Destruction of biodiversity (pollinators, vertebrates, birds and even mammals), pollution of surface water and the groundwater tables, as well as exposure by all human beings to toxic pesticides – such is the troubling and unforgiving picture of the impact that pesticides have on the environment, described on Thursday 6 September by three scientists and the NGOs that attended the last hearing organised by the special PEST committee of the European Parliament.
It is essential to take into account this devastating impact during procedures for the evaluation and authorisation of pesticides in the EU, the committee members opined, although some – like Angelique Delahaye (EPP) – expressed concern about the future of agriculture.
The experts, for their part, gave their assurance that another model of farming is possible without or almost without pesticides, and that methods for mitigation of the risks do exist. They called for farmers to be trained in alternative methods and attacked the myth that it is absolutely necessary to use pesticides to feed the world’s population.
Eric Andrieu (S&D), who chairs the committee, expressed confidence that such contributions from civil society will be used to advantage in the report being prepared by Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium) and Norbert Lins (EPP, Germany), to be voted on 6 December “according to schedule”, he trusts.
Jeroen P. Van der Sluijs, professor at the University of Bergen and Utrecht (Netherlands), was critical of systemic pesticides used as a preventive measure, especially neonicotinoids, which are the “main culprits” for bee mortality, and which represent 40% of the pesticide market. He argues a global treaty is needed to protect birds, restore pollinators, and put an end to the use of neonicotinoids.
In response to Bart Staes who asked him what the impact of pesticides would be on human health, the professor spoke of a 2015 study carried out in the United States, findings of which show that 100% of fruit and vegetables contain at least one residue and 45% of all vegetables at least two. He cited a 2008 study showing that neonicotinoids have an influence on hormonal chemistry, a 2014 study giving evidence of their toxicity, and a Japanese study which establishes a link with autism. He added: “We know there is neuro-environmental toxicity for mammals”.
Mireille d’Ornano of France, coordinator for the ELDD group, expressed surprise that “most MEPs” had “not voted on an amendment” that she had put forward in March calling for a total ban on all neonicotinoids.
Noa Simon-Delso, from the Belgium apiculture research and information centre for the protection of bees (CARI) underlined that, with regards the toxicity of neonicotinoids, it is the duration of exposure that counts. “If the concentration is reduced, there are nonetheless sub-lethal effects, never taken into account when neonicotinoids are evaluated. Even at very low concentrations, it is possible for bees to die. Bees are an excellent indicator of what is happening in the environment. Pesticides are far more mobile in the environment than previously thought”, she said.
Ettore Capri, professor at the European observatory for sustainable farming (OPERA) presented a method for attenuating pesticide risks – “a tool box that can be used in practice to help member states. This is a framework for long-term use that allows for best practices to be generalised, to encourage them at local level” in order to manage risks in the fields and elsewhere.
Taking the example of glyphosate, Franziska Achterberg, an expert on food with Greenpeace Europe, bemoans that the Commission, “when it takes measures, leaves it up to the member states to manage the risks” and that half of the member states resort to Article 53 of the “pesticides” regulation (1107/2009) on emergency uses to obtain derogation. She recommends that, in future, the EFSA and the state rapporteur should proceed to a truly independent evaluation based on an exhaustive analysis of scientific data. She recommends that the Commission, which has “enormous discretionary powers”, should restrict or ban the use of pesticides presenting environmental and public health risks without abandoning its responsibilities and that it ensures implementation of Article 53 of Regulation 1107/2009. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)