general view that HSE inspectors attend all reported incidents and collate and report their findings diligently. Again, their success in encouraging members of the public to report such incidents has adversely affected the speed at which their officers can attend the scene of each incident. On occasion this means that by the time the officer reaches the scene of the incident, the physical evidence may have been lost or severely limited and this can result in no further action being taken.
Figure 5.12.2. PIAP Activity of Incidents 1989/90 to 1998/99 (All incidents).
Figure 5.12.3. PIAP Activity of Incidents 1989/90 to 1998/99 (Confirmed/likely incidents).
Although PIAP reports on the health of people at work, members of the public who may be affected by work activities and with the effect of pesticides in the environment, data is also occasionally collected within HSE on the failure to apply the code of practice for the safe use of pesticides on farms and holdings (covered by the Green Code). Although this data may be statistically insignificant it could provide a qualitative survey of the success, or otherwise, of the Government's policy to encourage responsible use of pesticides.
Pesticides Incidents report : Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.12.1. | Recognise that PIAP information represents the best data set available. | Low |
| R 5.12.2. | Consider whether a sub-set of this data could provide more information on the exposure of every human or animal to the effects of pesticides. | Low |
| R 5.12.3. | Investigate whether data on the failure to apply the 'Green Code' could offer a useful indication of the policy of 'responsible use'. | Low |
5.13. Residues In Food
Pesticide Residues Committee
PSD collects, on behalf of the Pesticide Residues Committee (formally known as the Working Party on Pesticide Residues), samples of a range of foods on sale in the UK each year which are tested for the presence of pesticides. In 1998 for example over 2,000 samples of UK and imported produce were analysed with over 90,000 individual tests being carried out on these samples. Samples are taken from different retail outlets (major supermarkets, independent grocers and market stalls) throughout the UK.
The produce sampled depends on a number of factors but in general resources are targeted on commodities where residues are likely to be found. The results are therefore likely to be an exaggeration of the level of pesticide residues present in the UK food supply.
Produce which is significant to the UK diet forms a large part of the sampling. A range of fruit, vegetables, cereal-based and animal products are monitored each year. Milk, bread and potatoes are subject to monitoring every year. Other produce such as oranges, peaches and chicken are monitored on a rolling programme. The frequency of monitoring depends on the importance of the commodity in the diet and the likelihood of finding residues.
There are legal limits for pesticide residues which are known as maximum residue levels Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs). These are not safety levels. They are the maximum amount of pesticide which is expected in a product if a pesticide has been applied correctly to a crop. To help assess the risk to consumer health, advisory intake limits are set. The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is an advisory limit. This provides information on the amount of pesticide which can be consumed safely every day throughout life without any possibility of ill health. Large safety margins are built into these figures. An ADI is set so that even someone who eats large amounts of particular products should not exceed this advisory limit and therefore would come to no harm.
Despite targeting commodities where residues are likely to be found, in most cases the large majority of samples contain no detectable residues. A proportion of the remainder contain some residues and a very small amount contain residues above the MRL.
There is also monitoring of produce which may be significant in ethnic diets. Many of these foods are not grown in the EU and come from third countries. If the exporting country has not applied for an MRL in effect a 'no residue' level is set. Such third world country produce can significantly effect the overall number of MRL exceedences. However, it is also important not to lose sight of the need to measure non-approved UK uses of pesticides.
.gif)
Residues In Food: Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.13.1. | Prepare data showing only MRL exceedences of all UK grown produce (PSD is already considering the production of such a table). | Low |
| R 5.13.2. | Investigate what data are maintained by the Committee and whether this could form the basis of alternative tables showing residues in food. | Low |
| R 5.13.3. | Investigate whether retailers would be prepared to release data showing the proportion of produce which reaches them and is refused on the grounds of exceedence. | Low |
Potential Indicators
- Consider whether the monitoring of staple diet produce (milk and potatoes) could form a separate table. As the majority of the samples are of UK origin this could be used as a sub-set of the total UK produce table.
- Consider the development of a table showing produce that is both grown in this country and is also imported in reasonable quantities and which is surveyed on a regular basis. Examples of such produce include apples, pears and carrots. This could show the relative performance of UK growers against its European counterparts.
- Consider the use of data from retailers to show whether there is a significant problem with produce being turned down as a result of excessive residues.
Residues In Food : Recommendations | Recommendations: | Priority for action |
| R 5.13.4. | The Pesticides Forum should encourage potential indicators to be developed with specific reference to UK food production. | High |
The above documents have again been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading.
The Adobe Acrobat Reader can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents --www.adobe.co.uk/products/acrobat/readermain.html
