(MENAFN- Gulf Times) The
assumption by regulators around the world that it is safe to use
pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes is false, according to
a chief scientific adviser to the UK government.
The lack of any
limit on the total amount of pesticides used and the virtual absence of
monitoring of their effects in the environment means it can take years
for the impacts to become apparent, say professor Ian Boyd and his
colleague Alice Milner in a new article.
The damning assessment of
pesticide regulations that are meant to protect the global environment
follows a growing number of highly critical reports including research
showing farmers could slash their pesticide use without losses and a UN
report that denounced the 'myth that pesticides are necessary to feed
the world.
'The current assumption underlying pesticide regulation
that chemicals that pass a battery of tests in the laboratory or in
field trials are environmentally benign when they are used at industrial
scales is false, state the scientists in their article published in
the journal Science. Boyd is chief scientific adviser to the UK's
department of environment, food and rural affairs, where Milner also
works on secondment, but their criticism reflects their own views.
'The
effects of dosing whole landscapes with chemicals have been largely
ignored by regulatory systems, the scientists said. 'This can and
should be changed. They contrast this situation with pharmaceuticals,
for which there is a system of rigorous global monitoring after a drug
is approved in case adverse effects emerge.
'Vigilance on the scale
that is required for medicines does not exist to assess the effects of
pesticides in the environment, they said. They cite the UK as an
example of one of the most developed regulatory systems: 'Yet it has no
systematic monitoring of pesticide residues in the environment. There is
no consideration of safe pesticide limits at landscape scales.
The
scientists' article also criticises the widespread use of pesticides as
preventive treatments, rather than being used sparingly and only when
needed.
Milner told the Guardian: 'We want to start a discussion
about how we can introduce a global monitoring programme for pesticides,
similar to pharmaceuticals. It can take years to fully understand the
environmental impact.
'Any chemical you put into the environment has
the potential to be widely distributed, she said. 'We've known this
for decades, particularly through the early work in the 1960s the
Silent Spring, DDT and so on and you can find chemicals in places that
have not been treated because of the connectivity of ecosystems. There
are often quite unexpected effects (and) you often don't see them until
the pesticide is used at more industrial scales.
Matt Shardlow of
the conservation group Buglife said: 'Pesticides have got big on society
the thin veil of science around the approvals process has been
exposed and the marketing strategies are stronger than the products they
tout.
'If you think the biggest governments in the world are wrapped
around the pesticide industry's fingers, that's nothing compared to the
35% of countries that have no regulation at all. It looks as if only an
international convention can get pesticides back into a box that helps
rather than harms us. It can't come soon enough.
The UK government
has repeatedly opposed increased European restrictions on widely used
insecticides that are linked to serious harm in bees, but a partial ban
was backed by other nations and introduced in 2013.
However, the
Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, said in July that changes to
pesticide regulation were being considered: 'Certainly, it is the case
that anyone who has seen the (recent) scientific evidence must
inevitably contemplate the need for further restrictions on their use.
After Brexit, he said: 'Informed by rigorous scientific analysis, we can
develop global gold-standard policies on pesticides and chemicals.
Keith
Tyrell, at Pesticide Action Network, said the current pesticide
management system was not fit for purpose: 'We don't know how a
pesticide will really impact the environment until it is too late. It
can take years before enough scientific evidence is collected to
persuade regulators to take action, and they will be fought every step
of the way by pesticide manufacturers who make millions from these
products.
The UN report in March was severely critical of the global
corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the
'systematic denial of harms, 'aggressive, unethical marketing tactics
and heavy lobbying of governments which has 'obstructed reforms and
paralysed global pesticide restrictions.
Sarah Mukherjee, chief
executive of an industry group called the Crop Protection Association,
said: 'As (Boyd and Milner) themselves acknowledge, crop-protection
products are a fundamental component of a sustainable, productive
agricultural sector which seek to strike the right balance between
protecting the environment and providing a reliable supply of safe,
healthy, affordable food.
'Pesticides are amongst the most heavily
regulated products in the world. It takes up to 12 years and costs over
£200mn to bring a new product to market. This process, involving
rigorous scrutiny by independent scientific experts, ensures plant
protection products are safe before they reach the market.
MENAFN2509201700670000ID1095897486
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.