Health and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 ... · Health and environmental effects...

Health and environmental effects of Health and environmental effects of Health and environmental effects of Health and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides pesticides and type 18 biocides pesticides and type 18 biocides pesticides and type 18 biocides

(HEEPEBI)(HEEPEBI)(HEEPEBI)(HEEPEBI) Report from the contract AP/02/05A between theReport from the contract AP/02/05A between theReport from the contract AP/02/05A between theReport from the contract AP/02/05A between the Belgian Science Policy and Department Belgian Science Policy and Department Belgian Science Policy and Department Belgian Science Policy and Department of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Unité deUnité deUnité deUnité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas)(Ecolas)(Ecolas)(Ecolas) Vergucht, S.Vergucht, S.Vergucht, S.Vergucht, S.1111; de Voghel, S.; de Voghel, S.; de Voghel, S.; de Voghel, S.2222; Misson, C.; Misson, C.; Misson, C.; Misson, C.3 3 3 3 (until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.(until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.(until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.(until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.3 3 3 3 (from 01/02/06); (from 01/02/06); (from 01/02/06); (from 01/02/06); Callebaut, K.Callebaut, K.Callebaut, K.Callebaut, K.4444; Steurbaut, W.; Steurbaut, W.; Steurbaut, W.; Steurbaut, W.1111; Pussemier, L.; Pussemier, L.; Pussemier, L.; Pussemier, L.2222 ; Marot, J.; Marot, J.; Marot, J.; Marot, J.3333 ; Maraite, H.; Maraite, H.; Maraite, H.; Maraite, H.3333 ; Vanhaecke, P.; Vanhaecke, P.; Vanhaecke, P.; Vanhaecke, P.4444 1 1 1 1 : Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University: Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University: Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University: Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University 2222: Vete: Vete: Vete: Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervurenrinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervurenrinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervurenrinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervuren 3333: Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL): Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL): Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL): Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) 4444: Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas): Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas): Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas): Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas)

September 2006September 2006September 2006September 2006

HealthHealthHealthHealth and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)

TTTTABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION TASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIETASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIETASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIETASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON THE NTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON THE NTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON THE NTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN HEALTH AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN HEALTH AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN HEALTH AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

1 Risk assessment: general approach ........................................................................... 3

1.1 Overall principles.......................................................................................................3 1.1.1 Determination of the potential hazard ...................................................................................... 4 1.1.2 Exposure assessment ................................................................................................................ 4 1.1.3 Effect assessment...................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.4 Risk characterization ................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Some introductory definitions ...................................................................................5 1.2.1 General definitions ................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Toxicological definitions .......................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Tests required for the authorization of active substances, plant protection products and biocides............................................................................................................7

1.3.1 Tests for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 91/414/EC) ........................................ 8 1.3.2 Tests for the authorization of a plant protection product (Dir. 91/414/EC) .............................. 9 1.3.3 Tests for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 98/8/EC) .......................................... 11 1.3.4 Tests required for the authorization of a biocidal product (Dir. 98/8/EC).............................. 12

2 Review of pesticide and biocide toxicity................................................................... 14

2.1 Human effects worldwide ........................................................................................14 2.1.1 Overview of the possible effects............................................................................................. 14 2.1.2 Uncertainties and critical appraisal of toxicity studies ........................................................... 40

2.2 Environmental effects worldwide............................................................................45 2.2.1 Review of the current situation about water quality............................................................... 45 2.2.2 Review of effects on useful arthropods and other invertebrates ............................................. 61 2.2.3 Review of effects on vertebrates............................................................................................. 74

3 Exposure assessment ................................................................................................ 91

3.1 Exposure to pesticides in agriculture ......................................................................91 3.1.1 Occupational pesticide exposure ............................................................................................ 91 3.1.2 Operators, farm workers and bystanders ................................................................................ 92 3.1.3 Secondary exposure................................................................................................................ 92 3.1.4 Consumers .............................................................................................................................. 94 3.1.5 Professionals or general population (biocides) ....................................................................... 98 3.1.6 Factors influencing exposure................................................................................................ 100 3.1.7 Exposure routes .................................................................................................................... 102

3.2 Operator exposure models.....................................................................................103 3.2.1 Existing exposure models ..................................................................................................... 104

4 References ............................................................................................................... 111

TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USETHE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USETHE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USETHE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USE

HealthHealthHealthHealth and en and en and en and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)vironmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)vironmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)vironmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)

1 Analysis of the possible origin of environmental damages from pesticides in Belgium with identification of knowledge gaps ............................................................ 140

1.1 Review of the current situation about water quality in the local context of Belgium ................................................................................................................................140

1.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 140 1.1.2 State for ground waters......................................................................................................... 140 1.1.3 State for surface waters......................................................................................................... 146 1.1.4 Legislation ............................................................................................................................ 155 1.1.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 155

1.2 Review of the current situation about other environmental contaminations in the local context of Belgium ....................................................................................................157

1.2.1 Invertebrates and fishes in North Sea and Scheldt................................................................ 157 1.2.2 Invertebrates ......................................................................................................................... 158 1.2.3 Vertebrates............................................................................................................................ 160 1.2.4 Atmosphere........................................................................................................................... 164 1.2.5 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 169 1.2.6 Summary............................................................................................................................... 172

1.3 Review of application techniques and effects on the drift problem......................173 1.3.1 Drift ...................................................................................................................................... 173 1.3.2 Application techniques of plant protection products mostly used in Belgium and their effects on drift problem................................................................................................................................. 178 1.3.3 Legislation ............................................................................................................................ 184

2 Review of pesticide and biocide toxicity for human beings in Belgium ............... 185

2.1 Acute pesticide exposure in Belgium (National Poison Centre Belgium, 2004) ...185

2.2 Chronic pesticide exposure: cancers and birth defects in Belgium (Janssens et al., 2002) ................................................................................................................................186

2.2.1 Lung cancer .......................................................................................................................... 186 2.2.2 Colorectal cancer .................................................................................................................. 187 2.2.3 Hormone dependent cancers................................................................................................. 187 2.2.4 Testicular cancer................................................................................................................... 187 2.2.5 Soft tissue sarcomas.............................................................................................................. 188 2.2.6 Spina bifida........................................................................................................................... 188

3 Pesticide and Biocide exposure assessment in Belgium ....................................... 189

3.1 Uncertainties and special problems with regard to exposure...............................189 3.1.1 Relevance of specific applications........................................................................................ 189 3.1.2 Problems with availability of data ........................................................................................ 189

3.2 Exposure of the consumer at the Belgian level......................................................191 3.2.1 Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for consumers ................... 191 3.2.2 Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring program..................... 192 3.2.3 Non official residue monitoring............................................................................................ 200

3.3 Pesticide exposure at farm level in Belgium..........................................................207 3.3.1 Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide use...................... 207

3.4 Biocides exposure at the Belgian level ...................................................................221 3.4.1 Selection of relevant active substances................................................................................. 221 3.4.2 Assessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect data ................................................. 224 3.4.3 Uncertainties to identify and quantify exposure routes for biocides..................................... 225

4 References ............................................................................................................... 235


TASK 3: RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRAINTSTASK 3: RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRAINTSTASK 3: RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRAINTSTASK 3: RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRAINTS

1 Impact of the behaviour of farmers and non-agricultural users in environmental contamination and health hazards ................................................................................ 244

1.1 Constraints in the adaptation of good pesticide use practices ..............................244

1.2 Analysis of the impact of decision-supporting elements for responsible pesticide use ................................................................................................................................247

1.2.1 Aims of the decision supporting systems.............................................................................. 247 1.2.2 Use of the decision support systems by the Belgian farmers................................................ 247 1.2.3 Impact of the main decision support systems used in field crops on a responsible pesticide use .............................................................................................................................................. 248 1.2.4 Impact of the main decision support systems used in fruit and vegetable crops on a responsible pesticides use .................................................................................................................. 251

1.3 Decision support software systems ........................................................................252

1.4 Products labeling ...................................................................................................252 1.4.1 Integrated production (Belgian examples)............................................................................ 252

1.5 Conclusion..............................................................................................................261

2 Pesticide risk evaluation of the Belgian situation ................................................. 263

2.1 Different types of indicators for measuring the impact of pesticides ...................263 2.1.1 “Use”-indicator (e.g. Use) .................................................................................................... 263 2.1.2 Single-impact- indicator (e.g. Seq) ....................................................................................... 263 2.1.3 Multi-impact indicator (e.g. the Dutch Environmental Indicator) ........................................ 264 2.1.4 Risk indicators for consumers .............................................................................................. 265 2.1.5 HArmonised environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk: HAIR (Luttik, 2004)................. 268

2.2 Evaluation of the Belgian situation for applicators and consumers with PRIBEL.... ................................................................................................................................268

2.2.1 Risk calculations................................................................................................................... 268 2.2.2 Data sources.......................................................................................................................... 269 2.2.3 Five pesticide groups ............................................................................................................ 269 2.2.4 Nine crop groups .................................................................................................................. 270 2.2.5 PRIBEL results for the applicator on the Belgian level........................................................ 270 2.2.6 PRIBEL results for the consumer on the Belgian level ........................................................ 284 2.2.7 Evaluation of the impact on consumers from alternative scenarios......................................297 2.2.8 Organic farming and Integrated Pest Management (Greenlabels) ........................................ 299

3 Biocide risk evaluation of the Belgian situation ................................................... 303

3.1 Selection of the risk indicator ................................................................................303

3.2 Description of the indicator ...................................................................................303 3.2.1 Applicator exposure assessment ........................................................................................... 303 3.2.2 Secondary exposure assessment ........................................................................................... 313 3.2.3 Effect assessment.................................................................................................................. 317 3.2.4 Risk assessment .................................................................................................................... 318

3.3 Uncertainties in the application of risk assessment indicator...............................323 3.3.1 Exposure assessment ............................................................................................................ 323 3.3.2 Effect assessment.................................................................................................................. 325

4 References ............................................................................................................... 327


TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE IMPACTIMPACTIMPACTIMPACT

1 Agronomic aspects .................................................................................................. 333

1.1 Extension of good phytosanitary practices............................................................333 1.1.1 Usefulness and objectives..................................................................................................... 333 1.1.2 Methods of extension of good phytosanitary practices......................................................... 333 1.1.3 Means and actions to be implemented.................................................................................. 334

1.2 Evaluation of the impact of decision supporting systems on farmers' practices..335

1.3 Reduction of drift and impact on water ................................................................336

1.4 Evaluation of alternative methods for crop protection.........................................338 1.4.1 Biopesticides......................................................................................................................... 338 1.4.2 Pests' predators and parasites................................................................................................ 340 1.4.3 Physical weeding .................................................................................................................. 341 1.4.4 Prophylaxis and cultural methods......................................................................................... 342 1.4.5 Means and actions to be implemented for extension of the integrated crop management.... 342

2 Quantification techniques for pesticide impact assessment.................................. 345

2.1 Measures to reduce the impact on the environment .............................................345 2.1.1 Measures to reduce direct losses........................................................................................... 345 2.1.2 Measures to reduce diffuse losses......................................................................................... 348 2.1.3 Measures to reduce the applied amounts .............................................................................. 356

2.2 Measures to reduce the impact on the applicator's health ...................................358 2.2.1 Factors influencing exposure................................................................................................ 358 2.2.2 Exposure mitigation measures.............................................................................................. 359 2.2.3 Formulation of the active substances.................................................................................... 360 2.2.4 Personal protective equipment.............................................................................................. 361 2.2.5 Hygiene after treatment ........................................................................................................ 363 2.2.6 Material equipment............................................................................................................... 363 2.2.7 Choice of the product............................................................................................................ 363 2.2.8 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 364

2.3 Measures to reduce the impact on the field worker’s health ................................364

2.4 Measures to reduce the impact on the bystander's health....................................365 2.4.1 Factors influencing spray drift .............................................................................................. 365

2.5 Conclusion..............................................................................................................366

2.6 Evaluation of some of these measures via the PRIBEL indicator ........................366

3 Risks for the consumers.......................................................................................... 372

3.1 Strong and weak points of the monitoring program.............................................372 3.1.1 Foodstuffs and pesticides tested ........................................................................................... 372 3.1.2 Targeted vs Random surveillance program .......................................................................... 372 3.1.3 Environmental contaminants ................................................................................................ 372 3.1.4 Pre-market controls............................................................................................................... 373

3.2 Possible gaps and alternative assessment ..............................................................373 3.2.1 Modelling consumers exposure with accuracy ..................................................................... 373 3.2.2 Risk assessment and risk indicator ....................................................................................... 374

3.3 Improvement of field practices..............................................................................375 3.3.1 Good Agricultural Practices ................................................................................................. 375


3.3.2 Importance of Integrated Pest Management systems............................................................ 375 3.3.3 Organic farming.................................................................................................................... 376

4 Biocidal effects........................................................................................................ 377

4.1 Needs for further research to enhance knowledge of impact of biocides PT18....377 4.1.1 Identifying accurate exposure scenarios ............................................................................... 378 4.1.2 Identifying an accurate human health effect endpoint .......................................................... 381 4.1.3 Quantifying environmental impact ....................................................................................... 382

4.2 Action plan for the integration of impact data of biocides PT18 in a risk reduction programme ........................................................................................................................383

5 References ............................................................................................................... 384

TASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHTASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHTASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHTASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH

1 List of suggestions and measures………………………………….……….......…392

1.1 Training of applicators ..........................................................................................392

1.2 Stewardship............................................................................................................392

1.3 Sustainable crop protection by labeling and certification systems.......................393

1.4 Economic aspects ...................................................................................................393

1.5 Need of research.....................................................................................................393

1.6 Need of data ...........................................................................................................395 1.6.1 Usage data ............................................................................................................................ 395 1.6.2 Sales data .............................................................................................................................. 395 1.6.3 (Eco)tox and food consumption data .................................................................................... 395

1.7 Development of response indicators......................................................................395

1.8 Specific measures and their importance ...............................................................396

1.9 Measures to be taken by the authorities................................................................397

2 Overall conclusion.................................................................................................. 397

1 ANNEXES TASK 1................................................................................................. 399

2 ANNEXES TASK 2................................................................................................. 418

3 ANNEXES TASK 3................................................................................................. 447

HeaHeaHeaHealthlthlthlth and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) 1

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This study handles the impact assessment of pesticides (for agricultural and non-agricultural use) and biocides (type 18: insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods). The main purpose is to inventory this impact for the Belgian situation in order to use the outcoming results as an instrument for the pesticide and biocide reduction plan of the Belgian government. The federal reduction program (KB 22/02/05) intends to decrease the risk associated with agricultural pesticides and biocides (product category EU-8-14-18) by about 25% and 50% over the next 5 years using 2001 as a reference year. Pesticides are necessary tools to provide high crop yields ensuring enough food supply for mankind and high quality of food products. PT18 biocides are used for hygiene and comfort purposes, covering professional as well as non professional uses (refuse dumps, stables, housing,…). Although the way they operate and the way they are applied improve continuously, they still can give rise to a range of (eco)toxicological side effects. A wise use of pesticides can contribute to a more sustainable agricultural production and can avoid a lot of the possible negative side effects. The avoidance of possible negative side effects also holds for a wise use of biocides. In order to be able to measure progress towards sustainability in crop protection or a use reduction in general, indicators are essential. Impact indicators for pesticides and biocides are simplified tools for assessing the consequence of an action (in this case the application of pest control products or practices) on environmental and health variables. They are more specifically designed to formulate quality guidelines and serve as the basis for expensive management actions. Whilst pesticide indicators are rather well developed and already applied, both scientists as well as decision makers face a relative dearth in biocide indicator developments. In this study a biocide-indicator is developed and evaluated in task 3. Concerning pesticide indicators the PRIBEL is used in task 3, to comply with the Belgian Pesticide Reduction Plan. Task 1Task 1Task 1Task 1 starts with a general approach of risk assessment. Furtheron a review of the scientific knowledge and literature on the possible effects of pesticides and biocides on human health and the environment is performed, even as a thorough exposure assessment with worldwide used exposure models and different influencing factors. The scientific literature is surveyed in order to obtain an updated idea. A lot of scientifically documented topics have been studied, and for each of them, the major scientific references are listed. For major topics, the effects are summarized. Relevant studies from neighbouring countries (the Netherlands, UK, France, Germany, Denmark) and from other developed countries (USA, Japan, …) are taken into consideration and, when relevant, compared with the Belgian situation. In this case a detailed and referenced part on the state of the art on human and environmental effects of pesticides and biocides is provided. Concerning biocides, an overview of specific case studies, which explicitly involve the use of PT18 products in a non-agricultural setting is given. Next to that, data for ecotoxicological endpoints are given for some of the most relevant PT18 biocidal active substances which are not allowed to occur in plant protection products. These endpoints were identified from the common core data set for active (chemical) substances and biocidal products.

HealthHealthHealthHealth and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) 2

Based on this information the specific and special problems and uncertainties of the Belgian situation for pesticide and biocide risks are investigated in task 2task 2task 2task 2. The risk in the local context of Belgium as well as on specific situations occurring in some parts of the country is evaluated. Uncertainties and special problems with regard to exposure (specific applications, data availability, exposure routes) and effects are addressed. Concerning biocides some active substances were selected by the expert judgment of the Steering Committee. A survey of the specific problems and possible risks of pesticide and biocide exposure in Belgium is given in this part of the study. In a next step (task 3task 3task 3task 3), the impact of pesticides and biocides surveyed in the previous tasks will be evaluated in a quantitative way by application of impact assessment systems. A very useful instrument is the PRIBEL indicator, a multi-component risk indicator system concept derived from POCER, which was designed by UGent and refined in collaboration with CODA/CERVA and UCL. Moreover the PRIBEL is used at the federal level to evaluate the Belgian Pesticide Reduction Program (2001 – 2010). Farmer’s attitude towards pesticides are analysed under the light of inquiries performed recently at the farm level. Specifically towards biocides task 3 covers the selection, description and application of a risk indicator, to quantify the impact of PT18 biocidal products on the health of the applicator and the secondary exposed person. Uncertainties with regard to the application of the indicator are also addressed. A prioritisation of actions for reduction of pesticide and biocide impact based on the quantitative evaluations of the possible risks is executed in task 4task 4task 4task 4. All possible actions for reduction are listed and some of those are implemented in the PRIBEL to calculate the quantitative reduction effect. Specifically towards biocides task 4 covers the needs for further research to enhance the knowledge of the impact of PT18 biocides. Furthermore, an action plan is proposed for the integration of impact data of biocides PT18 in a risk reduction programme. This part of the study results in a collection of all possible reduction measures that can be applied as actions in a strategy for reduction of certain aspects of the impact of pesticides and biocides. In a finalising part the scientific risk assessment from the previous tasks is used in order to make suggestions for research and to formulate practical conclusions. Task 5Task 5Task 5Task 5 is a collection of possible research topics and actions needed to ensure a continuous improvement of the crop protection systems in Belgium. This study is the result of a global integrated approach of the participating partners to this project (UGent, CODA-CERVA, UCL and ECOLAS) which are all very experienced in complementary parts of: agronomic aspects, exposure risk related to pesticide application, food residue problems, biocide exposure, risk assessment methodology, social aspects of pesticide usage, environmental problems, etc. Because of the clear complementary know-how of the four partners in different fields investigated in this project, this study has become a critical document which will be a very useful tool and guidance document to set up reduction measures and to help identifying the most appropriate risk management options for the Federal Pesticide Reduction Plan.


TASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFICTASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFICTASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFICTASK 1: REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE ON THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND BIOCIDES ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTHEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTHEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTHEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

1111 RRRRISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENT:::: GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH

1.1 Overall principles Risk analysis is a process that includes risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication (figure 1-1) (Nasreddine & Parent-Massin, 2002).

risk assessment

risk management risk communication

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----1: Risk analysis (Nasreddine and Parent1: Risk analysis (Nasreddine and Parent1: Risk analysis (Nasreddine and Parent1: Risk analysis (Nasreddine and Parent----Massin, 2002)Massin, 2002)Massin, 2002)Massin, 2002) Risk management is the process of weighing policy alternatives and, if required, selecting and implementing appropriate control options, including regulatory measures and subsequent enforcement. Risk communication consists of the interactive exchange of information and opinions related to the involved risk among risk assessors, risk managers, stakeholders, consumers and other concerned parties. Risk assessment is a scientific discipline that supplies information to describe the characteristics of a risk. It is the determination of the consequences and effects on short term and long term for individuals (human risk analysis) or for groups of organisms (environmental risk analysis) due to the use of a certain technology or a chemical substance. Risk assessment consists of four parts (figure 1-2): the identification of the potential hazard, exposure assessment, effect assessment and the ultimate risk characterization.

Hazard identification Data set

Exposure assessment Effect assessment

Risk characterization

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----2: Principle of risk assessment 2: Principle of risk assessment 2: Principle of risk assessment 2: Principle of risk assessment


1.1.11.1.11.1.11.1.1 Determination of the potential hazardDetermination of the potential hazardDetermination of the potential hazardDetermination of the potential hazard The terms hazard and risk constitute the pillars of the (eco)toxicology. A hazard can cause damage, illness, death or economic losses. The risk is the probability that something undesired will take place due to an (un)intentional exposure to a hazard. The potential hazard of a particular substance can be very high, whereas the risk is low. Hence, it is important that priority is given to the risks of the substances instead of the hazards. The determination of the potential hazard of a substance occurs by the evaluation of the data concerning the possible effects caused by the chemical compound under specific terms of exposure (Van Leeuwen, 1995). It is assumed that every chemical substance, hence, plant protection products and biocides as well, can cause a possible negative effect on mankind and the environment, and as a consequence a risk evaluation has to be performed.

1.1.21.1.21.1.21.1.2 Exposure assExposure assExposure assExposure assessmentessmentessmentessment The concentrations of the chemical substance to which the organisms or the individuals are exposed in the different compartments are measured or predicted in the exposure assessment. However, only for a limited number of substances measured values are available. For new substances that will be placed on the market a prediction of the concentrations is needed, which occurs on the basis of production or emission data and by means of multimedia models that consider equilibrium concentrations and transport.

1.1.31.1.31.1.31.1.3 Effect assessmentEffect assessmentEffect assessmentEffect assessment The concentration-response analysis of a particular substance is of major importance in the effect assessment. To determine the concentration of a substance and the time of exposure to that specific substance that is necessary to obtain a specific response, toxicity tests are used. Investigation is done into which selected, clear and quantifiable effects are caused by a marked concentration domain of a particular substance in a group of test organisms that are exposed under controlled circumstances. When talking about human toxicology, the term ‘dose’ is used, this is the amount administered to the body, whereas in the environmental toxicology the term ‘concentration’ is rather used, meaning the concentration in the environment to which the organisms are exposed.

Two types of toxicity tests can be distinguished: the acute and the chronic test.

The acute toxicity testThe acute toxicity testThe acute toxicity testThe acute toxicity test This is a short term test, which means that the test is executed during a small part of the life cycle of the organism. The endpoint of the test is the death of the organism. The exposed test group is compared with a control group that is not exposed to the substance to check the quality of the organisms and the testing procedure.

The acute toxicity is expressed as LC50 or EC50. The LC50 is the concentration of a chemical substance that causes 50% mortality in the test population after a specific exposure time. The EC50 is the concentration of a substance that causes a specific effect (behaviour, physiological,…) by 50% of the test organisms, after a specific exposure time.


The chronic toxicity testThe chronic toxicity testThe chronic toxicity testThe chronic toxicity test A group of test organisms is exposed to sublethal concentrations during a longer period of their life. Possible effect criteria are growth, reproduction, morphological changes, etc. These effects are also compared with possible effects of a non-exposed control group.

The chronic toxicity is expressed in NO(A)EC or LO(A)EC. NO(A)EC means No Observed (Adverse) Effect Concentration and is the maximal concentration of a test substance that does not cause statistically significant effects in the test group compared to the control group. The LO(A)EC is the Lowest Observed (Adverse) Effect Concentration and is the lowest concentration of a test substance that causes statistically significant effects in the test group when compared to the organisms of the control group. The terms NO(A)EL (No Observed (Adverse) Effect Level) and LO(A)EL (Lowest Observed (Adverse) Effect Level) are also commonly used.

1.1.41.1.41.1.41.1.4 Risk characterizationRisk characterizationRisk characterizationRisk characterization The risk caused by a specific substance is estimated by combining the exposure assessment and the effect assessment in the risk characterization.

1.2 Some introductory definitions 1.2.11.2.11.2.11.2.1 General definitionsGeneral definitionsGeneral definitionsGeneral definitions Plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)Plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)Plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)Plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC) These are active substances and preparations containing one or more active substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user, intended to:

� protect plants or plant products against all harmful organisms or prevent the action of such organisms;

� influence the life processes of plants, other than as a nutrient, (e.g. growth regulators);

� preserve plant products, in so far as such substances or products are not subject to special Council of Commission provisions on preservatives;

� destroy undesired plants; � destroy parts of plants, check or prevent undesired growth of plants;

Biocidal products (Dir. 98/8/EC)Biocidal products (Dir. 98/8/EC)Biocidal products (Dir. 98/8/EC)Biocidal products (Dir. 98/8/EC) Active substances and preparations containing one or more active substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user, intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism by chemical or biological means. Residues of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)Residues of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)Residues of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)Residues of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC) These are one or more substances present in or on plants or products of plant origin, edible animal products or elsewhere in the environment and resulting from the use of a plant protection product, including their metabolites and products resulting from their degradation or reaction.


Residues of biocides (DiResidues of biocides (DiResidues of biocides (DiResidues of biocides (Dir. 98/8/EC)r. 98/8/EC)r. 98/8/EC)r. 98/8/EC) The residues are defined as one or more of the substances present in a biocidal product which remains as a result of its use including the metabolites of such substances and products resulting from their degradation or reaction. Active substanActive substanActive substanActive substances of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)ces of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)ces of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC)ces of plant protection products (Dir. 91/414/EC) Active substances are chemical or natural substances having general or specific action:

� against harmful organisms; � on plants, parts of plants or plant products.

Active substances of biocides (Dir. 98/8/ECActive substances of biocides (Dir. 98/8/ECActive substances of biocides (Dir. 98/8/ECActive substances of biocides (Dir. 98/8/EC)))) A substance or micro-organism including a virus or a fungus having general or specific action on or against harmful organisms. Authorization of a plant protection product Authorization of a plant protection product Authorization of a plant protection product Authorization of a plant protection product (Dir. 91/414/EC)(Dir. 91/414/EC)(Dir. 91/414/EC)(Dir. 91/414/EC) This is the administrative act by which the competent authority of a Member State authorizes, following an application submitted by an applicant, the placing on the market of a plant protection product in its territory or in a part thereof. Authorization of biocides (Dir. 98/8/EC)Authorization of biocides (Dir. 98/8/EC)Authorization of biocides (Dir. 98/8/EC)Authorization of biocides (Dir. 98/8/EC) An administrative act by which the competent authority of a Member State authorises, following an application submitted by an applicant, the placing on the market of a biocidal product in its territory or in a part thereof. 1.2.21.2.21.2.21.2.2 Toxicological definitionsToxicological definitionsToxicological definitionsToxicological definitions HealthHealthHealthHealth----based guidance values/reference dosbased guidance values/reference dosbased guidance values/reference dosbased guidance values/reference doses es es es The acceptable daily intake (ADI), the acute reference dose (ARfD) and the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL) are often collectively termed health-based guidance values or reference doses. The ADI is defined as the daily intake of a substance in food that, in the light of present knowledge, can be consumed every day for a lifetime with no appreciable harmful effects. With some substances, notably pesticides, the ARfD, is also calculated, often from shorter-term studies than those that would support the ADI. The ARfD is defined as the amount of a substance in food that, in the light of present knowledge, can be consumed in the course of a day or at a single meal with no adverse effects. At present most ARfDs for pesticides are conservative since data from subchronic studies (eg. 90-day studies) may have to be used if specifically designed acute studies have not been performed: exceptions to this are pesticides reviewed or placed on the market very recently. The AOEL is defined as the maximum amount of a substance to which the operator, worker or bystander may be exposed without any adverse health effect. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) In any given study the NOAEL is the highest tested dose at which no adverse effect is observed. Typically a compound may exert a range of different types of toxic effect. That occurring at the lowest doses is referred to as the critical effect. The NOAEL identified in a particular test will be simply the highest dose level or concentration of the substance used in that test at which no statistically significant adverse effects were observed, i.e. it is an operational value derived from a limited test (European Commission, 2003).


The lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) The lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) The lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) The lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) The LOAEL is the lowest administered dose of a substance found to cause an adverse effect. The uncertainty factor (or assessment factor) The uncertainty factor (or assessment factor) The uncertainty factor (or assessment factor) The uncertainty factor (or assessment factor) For over 40 years, an uncertainty factor of 100 has been used for extrapolating experimental data from the NOAEL for the critical effect in animal studies to produce health-based guidance values/reference doses. The 100-fold value is considered to comprise a 10-fold factor for interspecies extrapolation and a 10-fold factor to cover human variability. It has been suggested that the 10-fold factor for the variability of the human population may be insufficient to cover certain subgroups in the population, for example children, the elderly and those with certain genetic polymorphisms (cfr. YOPI: young, old, pregnant and immunodeficient). The recognition that the single value of 100 provides no mechanism for utilising partial knowledge on the magnitude of inter-species and interindividual differences led to the concept of subdividing each of the two 10-fold uncertainty factors into toxicokinetic (factor of 4) and toxicodynamic (factor of 2.5) components (Renwick, 1993). This allows relevant chemical-specific data to be introduced into risk assessment. The default 100-fold factor may be increased if there are additional uncertainties in the data, for example if the toxicological data that are available for evaluation are poor. An extra uncertainty factor may be used on some occasions when the critical toxic endpoint is particularly serious. Situations that might justify use of an extra factor include teratogenicity, fetotoxicity or developmental neurotoxicity in the absence of maternal toxicity and non-genotoxic carcinogenicity (especially for rare tumours where the mechanism of production is unknown). The extra uncertainty factor might give additional assurance that people exposed at doses less than the health-based guidance value/reference dose will not subsequently suffer serious irreversible adverse effects.

1.3 Tests required for the authorization of active substances, plant protection products and biocides

A registration dossier for a new pesticide is needed for the homologation. Being a step of the risk assessment, establishment of threshold endpoints based on scientific experiments is contributing to avoid marketing of pesticide suspected to threaten public health. It is further developed in hazard characterization. Being the first step of risk assessment, hazard identification involves the detection and identification of a potential hazard and describes in qualitative terms the toxicological effect of the hazard (Tomerlin, 2000; Nasreddine & Parent-Massin, 2002). Hazard characterization consists in describing the toxicological properties related to a specific substance (Kuhnlein & Chan, 2000). Toxicity studies are conducted on experimental animals and lead to the establishment of threshold endpoints. First the tests required for the authorization of active substances and plant protection products are listed up, with the information based on the Directive 91/414/EC for plant protection products. Then the analogous tests for biocides are discussed, with Directive 98/8/EC as reference.


1.3.11.3.11.3.11.3.1 Tests for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 91/414/EC) Tests for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 91/414/EC) Tests for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 91/414/EC) Tests for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 91/414/EC)

Solely the common core data set for active substances is given. According to Directive 91/414/EC, an additional data set might be required for certain active substances. Toxicological and metabolism studiesToxicological and metabolism studiesToxicological and metabolism studiesToxicological and metabolism studies

� Studies on absorption, distribution, excretion and metabolism in mammals; � Acute toxicity

o Oral; o Percutaneous; o Inhalation; o Skin irritation; o Eye irritation; o Skin sensitization.

� Short term toxicity

o Oral 28-day study o Oral 90-day study o Other routes

� Genotoxicity testing

o In vitro studies; o In vivo studies.

� Long term toxicity and carcinogenicity; � Reproductive toxicity

o Multi-generation studies; o Developmental toxicity studies.

� Delayed neurotoxicity studies; � Other toxicological studies.

Residues in or on treated products, food and feedResidues in or on treated products, food and feedResidues in or on treated products, food and feedResidues in or on treated products, food and feed � Metabolism, distribution and expression of residue in plants; � Metabolism, distribution and expression of residue in livestock; � Residue trials; � Livestock feeding studies; � Effects of industrial processing and/or household preparations; � Residues in succeeding crops; � Proposed maximum residue levels (MRLs) and residue definition; � Proposed pre-harvest intervals for envisaged uses, or withholding periods or storage

periods, in the case of post-harvest uses; � Estimation of the potential and actual exposure through diet and other means.

Fate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environment � Fate and behaviour in soil

o Route and rate of degradation; o Adsorption and desorption;


o Mobility in the soil.

� Fate and behaviour in water and air o Route and rate of degradation in aquatic systems; o Route and rate of degradation in air.

Ecotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studies � Effects on birds

o Acute oral toxicity; o Short term dietary toxicity; o Subchronic toxicity and reproduction.

� Effects on aquatic organisms

o Acute toxicity to fish; o Chronic toxicity to fish; o Bioconcentration in fish; o Acute toxicity to aquatic invertebrates; o Chronic toxicity to aquatic invertebrates; o Effects on algal growth; o Effects on sediment dwelling organisms; o Aquatic plants.

� Effects on arthropods

o Bees; o Other arthropods.

� Effects on earthworms

o Acute toxicity; o Subtlethal effects.

� Effects on soil non-target micro-organisms

1.3.21.3.21.3.21.3.2 Tests for the authorization of a plTests for the authorization of a plTests for the authorization of a plTests for the authorization of a plant protection product (Dir. 91/414/EC)ant protection product (Dir. 91/414/EC)ant protection product (Dir. 91/414/EC)ant protection product (Dir. 91/414/EC) Toxicological studiesToxicological studiesToxicological studiesToxicological studies

� Acute toxicity o Oral o Percutaneous o Inhalation o Skin irritation o Eye irritation o Skin sensitization o Supplementary studies for combinations of plant protection products

� Data on exposure

o Operator exposure o Bystander exposure o Worker exposure

� Dermal absorption � Available toxicological data relating to non-active substances


Residues in or on treated products, food and feedResidues in or on treated products, food and feedResidues in or on treated products, food and feedResidues in or on treated products, food and feed

� Metabolism, distribution and expression of residue in plants; � Metabolism, distribution and expression of residue in livestock; � Residue trials; � Livestock feeding studies; � Effects of industrial processing and/or household preparations; � Residues in succeeding crops; � Proposed maximum residue levels (MRLs) and residue definition; � Proposed pre-harvest intervals for envisaged uses, or withholding periods or storage

periods, in the case of post-harvest uses; � Estimation of the potential and actual exposure through diet and other means.

Fate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environment � Fate and behaviour in soil

o Rate of degradation; o Mobility in the soil; o Estimation of expected concentrations in soil.

� Fate and behaviour in water

o Estimation of concentrations in groundwater; o Impact on water treatment procedures; o Estimation of concentrations in surface water

EcoEcoEcoEcotoxicological studiestoxicological studiestoxicological studiestoxicological studies � Effects on birds

o Acute oral toxicity; o Supervisaged cage of field trials; o Acceptance of bait, granules or treated seeds by birds; o Effects of secondary poisoning.

� Effects on aquatic organisms

o Acute toxicity to fish, aquatic invertebrates or effects on algal growth o Microcosm or mecosom study o Residue data in fish

� Effects on terrestrial vertebrates other than birds

� Effects on bees

o Acute oral and contact toxicity; o Residue test; o Cage tests; o Field tests; o Tunnel tests

� Effects on arthropods other than bees

o Laboratory, extended laboratory and semi-field tests; o Field tests.

� Effects on earthworms

o Acute toxicity tests


o Tests for sublethal effects o Field studies

� Effects on other soil macro-organisms � Effects on soil non-target micro-organisms

1.3.31.3.31.3.31.3.3 TeTeTeTests for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 98/8/EC)sts for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 98/8/EC)sts for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 98/8/EC)sts for the authorization of an active substance (Dir. 98/8/EC) Solely the common core data set for active substances is given. According to Directive 98/8/EC, an additional data set might be required for certain active substances. Toxicological and metaToxicological and metaToxicological and metaToxicological and metabolism studiesbolism studiesbolism studiesbolism studies

� Acute toxicity o Oral o Dermal o Inhalation o Skin and eye irritation o Skin sensitisation

� Metabolism studies in mammals. Basic toxicokinetics, including a dermal

absorption study

� Short-term repeated dose toxicity (28 days). This study is not required when a sub-chronic toxicity study is available in a rodent

� Subchronic toxicity 90-day study, two species, one rodent and one non-rodent

� Chronic toxicity. One rodent and one other mammalian species

� Mutagenicity studies

o In-vitro gene mutation study in bacteria o In-vitro cytogenicity study in mammalian cells o In-vitro gene mutation assay in mammalian cells

If positive in any of these 3 tests, then an in-vivo mutagenicity study will be required (bone marrow assay for chromosomal damage or a micronucleus test). If negative in an in-vivo mutagenicity study but positive in-vitro tests then undertake a second in-vivo study to examine whether mutagenicity or evidence of DNA damage can be demonstrated in tissue other than bone marrow. If positive in an in-vivo mutagenicity study then a test to assess possible germ cell effects may be required.

� Carcinogenicity study. One rodent and one other mammalian species. These studies may be combined with those in chronic toxicity studies

� Reproductive toxicity

o Teratogenicity test - rabbit and one rodent species o Fertility study - at least two generations, one species, male and female


� Medical data in anonymous form o Medical surveillance data on manufacturing plant personnel if available o Direct observation, e.g. clinical cases, poisoning incidents if available o Health records, both from industry and any other available sources o Epidemiological studies on the general population, if available o Diagnosis of poisoning including specific signs of poisoning and clinical

tests, if available o Sensitisation/allergenicity observations, if available o Specific treatment in case of an accident or poisoning: first aid measures,

antidotes and medical treatment, if known o Prognosis following poisoning

� Summary of mammalian toxicology and conclusions, including no observed adverse

effect level (NOAEL), no observed effect level (NOEL), overall evaluation with regard to all toxicological data and any other information concerning the active substances. Where possible any suggested worker protection measures should be included in summary form

Ecotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studies

� Acute toxicity to fish � Acute toxicity to Daphnia magna � Growth inhibition test on algae � Inhibition to microbiological activity � Bioconcentration

Fate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environmentFate and behaviour in the environment � Degradation

o Biotic • Ready biodegradability • Inherent biodegradability, where appropriate

o Abiotic • Hydrolysis as a function of pH and identification of breakdown products • Phototransformation in water including identity of the products of

transformation � Adsorption/desorption screening test � Summary of ecotoxicological effects and fate and behaviour in the environment

1.3.41.3.41.3.41.3.4 Tests required for the authorization of a biocidal product (Dir. 98/8/EC)Tests required for the authorization of a biocidal product (Dir. 98/8/EC)Tests required for the authorization of a biocidal product (Dir. 98/8/EC)Tests required for the authorization of a biocidal product (Dir. 98/8/EC) Solely the common core data set for biocidal products is given. According to Directive 98/8/EC, an additional data set might be required for certain biocidal products. Toxicological studies Toxicological studies Toxicological studies Toxicological studies

� Acute toxicity o Oral o Dermal o Inhalation o For biocidal products that are intended to be authorised for use with other

biocidal products, the mixture of products, where possible, shall be tested for acute dermal toxicity and skin and eye irritation, as appropriate


� Skin and eye irritation

� Skin sensitisation

� Information on dermal absorption

� Available toxicological data relating to toxicologically relevant non-active substances (i.e. substances of concern)

� Information related to the exposure of the biocidal product to man and the operator

Where necessary, the test(s) described in section 4 shall be required for the toxicologically relevant non-active substances of the preparation. Ecotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studiesEcotoxicological studies

� Foreseeable routes of entry into the environment on the basis of the use envisaged � Information on the ecotoxicology of the active substance in the product, where this � Available ecotoxicological information relating to ecotoxicological relevant non-

active substances (i.e. substances of concern), such as information from safety data sheets


2222 RRRREVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE TOXICITYND BIOCIDE TOXICITYND BIOCIDE TOXICITYND BIOCIDE TOXICITY

2.1 Human effects worldwide 2.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.1 Overview of the possible effectsOverview of the possible effectsOverview of the possible effectsOverview of the possible effects 2.1.1.12.1.1.12.1.1.12.1.1.1 IIIINTRODUCTNTRODUCTNTRODUCTNTRODUCTIONIONIONION

According to the FAO and the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), governments will need to strengthen the protection available to agricultural workers in order to contain – or better yet reduce – the number of pesticide poisonings that farmers suffer. An estimated one to five million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in several thousand fatalities among agricultural workers. Most of these poisonings occur in the developing world where safe health standards can be inadequate or non-existent. Although these countries use only 25% of global pesticide production, they account for a staggering 99% of the related deaths (FAO Newsroom, 2004). The vast majority of these poisoning cases involve farmers and farm workers. This is not surprising since farm workers have the greatest direct contact with these chemicals, applying them on crops and working in fields and orchards where pesticides are used. The families of farmers, and particularly children and infants, are also extremely vulnerable. In many countries, children may have to help out on family-owned farms where pesticides are used, or they may be obliged to transport goods treated with pesticides for local businesses. In developed countries, the most hazardous pesticides are either banned or strictly controlled, and agricultural workers who handle pesticides wear protective clothing and equipment. This is not always the case in many developing countries, where too often workers lack appropriate equipment, or the climate is too hot and humid to wear protective clothing comfortably. Their spraying equipment may leak, and because workers may not have easy access to washing facilities they often wear contaminated clothing throughout the day, eating and drinking with contaminated hands. The risk factors that contribute to pesticide poisonings in developing countries are often out of the worker’s direct control. Farmers must therefore rely on governments to take additional measures to reduce the risks to which they are exposed (FAO Newsroom, 2004). The overall progress in development of plant protection products (ppp) has allowed shift from highly toxic, persistent and bioaccumulating ppp to ppp that rapidly degrade in the environment and are less toxic to non-target organisms. The developed countries have forbidden many of the older ppp due to potential toxic effects to man and/or their impacts on ecosystems, in favour of more modern ppp. In the developing countries, some older ppp remain the cheapest to produce and, for some purposes, remain highly effective (precisely because of their long persistence) as, for example, the use of DDT for malaria control. Developing countries maintain that they cannot afford, for reasons of cost and/or efficacy, to ban certain older ppp. The dilemma of cost/efficacy versus ecological impacts, including long range impacts via atmospheric transport, and access to modern ppp formulations at low cost remains a difficult global issue. In addition to ecological impacts in countries of application, ppp that have been long banned in developed countries (such as DDT, toxaphene…) are consistently found in remote areas such as the high arctic. Chemicals that are applied in tropical and subtropical countries are transported over long distances by global air circulation (Ongley, 1996).


The following part is a summary of various studies on pesticide toxicity. Often in vitro experiments help to figure out how intense pesticides impacts are. Studies are mostly carried out on animals such as rodents. These studies are helpful to describe pesticide’s toxic effects. The aim is surely not to make an inventory of all toxicological effects of all active substances used in agriculture, but to show the main experimental evidences that allow us to assess pesticides as hazardous compounds. US Environmental Protection Agency defines acute toxicity as the ability of a substance to cause severe biological harm or death soon after a single exposure or dose. It can also be any poisonous effect resulting from a single short-term exposure to a toxic substance. Chronic toxicity concerns the capacity of a substance to cause long-term poisonous health effects in humans, animals, fish, and other organisms. Chronic exposure is almost a similar concept in terms of duration, as it accounts for the multiple exposures occurring over an extended period of time or over a significant fraction of an animal's or human's lifetime. Between acute and chronic toxicity, subchronic toxicity is characterizing a toxicity caused by a substance resulting from an intermediate duration, lasting between 5 and 90 days (US EPA, 2005). 2.1.1.22.1.1.22.1.1.22.1.1.2 ACUTE EXPOSUREACUTE EXPOSUREACUTE EXPOSUREACUTE EXPOSURE

Regulatory agencies have tended to focus their assessments of pesticide risk on the potential for toxicological effects to arise from repetitive, long-term usage of the chemicals. From a public health perspective, however, the recorded human illness attributed to acute exposure to pesticides may be of a greater significance than those connected with potential chronic exposure (Mehler et al., 1992). The greatest hazard from pesticides occurs while mixing, loading and applying, not from accidental ingestion. However, when spraying, many airborne spray particles are trapped in the secretions of the upper respiratory tract and swallowed, thereby providing exposure by ingestion. Assuming that the person applying the pesticide takes adequate precaution (respirator, gloves, etc.) to prevent this type of exposure, dermal toxicity is probably a more realistic index of occupational hazard than oral toxicity (Coli, 2004). The effects of acute pesticide poisoning are varied and range from mild, moderate to severe. Symptoms of poisoning can occur in different parts of the human body: skin (irritation, redness, swelling, etc.), eyes (watering eyes, wide pupils, loss of sight, etc.), nervous system (headache, muscle cramp, tension, etc.), cardiovascular system (disturbance of the heart rhythm, heart attack, etc.), respiration system (difficulty to breath, sneezing, coughing, etc.) and gastro-intestinal system (diarrhoea, vomiting, stomach cramp, etc.). In extreme cases, pesticide poisoning is lethal (PMEP, 2006). Organophosphates and N-methyl carbamates are the pesticides that most commonly cause systemic illness. Acute severe organophosphate poisoning is one of the most life-threatening human poisonings (but is also treatable, often with good outcome if treatment is begun promptly). The organophosphates that cause the most illness in agricultural workers are the high toxicity compounds mevinphos (banned in the EU), methomyl, methamidofos (banned in the EU), oxydemeton and parathion (banned in the EU) and also the moderate toxicity compounds dimethoate and phosalone. (Fleming et al., 1997) Estimates of acute human worldwide pesticide poisoning derived from mathematical models and projections range from 500 000 cases in 1972 to 25 million cases in 1990 (Levine et al., 1992). In 1985, an estimate of 1 million cases of acute pesticide poisoning


and 20 000 deaths was accepted at a WHO informal meeting (Blondell, 1997; Levine et al., 1992).When arranged by individual country, greater numbers of cases and deaths from pesticides occur in less developed countries; for example, approximately 90% of acute unintentional pesticide deaths occur in less developed countries. The wide range of overall estimates occurs because of greatly varying assumptions made during calculations. Such calculated estimates are made out of public necessity to assist public health officials in the absence of formal detailed accurate epidemiologic studies (Snodgrass, 2001). An example of acute poisoning by pesticide residues occurred in 1985 in the United States. Three adults who ate watermelon had rapid onset of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, profuse sweating, excessive tearing, muscle fasciculations, and bradycardia. After investigation, aldicarb sulfoxide which is the primary toxic metabolite of aldicarb had been detected in several melons associated with similar illnesses (CDC, 1986). Aldicarb is a carbamate insecticide used in citrus groves and potato fields. Existing toxicological data on aldicarb did not predict the severity of the acute illnesses associated with the dose levels found in this outbreak. Statewide embargo were ordered and further on, as contaminated watermelons could not be removed separately from non contaminated ones, the government proceeded to the total destruction of watermelon in the California distribution chain. No less than 1350 cases of illness were reported after two months. In 1998 the same pesticide was detected in cabbage salad after food intoxication of 20 employees who took lunch at work. Shortly after eating, several persons developed neurologic and gastrointestinal symptoms (CDC, 1999). The most common gastrointestinal symptoms were abdominal cramps (13 {93%}), nausea (13 {93%}), and diarrhea (12 {86%}). Neurologic symptoms included dizziness (13 {93%}), sweating (12 {86%}), muscle fasciculations (12 {86%}), eye twitching (eight {57%}), and blurred vision (six {43%}). The 272.6 ppm of aldicarb found in a 6-g cabbage salad sample was enough to be toxic to humans. Each person who had eaten the salad would have consumed approximately 17 mg of aldicarb if equal amounts of salad had been eaten. When considering biocides, mainly insecticides have been described as being risky for human health. Insect spray may induce asthma symptoms via irritative mechanisms (Walker et al., 2003). Staff in state-based pesticide poisoning surveillance programs identified patients who had been exposed to insecticides used in mosquito-control efforts in nine states (Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) during April 1999--September 2002. Of the 133 reported cases of pesticide-related illness, 71.4% (95 cases) were associated with organophosphates, primarily malathion. Malathion alone was associated with 67.4% of the 95 cases; 27.8% were associated with pyrethoids, primarily sumithrin (24 cases) and resmethrin (10 cases). Illness severity was categorized for all cases (4). One exposure was associated with illness of high severity. When her neighbourhood was sprayed, a woman aged 54 years was exposed to sumithrin, which passed through operating window fans and a window air conditioner. She had exacerbation of her asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The majority of cases were associated either with respiratory (66.2%) or neurologic (60.9%) dysfunction. Other systems affected were gastrointestinal (45.1%), ocular (36.1%), dermal (27.1%), cardiovascular (12.0%), renal-genitourinary (3.0%), and miscellaneous (28.6%). The findings in this report indicate that serious adverse outcomes potentially related to public health insecticide application were uncommon. When administered properly in a mosquito-control program, insecticides pose a low risk for acute, temporary health effects among persons in areas that are being sprayed and among workers handling and applying insecticides. In this analysis, adverse health effects were identified in a small


percentage of the population in the nine states (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003). Synthetic pyrethroids are one of the important groups of insecticides. Synthetic pyrethroids used against insects of public health concern include allethrin, resmethrin, d-phenothrin and tetramethrin. They are broad spectrum insecticides with low mammalian toxicity and rapid rate of degradation (Hutson and Roberts, 1985). Allethrin is used as an effective insecticide in commercially available mosquito repellents (mats, coils, sticks and liquidators). It is anticipated that human exposure is mainly through the inhalation of mists from household aerosol spray. Allethrin had been reported as a weak to moderately toxic pyrethroid with inhalation LC50 more than 1500 mg/m³ in mouse and rat (Tomlin, 1994). When injected intravenously in rats or in intracerebrally in mice, caused severe poisoning sydrome with tremors (WHO, 1989; in Srivastava et al., 2006). To control indoor flying insects, restaurants and other businesses commonly use pyrethrin and pyrethroid insecticides sprayed from automatic dispensing units. Usually placed near entrances, these units are designed to kill flying insects in food service or work areas. Cases of pesticide-related illnesses associated with automatic insecticide dispensers have been registered by several authorities in the US (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000):

� in the period 1993 – 1996, 54 cases of pesticide-related illnesses associated with automatic insecticide dispensers were registered by the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS). Twenty (37%) cases were work-related. In all cases, pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide was the responsible insecticide;

� during 1986 - 1999, 43 cases of acute pesticide-related illnesses associated with

automatic insecticide dispensers were reported to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (32 cases), the Montana Department of Agriculture (four cases), the Florida Department of Health (three cases), the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (two cases), and the Washington State Department of Health (two cases). Age, sex, and state of occurrence for these cases were compared with those from the TESS database, and no overlap with TESS data was found. Thirty-five (81%) of these cases were in persons exposed while at work, including seven whose exposure occurred during dispenser cartridge replacement or attempts to service faulty dispensers. Seven (16%) cases were in persons exposed while they were customers in restaurants, and one was a movie theater customer. Resmethrin, a pyrethroid insecticide, was implicated in three cases; the remaining 40 were exposed to pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide. Most insecticide dispenser-related illnesses identified in the non-TESS data occurred when the dispensers were improperly placed too close (i.e., <12 feet) to food handling, dining, or work areas; were placed where ventilation currents entrained the mist to such areas; and/or were serviced by persons unfamiliar with proper maintenance of these units;

� among the 94 pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide-exposed cases in the combined

surveillance data, signs and symptoms for 38% involved the eye; 36% the neurologic system; 28% the respiratory system; 24% the gastrointestinal system; 21% the nose and throat; 11% the skin; and 9% the cardiovascular system. Some persons experienced signs and symptoms in more than one system. Among the three resmethrin-exposed cases, reported signs and symptoms included pruritus, throat irritation, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, burning sensation in the lungs, and cough.


An overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects of some of the most relevant PT18 active substances that are not allowed to occur in plant protection products in Belgium is given in Annex 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the relevant environmental compartments. The endpoints are derived from the common core data set for active (chemical) substances and biocidal products (European Chemicals Bureau, 2000). To retrieve these endpoints, the following literature sources were considered (in order of descending priority):

� IUCLID datasets (http://ecb.jrc.it/esis/) � Electronical minutes of the Belgian Higher Health Council (Degloire, pers. comm.) � IPCS INCHEM Environmental Health Criteria Monographs (http://www.inchem.org/pages/ehc.html) � Hazardous Substances Database (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB) � US EPA ECOTOX (http://mountain.epa.gov/ecotox/) � US EPA Pesticide Fact Sheets (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/) � Kamrin (2000) � Tomlin (1994) � Verschueren (1983) � SPECTRUM Laboratories Inc. (http://www.speclab.com/compound/chemabc.htm)

2.1.1.32.1.1.32.1.1.32.1.1.3 CHRONIC EXPOSURECHRONIC EXPOSURECHRONIC EXPOSURECHRONIC EXPOSURE

In the following section a general overview is given of epidemiologic studies of pesticide-related carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption and reproductive disruption in human beings. Better understanding of the patterns of exposure, the underlying variability within the human population and the link between animal toxicology data and human health effects will improve the evaluation of the risks to human health posed by pesticides. Improving epidemiology studies and integrating this information with toxicology data will allow the human health risks of pesticide exposure to be more accurately judged by public health policy makers.

2.1.1.3.12.1.1.3.12.1.1.3.12.1.1.3.1 CCCCARCINOGENICITY ARCINOGENICITY ARCINOGENICITY ARCINOGENICITY (A(A(A(ALAVANJA ET ALLAVANJA ET ALLAVANJA ET ALLAVANJA ET AL.,.,.,., 2004)2004)2004)2004) Some older pesticides including organochlorines (e.g. aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin), lead arsenate, creosote and sulfallate are carcinogenic in animal studies (IARC, 1986; IARC, 1991; Petrelli et al., 1993; US EPA, 2002), and many of these pesticides continue to be used, particularly in developing countries (Repetto & Baliga, 1996). Pesticide formulations have also included carcinogenic solvents (Savettieri et al., 1991; US EPA, 2002). However, epidemiologic studies relating pesticide exposure and human cancer have been inconsistent. Other than for arsenic, the epidemiological evidence regarding cancer probably cannot be considered to establish a causal relationship for any single pesticide at the present time (IARC, 1991). Although the weight of evidence suggests to IARC and others that occupational exposure to other insecticides is probably associated with human cancer (IARC, 1991; US EPA, 2002), the relationship is not considered causal because of the lack of high-quality evidence from epidemiologic studies of human cancer and the continuing uncertainties associated with extrapolating animal bioassay data to humans. In what follows an overview will be given of the epidemiological literature available for pesticide exposure and cancer. Not an exhaustive review is given, but attention is focussed on summarizing the evidence for select cancers, where the literature supports an association between pesticides and cancer.


A consumer opinion survey shows that much of the U.S. public believes that pesticide residues in food are a serious cancer hazard (Opinion Research Corporation, 1990). However, scientific studies, most of the time carried out on animals (rodents) and based on life-term exposure, struggle to supply accurate data on human cancer induced by pesticides. Thus the prediction models of the tumorigenic potential for different classes of chemicals remain open to questions (Hughes, 2002). Relationships between pesticides and cancer have been reviewed by Dich et al. (1997), based mostly on human occupational exposure. Data are limited by the small number of studies that evaluate individual pesticides. In an exhaustive study led by Gold et al. (2001) on possible rodent carcinogens, active substances have been ranked according to their Human Exposure Rodent Potency (HERP). Synthetic pesticides remain at the bottom of HERP ranking, except for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), ethylene thiourea (ETU) and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) values that are about the median of the tested carcinogenic substances. Other active substances in the bottom of the HERP ranking are, in descending orders, carbaryl, toxaphene, dicofol, lindane, para nitrochlorobenzene (PNCB), chlorobenzilate, captan, folpet and chlorothalonil. Part of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) set up a list containing all hazards evaluated to date, according to the type of hazard posed and to the type of exposure. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity to humans are therefore given for agents, mixtures, and exposure circumstances. The PAN network established a list of licensed pesticides from various sources including IARC, EPA, and EU showing that chromium VI compounds (used in the past in insecticides, fungicides, herbicides), captafol (banned in EU) were considered to be probably carcinogenic to human from the three sources cited above. Many pesticides are listed as probably or possibly carcinogenic to humans. Difficulties in assessing carcinogenic effects on humans lay in the lack of accurate studies, as the majority of them rely on the results of high-dose, rodent cancer tests. Nevertheless, some scientists argue that the amounts of synthetic pesticide residues in products of plant origin are low in comparison to the amount of natural “pesticidal” chemicals produced by plants. Other figures tend to claim that 99,9 % of the potentially harmfull chemical that humans ingest are naturally occurring (Ames et al., 1990; Gold et al., 1997). The paradox in public concern about possible cancer hazards from pesticide residues in food is that consumption of foodstuff containing pesticide residues –fruits and vegetables– has a protective effect against many types of cancer (weaker for hormonally related cancers such as breast and prostate). In conclusion, carcinogenicity of pesticides on humans through the food chain is far from being assessed accurately, since most of the studies are based on human occupational exposure.

� NonNonNonNon----Hodgkin’s LymphomaHodgkin’s LymphomaHodgkin’s LymphomaHodgkin’s Lymphoma Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) is among the most widely studied cancers in relation to pesticide use. In reviews of the literature, Blair & Zahm (1991, 1995) reported that NHL has been linked with phenoxyacetic acid herbicides, organochlorine pesticides and organophosphate pesticides in analytical epidemiological studies. The literature linking specific pesticides to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma continues to grow, but the various studies do not yet offer a consistent etiological picture clearly identifying specific pesticides that may be responsible for the elevated risk observed. Population-based case-control studies have observed associations of NHL risk with self-reported agricultural


exposures to specific organochlorine pesticides (Woods et al., 1987; Zahm et al., 1990; Cantor et al., 1992; McDuffie et al., 2001). In a Canadian multicenter population-based incident, case-control study among men with a diversity of occupations, McDuffie et al. (2001) found that among major chemical classes of pesticides, the risk of NHL was statistically increased with increased exposure to phenoxy and benzoic acid herbicides, and to carbamate and organophosphate insecticides, to amide fungicides, and to the fumigant carbon tetrachloride. In a pooled analysis of four population-based control studies in the Midwest, carbaryl (a carbamate insecticide) was found to be a risk factor for NHL (Zheng et al., 2001).

� LeukaemiaLeukaemiaLeukaemiaLeukaemia Most studies of occupation and leukaemia report an excess among farmers, but the excess is usually small (10% to 40%), and no clear pattern of risk for any histologic type has been observed (Blair & Zahm, 1991). Leukaemia represents a vast array of hematopoetic malignancies including chronic and acute forms, which affect both children and adults. The etiologic evidence linking specific leukaemia types to pesticide use and other agricultural exposures is summarized below. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was associated with the use of pesticides in a population-based case-control study conducted in a farming and animal breeding area in northeast Italy (Nanni et al., 1996). The association of CLLs and working in farm-animal breeding may be partially explained by exposure to pesticides, particularly carbamates, organophosphates and DDT. The independent effects of the childhood suggests that early exposure, including possible contact with animals, may play a part in the pathogenic process of these neoplasms, possibly owing to viruses acting as oncogenic initiators or as immunosuppressors (Nanni et al., 1996). Hairy-cell leukaemia (HCL) is a rare B-lymphoid chronic leukaemia, which has only been investigated in a few epidemiologic studies. A hospital-based study in France by Cavel et al. (1996) found a significant association between organophosphate insecticide exposure and HCL risk. In a Swedish pooled multivariate analysis of two population-based case control studies of HCL and NHL, Hardell et al. (2002) observed a significant increased risk of the combined category of pesticides. No clear etiologic picture has emerged yet for HCL. The mechanism for the apparent association between certain forms of leukaemia and pesticide exposure is unknown. However, recent in vitro mechanistic studies may provide insight (Lapidot-Lifson et al., 1989; Stephenson et al., 1996; Boros et al., 2000; Lev-Lehman et al., 2000; Boros & Williams, 2001). Boros & Williams (2001) recently reported that exposure of leukemic cell lines to increasing doses of on organophosphate insecticide (isofenphos) resulted in a dose-dependent leukemic cell proliferation. This mechanism may be common to other invasive tumors (Boros et al., 2000). In vitro data may not hold up in animal and human studies, but extrapolation of this hypothesis in animal studies is necessary. Ma et al. (2002) examined household pesticide exposure among 162 childhood leukaemias, primarily acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), diagnosed between 1995 and 1999. Exposure information was ascertained by means of an in-home personal interview with the primary caregiver. Insecticide exposures early in life appeared to be more significant than later exposures, and the highest risk was observed for exposure during pregnancy, indicating the potential importance of timing of exposure. More frequent exposure was associated with a higher risk, whereas exposure to herbicides was not. Exposure to indoor pesticides was also associated with excess leukaemia risk, whereas outdoor use did not increase the child’s risk of leukaemia. A similar pattern of increased


risk of childhood leukaemia (especially ALL) with maternal exposure to indoor pesticides was observed in a population-based study in Quebec, Canada (Infante-Rivard et al., 1999) and an American study conducted by Lowengart et al. (1987). A large population-based study in Germany provided similar evidence for childhood lymphomas and leukaemia (Meinert et al., 2000). In a French study conducted by Mengaux et al. (2005) acute leukaemia was observed to be significantly associated with maternal home insecticide use during pregnancy and during childhood, with garden insecticide use and fungicide use during childhood. Insecticidal shampoo treatment of pediculosis was also associated with childhood acute leukaemia. The results reported herein support the hypothesis that various types of insecticide exposure may be a risk factor for childhood acute leukaemia. Reynolds et al. (2002) analyzed data comparing population-based childhood (less than 15 years) cancer incidence rates throughout California to agricultural pesticide use during the period 1988 to 1994. Overall no association was found between the amount of pesticide used in a census block and the childhood cancer incidence rates in the same census block. The same lack of association was seen for leukaemia and central nervous system cancers. Indoor, not outdoor, exposure to pesticides is seen as the most consistent risk factor identified for childhood leukaemia. Leukemia is the most common cancer in childhood worldwide. Menegaux et al. (2006) investigated the relation between childhood acute leukaemia and household exposure to pesticides. The study included 280 incident cases of acute leukaemia and 288 controls, frequency-matched on gender, age, hospital, and ethnic origin. The cases were children under the age of 15 years hospitalised following recent diagnosis (<2 months) of primary leukaemia between 1995 and 1999 in the hospitals of Lille, Lyon, Nancy, and Paris (France). A significant association was observed between childhood acute leukaemia and home insecticide use (OR = 1.8, 95% CL 1.2 to 2.8 during pregnancy and OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4 during childhood). When the exposure periods were considered individually, home insecticide use was only significantly associated with childhood acute leukaemia when exposure occurred during both pregnancy and childhood (OR = 1.6 (95% CL 0.8 to 3.3) during pregnancy only, OR = 1.4 (95% CL 0.8 to 2.3) during childhood only, and OR = 2.0 (95% CL 1.2 to 3.1) during pregnancy and childhood). Pediculosis during childhood was more frequently reported for cases than for controls with ORs of 1.5 (95% CL 0.9 to 2.5) for one episode and 1.9 (95% CL 1.1 to 3.3) for two or more episodes. Overall, the use of shampoos to treat pediculosis was associated with childhood leukaemia (OR = 1.9, 95% CL 1.1 to 3.2). Various insecticidal shampoos were reported and were pyrethroid based (65 cases and 55 controls, OR = 2.0 (95% CL 1.1 to 3.4)), organochlorine based (six cases and four controls, OR = 2.1 (95% CL 0.5 to 8.7)), and organophosphorus based (five cases and 10 controls, OR = 0.7 (95% CL 0.2 to 2.4)). In summary, a number of epidemiologic and environmental toxicology studies have provided evidence to support the etiologic association between insecticide exposures and leukaemia, particularly childhood leukaemia. However, the evidence supporting a link to any specific pesticide or class of pesticides is not strong.

� Multiple MyelomaMultiple MyelomaMultiple MyelomaMultiple Myeloma Multiple myeloma, a common hematopoietic malignancy of plasma cells, has been gradually increasing in most parts of the world (Cuzik & De Stavola, 1988; Hansen et al., 1989). The pattern suggests an environmental etiology, possibly related to agriculture (Blair & Hayes, 1982; Pearce et al., 1986; Pickle et al., 1987; Blair et al., 1992). Khuder & Mutgi (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 peer-reviewed studies of multiple myeloma and farming, published between 1981 and 1996. An estimated relative risk


among male farmers was observed; a similar risk was observed among female farmers (Kruder et al., 1999). Exposures proposed to be responsible for this elevated risk include infectious agents, solvents and pesticides, but the evidence supporting an etiologic association with any of these exposures is not strong. Since the publication of the meta-analysis of Kruder et al., at least two additional studies supporting a link between agricultural exposures and an elevated risk of multiple myeloma have been published (Cerhan et al., 1998; Lee et al., 2002).

� SoftSoftSoftSoft----tissue sarcomatissue sarcomatissue sarcomatissue sarcoma Many studies (Hardell & Sandstrom, 1979; Veneis et al., 1987; Hardell & Ericksson, 1988; Erikson et al., 1981; Wingren et al., 1990), but not all studies (Smith et al., 1984; Hoar et al., 1986; Woods et al., 1997) have found an association between herbicide use and soft-tissue sarcoma. Two early Swedisch case-control studies found particularly high risks (Hardell, 1979; Hardell & Ericksson, 1988). Among Italian female rice weeders exposed to 2,4,5-T, an excess risk of soft-tissue sarcoma was observed (Vineis et al., 1987). However, no significant risk was observed among those exposed to phenoxy herbicides in case-control studies in Kansas (Hoar et al., 1986), New Zeeland (Smith et al., 1984) or Washington State (Woods et al., 1987). Insecticide use has also been associated with soft-tissue sarcomona. In a population-based case-control study, the relative risk among Kansas farmers rose significantly with increasing time since first use (Zahm et al., 1988). The heterogeneous mix cancer subtypes making up soft-tissue sarcoma may explain the somewhat inconsistent pattern observed (Lyne et al., 1987). Studying all soft-tissue sarcoma combined may mask subtype-specific etiological associations. For example, Hoppin et al. (1999) observed that herbicide use was associated with malignant fibrohistiocytic sarcoma but not with liposarcoma.

� Prostate cancerProstate cancerProstate cancerProstate cancer Prostate cancer risk among farmers and other pesticide users has been evaluated in over 40 studies in the United State and Europe (Blair & Zahm, 1991; Kross et al., 1996; Keller-Byrne et al., 1997; Acquaville et al., 1998; Cerhan et al., 1998; Cocco & Benichou, 1998; Dich & Wiklund, 1998; Buxton et al., 1999; Fleming et al., 1999; Parker et al., 1999; Cocco et al., 2000; Hsing & Devesa, 2001; Alavanja et al., 2003). Until recently, however, no associations with specific pesticides or other agricultural chemicals were reported. In a hospital-based multi-site case-control study carried out in five rural areas of Italy, farmers exposed to organochlorine insecticides showed increased risk for prostate cancer, particularly for DDT and dicofol (Settimi et al., 2003). Similar results were observed in a large, prospective cohort study of registered pesticide applicators in the United States where a pattern of chlorinated pesticide use was significantly associated with prostate cancer risk (Alavanja et al., 2003). In the latter study, use of the fumigant methyl bromide, was also associated with prostate cancer risk at the highest risk of cumulative lifetime exposure. Four organophosphate insecticides, a pyrethroid insecticide and a thiocarbamate herbicide showed a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer risk among study object with a family history of prostate cancer, but not among those with no family history (Alavanja et al., 2003). This study also found significant family history-by-pesticide interactions, possibly suggesting gene-environment interactions with selected pesticides. A Californian study showed that risk for prostate cancer is not associated with the total amount of pesticide applied, but risk was increased with specific chemicals including lindane, heptachlor (both organochlorines) and simazine, and suggestive increases were observed with dichlorvos and methyl bromide (Mills & Yang, 2003).


� Pancreatic cancerPancreatic cancerPancreatic cancerPancreatic cancer Pancreatic cancer risk was elevated in a number of occupational studies of agricultural workers and pesticide users including: farmers (Falk et al., 1990; Forastriere et al., 1993; Milham, 1996), lincensed and unlincensed agricultural pesticide applicators (Alvanja et al., 1990; Figatalmanca et al., 1993; Partanen et al., 1994; Kauppinen et al., 1995; Zhong & Rafnsson, 1996; Fryzek et al., 1997; Alguacil et al., 2000), lawn care workers (Zahm, 1997) and others exposed to pesticides (Thomas et al., 1985; Alvanja et al., 1990; Cantor & Silberman, 1999). Garabrandt et al. (1992) observed a significantly elevated risk of pancreatic cancer among DDT manufacturing workers. A recent study of outdoor workers in Australia showed a fivefold increased risk associated with DDT application (Beard et al., 2003). Six other studies of workers who manufactured pesticides, however, did not find pancreatic cancer excess (Wong et al., 1984; Ribbens, 1985; Coggon et al., 1991; Satiakumar et al., 1992; Garabrandt et al., 1992; Amosteng-Adjepong et al., 1995), nor did four other studies among farmers or farmworkers (Saftlas et al., 1987; Burmeister, 1990; Blair et al., 1992; Franceshi et al., 1993) In a population-based case-control study of pancreatic cancer in three areas of the United States, Ji et al. (2001) observed a modest but significant increased risk of pancreatic cancer associated with occupational exposure to fungicides.

� Lung cancerLung cancerLung cancerLung cancer Lung cancer risk is causally associated with exposure to arsenical compounds (IARC, 1986), and an excess risk of lung cancer was observed among vineyard workers (Luchtrath, 1983) and arsenical pesticide manufacturers (Mabuchi et al., 1979; Mabuchi et al., 1980). A variety of other pesticides have caused lung tumors in rodent bioassays, but the epidemiological data supporting an association for nonarsenical pesticides and lung cancer are mixed (USA, 2002). In a study by Blair et al. (1983) of licensed pesticides applicators in Florida the risk of lung cancer rose with the number of years licensed. In a survey of 1600 agricultural applicators in East Germany, Barthel (1981) observed almost a twofold excess mortality from lung cancer. The risk increased to three among those with 20 or more years of exposure. The relationship between exposure to phenoxy herbicides and/or contaminants (dioxins and furans) was also observed for overall cancer and lung cancer mortality, specifically among a cohort of workers form four manufacturing plants in Germany (Becher et al., 1996). Other studies of pesticide applicators (Wang & MacMahon, 1979; MacMahon et al., 1988) and pesticide manufacturers (Coggon et al., 1986; Ott et al., 1987; Bond et al., 1988) did not show any excess risk of lung cancer.

� Ovarian cancerOvarian cancerOvarian cancerOvarian cancer Two Italian case-control studies suggested a possible role in the etiology of ovarian cancer to the triazine herbicides, atrazine, simazine and cyanazine, which belong to the most frequently used agricultural herbicides in the United States. In the first study, a hospital-based study, a relative risk of 4,4 for ovarian cancer was observed in women with ‘definite’ or ‘probable’ exposure to triazine hebicides (Donna et al., 1984). In a follow-up, population-based study the same authors reported a statistically significant relative risk of 2,7 for ovarian cancer among women exposed to triazine herbicides (Donna et al., 1989). In a prospective cohort of pesticide applicators and their spouses, a significant excess ovarian cancer risk was observed among the female applicators but not among female spouses of the male applicators (Alavanja et al., 2004). The small number of cases made it impossible to identify the potential etiologic agent.


� Other cancersOther cancersOther cancersOther cancers In various studies several other cancers including cancer of breast (e.g. Falck et al. 1992; Dewailly et al., 1994; Romieu et al., 2000; Calle et al., 2002; Gammon et al., 2002), testis (e.g. Wiklund et al., 1986; Ekbom et al., 1996; Cocco & Benichou, 1998; Fleming et al., 1999), liver (e.g. Kauppinen et al., 1982; Stemhagen et al., 1983; Cocco et al., 2000; Porru et al., 2001), kidney (e.g. Mellemgard et al., 1994; Hu et al., 2002), rectum (e.g. Forastiere et al., 1993; Zhong & Rafnsson, 1996; Cerhan et al., 1998), brain and neurologic system (e.g. Thomas & Waxweiler, 1986; Brownson et al., 1990; Bohnen & Kurland, 1995; Keene et al., 1999; Yeni-Komshian & Holly, 2000), stomach (e.g. Higginson, 1966; Armijo et al., 1981; Blair & Zahm, 1991), endometrium (e.g. Grady et al., 1995; Sturgeon et al., 1998; Weiderpass et al., 2000) and Hodgkin’s disease (e.g. Hardell et al., 1981; Cerhan et al., 1998; Kruder et al., 1999) have been tentatively associated with pesticide exposures on the farm or in pesticide manufacturing operations. In the case of breast cancer, results of early studies could not be confirmed in later more rigorously designed studies. For Hodgkin’s disease meta-analyses showed a small but significant excess risk among farmers. This may be a result of exposure to infectious micro-organisms or pesticides used on the farm, but the association with either has been weak and inconsistent. The size of the literature is smaller for cancer of the testicles, liver, kidney and brain and pesticides than for the other cancers cited above, and the link with pesticides is weak and not sufficient at this time. In conclusion, much of the epidemiology relating to pesticides and cancer has suffered from inadequate assessment of exposure, and the validity of postdiagnostic collected biologic markers of exposure used in several studies has been called into question. For some cancer, e.g. soft-tissue sarcoma, leukaemia, brain cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, failure to account for potential etiologic differences between various histologic types of cancer may have masked important associations in previous studies. Currently, only arsenic-containing insecticides are recognized as carcinogenic in humans, although many others are suspected human carcinogens (Alavanja et al., 2004). Moses (2002) established a selective summary of studies of cancer in children with potential exposure to household pesticides. Most are from articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Study results are reported as risk ratios. Results are shown in Table 1-1.


Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----1111: Cancer in children and pesticide exposure (Moses, 2002): Cancer in children and pesticide exposure (Moses, 2002): Cancer in children and pesticide exposure (Moses, 2002): Cancer in children and pesticide exposure (Moses, 2002) Type of cancerType of cancerType of cancerType of cancer Exposure typeExposure typeExposure typeExposure type Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI) Author, yearAuthor, yearAuthor, yearAuthor, year

Household insecticides:

3 months before pregnancy 1.8 (1.1-3.1)

during pregnancy 2.1 (1.3-3.5)

during first year of life 1.7 (1.0-2.9)

during second year of life 1.6 (1.0-2.7)

leukemia

during third year of life 1.2 (0.7-2.1)

Ma, 2002

Acute leukaemia infants(1) Mosquitocides (propoxur) 9.68 (p=0.003) Alexander, 2001

Neuroblastoma Pesticides use in the home 1.6 (1.0-2.3) Daniels, 2001

Non-hogkin lymphoma Home use insecticides exterminators 2.6 (1.2-5.7)

Use at home on most days 7.3 (p=0.05)

Professional exterminations within the home 3.0 (p=0.002)

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (leukaemia)

postnatal exposure 2.4 (p=0.001)

Buckley, 2000

Sprays/foggers only (multivariate) 10.8 (1.3-89.1)

Mother prep/apply/clean/child < 5 5.4 (1.3-22.3)

Not following label instructions 3.7 (1.5-9.6)

Prenatal expos. flea/tick prods. 1.7 (1.1-2.6)

Prenatal expos. flea/tick < 5 at diag. 2.5 (1.2-5.5)

Mother prep/apply/clean flea/tick 2.2 (1.1-4.2)

Did not evacuate after spray/dust 1.6 (1.0-2.6)

Brain cancer

Number pets treated trend p=0.04

Pogoda, 1997


Type of cancerType of cancerType of cancerType of cancer Exposure typeExposure typeExposure typeExposure type Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI) Author, yearAuthor, yearAuthor, yearAuthor, year

Termite treatments no increase

Lice treatment no increase

Pesticides for nuisance pests no increase

Yard and garden pesticides(2) no increase

Home treated during pregnancy 1.8 (0.8-4.1) Brain cancer

Home treated during childhood 2.0 (1.0-4.1)

Cordier, 1994

Brain cancer Pesticide treatment home No increase McCredie, 1994

Insecticides:

home extermination ever 2.16 (1.24-3.75)

home extermination once/year 2.41 (1.14-5.09)

Wilson tumor

home extermination ≥ 2 times/year 2.19 (0.94-5.08)

Olshan, 1993

Parental use of household pesticides:

Use of bomb indoors 6.2 (11.4-28.3)

Flea collar use on pets 55 (1.5-20)

Use of no-pest strip 4.4 (1.4-14.3)

Any termite treatment 5.2 (1.2-22.2); 2.9 (1.3-7.1)

Garden/orchard insecticide use 4.6 (1.0-21.3)

Brain cancer

Use on pets(3) 1.8 (0.5-6.6)

Davis, 1992

Brain cancer Mothers home use of insecticides during pregnancy or priori to conception

Increased risk Sinks, 1985


Type of cancerType of cancerType of cancerType of cancer Exposure typeExposure typeExposure typeExposure type Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI)Odds ratio (95% CI) Author, yearAuthor, yearAuthor, yearAuthor, year

Home insecticide use:

Compared to healthy controls 2.3 (p=0.1)

Brain cancer

Compared to cancer controls 1.2 (p=0.84)

Gold, 1979

Indoor use either parent ≥ 1/week 3.8 (1.37-13.02)

mother household use(4) 3.2 (p=0.02)

Acute lymphocytic leukaemia

father household use(5) 4.0 (p=0.02)

Lowengart, 1987

(1) infant leukaemia frequently involves breakage/recombination of the MLL gene in utero. A study of MLL gene fusions in pregnant women with and without exposure to carbamate insecticides, including Baygon (propoxur) (2) includes uses of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides or snail killer (3) 73 paternal and 57 maternal occupational groups (4) exposure during pregnancy and nursing (5) exposure during pregnancy of the index child


2.1.1.3.22.1.1.3.22.1.1.3.22.1.1.3.2 NEUROTOXICITY NEUROTOXICITY NEUROTOXICITY NEUROTOXICITY (A(A(A(ALAVANJA ET ALLAVANJA ET ALLAVANJA ET ALLAVANJA ET AL.,.,.,., 2004)2004)2004)2004) The most significant neurotoxicants found in residential settings are lead, pesticides, and environmental tobacco smoke (Jordaan et al. 1999; Lanphear et al. 2000; Whyatt et al. 2002; in Breysse et al., 2004). The mode of action of most pesticides is to be neurotoxic to pests. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that they will also have neurotoxic effects on humans. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that public exposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides (organophosphates and carbamates) is a health concern (Whyatt et al. 2002; in Breysse et al., 2004). Pesticide exposure has profound effects on the nervous system. The consequences of high-level exposure are well established: exposure is associated with a range of symptoms as well as deficits in neurobehavioural performance and abnormalities in nerve function. Whether chronic low-level exposure is neurotoxic is more controversial. Exposure to some pesticides may also be associated with increased risk of neurologic disease. In their literature review, Kamel et al. (2004) have pointed out adverse effects of pesticides on neurological system. Even though pesticide contaminants are not always clearly linked with neurotoxicity, neurobehavioural performance decrease, sensory and motor dysfunction and neurodegenerative disease have been studied.

� HighHighHighHigh----level exposure to pesticideslevel exposure to pesticideslevel exposure to pesticideslevel exposure to pesticides Neurotoxicity can result from high-level exposure to most types of pesticides, including organophosphates (OPs), carbamates, organochlorines, fungicides and fumigants (Keifer & Mahurin, 1997), but only OPs have been studied in detail (Keifer & Mahurin, 1997; He, 2000). The immediate response to OPs can occur within minutes. Mild cases display symptoms including headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, papillary constriction, excessive sweating, tearing and salivation. More severe cases develop muscle weakness and muscle twitches, changes in heart rate and bronchospasm and can progress to convulsion and coma. These symptoms are a consequence of overstimulation of postsynaptic cholinergic receptors following inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by OPs. An intermediate syndrome, occurring one to four days after exposure, is characterized by muscle weakness and can be fatal if respiratory muscles are affected. Two to five weeks after exposure, some patients develop organophosphate-induced delayed polyneuropathy (OPIDP), as well-characterized syndrome involving sensory abnormalities, muscle cramps, weakness and even paralysis, primarily in the legs. These symptoms are a consequence of axonal death following OP inhibition of a neural enzyme called neuropathy target esterase and may be irreversible. Several studies have shown that OP poisoning has long-term sequelae in addition to OPIDP. Studies of individuals with a history of pesticide poisoning, either farmworkers (McConnell et al., 1994; Stokes et al., 1995; Londen et al., 1997; Ohayo-Mitoko et al., 2000) or from the general population (Savage et al., 1988; Steenland et al., 1994), have found that increased symptom prevalence, deficits in cognitive and psychomotor function, decreased vibration sensitivity, and impaired nerve conduction can occur long after immediate episode is resolved. In some cases effects were observed 10 or more years after poisoning (Savage et al., 1988), which suggests that the residual damage is permanent. Even mild poisoning can have long-term consequences: banana farmworkers who had been treated for intoxication with OPs or carbamates but did not require hospitalization, performed worse on tests of cognitive and psychomotor function, compared to nonpoisoned workers (de Joode et al., 2001).


� Chronic lowChronic lowChronic lowChronic low----level exposure to pesticideslevel exposure to pesticideslevel exposure to pesticideslevel exposure to pesticides

Even in the absence of poisoning, chronic exposure is associated with a broad range of non-specific symptoms, including headache, dizziness, fatigue, weakness, nausea, chest tightness, difficulty breathing, insomnia, confusion and difficulty concentrating. Farmworkers exposed to multiple pesticides (Gomes et al., 1999) and nursery workers exposed to OPs (Bazylewicz-Walczak et al., 1999) reported increased symptom prevalence compared to unexposed workers. Farmers and farmworkers (Stokes et al., 1995; London & Myers, 1998; Ohayo-Mitoko et al., 2000), commercial termiticide applicators (Steenland et al., 2000) and sheep dippers (Pilkington et al., 2001) who applied OPs all had higher symptom prevalence than non-applicators. Increased symptom prevalence was associated with depressed acetylcholinesterase levels in two studies of farmworkers (Gomes et al., 1999; Ohayo-Mitoko et al., 2000). Another study found that increased symptom prevalence was associated with self-reported pesticide exposure but not with depressed acetylcholinesterase levels (Ciesielski et al., 1994). Although recall bias may explain this finding, it is also possible that pesticides other than OPs affect symptom prevalence. For example exposure to DDT (de Joode et al., 2001) and fumigants (Anger et al., 1986) has been associated with increased symptom prevalence. Pesticide exposure is also associated with changes in mood and affect. Workers exposed to OPs (Bazylewicz-Walczak et al., 1999; Steenland et al., 2000) or DDT (de Joode et al., 2001) reported higher levels of tension, anger and depression. Farmers who applied pesticides reported more tension during the application season than off-season (Stokes et al., 1995), but this is however not necessarily related to pesticide use. Farmers who reported a history of pesticide-related illness were more likely to score high on a depression scale (CES-D) than those who did not (Stallones & Beseler, 2002). However, other studies of exposure to OPs (Ames et al., 1995) or fumigants were negative. More studies indicate that pesticide exposure is associated with deficits in cognitive function. Sheep dippers (Stephens et al., 1995) and nursery workers (Bazylewicz-Walczak et al., 1999) exposed to OPs, malaria-control workers who sprayed DDT (de Joode et al., 2001), vineyard workers exposed to fungicides (Baldi et al., 2001), fumigators exposed to sulfuryl fluoride but not methyl bromide (Anger et al., 1986; Cantor et al., 1992), and farmers (Cole et al., 1997), farmworkers (Gomes et al., 1999) and pesticide applicators (Farahat et al., 2003) exposed to multiple pesticides all showed worse performance on tests of cognitive function. It is important to note that these studies are not fully consistent. Most studies found deficits on one or several tests of cognitive function, but not on other tests, and there was not full agreement among studies in which tests were affected. Further no deficits were found in other studies of OP exposure (Daniell et al., 1992; Ames et al., 1995; Fiedler et al., 1997; Steenland et al., 2000). Pesticide exposure is also associated with deficits in psychomotor function. Farmworkers (Daniell et al., 1992; Londen et al., 1997; Gomes et al., 1999 and termiticide applicators (Steenland et al., 1992) exposed to OPs, malaria-control workers who sprayed DDT (de Joode et al., 2001), vineyard workers exposed to fungicides (Baldi et al., 2001) and fumigators exposed to methyl bromide or sulfuryl fluoride (Anger et al., 1986; Calvert et al., 1998) showed worse performance on tests of psychomotor function. Again, results on individual tests were not fully consistent within or among studies, and no change in psychomotor function was evident in other studies of OP exposure (Ames et al., 1995; Cole et al., 1997; Fiedler et al., 1997). Two studies of applicators exposed to OPs (Steenland et al., 1994) or to multiple pesticides (Sack et al., 1993) found deficits in balance, although results from another study of OPs were negative (Ames et al., 1995).


Studies on sensory and motor dysfunction have used neurobehavioural test batteries, often supplemented with tests of sensory or motor function. One frequently used test is vibration sensitivity, which evaluates peripheral somatosensory function. Most available evidence suggests this is not affected by moderate pesticide exposure (Kamel et al., 2004). Few studies have evaluated other aspects of sensory function. One study suggested that the sense of smell was not affected by OPs (Steenland et al., 2000); another study suggested a relationship with fumigants (Calvert et al., 1998). Visual contrast sensitivity was not affected by exposure to OPs (Steenland et al., 2000; van Wendel de Joode et al., 2001) or multiple pesticides (Kamel et al., 2003), but colour vision was (Steenland et al., 2000). Studies that have evaluated peripheral nerve conduction have produced largely negative results. Several studies of OPs found little evidence of impaired nerve conduction (Ames et al., 1995; Engel et al., 1998; Steenland et al., 2000). One study of fumigators found deficits in nerve conduction (Calvert et al., 1998), but another did not (Anger et al., 1986). The impact of organophosphate and carbamate exposure on children has not been extensively researched, particularly with respect to neurobehavioural testing. In inner-city home environments, indoor exposures to some pesticide toxicants can be frequent and at high levels due to cockroach and rodent problems. Whyatt et al. (2002; Breysse et al., 2004) recently reported on the pesticide use of inner-city residents in New York City. This study documented widespread pesticide use, and in the case of diazinon, the exposure for some women may have exceeded healthy levels based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reference dose. Eighty-four percent of the women questioned as a part of this study reported that pest control measures were used in the home during pregnancy. Not surprisingly, a number of organophosphate (both chlorpyrifos and diazinon) and carbamate (propoxur) pesticides were detected in air samples, maternal blood, and cord blood samples (Perera et al. 2003; in Breysse et al., 2004). Poisoning events and chronic exposure to cholinesterase inhibitors, organophosphates (OPs), and carbamates have traditionally been associated with neurotoxic consequences, such as poor neurobehavioural performance in some cognitive domains such as information processing and memory (Abou-Donia 2003; Wesseling et al. 2002; Yokoyama et al. 1998; in Roldán-Tapia et al., 2005) or delayed neuropathy induced by certain OPs (Eyer 1995; Jamal 1997; in Roldán-Tapia et al., 2005). In Europe and the U.S.A., many residents who live in buildings complain of symptoms such as headache, giddiness, irritation of the eyes, etc. This has occurred frequently since the 1980s, and the hazardous health effects are termed ‘Sick Building Syndrome (SBS)’. It may be explained by increases in indoor air contaminants due to reduced ventilation air volume as a result of measures to save energy consumption by air conditioning in buildings. Contaminants involved are new building materials containing formaldehyde (HCHO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) etc., termiticides and insecticides. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a further “Human Health Risk Assessment” for chlorpyrifos as an active ingredient organophosphate insecticide, and the risk estimation was reported to be much higher than before (Dai et al., 2003). Information on wheeze of 12 months' duration, diagnosed asthma, and cough for 3 months of the year was gathered by questionnaire in random household samples from urban Jimma and from rural areas in Ethiopia. Atopy was defined by allergen skin-test response to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and mixed threshings measured in a one-in-four subsample of those aged 5 years and older from both groups. Wheeze or D pteronyssinus sensitivity was positively associated with housing style, bedding materials, and use of malathion insecticide, but no single factor accounted for the urban/rural differences (Yemaneberhan et al., 1997).


Regular exposure to low concentrations of pyrethroids results from the use of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). Their use substantially reduces the risk of mortality and morbidity from malaria (Lengeler, 1998; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004) and ITNs are therefore promoted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and numerous other organisations as an effective method of malaria vector control. In studies at BAYER, sleeping under impregnated bednets was simulated in inhalation studies with rats using a variety of concentrations of the pyrethroid cyfluthrin (Bomann, 1995; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). Depending on the duration of the study no-observed-effect levels (NOEL) of 0.44, 0.09 and 0.5 mg per cubic metre of air were reported. At higher concentrations, rats showed changes in body weight and reflexive retardation of respiration (reflex bradypnea), which was described as ‘’the rat’s defence mechanism against inhalation of sensory irritants, not damage per se’’. The highest dose of 46.6 mg/m³ resulted, according to the author, in ‘non-specific symptoms’’. On the assumption that 20% of the highest NOEL (0.5 mg/m³) can be considered as the maximum tolerable value and multiplied by a safety factor of 10 in applying animal data to humans, a dose of 0.01 mg/m³ cyfluthrin was considered to be harmless and tolerable to humans (Bomann, 1995; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). By simulating the field situation with a net impregnated with 50 mg/m² cyfluthrin hung in a room, it was determined that the insecticide concentration outside the net did not exceed 0.000038 mg/m³, with slightly higher values for samples within the net. As these values were three orders of magnitude below the dose of 0.01 mg/m³, exposure to cyfluthrin by sleeping under a treated net was considered as harmless (Bomann, 1995; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). A similar conclusion was drawn from a risk assessment on the use of the deltamethrin (in tablet formulation) for ITN impregnation. It concluded that most risk scenarios for dermal and oral exposure give a high margin of safety. Taking into account the great benefit from improved protection against host seeking anopheline vectors of malaria, the authors estimate the risk benefit ratio as ‘very favourable’ (Barlow et al., 2001; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). This is consistent with the outcome of a review of toxicological data on six pyrethroids (including cyfluthrin and deltamethrin) approved by WHO for treatment of mosquito nets (Zaim et al., 2000; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). However, none of the above studies on ITNs address the issue of potential chronic effects. Their use of the NOEL concept does not apply to these potential effects, as chronic neuro-behavioural toxicity in humans has not been assessed. A ‘safe’ dose with regard to chronic effects can therefore not be established, as relevant toxicological data do not exist in the open scientific literature; data from chronic animal studies are largely limited to unpublished regulatory studies (Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). Kolaczinski and Curtis (2004) identified research needs to clarify effects of low-level exposure to pyrethroids such as chronic illness in humans. Given the exposure situation in households with pyrethroid-treated textiles and some indication of an improvement in health by removing pyrethroid treated carpeting (Pröhl et al., 1997; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004), a controlled epidemiological study is required for clarification. To investigate the existence of any chronic symptoms associated with long-term pyrethroid exposure, a clinic based case-control study seems the most appropriate. This could be carried out in hospitals where cases of environmental illnesses are generally referred to, using other conditions as controls. This will require agreement on a working definition of ‘case’ and of ‘exposure’. A working case definition will have to rely on an individual’s subjective symptoms of distress, as previously suggested for MCS (Sparks et al., 1994; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). The use of neuropsychological test methods should also be explored. These will need to be identified in a systematic approach to ensure their appropriateness. Common shortcomings of earlier research using these methods have been identified (Baker


et al., 1990; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004) and improvements in current methods been suggested (Fiedler, 1996; in Kolaczinski and Curtis, 2004). It can be concluded that most studies led on neurotoxicity have documented an increase in symptom prevalence and changes in neurobehavioural performance reflecting cognitive and psychomotor dysfunction, but many found little effect of pesticide exposure on sensory or motor function or direct measures of nerve function.

� Parkinson’s diseaseParkinson’s diseaseParkinson’s diseaseParkinson’s disease There is an extensive literature suggesting that pesticide exposure may increase risk of Parkinson’s disease (PD) (Hoogenraad, 1988; Langston, 1996; Le Couteur et al., 1999; Thiruchelvam et al., 2000; Priyadarshi et al., 2001). Many studies have found that PD risk is related to living in rural areas, drinking well water and farming as an occupation (Priyadarshi et al., 2001). More specifically, numerous case-control studies have observed that pesticide exposure is associated with increased PD risk. Studies published prior to 1999 were reviewed by Le Couteur et al. (1999), who noted that 12 of 20 studies found a positive association. In many of these studies, exposure was broadly defined as ever exposure to any pesticide, which might minimize the association. In the time since this review, only one of five case-control studies found a relationship of pesticide exposure to PD risk, but definition of pesticide exposure was similarly broad (Fall et al., 1999; Kuopio et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 1999; Preux et al., 2000; Behari et al., 2001). In contrast, two recent studies showed that occupational exposure to pesticides is strongly associated with PD risk (Petrovitch et al., 2002; Baldi et al., 2003). Only a few studies of pesticide exposure and PD risk have been able to implicate specific pesticides. Several studies found increased risk associated with exposure to either insecticides or herbicides (Semchuk et al., 1992; Butterfield et al., 1993; Gorell et al., 1998), several studies have implicated paraquat (Hertzman et al., 1990; Liou et al., 1997), and one study indicated that risk was elevated by exposure to organochlorines, organophosphates or carbamates (Seidler et al., 1996). In addition to analytic studies, several case reports have described PD in individuals exposed to organophosphates (Davis et al., 1978; Bhatt et al., 1999), glyphosate (Barbosa et al., 2001), paraquat (Sanchez-Ramon et al., 1987), diquat (Sechi et al., 1992), maneb (Meco et al., 1994) and other ethylene bis-dithiocarbamates (Hoogenraad, 1988). Higher concentrations of organochlorine residues, particularly dieldrin, have been found in post-mortem brains of PD patients compared to patients with other neurological diseases (Fleming et al., 1994; Corrigan et al., 2000). Animal models have also implicated specific pesticides in the etiology of PD, including rotenone, paraquat and maneb (Betarbet et al., 2000; Thiruchelvam et al., 2000).

� Other neurologic diseasesOther neurologic diseasesOther neurologic diseasesOther neurologic diseases Information on pesticide exposure and other neurologic diseases is sparser. Several studies have suggested that risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is related to farming as an occupation, but not necessarily to living in rural areas (Nelson, 1996). Pesticide exposure has been considered in six case-control studies; three found some evidence for an association (Deapen & Henderson, 1986; Savettieri et al., 1991; McGuire et al., 1997), whereas three others found no association (Granieri et al., 1988; Gunnarsson et al., 1992; Chancellor et al., 1993). Only one study presented detailed exposure information (McGuire et al., 1997): pesticide exposure was associated with a more than twofold increase in ALS risk, with a greater risk at higher levels of exposure.


Dementia has also been related to pesticide exposure. Occupational pesticide exposure was associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk in a large population-based case-control study (McDowell et al., 1994), although another smaller study found no relationship (Gauthier et al., 2001). Occupational exposure to pesticides assessed with a job-exposure matrix was associated with a twofold increase in risk of AD in a cohort of older individuals living in a vineyard-growing region (Baldi et al., 2003). Occupational pesticide exposure was also associated with vascular dementia (Lindsay et al., 1997) and with risk of dementia among PD patients (Hubble et al., 1998). Pesticide exposure was associated with mild cognitive dysfunction in a prospective cohort study of cognitive aging (Bosma et al., 2000).

2.1.1.3.32.1.1.3.32.1.1.3.32.1.1.3.3 IIIIMMUNOTOXICITYMMUNOTOXICITYMMUNOTOXICITYMMUNOTOXICITY Immunotoxicology defines the adverse health effects that may result from the interactions of chemicals with the immune system. Such effects may be classified broadly into two main types, immunotoxicity and allergy. In the first, immunotoxicity, exposure results in functional impairment of the immune system. The concern here is that the compromised immune function will be translated into reduced host resistance and increased susceptibility to infectious disease and malignancy. The second is allergy, which is associated with stimulation of a specific immune response by a xenobiotic. This results in sensitization. If the now sensitized individual is exposed again to the inducing chemical, then an accelerated and more aggressive secondary immune response may be provoked, resulting in an allergic reaction or, in some instances, autoimmunity (Hughes, 2002). Pesticides-induced immunotoxicity through diet exposure is scarce. However, various studies have assessed immune system disruptions due to pesticide exposures. Immunotoxicity of organophosphorus pesticides may be direct via inhibition of serine hydrolases or esterases in components of the immune system, through oxidative damage to immune organs, or by modulation of signal transduction pathways controlling immune functions (Galloway et al., 2003). Performed on humans, a study strived to evaluate lindane-induced immunological alterations. The results showed that immunoglobulin levels were not altered but suggested that lindane exposure at chronically high levels affects cytokine levels in humans and indicates the severity of immunotoxicity (Vandana et al., 2005). Organophosphorous diazinon effects on immunological system were studied by Neishabouri et al. (2004). Results indicate that diazinon has immunosuppressive effects in the C57bl/6 mice at doses more than 2 mg/kg. The present results however indicate that under recommended Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) limit (<0.02 mg/kg), no observable immunotoxicity effect is expected. A study was conducted to determine the effects of fungicides cupravit and previcur on humoral- and cell-mediated immune responses in mice after 8 weeks dietary exposure to 300 ppm cupravit or 1000 ppm previcur. Exposure to either cupravit or previcur reduced the total leukocytic and lymphocytic counts while neutrophilic count increased. Both cupravit and previcur suppressed the plaque-forming cell response by 74 and 78% of the control values, respectively. The inhibitory effect of cupravit on humoral immunity was more pronounced than of previcur. Both cupravit and previcur inhibited the cell-mediated immune response (Elsabbagh et al., 2001). For organochlorines, compounds cause reduction of thymic weight and function and natural killer cell activity is universally reduced (Crinnion, 2000). Pesticide mixtures are also an issue to take into account when considering immunotoxicity. The small number of studies that have attempted to evaluate the effects of various mixtures on immune functions, both in vivo and in vitro using human or animal cells, have shown potential immunodilatory effects of the mixture tested (Hughes et al., 2002).


However, studies have generally not assessed the effects of mixture components individually and thus conclusions regarding potential interactive effects cannot yet be made.

2.1.1.3.42.1.1.3.42.1.1.3.42.1.1.3.4 EEEENDOCRINE DISRUPTION NDOCRINE DISRUPTION NDOCRINE DISRUPTION NDOCRINE DISRUPTION Some pesticides are suspected of being endocrine disruptors as they may alter the function of hormonal systems and cause adverse effects on human health. Toxicity is induced by pesticides by mimicking the effects of natural hormones, blocking their normal action, or by interfering with the synthesis and/or excretion of hormones (EDEN, 2005). Indeed several chemicals, that are pesticides and natural plant products, can mimic the actions of oestrogen (Hughes, 2002). Often endocrine disruption can involve birth defects, sexual abnormalities, reproductive failure and cancer. More precisely, genital malformations, testis cancer, and some cases of reduced sperm quality arise early in life and can occur even during development in the womb. These conditions have common causes during reproductive organ development in the foetus, which is controlled by hormones. The concern is that endocrine disrupters may interfere with these processes to disturb male genital development during pregnancy. Similarly, hormonal dysregulation may lead to the formation of breast cancer in women and abnormal pubertal development in girls (EDEN, 2005). Given the complexity of endocrine systems, there are many ways in which endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can affect the body’s signalling system and this makes unravelling the mechanisms of action of these chemicals difficult. Regulators do not agree on the entirety of the EDC list (PAN UK, 2005). A summary list set up by the Pesticide Action Network shows that four official sources agree only on atrazine, DDT, lindane and tributyltin. Nowadays, only tributyltin is still officially allowed for use. In May 2005 international experts and scientists representing different disciplines convened in Prague to discuss European research on EDCs and the results reinforced concerns over the long-term consequences of exposure to endocrine disrupters to humans. Kitamura et al. (2003) investigated the endocrine-disrupting actions of the organophosphorus pesticide fenthion and related compounds and the influence of metabolic transformation on the activities of these compounds. Fenthion acted as an antagonist of the androgenic activity of dihydrotestosterone (10–7 M) in the concentration range of 10–6-10–4 M in an androgen-responsive element-luciferase reporter responsive assay using NIH3T3 cells. The antiandrogenic activity of fenthion was similar in magnitude to that of flutamide. When fenthion was incubated with rat liver microsomes in the presence of NADPH, the antiandrogenic activity markedly decreased, and fenthion sulfoxide was detected as a major metabolite. The oxidase activity toward fenthion was exhibited by cytochrome P450 and flavin containing monooxygenase. Fenthion sulfoxide was negative in the screening test for antiandrogens, as was fenthion sulfone. However, when fenthion sulfoxide was incubated with liver cytosol in the presence of 2- hydroxypyrimidine, an electron donor of aldehyde oxidase, the extract of the incubation mixture exhibited antiandrogenic activity. In this case, fenthion was detected as a major metabolite of the sulfoxide. Metabolic interconversion between fenthion and fenthion sulfoxide in the body seems to maintain the antiandrogenic activity. There is also some concern that mixtures of these substances act in concert to modulate the endocrine systems in humans, even at very low levels of environmental exposure. This topic has been largely reviewed in the literature by Hughes (2002). Scorecard (2005) used a compiled list of endocrine toxicity references to create a list of endocrine disruptors. Estrogens, whether natural or synthetic, clearly influence reproductive development, senescence, and carcinogenesis. Pyrethroid insecticides are now the most widely used


agents for indoor pest control, providing potential for human exposure. Using the MCF-7 human breast carcinoma cell line, the estrogenic potential of several synthetic pyrethroid compounds were studied in vitro using pS2 mRNA levels as the end point. Sumithrin, fenvalerate, d-trans allethrin, and permethrin were tested. Nanomolar concentrations of either sumithrin or fenvalerate were sufficient to increase pS2 expression slightly above basal levels. At micromolar concentrations, these two pyrethroid compounds induced pS2 expression to levels comparable to those elicited by 10 nM 17ß-estradiol (fivefold). The estrogenic activity of sumithrin was abolished with co-treatment with an antiestrogen (ICI 164,384), whereas estrogenic activity of fenvalerate was not significantly diminished with antiestrogen co-treatment. In addition, both sumithrin and fenvalerate were able to induce cell proliferation of MCF-7 cells in a dose-response fashion. Neither permethrin or d-trans allethrin affected pS2 expression. Permethrin had a noticeable effect on cell proliferation at 100 µM, whereas d-trans allethrin slightly induced MCF-7 cell proliferation at 10 µM, but was toxic at higher concentrations. Overall, the studies imply that each pyrethroid compound is unique in its ability to influence several cellular pathways. These findings suggest that pyrethroids should be considered to be hormone disruptors, and their potential to affect endocrine function in humans and wildlife should be investigated (Go et al., 1999). BKH Consulting Engineers (2000) has been commissioned by the European Commission to conduct a study on endocrine disruption focusing on man-made chemicals. The starting point of the study was a working list, compiled from the lists of suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals drawn up by various organisations as well as from an up-to-date literature search. Allethrin, methyl bromide, permethrin and tetrachlorvinphos are included in this working list. The working list was presented and discussed at a stakeholder meeting with representatives of government, industry and NGOs. For the working list consisting of 564 substances scientific evidence on endocrine disruption was gathered. A further analysis was made for a number of 146 High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals and/or highly persistent substances. Methyl bromide was amongst these 146 substances since it was considered to be a HPV chemical. A panel of experts in the field of endocrine disrupting effects of substances on human health and wildlife categorised these 146 substances on the basis of the available evidence into three categories:

� Category 1: at least one study providing evidence of endocrine disruption in an intact organism. Not a formal weight of evidence approach;

� Category 2: potential for endocrine disruption. In vitro data indicating potential for endocrine disruption in intact organisms. Also includes effects in-vivo that may, or may not, be ED-mediated. May include structural analyses and metabolic considerations;

� Category 3: no scientific basis for inclusion in list or no/insufficient data. Methyl bromide was classified in category 2 for human health and in category 3 for wildlife (BHK Consulting Engineers, 2000). The ED-North database (http://www.vliz.be/projects/endis/aboutEDN.php) is a database containing the data that where gathered during the SPSD I research project 'Evaluation of possible impacts of endocrine disruptors on the North Sea ecosystem' (Comhaire & Janssen, 2001). This ED-NORTH project aimed at establishing a clear overview of the increasing volume of available scientific literature on endocrine disruption. Specific objectives were: to address the uncertainties presently associated with the issue of environmental endocrine disruption; to specify future research and policy needs; to accomplish these tasks specifically for endocrine modulating activity in the marine


environment. Data from the ED-North database on endocrine disruptive effects of active substances that are not allowed to occur in plant protection products in Belgium are given in table 1-2.

Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----2222: Overview of data on endocrine: Overview of data on endocrine: Overview of data on endocrine: Overview of data on endocrine disruptive effects (ED North, disruptive effects (ED North, disruptive effects (ED North, disruptive effects (ED North, http://www.vliz.be/projects/endis/aboutEDN.phphttp://www.vliz.be/projects/endis/aboutEDN.phphttp://www.vliz.be/projects/endis/aboutEDN.phphttp://www.vliz.be/projects/endis/aboutEDN.php))))

Active substanceActive substanceActive substanceActive substance OrganismOrganismOrganismOrganism TissueTissueTissueTissue Test conditionsTest conditionsTest conditionsTest conditions EffectsEffectsEffectsEffects Allethrin Permethrin

Mouse HeLa cells In vitro; 40h; 37°C; 100 nM-10 µM

Suspected no endocrine effects; no (anti) estrogenic effects

Allethrin Permethrin

Human ERalpha In vitro; 100 nM-10 µM

Suspected no endocrine effects; no (anti-)estrogenic effects

Allethrin Permethrin

Yeast strain Y190 hERalpha In vitro; 4 hours; 30°C; 10 µM

Suspected no endocrine effects; no (anti) estrogenic effects

Tetrachlorvinphos Human-adult Placental microsomes

In vitro; 15 minutes; 37°C; 50 µM

Suspected no endocrine effects; no inhibition of aromatase activity

Tetrachlorvinphos Fish (Mystus vittatus)

Oocystes In vitro; 1 day; 25°C; 1-100 ppb

Effect on gonadotropin: inhibition of LH-induced germinal vesicle breakdown

Tetrachlorvinphos Human MCF-7 cells (E3 clone)

In vitro; 9 days; 37°C; 10 µM

Suspected no endocrine effect; no induction of cell proliferation

Tetrachlorvinphos Recombinant yeast

hERalpha In vitro; 4 days; 32°C; 125-250 µM

Suspected no endocrine effect; cytotoxic

Table 1-2 shows that a thorough search of the available scientific literature, resulted in relatively few studies on endocrine effects of the active substances under concern. No data on methyl bromide are listed in the ED North database. This seems to be in conflict with the results of the study, assigned by the European Commission (BHK Consulting Engineers, 2000). However, methyl bromide was classified as a potential endocrine disruptor for human health in that study, whilst the ED-North database focussed on ecotoxicology.

2.1.1.3.52.1.1.3.52.1.1.3.52.1.1.3.5 RRRREPRODUCTIVE DISRUPTIEPRODUCTIVE DISRUPTIEPRODUCTIVE DISRUPTIEPRODUCTIVE DISRUPTIONONONON A prospective cohort study of mothers and newborns delivered at Mount Sinai Hospital has documented considerable indoor pesticide exposure during pregnancy among minority women in New York City. In this study, the relationship among prenatal pesticide exposure, paraoxonase (PON1) polymorphisms and enzyme activity, and infant growth and neurodevelopment was examined, among 404 births between May 1998 and May 2002. Pesticide exposure was assessed by a prenatal questionnaire administered to the mothers during the early third trimester as well as by analysis of maternal urinary pentachlorophenol


levels and maternal metabolites of chlorpyrifos and pyrethroids. Neither the questionnaire data nor the pesticide metabolite levels were associated with any of the fetal growth indices or gestational age. However, when the level of maternal PON1 activity was taken into account, maternal levels of chlorpyrifos above the limit of detection coupled with low maternal PON1 activity were associated with a significant but small reduction in head circumference. In addition, maternal PON1 levels alone, but not PON1 genetic polymorphisms, were associated with reduced head size. Because small head size has been found to be predictive of subsequent cognitive ability, these data suggest that chlorpyrifos may have a detrimental effect on fetal neurodevelopment among mothers who exhibit low PON1 activity (Berkowitz et al. 2004). The prospective cohort study being conducted by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) has shown widespread pesticide use during pregnancy in minority communities in New York City (Whyatt et al. 2002, 2003; in Whyatt et al. 2004). Specifically, of the 459 African-American and Dominican women interviewed, 85% reported using some form of pest control measures during pregnancy, and 35% reported using an exterminator. Most of the pesticide use was for cockroach control (Whyatt et al. 2002; in Whyatt et al. 2004). All women had detectable levels of at least three insecticides (the organophosphates chlorpyrifos and diazinon and the carbamate propoxur) in personal air samples collected over 48 hr during the third trimester. The insecticides were detected in 45-74% of blood samples collected from the mothers and newborns at delivery; maternal and newborn levels were similar and highly correlated, indicating the pesticides had been transferred from the mother to fetus during pregnancy (Whyatt et al. 2004). These findings raise concern over the potential health effects of residential pesticide use to the developing fetus. Although little is known about the effects of residential pesticide exposure among human populations, experimental data in laboratory animals suggest that exposures to certain organophosphates (including chlorpyrifos and diazinon) during pregnancy or early life can impair fetal growth and neurocognitive development in the offspring [reviewed by Eskenazi et al. (1999)]. Reduction in birth weight was also seen experimentally in a two-generation reproductive study of propoxur in rats, but only at high exposure levels [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1997] (in Whyatt et al. 2004). Data showed a statistically significant inverse association between chlorpyrifos levels in umbilical cord blood samples and birth weight and length among newborns in the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health cohort (Perera et al. 2003; in Whyatt et al. 2004). This study was extended to evaluate the association between birth outcomes and levels of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and propoxur measured in maternal personal air samples collected during pregnancy and in umbilical cord blood samples collected at delivery. Results of the extended study confirmed the earlier findings of an inverse association between chlorpyrifos levels in umbilical cord plasma and birth weight and length (Perera et al. 2003; in Whyatt et al. 2004). Further, a dose-response relationship was additionally seen in the extended study. Specifically, the association between cord plasma chlorpyrifos and reduced birth weight and length was found principally among newborns with the highest 25% of exposure levels. By 2001, after exposures had been reduced because of U.S. EPA regulatory action, almost none of the newborns had these higher exposure levels, and the association between cord plasma chlorpyrifos levels and birth weight and length was no longer inverse or significant (Whyatt et al. 2004). Results from the study also suggest the possibility that prenatal diazinon exposures may have contributed to fetal growth deficits. Although the associations seen here between cord plasma diazinon levels and birth weight and length were not significant, both decreased


with increasing diazinon levels, and the effect size was similar to that seen for chlorpyrifos. Additionally, in the study the association between chlorpyrifos and diazinon exposures and fetal growth was found only when the biomarkers were used as a dosimeter of prenatal exposure and not when environmental measurements (maternal 48-hr personal air levels during the third trimester) were used. There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. Biomarkers can be useful in understanding the role of environmental contaminants during fetal development in part because they are integrating dosimeters. This may be particularly important for insecticides because exposure can come from multiple sources (diet, residential, and workplace use) and multiple routes (ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption). Both chlorpyrifos and diazinon, for example, are registered for use on numerous food crops (Smegal 1999; U.S. EPA 2000b; in Whyatt et al. 2004), and diet may be a significant source of exposure to these insecticides (Curl et al. 2003, Fenske et al. 2002; in Whyatt et al. 2004). A recent aggregate-exposures study of four pesticides, including chlorpyrifos and diazinon, among 102 children from Minnesota concluded that ingestion was by far the dominant route of exposure (Clayton et al. 2003; in Whyatt et al. 2004). Another study found chlorpyrifos residues in 38% of the food samples collected over 4 days from 75 individuals (MacIntosh et al. 2001; in Whyatt et al. 2004), although dietary intakes were estimated to account for only approximately 13% of aggregate exposures (Pang et al. 2002; in Whyatt et al. 2004). Dermal absorption and nonintentional ingestion may also be significant sources of exposure to residues of the insecticides on surfaces in the home after residential use (Camann et al. 1995; Gordon et al. 1999, Gurunathan et al. 1998, Whitmore et al. 1994; in Whyatt et al. 2004). Finally, the biomarkers may provide better dosimeters of the dose to the target tissue than measures of maternal prenatal exposure because they reflect not only the amount of insecticides absorbed by the mother but also the amount of the absorbed dose that has been transferred to the developing fetus (Whyatt et al. 2004). However, limitations in the biomarkers need to be recognized. In cases of chronic exposure, a biomarker measured at a single time point can provide a representative dosimeter even if the toxicant has a short half-life. However, this may not be the case for short-term biomarkers if exposures are sporadic. Previous studies with chlorpyrifos, which is similar to other semivolatile pesticides including diazinon, indicate that after residential use, air levels peak in a two-phase process: an aerosolized particle phase with residue concentration on surface areas peaking after 36 hr and a gas phase that begins 12 hr after application and continues for at least 2 weeks, with residue concentrations on surface areas peaking after 72 hr at levels similar to those in the initial particle phase and then declining rapidly (Gurunathan et al. 1998; in Whyatt et al. 2004). Our prior data indicate that women in the cohort often used insecticides repeatedly during pregnancy (Whyatt et al. 2002; in Whyatt et al. 2004). How long the insecticides persist in the indoor environment is not known, although it is probably longer than in the outdoor environment because of less degradation by microorganisms, hydrolysis, and ultraviolet light. Once absorbed, the insecticides appear to be rapidly eliminated with biologic half-lives on the order of hours to days in adults (Barr et al. 2002; in Whyatt et al. 2004). Data are lacking on the half-life of the insecticides in the fetus, and it is possible that it is longer than in the adult because of reduced clearance mechanisms, as has been documented for other toxicants including nicotine (Lambers and Clark 1996, National Research Council 1993; in Whyatt et al. 2004). In addition, other factors may be operating to modulate fetal insecticide levels either during pregnancy or at delivery (Whyatt et al. 2004). To assess potential effects of human DDT [1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane] exposure, the reproductive history of 2,033 workers in the antimalaria campaign of Mexico


was evaluated. Paternal exposure to DDT before each pregnancy was estimated using three approaches: a) a dichotomous indicator for pregnancies before and after exposure began, b) a qualitative index of four exposure categories, and c) an estimation of the DDT metabolite DDE [1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene] accumulated in fat. To assess associations, logistic regression models were used that accounted for correlated observations and adjusted for parents' age at each child's birth, exposure to other pesticides, exposure to chemical substances in other employment, smoking, and alcohol consumption. The odds ratio for birth defects comparing pregnancies after and before the first exposure was 3.77 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.19-9.52]. Compared with the lowest quartile of estimated DDE in fat, the ORs were 2.48 (95% CI, 0.75-8.11), 4.15 (95% CI, 1.38-12.46), and 3.76 (95% CI, 1.23-11.44) for quartiles 2, 3, and 4, equivalent to p,p´-DDE in fat of 50, 82, and 298 µg/g fat, respectively. No significant association was found for spontaneous abortion or sex ratio. An increased risk of birth defects associated with high occupational exposure to DDT was found in this group of workers. The significance of this association at lower exposure levels found in the general population remains uncertain (Salazar-García et al., 2004). 2.1.1.42.1.1.42.1.1.42.1.1.4 CCCCONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSION

In the following table 1-3 a brief overview is given of the most acute and chronic health effects due to pesticide exposure which were reported in international literature. All these effects are considered above, but it has to be mentioned that even though these effects are discussed in different studies all over the world, it can not be established with 100% complete certainty that there is a direct connection between the particular active substance and the observed effect. There is no doubt about the reliability and the correctness of the observed effects, but these toxicities and diseases are liable to a lot of influencing factors and it is not obvious to state that only pesticides are responsible for the noticed effects. Regarding old active substances like DDT, their harmfulness to the people has been determined very well and there is a huge scientific consensus about the toxicity of DDT to human beings, whereas for some other substances the uncertainty concerning the toxicity is much higher. Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----3333: Overview of the most common acute and chronic health effects due to pesticide exposure, : Overview of the most common acute and chronic health effects due to pesticide exposure, : Overview of the most common acute and chronic health effects due to pesticide exposure, : Overview of the most common acute and chronic health effects due to pesticide exposure, as reported in internatas reported in internatas reported in internatas reported in international literatureional literatureional literatureional literature

EffectsEffectsEffectsEffects Pesticide groupsPesticide groupsPesticide groupsPesticide groups

OrganophosphatesOrganophosphatesOrganophosphatesOrganophosphates OrganochlorinesOrganochlorinesOrganochlorinesOrganochlorines PyrethroidsPyrethroidsPyrethroidsPyrethroids CarbamatesCarbamatesCarbamatesCarbamates

Acute toxicity X X X X

Chronic toxicity

Carcinogenicity X X X X

Neurotoxicity X X X

Immunotoxicity X X

Endocrine disruption(1)

X X X

Reproductive disruption

X X X

(1): methyl bromide: potential for endocrine disruption


2.1.22.1.22.1.22.1.2 Uncertainties and critical appraisal of toxicity studiesUncertainties and critical appraisal of toxicity studiesUncertainties and critical appraisal of toxicity studiesUncertainties and critical appraisal of toxicity studies 2.1.2.12.1.2.12.1.2.12.1.2.1 UUUUNCERTAINTIES LINKED NCERTAINTIES LINKED NCERTAINTIES LINKED NCERTAINTIES LINKED TO PESTICIDE MIXTURETO PESTICIDE MIXTURETO PESTICIDE MIXTURETO PESTICIDE MIXTURESSSS

2.1.2.1.12.1.2.1.12.1.2.1.12.1.2.1.1 IIIINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION

There are many papers that describe the toxic effects of mixtures. However, relatively few studies have adequately investigated the nature of interactions that may be occurring between the constituents within a mixture and deviations from additivity. Relevant experimental data in the field of mixture toxicology are presented as an overview of the problems linked to pesticides mixtures. For the most part, the studies included here are limited to those that have investigated the acute, sub-acute or chronic toxic effects of simultaneous combined exposures and the examination of dynamic rather than metabolic or toxicokinetic endpoints.

2.1.2.1.22.1.2.1.22.1.2.1.22.1.2.1.2 EEEEXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCEXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCEXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCEXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCESSSS Many data exist in literature concerning the modulation of acute or subacute toxic effects of chemicals, including pesticides, by prior administration of other chemicals, the latter often well-known inducers or inhibitors of hepatic drug metabolising enzymes. Williams and Casterline (1970) studied the interactive effects of aldrin, chlordane, piperonyl butoxide and carbanolate in Osborne-Mendel rats. Chlordane and aldrin reduced the toxicity of carbanolate, primarily by induction of detoxification. Repeated administration of piperonyl butoxide blocked the protective effects that these afforded against carbanolate toxicity, by inhibiting detoxification. Gaughan et al. (1980) studied the interactive effects of organophosphate (OP) pesticides and carbamates on the acute toxicity of malathion and fenvalerate in mice. Mice were treated intraperitoneally with profenofos, sulprofos, EPN, S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate (DEF), monocrotophos, azinphos-methyl, parathion-methyl, acephate, carbaryl, methomyl or chlordimeform, and later with the pesticides malathion or fenvalerate. LD50 values for fenvalerate and malathion were decreased in mice pre-treated with EPN, profenofos, and DEF. The LD50 for malathion was also decreased in mice pre-treated with sulprofos. These data illustrate the modulation of the acute toxicity of pesticides by prior exposure to relatively large doses of other pesticides, most likely through effects on their metabolism. Ensenbach and Nagel (1995) assessed the acute and chronic toxicity of 3,4-dichloroaniline and lindane, both individually and as a mixture, in zebrafish. LC50 values for the compounds as a binary mixture in tap water were approximately half those observed for individual chemicals. The authors thus concluded that the combined toxicity of this mixture could be characterised as additive. This was presumably a consequence primarily of the induction of bioactivation by lindane. Johnston4 has reviewed the interactive effects of pesticides on serum butyryl cholinesterase (BuChE) and brain AChE in birds. Studies have shown that red-legged partridges pre-treated with prochloraz were more sensitive to the effects of the OP malathion than controls. This was due to induction of malathion bioactivation. The usefulness of acute study data is limited with regards to the prediction of the effects at low exposures. The metabolic pathways and receptors involved are likely to be saturated. Furthermore, the critical target for acute toxic effects may not be the same as those at lower levels of exposure. However, the mechanisms by which toxicities of compounds are modulated may have relevance to the interactions that may occur during exposure to mixtures. Abou-Donia et al (1985) studied the neurotoxicity produced in Leghorn hens by sub-chronic dermal application of n-hexane, methyl n-butyl ketone, 2,5-hexanediol or 2,5-hexanedione, either alone or in combination with the OP or EPN. Hens treated with EPN developed severe


ataxia. Concurrent dermal application of EPN with n-hexane or 2,5- hexanediol, regardless of site of application, resulted in an effect described by the authors as additive. The effects of simultaneous dermal application of EPN and methyl n-butyl ketone at different sites were also described as additive. No histological changes were seen at the end of the observation period with any single treatment. However, in some hens, binary treatments of EPN and one of the other compounds resulted in histopathological changes that were characteristics of EPN neurotoxicity. Thiruchelvam et al. (2000) evaluated the effects of paraquat dichloride and/or maneb given by injection to male C57BL/6 mice. Assessed endpoints were effects on locomotor activity, density of tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) positive neurons, levels of dopamine and metabolites and dopamine turnover. The authors noted that decreases in motor activity immediately following injections were observed more consistently with combined exposures of maneb/paraquat. Levels of dopamine and metabolites and dopamine turnover were slightly increased immediately post-injection by combined exposures compared to maneb alone. Adjuvants may also be responsible for toxicity enhancement. In the study led by Richard et al. (2005) on the differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, authors concluded that Roundup formulation may multiply endocrine effects of glyphosate. For any further study, exhaustive experiments are listed in the Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Pesticides and Similar Substances (Hughes, 2002).

2.1.2.1.32.1.2.1.32.1.2.1.32.1.2.1.3 MMMMIXTURES OF ORGANOCHLIXTURES OF ORGANOCHLIXTURES OF ORGANOCHLIXTURES OF ORGANOCHLOIRNES AND ENVIRONMEOIRNES AND ENVIRONMEOIRNES AND ENVIRONMEOIRNES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS NTAL CONTAMINANTS NTAL CONTAMINANTS NTAL CONTAMINANTS Organochlorine residues found in various foodstuff are coming from past use of organochlorines and their accumulation in the environment. But often, in addition to these pesticide residues, foodstuff analysis reveal the presence of others environmental contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins and heavy metals (Milieu and Gezondheid, 2002 ; Goemans, 2003 ; Pussemier et al., 2004). Possible interactions between other pesticides or other chemical compounds are not well known. As these environmental contaminants are sometimes found in high concentrations in foodstuffs, concerns about mixtures toxicity have to be taken into account.

2.1.2.1.42.1.2.1.42.1.2.1.42.1.2.1.4 CCCCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS Because of the complexity and variability of chemical mixtures that may occur in the environment, risk assessment of their potential toxic effects is an extremely difficult task. Various studies have highlighted different possible interactions as shown in table 1-4. Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----4 : Terminology linked to pesticide mixtures (Hughes 4 : Terminology linked to pesticide mixtures (Hughes 4 : Terminology linked to pesticide mixtures (Hughes 4 : Terminology linked to pesticide mixtures (Hughes et al.et al.et al.et al., 2002), 2002), 2002), 2002)

Concept Appropriate terms Synonym(s) Effects observ ed simple similar action simple joint action concentration/dose addition

simple independent action Non-interaction

simple dissimilar action independent joint action

effect/response addition

Synergy potentiation supra-additivity

greater than additive effect

Interaction antagonism sub-additivity less than additive effect

Almost all information on effects of combinations of pesticides comes from studies in experimental animals or in in vitro systems. Although there are reports of mixed exposures in humans, insufficient information is available to draw any conclusions about the presence or nature of any interactions. Furthermore, most attention has been directed at toxic effects


due to combined actions on biological targets at levels of exposure, that are high compared to those likely to be encountered as residues in food. It is important to mention that interactions between pesticides are relevant at dosis close to the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) which can be defined as the highest exposure level in a toxicity study at which there are no statistically significant and/or biologically significant increases in the frequency of adverse effects between the group of animals exposed to the test substance and its respective control group. When dealing with doses close from this value, interactions can contribute significantly to emphasize toxic effects. A few well-designed studies have demonstrated the occurrence of both synergistic and antagonistic interactions, as well as additive effects in mixtures, usually at high concentrations or high exposure levels, which are probably unrepresentative of doses likely to be ingested with food. In relation to most examples of possible human exposure to multiple residues and the additive possibilities of the toxicological properties, it will be important to evaluate critically whether any effects are likely to occur at low levels of exposure. For this purpose, sophisticated study designs are required for a better determination of interactions nature that may occur in simple mixtures. 2.1.2.22.1.2.22.1.2.22.1.2.2 UUUUNCERTAINTIES LINKED NCERTAINTIES LINKED NCERTAINTIES LINKED NCERTAINTIES LINKED TO EXTRAPOLATIONTO EXTRAPOLATIONTO EXTRAPOLATIONTO EXTRAPOLATION

2.1.2.2.12.1.2.2.12.1.2.2.12.1.2.2.1 TTTTESTS ON ANIMALSESTS ON ANIMALSESTS ON ANIMALSESTS ON ANIMALS

Toxicity studies are conducted on experimental animals, so there is some degree of uncertainty about the applicability of test results to humans (Tomerlin, 2000). Indeed, based on the dose-response relationship studies, an intake for experiment animals that would be without adverse effects is defined; as explained later, this is called the no-observed-adverse-effect level or the NOAEL. To convert the NOAEL, which represents a ‘safe’ dose for a group of experimental animals, into an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) that would be applicable to the human population requires a consideration of both interspecies differences and human variability. For the vast majority of critical effects that are produced by environmental chemicals, including pesticides, there are no direct experimental data from studies in humans that could be used to address species differences or individual variability in sensitivity to the chemical (Renwick, 2002). In consequence, allowance has to be made for the magnitude of any possible but undefined differences, and traditionally default uncertainty, or safety factors of 10-fold have been applied to allow for each of these aspects. In consequence, the NOAEL for an animal study is usually divided by an uncertainty factor of 100 (10x10) to convert the ‘safe’ daily intake in experimental animals into an ADI. This pragmatic approach has been used for over 40 years, and has been the subject of criticism as being either too conservative, because the ADI is 100-fold below the NOAEL, or too liberal, because of the wide interspecies differences in response to some chemicals and the known human variability in the metabolic fate of environmental chemicals. A number of reviews of the validity of the 100-fold default uncertainty factor have confirmed that this is a reasonable value overall (Calabrese, 1985; Renwick et al., 2001), although some situations were identified where a factor of 100 may be inadequate (Calabrese et al., 1992; Renwick et al, 1998).

2.1.2.2.22.1.2.2.22.1.2.2.22.1.2.2.2 SSSSHORTHORTHORTHORT----TERM STUDIESTERM STUDIESTERM STUDIESTERM STUDIES For registration of pesticides, lifetime toxicological studies are led on rat and mices over a period of two years. Lifetime exposure on humans, which is longer than two years, is then calculated by extrapolating data obtained. These extrapolations implies some uncertainties


but can still be considered as reliable if interpretation of the results are carried out correctly.

2.1.2.2.32.1.2.2.32.1.2.2.32.1.2.2.3 HHHHIGH DOSESIGH DOSESIGH DOSESIGH DOSES Most toxicological experiments use relatively high doses to determine hazardous properties of pesticides. Hazards identified from such studies can be divided into two main types (Renwick, 2002). Threshold effects (A in figure 1-3) are those in which the mechanism of action requires the presence of sufficient chemical to perturb normal homeostatic processes, and in consequence the dose–response relationship may show a threshold below which no biologically or statistically significant response would be produced. Non-threshold effects are those biological actions, such as genotoxicity, for which there may be no threshold in the dose-response relationship based on the potential mechanism of action. For non-threshold effects (B in figure 1-3) it is assumed that no level of exposure is without some risk (Calabrese, 2004). But low doses response are indeed more characteristic of human exposure through food intakes. To extrapolate from high doses to low doses, mathematical relations are used to estimate response to low dose exposure. These extrapolations can induce some uncertainties. In the USA the dose-response for non-threshold effects is extrapolated down to human intake levels, but in UK for example the output of low-dose extrapolation is considered too inaccurate to use for risk assessment, and exposure to such compounds is kept to the minimum level that is reasonably achievable (Renwick, 2002). Indeed, this minimum level, called As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), is also used in Belgium for some chemical contaminants as a reliable value of exposure is hard to obtain (FASFC, 2005).

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----3: Dose/response relationship (Calabrese, 2004)3: Dose/response relationship (Calabrese, 2004)3: Dose/response relationship (Calabrese, 2004)3: Dose/response relationship (Calabrese, 2004)

An other approach of low dose/effects relationship is given by hormesis (Calabrese , 2004) Hormesis is an adaptive response characterized by biphasic dose responses of generally similar quantitative features with respect to amplitude and range of the stimulatory response that are either directly induced or the result of compensatory biological processes following an initial disruption in homeostasis (Davis, 1997 ; Calabrese et al., 2002 ; Calabrese, 2004). A typical hormetic curve is either U-shaped (D on figure 1-3) or has an inverted U-shaped (C on figure 1-3 dose–response, depending on the endpoint measured. If the endpoint is growth or longevity, the dose–response would be that of an inverted U-shape; if the endpoint is disease incidence, then the dose–response would be described as U- or J-shaped.


It has been contended persuasively that the most fundamental shape of the dose-response is neither threshold nor linear, but U-shaped, and hence both current models provide less reliable estimates of low-dose risk (Calabrese, 2004). Hormesis model shows that, at low dose, hazardous compounds can reduce the risk of hazard. Therefore, acceptance of hormesis suggests that low doses of toxic/carcinogenic agents may reduce the incidence of adverse effects. The quality of the risk assessments would probably gain in accuracy if taken into account hormetic dose-response relationships. 2.1.2.32.1.2.32.1.2.32.1.2.3 CCCCRITICAL APPRAISAL OFRITICAL APPRAISAL OFRITICAL APPRAISAL OFRITICAL APPRAISAL OF TOXICOLOGICAL STUDI TOXICOLOGICAL STUDI TOXICOLOGICAL STUDI TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES ES ES ES

2.1.2.42.1.2.42.1.2.42.1.2.4 PPPPOSITIVE ASPECTS OSITIVE ASPECTS OSITIVE ASPECTS OSITIVE ASPECTS

� Toxicological studies encountered in literature address a lot of effects, both acute and chronic.

� As most of the studies adopt a “worst-case” approach, real situations can be estimated to be better than predicted ones. Furthermore, a lot of commodities are processed for cooking, decreasing the total exposure to pesticide residues.

� Information about pesticide toxicological effects, even of natural origin, outnumber the information about other contaminants.

� Many toxicological studies that tend to establish risks assessment conclude that exposure is below, or far below the Acceptable Daily Intake.

� Toxicological properties and effects of pesticides are continuously updated, so that if new risks are detected, pesticide can be phased out by authorities.

2.1.2.52.1.2.52.1.2.52.1.2.5 NNNNEGATIVE ASPEGATIVE ASPEGATIVE ASPEGATIVE ASPECTS ECTS ECTS ECTS

� Although many experiments are led with high doses and short-time exposure on rodents, less is known on human responses to low doses on a long-time exposure. Indeed, authors often highlight the uncertainties resulting from extrapolation models used for risk assessment.

� Few studies are taking into account sensitive groups within the population. Specific studies are designed and led to investigate toxicological effects on pregnant woman, babies and children but little is done about elderly and immunodeficient people.

� Synergetic effects. The toxicological studies are generally carried out with a single substance or preparation; This can lead to under-estimation of some toxic effects since the investigated chemical can exhibit a higher toxicity when it is in mixture with other residues (pesticides, drugs), with environmental contaminants (heavy metals, PCB, dioxins, ...) and other toxins (plant toxins, fungal toxins, algal toxins, ...).


2.2 Environmental effects worldwide 2.2.12.2.12.2.12.2.1 Review of the current situReview of the current situReview of the current situReview of the current situation about water quality ation about water quality ation about water quality ation about water quality This section gives an overview about the contamination of waters by plant protection products (ppp), including ground and surface waters at the international level. This paper is based on data from the scientific literature (cf. references). 2.2.1.12.2.1.12.2.1.12.2.1.1 DDDDISPERSION OF PLANT PISPERSION OF PLANT PISPERSION OF PLANT PISPERSION OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS IROTECTION PRODUCTS IROTECTION PRODUCTS IROTECTION PRODUCTS IN THE ENVIRONMENTN THE ENVIRONMENTN THE ENVIRONMENTN THE ENVIRONMENT

2.2.1.1.12.2.1.1.12.2.1.1.12.2.1.1.1 IIIIN GENERALN GENERALN GENERALN GENERAL

Plant protection products are mostly applied as liquids sprayed on the crop and/or the soil. Sometimes they are incorporated or injected into the soil or applied as granules or as a seed treatment. A part of the quantity of plant protection products applied contaminates the environment (soil, water and atmosphere). There are two types of losses: direct losses which are from localised point and are short term but they can be of high intensity (end of the tank, the outflanking of the tank, upset of a container…) and diffuse losses which have more variable origins and are longer in time than direct losses (figure 1-4). Although most harmful ppp for the environment have been eliminated, ppp available to farmers and other users obviously differ with respect to the risk they represent for the environment (van der Werf, 1996).

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----4: Diffuse losses (CRP, 2004)4: Diffuse losses (CRP, 2004)4: Diffuse losses (CRP, 2004)4: Diffuse losses (CRP, 2004)

2.2.1.1.22.2.1.1.22.2.1.1.22.2.1.1.2 IIIIN WATERSN WATERSN WATERSN WATERS

One potentially important source of water pollution is the use of plan protection products in agriculture and horticulture in crop production fields, golf courses, parks, highways, railways, lawns and gardens. They can be dispersed into the water via foliar wash-off, surface run-off and leaching. In some areas there is even evidence that ppp contamination can result from atmospheric deposition. Once plant protection products reach water, they pose potential risks to human health and the environment. This risk depends on the degree of exposure (concentration in the environment) and on the toxicological properties of the ppp. The extent to which this occurs could vary significantly between areas and different weather patterns after use.


In addition to the use of ppp in agriculture, forestry also makes extensive use of them. In some countries, such as Canada, the control of forest pests, especially insects, is considered by the industry to be essential. Insecticides are often sprayed by aircraft over very large areas (Ongley, 1996). Plant protection products detected in water resources derive not just from diffuse pathways as a result of use on crops, but also from point sources, particularly after rain. Some of the most serious cases of water contamination have arisen from misuse, accidental spillage, inadequate handling/storage conditions, tank mixing, spillage, waste disposal or wash down of equipment (EUREAU, 2001). Skinner et al. (1997) cite a study in Denmark that has shown that 2,4-D, dichlorprop, parathion, and diquat were detected in groundwater at concentrations of up to 3800 µg/l. These high concentrations have been attributed to direct contamination from back-syphoning in the borehole during the tank filling process. Rinsing of sprayer around the borehole also contributed to the contamination. Similarly high concentrations of a herbicide in surface water, in the UK, were identified as having derived from illegal disposal at a landfill site (Skinner et al., 1997). A report for Lithuania in 1994 shows that water pollution by ppp is often caused by inadequate storage and distribution of agrochemicals (Ongley, 1996). In the United States, the dumping of ppp, the deficient storing and bad manipulations contributed about 50% of contaminations by ppp. In France, the principal cause of pollution is the non-respect of practices respectful to persons and the environment (Philogène, 2005). According to a study performed in France from 1993 to 2000 about the transfer by runoff and by drainage of 22 active substances, some active substances with low transfer risk or even non-existent (like the insecticide: tau-fluvalinate; the mollucide: mercaptodimethur; fungicides: chlorothalonil, krésoxim-méthyl; …) were detected in water, resulting probably by punctual contaminations. Thus, it is important to continue the awareness campaign about this issue. Among 22 active substances, atrazine, isoproturon, diflufenicanil and aclonifen (when the latter is applied in autumn) are active substances with the most important transfer risk in the water. However, the behaviour of these herbicides is very different (Réal et al., 2002). It is important to note that significant ppp contamination can also result from non-agricultural use, for example from weed control on roads or railways, from domestic use, from industrial sites (e.g. wool and vegetable washing), badly designed or maintained ppp storage sites, and waste disposal operations (EUREAU, 2001). Ppp transports to surface water are mainly caused by run-off water and drainage water. These waters take away ppp found in solution in water or absorbed on soil particles. Ppp that remain at the soil surface for longer periods of time, because they are strongly adsorbed and resistant to degradation and volatilisation, are more susceptible to run-off (van der Werf, 1996). The concentration of ppp in watercourses essentially depends on uses conditions, the performance of equipment used and the climate (particularly high rains which favour the run-off on the ground and risk surfaces like hard surfaces, gutter…) (DGRNE, 2005). The importance of groundwater contamination depends on ppp properties, soil characteristics, drainage rate and water table depth. The mobility alone is not a good indicator of the groundwater pollution potential of a ppp, but rather the combination of mobility and persistence determines whether a compound will be degraded during its residence time in the zone above the groundwater. Soluble ppp may be more readily leached into the soil during the rainfall (van der Werf, 1996). However, the hydrologic cycle provides direct connection between these compartments in many geological regions.


The pollution of surface water can reach a high level but often for a short period. It is closely related to the ability of ppp to be transported by run-off, and the dilution with water from untreated areas. In contrast, groundwater is weakly but, in some instances, continuously polluted. This depends on the leaching processes and the water dynamics (Schiavon et al., 1995). 2.2.1.22.2.1.22.2.1.22.2.1.2 OOOOVERVIEW OF THE CONTAVERVIEW OF THE CONTAVERVIEW OF THE CONTAVERVIEW OF THE CONTAMINATION OF WATERS BMINATION OF WATERS BMINATION OF WATERS BMINATION OF WATERS BY PLANT PROTECTION PY PLANT PROTECTION PY PLANT PROTECTION PY PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS ATRODUCTS ATRODUCTS ATRODUCTS AT AN AN AN AN

INTERNATIONAL LEVELINTERNATIONAL LEVELINTERNATIONAL LEVELINTERNATIONAL LEVEL

Ppp may pollute drinking water, surface water and groundwaters. Some contaminations of rainwater by ppp have been reported (Dubus et al., 2000) but this point will not be further addressed in this section. Water pollution, particularly by herbicides, has been recognised as a problem since the 1970s (Skinner et al., 1997). Nevertheless, actual systematic monitoring data for ppp are generally rare and especially in developing countries. Many of them have difficulties carrying out organic chemical analysis due to problems of inadequate facilities, impure reagents, and financial constraints (Ongley, 1996). Indeed, an effective follow-up of the residues of ppp in water is complex and expensive. Although in Belgium there is a well build out monitoring network that runs on a continuous basis.

2.2.1.2.12.2.1.2.12.2.1.2.12.2.1.2.1 IIIIN N N N EEEEUROPEUROPEUROPEUROPE Whilst there are numerous examples of comprehensive monitoring in specific locations or catchments, there is no mechanism available to combine this information to make a consolidate overview of water quality monitoring data at European Union level in order to determine the scale and extent of the problem. Sampling methods and strategy, timing, supporting documentation, analytical methods, detection limits and reporting methods are highly variable. The EU Water Framework Directive has a direct impact on monitoring strategies. A fundamental part of the requirements of the directive is the characterisation of the catchment area and appropriate monitoring. There is an opportunity to harmonise some aspects of monitoring, analysis and reporting requirements (Skinner et al., 1997). In some countries of the European Union, reduction programs have been implemented, e.g. in Denmark since 1986, in the Netherlands (1990), in Norway (1985) and in Sweden (1987). The decision of European Parliament and of Council of 22 July 2002 imposed among others that a global and sensitive reduction of risks and of uses of ppp but it allowed the necessary protection of cultures. For example, in France, the reduction of water pollution by ppp is a common purpose of Ministry of Agricultural and of Environment. Then, they try to evaluate the impact of their actions (like reduction of use, spray control, environmental planning for limiting run-off…) on the evolution of water quality but it is difficult to identify trends. Indeed, there isn’t enough time to assess effects (Ministère-français-de-l'agriculture 2003). In 1997, a study in four countries of the European Union showed that the plant protection products most frequently detected by analyses of water are atrazine, simazine and bentazone. These substances are herbicides with broad spectrum used in agriculture but also by industry and for the domestic uses. The atrazine was one of the most widely used herbicides in maize. Further to generalized pollution of the ground water and drinking waters in certain areas, it became one of the best supervised substances. The atrazine and the simazine have not been included in annexe I of directive 97/414/CEE, in 2004, but there are essential use derogations until 2007 (Decisions 2004/248/CE and 2004/247/CE). The bentazone is principally used on cereals, corn, peas and beans.


However, a considerable part of these tree active substances found in the water comes from their industrial production and their uses by companies of railway, services of roads maintenance, private individuals and municipalities (Strosser, Pau Vall et al. 1999).

2.2.1.2.1.12.2.1.2.1.12.2.1.2.1.12.2.1.2.1.1 GroundwatersGroundwatersGroundwatersGroundwaters

EU standards for the levels of ppp in drinking water have to be in compliance with the levels to supply to the consumer (for example, less than 0,1 µg/l for individual ppp and 0,5 µg/l for all ppp if used for drinking water (Directive 98/83)) but standards are also useful for assessing concentrations in groundwater. Groundwater constitutes approximately 4% of water in the total hydrologic cycle. It is often used as a drinking water source. In many countries groundwater is of a substantial strategic significance in public water supply (35% in England and in some areas it may be the only source, 70% in average in the Netherlands) (Carter & Heather, 1995). Unfortunately, at a European level, data available on ppp contamination are limited and there is a lack of reliable and comparable data. In addition, the monitoring of ppp is not yet undertaken in many countries (Nixon et al., 2003). The awareness of ppp causing problems in groundwaters is still increasing. A lot of efforts are made by countries in investigating the situation of ppp pollution and to provide a comparable overview at the European level (Chyska, 2004). However, more than 200 contaminations have been recorded in groundwaters (noticed in France and the United States). Since the late 1970’s, groundwater contamination by ppp has been recognised. Detections of dibromochloropropane (DBPC) and aldicarb in USA wells led general concern and subsequent investigations in the mid-1980’s revealed that atrazine, simazine, bentazone, dichloropropane, molinate and phenoxy-herbercides were present in some European locations (Carter & Heather, 1995). Carter and Heather (1995) quoted a report produced by Dutch Government in 1991 which suggested that approximately 65% of groundwater resources in Europe were contaminated by at least one ppp, but the estimates are based on assumptions that leaching processes and soil hydrologies in Europe are similar to the Netherlands which is not the case. These are essentially herbicides that are found in groundwater. Significant problems with regard to certain ppp exceeding standards have been reported from Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Hungary, Republic of Moldova, Norway, Romania and the Slovak Republic. Map 1-1 shows an overview of the active substances that have been detected in the middle nineties in groundwater in at least two countries out of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom. For many countries, there aren’t data available. The number of active substances analysed varies between four (Hungary) and 122 (UK). The most frequently analysed substances are aldrin, atrazine, dieldrin, lindane, heptachlor and simazine (Scheidleder et al., 1999). All these active substances are presently banned (atrazine and simazine are just used for essential use). Most of the data obtained do not allow a reliable assessment of trends. However, Scheidleder et al. (1999) refer to a study of Fielding in 1998 about groundwater monitoring data from six European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland and the UK) that indicates that in some sampling sites in Austria, France, Switzerland, a statistically significant decrease in the concentration of atrazine and its metabolites has been showed. There were also a smaller number of sites where concentrations were increasing. The reasons for the decrease were reported to be restrictions on its use, ranging from more cautious application to an outright ban, improved application or introduction of integrated pest management (Scheidleder et al., 1999).


Map 1Map 1Map 1Map 1----1: Overview of the active substances that have been detected in th1: Overview of the active substances that have been detected in th1: Overview of the active substances that have been detected in th1: Overview of the active substances that have been detected in the middle nineties in e middle nineties in e middle nineties in e middle nineties in groundwater in at least two countries out of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the groundwater in at least two countries out of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the groundwater in at least two countries out of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the groundwater in at least two countries out of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom (Scheidleder Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom (Scheidleder Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom (Scheidleder Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom (Scheidleder et al.et al.et al.et al., 1999), 1999), 1999), 1999) Because it is difficult to have a global overview of the situation for the European Union, following paragraphs show the pertinent situations for local area in some countries (summarized in table 1-5). But many other countries report ppp pollution of their groundwater (Nixon et al., 2003). Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----5: Main problems in grou5: Main problems in grou5: Main problems in grou5: Main problems in groundwaters in some European countriesndwaters in some European countriesndwaters in some European countriesndwaters in some European countries

State and yearsState and yearsState and yearsState and years Most frequently detected ppp among Most frequently detected ppp among Most frequently detected ppp among Most frequently detected ppp among the ppp monitored in groundwatersthe ppp monitored in groundwatersthe ppp monitored in groundwatersthe ppp monitored in groundwaters

ImportanceImportanceImportanceImportance

10% samplings atrazine >0,1 µg/L

Austria (1997-1999)

atrazine (banned since 1995) (+metabolite desethylatrazine) 15% samplings

desethylatrazine >0,1 µg/L

triazines 9% wells with concentrations >0,1 µg/L

Denmark (2001-2002)

BAM (metabolite of dichlobenil: non-agricultural use)

France (2003)

13% of points with excessive contamination

atrazine simazine alachlor metolachlor

Portugal (1991-1998) chlortoluron


atrazine terbutryn linuron

Spain (1999) isoproturon

In Austria, between mid-1997 and mid-1999, about 10 % of sampling sites exceeded 0,1 µg/l for atrazine and 15 % for desethylatrazine (its principal metabolite). Analyses for the atrazine of 247 sampling sites showed significant downward trends for 72 % of the sites. The atrazine was banned in Austria in April 1995 and the ban seems to be effective (Nixon, et al., 2003). Groundwater in Denmark is surveyed and monitored most predates 1990, including upper and lower groundwater levels and waterworks of abstraction wells (Kristensen et al., 2004). The number of wells contaminated by ppp and their metabolites in the groundwater monitoring areas was approximately 27 % in both 2001 and 2002 (figure 1-5). The number of wells screened with concentrations above the 0,1 µg/l was about 9 %. In 2002, ppp or their metabolites were detected in more than 50 % of the shallow groundwater (0 to 20 metres below ground surface) abstraction wells sampled. Their occurrence decreases with increasing depth. This indicates that today the upper groundwater layers are still severely affected by ppp. It’s important to note that the number of polluted wells has not increased because of increasing pollution, but rather because analyses now include more ppp and metabolites than previously. The ppp and metabolites occurring most often in abstraction wells are substances that are already banned in Denmark and have not been marketed for the last 8-10 years (Kristensen et al., 2004). Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----5: Number of groundwater boreholes that are contaminated by plant protection products in 5: Number of groundwater boreholes that are contaminated by plant protection products in 5: Number of groundwater boreholes that are contaminated by plant protection products in 5: Number of groundwater boreholes that are contaminated by plant protection products in Denmark (Kristensen Denmark (Kristensen Denmark (Kristensen Denmark (Kristensen et al.et al.et al.et al., 2004), 2004), 2004), 2004)

In 2004, a survey on pollution by ppp of small waterworks (i.e. plants supplying less than 10 properties), realised by Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, showed that many of the waterworks are polluted by them. In 36 % of cases, the value 0,1 µg/l was exceeded. Ppp of triazines group and the metabolite BAM (2,6-dichlorobenzamide, a metabolite of dichlobenil) were found most frequently. Dichlobenil is applied principally by non-agricultural users. Most of the substances found are already banned in Denmark. In addition, the groundwater is protected by restrictions on the use of some other ppp found in the survey. But it’s important to remark that this value is not based on health


considerations but on a general precautionary principle. The Danish EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has assessed that the small waterworks are often in very poor condition and that leaks in borings and wells may contribute to the extent of pollution. The Agency also finds the problems are aggravated by other sources of pollution, for instance spraying and cleaning in farmyards or leaking sewage pipes located close to the waterworks. In France, more than half of all monitoring points (52%) are considered to be unaffected. Excessive contamination is suspected at 35% of points and definitely present at 13% of points. However, the available data cover only 75% of France (Nixon et al., 2003). Ppp used in Portuguese agricultural areas have been found in surface and ground waters. Studies on ground water contamination with ppp have been performed since the beginning of the 90’s. The first study evaluated the level of atrazine contamination, a herbicide extensively used in Portuguese maize areas. Between 1996 and 1998, the studies were extended to other crop areas (vineyards, orchards and horticulture) and to other type of ppp. Special attention has been given to herbicide contamination, not only because these are the type of ppp most frequently detected in ground water, but also because the amounts of herbicide used in Portugal have been increasing (Cerejeiraa et al., 2003). In the groundwater collected from the wells of seven agricultural areas from 1991 to 1998, several monitored herbicides were detected reaching the maximum concentration values in brackets: alachlor (13 µg/l), atrazine (30 µg/l), metolachlor (56 µg/l), metribuzine (1,4 µg/l) and simazine (0,4 µg/l). Herbicides more frequently detected were atrazine (64%), simazine (45%) and alachlor (25%). Out of these ones, the monitored ppp can be present in Portuguese surface and ground waters. According to Cerejeiraa et al. (2003), to improve the analytical conditions, the use of multiresidue methods and automated techniques are desirable in future work. In 1999, a survey of the herbicides present in surface and groundwaters has been conducted in an area of the provinces of Salamanca and Zamora (Central-Western Spain), by sampling and screening ten sites for 17 herbicides commonly used in the area. Ten of these herbicides (atrazine, chloridazon, chlorotoluron, diuron, ethofumesate, isoproturon, linuron, metamitron, metolachlor and terbutryn) are included in a European Union priority list of ppp classified as probable or transient leachers to groundwaters. Out of the 17 examined compounds, the herbicides found in groundwaters (seven sites) were: chlorotoluron, atrazine, terbutryn, linuron and isoproturon; all of which are classified as probable or transient leachers in Europe. The chlorotoluron, a pre-sowing herbicide in cereals (cereal cultivation is predominant in the studied areas), was found in a restricted area of the Guarena basin. The atrazine and the terbutryn were occasionally found in groundwaters. The figure 1-6 shows the percentage of river and groundwater samples in which plant protection products were detected in this area. The pollution found in groundwaters was lower than that seen in surface waters, except that due to chlorotoluron, which, additionally, remained almost constant throughout the study period. For groundwaters, pollution mainly is concentrated in a small area (Carabias-Martinez et al., 2003).


Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----6: Percentage of river and groundwater samples in which plant protection products were 6: Percentage of river and groundwater samples in which plant protection products were 6: Percentage of river and groundwater samples in which plant protection products were 6: Percentage of river and groundwater samples in which plant protection products were detected in area of Salamanca and Zamora, Spain (Carabiasdetected in area of Salamanca and Zamora, Spain (Carabiasdetected in area of Salamanca and Zamora, Spain (Carabiasdetected in area of Salamanca and Zamora, Spain (Carabias----Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez et al.et al.et al.et al., 2003), 2003), 2003), 2003)

2.2.1.2.1.22.2.1.2.1.22.2.1.2.1.22.2.1.2.1.2 Surface watersSurface watersSurface watersSurface waters

Surface water contamination may have ecotoxicological effects for aquatic flora and fauna, and for human health if used for public consumption. It’s particularly in these waters and in coastal waters that the bioconcentration is apparent. Otherwise, the most persistent plant protection products accumulate in the sediments. This situation complicates the detection because each compartment must be analysed to obtain the effective concentration (Philogène, 2005). Often, there is a hydrological continuity of groundwater with surface water and contaminants can move from one aquatic zone to another. Surface water is, however, much more vulnerable to direct contamination from other point source releases such as urban and field drainage systems or drift/overspray (Carter & Heather, 1995). Table 1-6 gives a summary of the main problems in some European countries (developed in the following paragraphs). Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----6: Main problems in surface waters in some European countries6: Main problems in surface waters in some European countries6: Main problems in surface waters in some European countries6: Main problems in surface waters in some European countries

State and yearsState and yearsState and yearsState and years Most frequently detected ppp amonMost frequently detected ppp amonMost frequently detected ppp amonMost frequently detected ppp amongggg the ppp monitored in groundwatersthe ppp monitored in groundwatersthe ppp monitored in groundwatersthe ppp monitored in groundwaters

ImportanceImportanceImportanceImportance

France (2004)

diuron (non-agricultural use) (+ metabolite 3,4-DCA)

28% of the river samples contained diuron

atrazine chlorfenvinphos endosulfan lindane molinate

Portugal (1983-1999) simazine

chlortoluron terbutryn atrazine

Spain (1999) linuron


isoproturon metolochlor lenacil

metamitron

atrazine bentazone dichloprop ethofumesate MCPA mecoprop metazachlor

Sweden (1990-1996) terbuthyazine

atrazine simazine mecoprop dimethoate isoproturon

UK (90's)

chlortoluron

9% of the sites >0,1 µg/L at least once in 2000

According to the French Environmental Institute (IFEN), diuron was detected in 28% of the samples from rivers in the national basin system. It is a herbicide used on non-crop areas such as roads, garden paths and railway lines. Due to its high persistence (one month to one year), diuron can be found in many environmental compartments such as soil, sediments and water. The pollution of water and soil by diuron has become a more serious problem due to the formation of 3,4-DCA, its principal metabolite, subjected to leaching and bioaccumulation. However, diuron belongs to primary dangerous substances whose use will be progressively suppressed within 20 years of delivery (Directive 2000/60/CE) (Giacomazzi & Cochet, 2004). In Brittany, a partnership program, “Bretagne Eau Pure”, has been drawn up that is a pioneer step to recover water quality and specific of Brittany. The program is based on the collective mobilisation and the encouragement of all actors to assume more responsibilities. A great majority of municipalities have signed the “Phyto Charter” and integrated the reduction of plant protection products used like a necessary. This charter allows a management of weeding differentiated according to risk level of concerned zones. The awareness and the training of technical personnel are recognized like essential for the control of herbicides use and the elaboration of alternative practices (Bretagne-eau-pure 2004). The Portuguese water quality program, aimed to quantify the levels of different substances, which are responsible for contamination, was defined in 1983. This program was designed to describe the status and trends in the quality of the surface water resources and to understand the natural and human factors that may affect the aquatic system. In the surface water collected in three river basins from 1983 to 1999, insecticides and herbicides were detected, reaching the maximum values in brackets, particularly: atrazine (0,63 µg/l, herbicide), chlorfenvinphos (31,6 µg/l, insecticide), endosulfan (0,18 µg/l, insecticide), lindane (0,24 µg/l, insecticide), molinate (48 µg/l, herbicide used in rice crop) and simazine (0,3 µg/l, herbicide) (Cerejeiraa et al., 2003). A survey, described in a precedent part, realised in 1999 in an area of the provinces of Salamanca and Zamora (Central-Western Spain) about 17 herbicides commonly used in


the area. Eight were found in surface waters: chlorotoluron (41% of total detections), terbutryn (21%), atrazine (14%), linuron (7%), isoproturon and metolachlor (5,5% both), lenacil (4%) and metamitron (2%). Of the detections, 66% corresponded to river water samples (three sites). In this study, chlorotoluron was the herbicide detected with the greatest frequency and in the highest amounts in the water samples analysed. It is used as a pre-sowing herbicide in cereals (cereal cultivation is predominant in the studied areas). The chlorotoluron was found in varying amounts in all the surface water samples analysed, depending on the season of the year. The atrazine and the terbutryn were detected in surface waters. The temporal evolution of the herbicide content in river waters reveals that the observed pollution is function of time and is related to the application of these herbicides. In general, pollution is seen to be more frequent in the river waters than in the groundwaters (Carabias-Martine et al., 2003). Ppp lost to stream water was studied in a small agricultural catchment in southern Sweden during the period 1990-1996. A total of 38 ppp were detected in water samples, including 30 herbicides, 4 fungicides, 3 insecticides and 1 metabolite of a herbicide. It varied from single events of benazolin-ethylester, dichlobenil, phenmedipham and triadimenol, to overall findings of more than 50% detection frequency for herbicides atrazine, bentazone, dichlorprop, ethofumesate, MCPA, mecoprop, metazachlor and terbuthyazine. Many of the ppp were found in water over several months, but with maximum concentrations occurring during or shortly after the application period. Ppp were also found in water samples as a result of incautious actions during handling and application procedures. In this study, the wind drift had little influence on stream water quality and ppp application for weed control resulted in a substantial contribution to the ppp load in stream water. The total ppp load in water decreased markedly during the course of the investigation, in accordance with decreased amounts applied during spring and early summer. The results indicate that concentrations of some ppp entering water streams in agricultural areas are close to, and during certain time periods even above those levels demonstrated as having an impact on the aquatic flora and fauna (Kreuger, 1998). In the United Kingdom, in the 90’s, plant protection products such as atrazine, simazine, mecoprop, dimethoate, isoproturon and chlortoluron have been found frequently in surface waters at concentrations of 0,5 µg/l, with a maximum of 11,5 µg/l . Being highly soluble and persistent, atrazine is the ppp most frequently exceeding the 0,1 µg/l limit in water. With the exception of the triazines (atrazine and simazine), the ppp detected are those used in the greatest tonnages in U.K. agriculture. The sources of triazine are difficult to establish, due to the problems to obtain information about non-agricultural uses, such as maintenance of railways and roads. Ppp levels were generally found to be much higher in surface waters than groundwaters (Skinner et al., 1997). In 2000, about 9 % of the freshwater sites failed to meet the environmental quality standards at least once (Nixon et al., 2003).

2.2.1.2.1.32.2.1.2.1.32.2.1.2.1.32.2.1.2.1.3 Drinking watersDrinking watersDrinking watersDrinking waters

In Europe, drinking water is derived from a variety of sources including rivers, upland reservoirs and groundwater. Once raw water supplies are contaminated with ppp, treatment costs can be very high, this tends to be the biggest driver of costs. Because of the cost and difficulty of treatment for ppp removal, particularly at small sources, it is sometimes cheaper in the short term to simply abandon a contaminated source. However with the growing pressure on water resources in many parts of Europe it is believed that this approach is unsustainable in the longer term (EUREAU, 2001).


For deeper groundwater aquifers, there is a particular problem linked to the time that it might take for contaminating activities on the surface to result in ppp reaching the water table. Also, once contaminated, some groundwaters can take decades to recover. This time lag effect can take 20-50 years in some cases (EUREAU, 2001). Some problems with ppp and/or heavy metals in drinking water have been identified in national reports and by the European Union of National Associations of Water Suppliers and Waste Water Services (EUREAU) (Map 1-2) (Nixon et al., 2003). Map 1Map 1Map 1Map 1----2: The threat of metal and ppp contamination 2: The threat of metal and ppp contamination 2: The threat of metal and ppp contamination 2: The threat of metal and ppp contamination in drinking water from countries’ national in drinking water from countries’ national in drinking water from countries’ national in drinking water from countries’ national reports and Eureau in 2001 (Nixonreports and Eureau in 2001 (Nixonreports and Eureau in 2001 (Nixonreports and Eureau in 2001 (Nixon et al. et al. et al. et al., 2003), 2003), 2003), 2003)

The contamination of many groundwater supplies in EU countries exceed the drinking water directive (Directive 98/83/EC) maximum of 0,1 µg/l for a single ppp (Nixon et al., 2003). Ppp pollution of drinking water has been identified as a problem in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (EUREAU, 2001) where it is estimated that between 5 and 10 % of resources are regularly contaminated with ppp in excess of 0,1 µg/l. In Germany in 1995, 10 % groundwater monitoring stations exceeded 0,1 µg/l particularly for atrazine despite its ban in 1991 (Nixon et al., 2003). From EUREAU (that represents the water suppliers and wastewater operators of Europe), some ppp are known to pose a greater threat to water supply abstractions than others. This is particularly true in the case of a limited number of ppp (table 1-3) that can give rise to widespread problems. However, all ppp, if misused, have the potential to cause harm. EUREAU has conducted a comprehensive survey of its members to try to identify the extent of contamination by ppp in raw drinking water resources. Their survey has shown raw water resources in Europe are particularly affected by a small number of commonly used herbicides. The extent of ppp contamination will vary across Europe due to different land use and climate (EUREAU, 2001).


Ppp contaminations of groundwater resources tend to be localised. In the most affected countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK), between 5% and 10% of resources regularly contain ppp in excess of 0,1 µg/l (EUREAU, 2001). Using a ranking system, EUREAU has listed substances that appear to most regularly cause problems across Europe (table 1-7). Results of their survey are in annexes 1.8 and 1.9 for ppp detected in groundwater and raw river water resources (EUREAU, 2001). Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----7: Plant protection products that appear to most regularly cause problems in groundwater 7: Plant protection products that appear to most regularly cause problems in groundwater 7: Plant protection products that appear to most regularly cause problems in groundwater 7: Plant protection products that appear to most regularly cause problems in groundwater and rivers across Euand rivers across Euand rivers across Euand rivers across Europe (EUREAU, 2001)rope (EUREAU, 2001)rope (EUREAU, 2001)rope (EUREAU, 2001)

Groundwater River Atrazine and related products Diuron Simazine Isoproturon Mecoprop Atrazine and related products Bentazone Simazine Mecoprop MCPA Chlortoluron

The type of ppp most commonly detected is the herbicides, although other types have also been found in localised water resources. Their presence can derive from agricultural as well as non-agricultural uses. Many of the common ppp contaminants are those which are relatively mobile and persistent, and used at high application rates (EUREAU, 2001). Ppp contamination of raw water is most acute in lowland rivers, particularly in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK. In all these countries, a high proportion of the resources regularly has ppp levels in excess of 0,1µg/l, often with a significant margin. In consequence, ppp removal treatment is usually necessary at plants using this type of resource (EUREAU, 2001). In the UK, results of drinking water monitoring about ppp for years 1992 and 1993 are summarized in table 1-8. Diuron, mecoprop, MCPA and isoproturon are used in arable farming although they are better known for horticultural use. The remainders, apart from the specific use of atrazine on maize, are generally non-agricultural (Chave, 1995). Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----8: 8: 8: 8: Summary of ppp which exceed 0,1 µg/l in controlled drink water in 1992 and 1993 in Summary of ppp which exceed 0,1 µg/l in controlled drink water in 1992 and 1993 in Summary of ppp which exceed 0,1 µg/l in controlled drink water in 1992 and 1993 in Summary of ppp which exceed 0,1 µg/l in controlled drink water in 1992 and 1993 in England (Chave, 1995)England (Chave, 1995)England (Chave, 1995)England (Chave, 1995)

PPPPPPPPPPPP % samples exceeding limit % samples exceeding limit % samples exceeding limit % samples exceeding limit

1992199219921992 % samples exceeding limit % samples exceeding limit % samples exceeding limit % samples exceeding limit

1993199319931993 diuron 13 19 mecoprop 15 17 atrazine 16 13 carbendazin - 10 bentazone - 10 2,4-D 4 8 simazine 12 8 MCPA 4 7 isoproturon 9 6


Another study reports also pollution of groundwater and of surface water by ppp from 1993 to 2000. Figure 1-7 shows some commonly found ppp in these waters. But these data do not allow to emphasis definite trends (Nixon et al., 2003). Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----7: Percentage of samples (from surface and groundwater) exceeding the contamination 7: Percentage of samples (from surface and groundwater) exceeding the contamination 7: Percentage of samples (from surface and groundwater) exceeding the contamination 7: Percentage of samples (from surface and groundwater) exceeding the contamination level of 0,1 µg/l of some commonly found ppp in England and Wales from Environment Agency of level of 0,1 µg/l of some commonly found ppp in England and Wales from Environment Agency of level of 0,1 µg/l of some commonly found ppp in England and Wales from Environment Agency of level of 0,1 µg/l of some commonly found ppp in England and Wales from Environment Agency of England and Wales, 200England and Wales, 200England and Wales, 200England and Wales, 2002 (Nixon 2 (Nixon 2 (Nixon 2 (Nixon et al.et al.et al.et al., 2003), 2003), 2003), 2003)

2.2.1.2.22.2.1.2.22.2.1.2.22.2.1.2.2 IIIIN OTHER COUNTRIESN OTHER COUNTRIESN OTHER COUNTRIESN OTHER COUNTRIES Monitoring programmes throughout Europe and North America have demonstrated a widespread presence of ppp in streams and rivers (Kreuger, 1998). The persistence of organochlorine ppp is such that the detection of DDT, as an example, may well indicate only that the chemical has been deposited through long-range transport from some other part of the world, or it is a residual from the days when it was applied in that region. In North America, for example, DDT is still routinely measured even though it has not been used for almost two decades. For sediment associated persistent ppp that are still used in some countries, the presence of the compound in water and/or sediments results from a combination of current and past uses. As such, the data make it difficult to determine the efficacy of policy decisions such as restrictive uses or bans (Ongley, 1996). Some experiences suggest that sediment associated ppp levels are often much higher than recorded, and “not detectables” are often quite misleading. As an example, approximately 67% of DDT is transported in association with suspended matter at sediment concentrations at 100 mg/l, and increases to 93% at 1000 mg/l of suspended sediment. Clearly, this makes ppp assessment in water difficult in large parts of the world. Some water quality agencies now use multi-media (water + sediment + biota) sampling in order to more accurately characterize ppp in the aquatic environment (Ongley, 1996). A monitoring of organochlorine (HCH, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, aldrin, endrin, dieldrin, DDT and its metabolite DDE) and organophosphorus (ethyl and methyl parathion, chlorpyrifos and fenitrothion) ppp has been realised in a river in Argentina (the Reconquista, Buenos Aires) during two years at the end of the 90’s. The analyses were performed, in three sampling stations. From the 60 samples analysed, 35% contained organochlorine ppp (DDT and its metabolite DDE, heptachlor, HCH) at a concentration higher than the detection limit. Organochlorine ppp are a group of organic compounds that have been found in aquatic systems worldwide. Organophosphates were found in no case. There was no relationship between the time of samplings and the fumigation season. At all locations,


ppp levels were found to be between 40 and 400 times higher than the legal limits established for protection of aquatic life (Rovedatti et al., 2001). Ppp contamination of ground and surface waters is a serious concern in the United States. Studies showed that ppp in surface waters were detected in all regions of the country. In general in 1997, herbicides have been detected more frequently than insecticides, consistent with the greater use of herbicides. Most frequently detected herbicides include several triazines (atrazine, cyanazine, and simazine), acetanilides (metolachlor and alachlor), and 2,4-D. These compounds were among the highest in current agricultural use. Trifluralin and butylate were detected less frequently, despite relatively high use. These are volatile compounds that are usually incorporated into the soil when applied, that reduce the likelihood of transport to surface waters (Gilliom, 1997). Some organochlorine compounds that are no longer used were among the most frequently detected insecticides (Gilliom, 1997). Pimentel (2002) cites studies showing that ppp residues were found in 92% of Midwestern reservoirs and in the Midwest, in Iowa, herbicide residues were found in 75% of the wells sampled (Pimentel, 2002). According to the US-EPA, the molinate, a herbicide mainly used on rice, is said to pose only a moderate threat to aquatic life. Although it has been shown to remain in the environment for some time and is often detected downstream of areas where it is used (Belgaqua and Phytofar 2002). In Canada, studies showed that the concentrations of ppp in surface waters vary considerably from one area to another, as well as within the same area (Chambers et al., 2000). From 1995 to 1996, losses of ppp by surface flow according to two manure spreading in silage corn fields on the southern coast of British Columbia area. The cultures with winter cover where the manure has been applied in the autumn lost by run-off 6 grams of atrazine per hectare. On the other hand, the parcel cultivated in a more traditional way (manure spreading in the autumn and surface left without cover culture) lost 10 grams of atrazine per hectare by run-off. They did not observe a difference for losses of metolachlor (5 grams per hectare). The ppp contaminating surface waters in Prairies are not all of agricultural origin. For example, high concentrations of herbicides, in particular of the 2,4-D, have been found downstream of Edmonton and Winnipeg. This rise has been attributed to the application of 2,4-D on the lawns, in the parks and on the golf courses. Some cases of surface water contamination have been attributed to herbicides use in ditches along roads and by railways (Chambers et al., 2000). In the centre of Canada, total losses measured in surface waters represent from 1 to 2% of the quantity applied. In the “Saint Laurent” river and his affluents, several ppp have been found, in particular herbicides of the triazines group (like the atrazine) and of the acids chlorophenoxyacetic group (like the 2,4-D). According to other studies in the east of Ontario, concentrations of atrazine and metolachlor tended to be higher during rainy period of May, June and July when these herbicides are sprayed in corn fields. In two streams nearby a fruits producing area in Ontario, the insecticides azinphos-methyl, diazinon, chlorpyrifos and endosulfan were regularly detected. Concentrations of these insecticides frequently exceeded threshold of tolerance fixed by Canada or levels of water quality fixed by Ontario for aquatic life. These insecticides are often found during application period and the presence in the water can come from drift of the product sprayed. On the other hand, in the area of intensive vegetable culture in organic ground of Holland Marsh, where insecticides are abundantly applied, a study from 1991 to 1993 revealed the less frequent presence of


these ppp, and this, in lower concentrations in the Holland river. As in Prairies, the urban centres also contribute to the surface water pollution by the ppp. Analyses realised in Guelph, in Hamilton and in Toronto in 1998 revealed the presence of herbicides and insecticides in the urban run-off. The maximum contents of two insecticides (diazinon and chlorpyrifos) exceeded the Ontarian qualitative objectives for the protection of the aquatic life (Chambers et al., 2000).

2.2.1.2.32.2.1.2.32.2.1.2.32.2.1.2.3 IIIIMPACTS ON AQUATIC ENMPACTS ON AQUATIC ENMPACTS ON AQUATIC ENMPACTS ON AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTVIRONMENTVIRONMENTVIRONMENT Harmful effects of plant protection products can be evaluated by acute toxicity (effects after an exposure to high concentration during a short time) and chronic toxicity (an exposure to small concentration during a long time, more difficult to measure than acute toxicity because the time between the exposure and effects can be long) on some selected species like fishes, Daphnies and some algae. There are two principal mechanisms (Ongley, 1996):

� Bioconcentration: this is the movement of a chemical from the surrounding medium into an organism. Some ppp are lipophilic, such as DDT, meaning that they are soluble in, and accumulated in, fatty tissues. Other ppp such as glyphosate are metabolised and excreted;

� Biomagnification: this term describes the increasing concentration of a chemical within the food chain. The concentration of ppp is increasingly magnified in tissues and other organs. Very high concentrations can be observed in top predators, including man. Different ppp have markedly different effects on aquatic life that makes generalization very difficult. The important point is that many of these effects are chronic (not lethal), are often not noticed by casual observers, yet have consequences for the entire food chain (Ongley, 1996).

This point will not be developed in this part but effects of plant protection products on fishes will be treated in the part that deals with effects on vertebrates. 2.2.1.32.2.1.32.2.1.32.2.1.3 LLLLEGISLATION AND DEVELEGISLATION AND DEVELEGISLATION AND DEVELEGISLATION AND DEVELOPMENTOPMENTOPMENTOPMENT

2.2.1.3.12.2.1.3.12.2.1.3.12.2.1.3.1 EEEEUROPEAN LEGISLAUROPEAN LEGISLAUROPEAN LEGISLAUROPEAN LEGISLATIONTIONTIONTION

The European directive 98/83/EC (revision of directive 80/778/EEC) about drinking water stipulates the limit of quantity of active substance at 0,1 µg/l for one ppp (for almost all ppp, this value is more strict than the value of World Health Organization) and at 0,5 µg/l for total ppp concentration in drinking water. This directive also imposes this value at their relevant metabolites, degradation and reaction products. These values reflect the principle of precaution and they aren’t necessary in relation with limits of risk for human health. For almost all ppp, this value is stricter than the value of the World Health Organization which is based upon the chronic toxicity data of the ppp. For four insecticides (aldrine, dieldrine, heptachlore and heptachlore epoxyde) the parametric value is 0,03 µg/l. When this Directive was established in 1980, the 0,1 µg/l limit for ppp was representative of a surrogate zero since this was the analytical limit of detection for most active substances analysed at the time. The limit refers to water ‘from the tap’ and treatment processes can be used to achieve compliance. It is the cost of treatment and the effectiveness of the procedure which is of concern to water suppliers. The fixing of a single threshold of pesticides in water is the object of many controversies.


The first criticism relates to single threshold. It is observed that this choice of the single threshold is a European choice, which does not have practically any equivalent in the world. For the whole chemicals, the WHO determined different guide values (VG), adapted to the various molecules (Annexe 1.10). The second criticism relates to the chosen level, much more strict than the international values and than the levels retained by other candidates, in particular America. The relationship between the European limiting values and the international values guides can vary from 1 to 3000 (for the bentazone, the VG is of 300 µg/l). The American Agency of Environmental Protection fixed the threshold of alachlore, atrazine and simazine to respectively 2 µg/l, 3 µg/l and 17 µg/l, levels from 20 to 170 times higher than the European standard. The third criticism relates to a certain inconsistency in the determination of the thresholds. While the attention was focused on water, residue limits in food products treated with pesticides were not modified. For example, the limits of residues on the fruits can be up to 100 000 times more important than the contents accepted in water. This situation suggests an excessive severity on water and that the standards applied to water were not founded on toxicological reasons. Last criticism relates to a situation of blocking. It will be pointed out that the current thresholds were fixed initially 25 years ago. For professor Hartemann of the faculty of Nancy, "one could set a standard of 0,1 µg/l, by precaution, when scientific knowledge was still limited but as from the knowledge is better, it would be necessary to agree to revise the thresholds" (Miquel, 2003). The Plant Protection Products Registration Directive (91/414/EEC) requires that there is no unacceptable impact on non-target organisms in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. The directive 200/60/EC, establishes a framework for community action in the field of water policy. This water framework directive provides an integrated framework for assessment, monitoring and management of the chemical status of groundwaters and surface water as well as the ecological status of surface water. The directive requires measures to be taken to reduce or eliminate emissions, discharges and losses of hazardous substances, for the protection of surface water and groundwater. This directive imposes a good ecological state of surface waters by the year 2015. For the protection of surface waters, the Water framework Directive introduces criteria for establishing a list of priority substances and priority hazardous substances. A list of 33 priority substances was adopted in 2001, 13 of these are used in ppp (Decision n° 2455/2001/CE of the European Parliament and of the council). Several European directives about water quality or water pollution are going to be repealed by the water framework directive. The directive 75/440/CEE (concerning the quality required of surface water intended for drinking water in the Member States) is going to be repealed with effect from seven years after the date of entry into force of this directive. The directive 80/68/CEE (on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances) and the directive 76/464/CEE (on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community) are going to be repealed with effect from thirteen years after the date of entry into force of this directive (except some articles of directive 76/464/CEE that are going to be repealed with effect from the entry into force of the directive 2000/60/EC).


2.2.1.42.2.1.42.2.1.42.2.1.4 CCCCONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSION

This part exposed some issues described in scientific reports and in the scientific bibliography. It is not an exhaustive list but a paper about principal issues found at the international level. Like shown in this report, plant protection products, detection frequency and levels of contamination differ regarding the area, the use of ppp, the climate, the awareness of users... Lots of factors are involved in the water contamination by ppp. There will be dealt with the Belgian level in task 2. The analysis of the international level shows even so that herbicides cause major problems. Actions are already implemented (like a reduction of use or a ban of some products) but the analysis of trends is slow because the issue occurs with different time and monitoring costs are very high. However, it seems that, for some products, the situation improves in some area. 2.2.22.2.22.2.22.2.2 ReReReReview of effects on useful arthropods and other invertebratesview of effects on useful arthropods and other invertebratesview of effects on useful arthropods and other invertebratesview of effects on useful arthropods and other invertebrates 2.2.2.12.2.2.12.2.2.12.2.2.1 EEEEFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS ON IECTION PRODUCTS ON IECTION PRODUCTS ON IECTION PRODUCTS ON INVERTEBRATESNVERTEBRATESNVERTEBRATESNVERTEBRATES

Plant protection products (ppp) generally cause unintended environmental effects. The main problem about ppp is the distinction between the harmful organisms against which ppp are designed to protect plants and/or plant production or to prevent the action (Directive 91/414/EC), and the non-target species inhabiting the treated areas, that are not intended to be affected. Frequently it is not possible to kill just the target species; other coexisting species are also affected (Nimmo and McEwen 1994). Whereas there is general agreement that a certain degree of selectivity is desirable for insecticides (to protect predatory insects and other insect species of benefit to agriculture), control of all plants other than the crop is usually the desired norm for herbicides (McLaughlin and Mineau 1995). Under Directive 91/414/EC, the testing of ppp for the toxicity to many more organisms, such as beneficial arthropods, bees, etc… became required. Modern ppp registrations have included risk evaluations against these organisms, and mitigation measures area on the label when needed. Organisms may take up ppp through the ingestion of food and water, the respiration and the contact with skin or exo-skeleton. The substance that crosses these various barriers reaches metabolic sites or is stocked (van der Werf, 1996). A great proportion of the environmental contamination is the result of excessive (an overdosage) and/or wrong (e.g. an application very near to the waterfront) use of plant protection products. The presence of ppp in the environment and in living organisms is the result of direct application during spreading, drifts, leaching, inconvenient handling, careless of the applicator, consumption of contaminated food and of degree of product persistent (Philogène, 2005). The great majority of currently used ppp is classified in “slightly or no persistent” (activity period from 1 to 12 weeks) or in “moderately persistent” (activity period from 1 to 18 month). Most of the organochlorine are “persistent” (activity period from 2 to 5 years) whereas former ppp which contained arsenic, mercury and lead were “quasi-permanent” (activity period more than 5 years). This presence at short or at long-term leads to poisoning of living organisms present nearby or in an area more or less extensive according to environmental conditions, of initial area of applications (Philogène, 2005). Exposure to a toxicant can cause mortality as well as multiple sublethal effects. Sublethal effects may be manifested as reductions in life span, development rates, fertility and fecundity, changes in sex ratio, and changes in behaviour such as feeding, searching and oviposition (Stark & Banks, 2003).


Therefore, recent evaluations have indicated that ecotoxicological analysis based on population growth rate results in more accurate assessments of the impacts of pesticides and other toxicants because measures of population growth rate combine lethal and sublethal effects, which lethal dose/concentration estimates (LD/LC50) cannot do. The population growth rate approach should thus be widely adopted for assessment of toxicant impacts on arthropods (Stark and Banks 2003). In the present report, effects on useful arthropods, bees and earthworms are reported although effects on other invertebrates have been observed like spiders or molluscs but the literature about this subject is abundant and it was necessary to make a selection. 2.2.2.22.2.2.22.2.2.22.2.2.2 PPPPEST PREDATORS ANEST PREDATORS ANEST PREDATORS ANEST PREDATORS AND PARASITES D PARASITES D PARASITES D PARASITES

Many crop pests are controlled naturally by various predatory and parasitic insects. Such entomophagous predators and parasites, generally referred to as “useful arthropods”, “natural enemies” or “biological control agents”, are very active in certain crops. In winter wheat, for example, the activity of the aphids natural enemies keeps pest below the economic nuisance threshold in two years out of three on average. But pests natural enemies are particularly vulnerable to the plant protection products. Various studies carried out in the past have demonstrated the very harmful effects of using certain products that are highly toxic to useful insects. However, some general trends from different database show that predators are less susceptible and more variable in response to pesticides than parasitoids (Theiling and Croft 1988). Because beneficial arthropods are present in crops, they are particularly exposed to ppp and the use of non-selective products for these arthropods can have negative consequences for agriculture. The most spectacular effect of non-selective insecticide use for useful arthropods is the very quick development of pests after a treatment intended to control them. Another effect is the explosion of pest populations considered before like secondary and non-targeted by the treatment, simply because of the elimination of their natural enemies (Jansen 2004). Insecticides are the most toxic pesticide class to predators and parasitoids, followed by herbicides, acaricides and fungicides, respectively (Theiling and Croft 1988); (Jansen 2004). Ideally, a pesticide should be non-persistent and applied to a crop at a time when the immature stages of the parasitoid are protected. However, the timing is critical as it must be late enough to prevent killing the parasitoid in its early stages of development, but early enough to prevent the adult becoming exposed to a lethal dose when emerging or during its movement over the treated foliage. Therefore, a short-residual pesticide applied during the middle portion of the parasitoid’s development period would prove the least harmful. However, the selective timing of spraying proves difficult in `open field’ conditions as all stages of parasitoids are present in a crop during the growing season, but early spraying of crops may prove the best time to coincide with the period when most parasitoids are within mummies. Overall, the low susceptibility of mummy stages offers an opportunity for selective timing of certain pesticide applications. However, there is still a need for information regarding the effects of broad-spectrum insecticides. Improvements in the integrated use of parasitoids with pesticides for the management of crop pests could then become more feasible by the use of selective pesticides, or use of reduced concentrations, so that at least one life stage of the parasitoid can be conserved (Longley 1999).

2.2.2.2.12.2.2.2.12.2.2.2.12.2.2.2.1 EEEEFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS ECTION PRODUCTS ECTION PRODUCTS ECTION PRODUCTS The side-effect of 10 insecticides, 5 fungicides and 5 herbicides, on 24 different species of beneficial organisms (19 beneficial arthropods, 3 entomopathogenic fungi and 2


nematodes) has been tested by members of the Working Group “Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms” of the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC), West Palaearctic Regional Section (WPRS) (Annexe 1.11). The tests were conducted by 32 members in 12 countries according to internationally approved guidelines (Sterk et al., 1999). Among the 10 tested insecticides, the microbial compounds, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, B. thuringiensis var. tenebrionis and Verticillium lecanii, were found to be harmless to nearly all the beneficial organisms tested. Teflubenzuron and flufenoxuron affected predators such as anthocorids, earwigs, coccinellids and lacewings. The remaining insecticides were rather toxic for most of the beneficial arthropods tested, in laboratory as well as in semi-field or even in field trials (Annexe 1.11). Heptenophos was the only insecticide that was toxic for the entomopathogenic fungi (Sterk et al., 1999). Most fungicides, cyproconazol, difenoconazol, lecithin and penconazol, were harmless to most of the parasites and predators, but toxic for the entomopathogenic fungi. Fungicides, toxic for the apple and vine predatory mite, Typlodromus pyri, in laboratory trials, turned out to be harmless in the field. Tebuconazole was rather harmful to most parasitoids in laboratory tests. In a semi-field trial on Trichogramma, however, this compound was non-toxic. Cyproconazole was moderately toxic for Encarsia formosa in the laboratory test (Sterk et al., 1999).

2.2.2.2.22.2.2.2.22.2.2.2.22.2.2.2.2 FFFFOCUS ON INSECTICIDESOCUS ON INSECTICIDESOCUS ON INSECTICIDESOCUS ON INSECTICIDES The direct impact of an insecticide is influenced by a number of factors (active substance, dosage, persistence…) related to the compound and the method of application. Predators can be exposed to an insecticide by direct contact with the spray or by contact with residues or by eating a contaminated prey. Mortality of carabids has been demonstrated for all three ways in the laboratory. In addition to direct effects of insecticides, various sub-lethal effects have also been recorded (Sunderland, 1992).

2.2.2.2.2.12.2.2.2.2.12.2.2.2.2.12.2.2.2.2.1 In cerealsIn cerealsIn cerealsIn cereals

Jansen (2004) has drawn up general trends about trials in fields on insecticides effects on Aphidiidae, hymenopterans, ladybirds and Syrphidae in cereals (natural enemies of aphids in many crops). Insecticides such as delthamethrin, dimethoate and parathion can be considered as toxic in field for Aphidiidae in cereal (parathion is not included in annexe I of Directive 91/414/CEE) (Jansen, 2004).

� DeltamethrinDeltamethrinDeltamethrinDeltamethrin In wheat, deltamethrin reduces populations of ladybirds until 35 days after application. In maize, deltamethrin, used to fight European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), has reduced ladybird populations and favoured these of aphids (Jansen, 2004). A study realised in the United Kingdom in 1986-1988 has determined experimentally the hazard posed by autumn-application of synthetic pyrethroids to the beneficial invertebrate fauna of cereal fields. The effects of the synthetic pyrethroid, deltamethrin applied at 6,25 g/a.s./ha on the non-target invertebrate fauna of winter-wheat was monitored over two cropping cycles in comparison to demeton-S-methyl and untreated control. The product was applied in the first week of November in 1986 and 1987 (Pullen et al., 1992). At the family level, there was evidence for a significant short-term depletion of some Carabidae (especially Bembidion obtusum, Nebria brevicollis and Pterostichus melanarius), following exposure to deltamethrin. There was also evidence for an enhancement of trapping rate for a period, at least 60 days following pyrethroids treatment in both years.


This has not been clearly explained but there can have been a degree of enhanced activity in the treated plots leading to a higher probability of capture. In general, pyrethroid effects were greater than organophosphate effects. No evidence for sub-lethal effects (number of eggs per female and proportion with empty crops) were found in the carabid, Trechus quadristriatus however, the proportion of female beetles was higher in the pyrethroid-treated plots (Pullen et al., 1992). However, for treatment against aphids for example, the pyretroids esfenvalerate, alpha-cypermethrine, zeta-cyperméthrine and lambda-cyhalothrine seem to be the most selective for the useful arthropods when comparing their effects with other insecticides such as carbaryl, dimethoate, phosalone, pirimicarb, cypermethrine and deltamethrine (Hautier, Jansen et al. 2004).

� FenvalerateFenvalerateFenvalerateFenvalerate Fenvalerate (banned in EU since 1999) appears to be non-toxic on Aphidiidae, the parasitism rate after treatment is above the one of untreated plot. It is difficult to separate direct effects of a product on parasites hymenopteran from indirect effects (among other effects on host population). In this case, the light toxicity of this insecticide on these Aphidiidae is, for a part, linked to the residual population survival of aphids (Jansen, 2004). In maize, fenvalerate, used to fight European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), has reduced ladybird populations and favoured these of aphids (Jansen, 2004). The toxicity of fenvalerate on Syrphidae has been studied in cereals and, at the recommended dose, has had less strong toxic effect than pirimicarb in the same conditions (Jansen, 2004).

� DemetonDemetonDemetonDemeton----SSSS----methyl methyl methyl methyl This active substance is banned in EU since 2002. In field trials, demeton-s-methyl appears to be non-toxic on Aphidiidae, the parasitism rate after treatment is above the one of untreated plot (Jansen, 2004). In both laboratory and field studies, the use of demeton-S-methyl caused larger and often significant short-term reductions in number of Heteroptera compared to phosalone and pirimicarb. (Moreby et al., 1997).

� DimethoateDimethoateDimethoateDimethoate In wheat, dimethoate reduces populations of ladybirds until 35 days after application. Another experiment on the toxicity of dimethoate has also shown that a great number of larva and adults of ladybirds have been found death on the ground short after the treatment (Jansen, 2004). Another study, realised in Sussex, on the application of dimethoate on winter wheat to control cereal aphids has caused changes in the numbers of the non-target arthropods fauna. The total number of non-target arthropods in the treated area was 15 % of the one in the untreated area 7 days after treatment and 40 % after 2 weeks. There were still differences in diversity of predatory species 2 months after treatment. Adults and immature stages of many arthropods predators were reduced. Many dead adults and larvae were found in the field after treatment. Chrysopa carnea (Chrysopidae) appeared to be the most resistant aphid specific species (Vickerman & Sunderland, 1997). In both laboratory and field studies, the use of dimethoate caused larger and often significant short-term reductions in number of Heteroptera compared to phosalone and pirimicarb. (Moreby et al., 1997). High levels of mortality have also been recorded in the “International Organization for Biological Control” (IOBC), “Joint Pesticide Testing Programmes” when dimethoate was tested against Anthocoris spp. using the recommended field rate. Similar results have been


found for other non-target species eaten by young birds, including Carabidae and Lycosidae when treated with aphicides applied at the recommended dose rates approved for summer use in the UK. Dimethoate was also found to be very toxic to the carabid Pterostichus melanarius, resulting in high levels of mortality and to reduce densities of most non-target arthropod groups in cereals (Moreby et al., 1997).

� ParathionParathionParathionParathion A proliferation of aphids has even been observed after treatment with parathion (which is banned in EU since 2002) because of parasite of this pest was highly reduced (Jansen, 2004). A experiment on the toxicity of parathion has also shown that a great number of larva and adults of ladybirds have been found death on the ground short after the treatment (Jansen, 2004)

� PirimicarbPirimicarbPirimicarbPirimicarb As for fenvelerate, the light toxicity of pirimicarb on Aphidiidae is, for a part, linked to the residual population survival of aphids (Jansen, 2004). An experiment on the toxicity of pirimicarb showed that this pesticide was much less harmful than dimethoate, parathion and oxydemethon-methyl on larva and adults of ladybirds (Jansen, 2004). The toxicity of pirimicarb on Syrphidae has been studied in cereals and, at the recommended dose, pirimicarb is clearly toxic for larva of Syrphidae. A reduction of pirimicarb doses increases generally its selectivity for Syrphidae. However, this dose must be reduced at least 75 % so that effects are acceptable but the reduction of dose must always be envisaged carefully because the treatment must still be efficient. Pyrazophos fungicide has the same effect on Syrphidae as on ladybird, namely an important reduction of these populations and a significant increase of aphid populations (Jansen, 2004). The use of pirimicarb resulted in only small non-significant changes in number of Heteroptera, compared to demeton-S-methyl and dimethoate. Pirimicarb was not toxic, with very low mortality levels being found in laboratory and field tests among both carabids and lycosids. However dimethoate was found to be very toxic to the carabid Pterostichus melanarius, resulting in high levels of mortality. Dimethoate has also been found to reduce densities of most non-target arthropod groups in cereals (Moreby et al., 1997).

� PhosalonePhosalonePhosalonePhosalone In wheat, phosalone reduces populations of ladybirds until 35 days after application (Jansen, 2004). In both laboratory and field studies, the use of phosalone resulted in only small non-significant changes in number of Heteroptera, compared to demeton-S-methyl and dimethoate (Moreby et al., 1997). In wheat, oxydemethonoxydemethonoxydemethonoxydemethon----methylmethylmethylmethyl reduces populations of ladybirds until 35 days after application (Jansen, 2004). In maize, chlorpyriphoschlorpyriphoschlorpyriphoschlorpyriphos----methylmethylmethylmethyl, used to fight European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), has reduced ladybird populations and favoured these of aphids (Jansen, 2004). In the United Kingdom, treatments for aphid pests (Hemiptera: Homoptera) constitute the major market for insecticides. Side-effects on non-target species of beneficial Hemiptera: Heteroptera, an important beneficial insect group and food source for farmland birds, are a potentially undesirable consequence of aphicide use. The definition of “beneficial” in this


study extends to species of importance in the feeding ecology of farmland vertebrates such as farmland birds. Within cereal crops, the low densities of Anthocoris spp. (Heteroptera: Cimicidae, generalist predators) and other species of predatory Heteroptera is probably a consequence of insecticide side effects on these beneficial arthropods, according to numerous investigations. Numerous insecticides may be used when some Heteroptera species are present in the field. This study has begun with laboratory screening and from this procedure, a number of insecticides were selected for further field studies in which the routes of exposure to the chemical would more closely represent those experienced by Heteroptera under field conditions (Moreby et al., 1997). The differing levels of mortality found between insecticide treatments in this study and many others indicate that the choice of the active ingredient could have an important impact on the abundance of Heteroptera and thus their availability as food for farmland birds (Moreby et al., 1997). With regard to fungicide tested in fields, only pyrazophospyrazophospyrazophospyrazophos (banned in EU since 2000) is clearly toxic for many predators of aphids, included ladybirds. Pyrazophos fungicide has the same effect on Syrphidae as on ladybird, an important reduction of these populations and a significant increase of aphid populations (Jansen, 2004). A study, performed on the clay soils in the Netherlands, shows that the creation of unsprayed margins of 3 meter in winter wheat offers the most promising prospects for enhancing biodiversity in farming regions. The main effects appear to be an increase in the abundance and variety of arable plant species and their associated insect fauna such as Syrphidae sp., such as ladybirds and also the number of butterflies increased significantly in these unsprayed strips. Although aphids were more abundant in the unsprayed winter wheat margins, they did not spread to the rest of the field. It appears to have relatively little impact on soil invertebrates (Stoate et al., 2001).

2.2.2.2.2.22.2.2.2.2.22.2.2.2.2.22.2.2.2.2.2 In fruitsIn fruitsIn fruitsIn fruits

A study realised during 25 years in Sussex about the effects of ppp used by the “Game Conservancy Trust” has shown over the period 1970-1995 a highly significant negative relationship between the use of broad-spectrum insecticides and densities of a range of invertebrates. Over this period insecticide treatments showed an increase from less than 10% fields treated in the 1970s to 60 - 80% treated in the 1990s, broadly consistent with national trends (Brown, 2004). The impact of three insecticides: diazinon, phosphamidon (banned in EU since 2002) and azinphosmethyl (banned in Eu since 1996) and one acaricide: bromopropylate applied for the control of fruit pests on beneficial arthropod populations was determined in four short-term and one seasonal test in the field (Sechser, 1988). Arthropod populations on apple trees were not affected by bromopropylate in the short term tests of a 24 hours duration except for a slight reduction of tiny hymenopterous parasites (Sechser, 1988). For short-term tests, significant reductions of arthropod populations were observed with the three organophosphates diazinon, phosphamidon and azinphosmethyl. Diazinon was the least selective followed by phosphamidon, which demonstrated acceptable selectivity on anthocorids and mirids, and azinphosmethyl that in addition was also soft on Chrysopa larvae. But, coccinellid adults and hymenopterous parasites were affected by these three organophosphates to the same degree (Sechser, 1988).


Only phosphamidon and azinphosmethyl were included with two applications in a seasonal field test, where no difference was recorded in beneficial arthropod populations to an untreated check over a three months period (Sechser, 1988).

2.2.2.2.32.2.2.2.32.2.2.2.32.2.2.2.3 FFFFOCUS ON HERBICIDESOCUS ON HERBICIDESOCUS ON HERBICIDESOCUS ON HERBICIDES Herbicides can have a direct effect on arthropods. An early example is aminotriazole, which increased mortality and reduced fecundity in the pea aphid. Nevertheless, most herbicides have no direct effect on arthropods. Changes in arthropods resulting from herbicide use are generally attributed to changes in vegetation; such interactions are driven by changes in food source, habitat modification, or both. According to Norris and Kogan (2005), it is unlikely that any herbicide would have substantial activity against arthropods, because if such activity existed, the pesticide industry would register such use for insecticidal purposes. The bulk (about 70%) of ppp used in Canada are herbicides and there is almost no knowledge of their impact on potential non-target plant species, especially rare or endemic species. Drift of agriculturally used ppp also reduced the diversity and abundance of arthropods specifically associated with particular plant species, e.g. Artemisia filifolia on and off natural areas in Texas. Unfortunately, many of the products still in use in Canada are very broad spectrum in their activity and may be affecting species on a local or regional level (McLaughlin & Mineau, 1995). The Working Group “Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms” of the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC), West Palaearctic Regional Section (WPRS) has tested side effects of 5 herbicides among others pesticides, on 24 different species of beneficial organisms (19 beneficial arthropods, 3 entomopathogenic fungi and 2 nematodes) (Annexe 1.11). The results show that these herbicides: ethofumesat, fluroxypyr, haloxyfop, isoproturon and metamitron, were all harmless to slightly harmful to nearly all the beneficial insects tested. Only haloxyfop was moderately toxic for Trichogramma and Typhlodromus (Sterk, Hassan et al. 1999). 2.2.2.32.2.2.32.2.2.32.2.2.3 BBBBEESEESEESEES

The use of ppp can have impacts on pollinator insects such as domestic bees, Apis mellifera. Their action of pollination is considered as essential for the preservation of terrestrial ecosystems including agro-systems. Indeed, the domestic bee takes part in pollination of many cultivated or wild plants. On the other hand, domestic bees have an economic interest by the sale of beehive products (Decourtye et al., 2005). The first poisoning of beehive would have been observed at the end of 19th century in the United States. After the Second World War, issues of poisoning became wide spread with the synthetic insecticide use; organochlorine, carbamate, organophophorus and pyrethrinoide. Since the 80’s, new molecules affecting the development of larval stage have been synthetised like the analogous of juvenil hormone (methoprene, fenoxycarbe) and the chitinase inhibitor (diflubenzuron). More recently, new families of compounds, neonicotinoïde (imidacloprid) and phenylpyrazoles (fipronil) that act on nicitinics receptor of acetylcholine and on acide γ–aminobutyrique receptors, have been used (Decourtye et al., 2005). From the 50’s, it has been demonstrated that bees populations can be strongly affected after their exposition to insecticides. Since this period, scientific works have been started to develop methodologies evaluating effects on this arthropod. Nowadays, toxicity tests on bee must be incorporated into agreement file for the inscription of an active substance on annexe I or for agreement of ppp. The majority of poisoning caused by ppp in scientific


literature is about depopulation of colony further to death of a great number of individuals. However, these lethal effects are decreased since Member States of European Union require the presentation of ecotoxicological data on bees before the agreement of use of ppp. Nevertheless, recent issues of beehive depopulation have incriminated 2 insecticides in France: Gaucho® (a.s. imidachloprid) and Regent TS® (a.s. fipronil), used for seed treatment of maize and sunflower. This crisis has illustrated insufficiency in regulations and has also allowed to establish new risk evaluation procedures for bees (Decourtye et al., 2005). Recently, a decline of bee populations has been observed in North America and in Europe. Possible causes of this decline are the destruction and the fragmentation of their habitat, the proliferation of diseases and parasites, and the impact of ppp. In the scientific literature as well as in regulatory procedure, most of the tests deal about lethal and acute effects on adult bees and then an underestimate of chronic exposition, larva exposition and sublethal effects. But new specific tests are developed in order to evaluate the toxicity of products on bees.

2.2.2.3.12.2.2.3.12.2.2.3.12.2.2.3.1 SSSSEED TREATMENTS EED TREATMENTS EED TREATMENTS EED TREATMENTS ((((IMIDACLOPRID AND FIPIMIDACLOPRID AND FIPIMIDACLOPRID AND FIPIMIDACLOPRID AND FIPRONILRONILRONILRONIL)))) Since 1993 in France, the preventive protection of sunflowers crop has been realized by the seed coating with imidacloprid insecticide. Acute toxicity tests have allowed to classify this active substance as very toxic for bees. However, according to the company that produces this substance, with the technique of seed coating, it would not have harmful effect on bees. Indeed, the technique of seed coating has been developed in order to diminish the applications per hectare and the exposure of useful arthropods. Nevertheless, some French beekeepers accuse imidacloprid insecticide to lead to a reduction of sunflower honey harvested. Worker bees exposed to a low quantity of this insecticide during the gathering of pollen and nectar would indicate behaviour troubles and would be unable to find beehive back, that would cause either depopulation of beehive during the sunflower flowering time either the lack of development at the end of winter. Faced with this problem, the agricultural ministry of France has applied the precautionary principle by suspending the use of imidacloprid in January 1999 and this principle has been renewed in 2001 (Decourtye, Tisseur et al. 2005). In parallel, a scientific and technical comity (CST) has been created to be in charge of an investigation of a multifactorial study on bees troubles by maize and sunflower seeds coated with imidacloprid. In the current state of knowledges and according to 5 scenarios developed to evaluate the exposition (1 : consumption of larval mixture for larva, 2 : consumption of pollen by nurse bees, 3 : consumption of pollen by pollen-gathering bees, 4 : consumption of nectar by pollen-gathering bees and 5 : consumption of honey by inside bees), ratio PEC/PNEC (“Predicted Environmental Concentration”/”Predicted No Effect Concentration”) obtained are worrying. It is in agreement with field observations reported by many beekeepers in maize and sunflower concerning the mortality of pollen-gathering bees (scenario 4), their disappearance, their behaviour troubles and some winter mortality (scenario 5). Consequently, the sunflower seed coated with imidacloprid leads to a significant risk for bees of different ages, except consumption of pollen by pollen-gathering bees (scenario 3). With regard to maize seed coating with imidacloprid, the ratio PEC/PNEC is, like sunflower case, worrying in cases of consumption of pollen by nurse bees, that could lead to a more important mortality of these ones and to be one of the explications of depopulation of bees still observed despite the banning of using imidacloprid on sunflower. This comity has therefore concluded in September 2003 that the sunflower seed coating by imidacloprid leaded to a significant risk for bees. Other factors can contribute to depopulation of bees.


Researches must be continued on the frequency, mechanisms and causes of these symptoms (Doucet-Personeni, Halm et al. 2003). The results obtained by the CST and confirmed by the CET ("Commission d’Etude de la Toxicité des produits antiparasitaires à usage agricole et des produits assimilés, des matières fertilisantes et des supports de culture") in 2004 are accepted by most of the involved actors. However, for some researchers, the used method is subject to criticisms. Indeed, it is a new method of risks evaluation on which they have little retreat. In addition, the experiments validated by the CST are carried out in laboratory or under tunnel. Consequently, the parameters are controlled. The scenarios of exposure to the products appear thus too severe compared to the exposures in natural environment. On the other hand, a multifactorial study in France from 2000 to 2001 by “Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments” (afssa) on the potential effects of exposition to imidacloprid carried in nectar has been realized. Two colonies of Apis mellifera mellifera have been fed with saccharose syrup 50 % containing imidacloprid at a concentration of 0,5 or 5 µg/kg and a control colony have been used. The only significant difference observed was: during the period of feeding (a higher number of bees coming in beehive than in the control colony), higher number of operculum brood cells in colony fed with syrup containing imidacloprid than in the control colony. After this period of feeding, the activity has again become similar in all groups. The mortality of bees has been very low and the level was comparable to all groups during this study. The repeated exposition of these colonies to syrup with imidacloprid, at comparable concentrations to the ones measured in nectar in field, did not cause immediate mortality or different mortality whereas many beekeepers attribute the mortality to the use of this seed coating product. According to afssa, complementary studies must be set up to test following hypothesis: either troubles described by beekeepers have an other cause that imidacloprid, either these troubles are attributed to imidacloprid but they can occur just when one or several conditions are satisfied like weakened colonies, a lack of well-off and varied food, use of bee race that does not have developed resistance to imidacloprid (Faucon, Aurieres et al. 2004). However, this study was not validated by the CET because of the low bees' exposure and thus its low representativeness compared to the natural conditions during the flowering time of sunflowers. Moreover, according to the CET, it is impossible to assess the real quantity of imidacloprid absorbed by each colony. Fipronil used for sunflower seed coating, is also considered as one of the possible causes of gathering behaviour troubles and depopulation of colonies (Decourtye, Tisseur et al. 2005). Bees mortality have been recorded on mid-March 2003 in France (“Toulouse” and “Albi” regions). This mortality has occurred after the sowing of sunflower seeds coated with fipronil. The afssa took samples to do analysis and these showed the presence of fipronil and its metabolite, MB 46136, in bees. Then, observations have been realized before and after the sowing of sunflower seeds coated (fipronil). These observations have shown that all colonies had a normal behaviour before the sowing and, after, some colonies had abnormal behaviour. These behaviours was similar to poisoning symptoms but only an analysis of fipronil residues would be able to conclude on this point (Chauzat, Cougoule et al. 2004). Another study performed in Argentina and consisting in a long-term field trial (226 days) was conducted to assess the effect of imidacloprid on population development and honey production of the beehives exposed to sunflower treated with this active substance.


The seeds of the test plot were treated with 0.24 mg imidacloprid per seed and the seeds sown in the control plotwere left untreated. No residues of imidacloprid or of its main secondary metabolites olefin-imidacloprid and hydroxi-imidacloprid were detected (<1.5 µg/kg) in any of the components of the beehives 10 days after their exposure to the treated sunflower. The populations from treated and control hives presented no significant differences in their development regarding pollen entrance and pollen in the hives, nectar and mortality. However, treated hives were more productive in terms of average weight, honey production, foraging activity, worker brood and comb foundation probably due to the better physiological state of the treated crop. No side effects were observed, in the short (10 and 28 days) or in the long-term (216 days) analysis, on the hives exposed to the sunflower plot treated with imidacloprid. The development of the hives or the individual bees was not affected by their exposure during bloom to sunflower plants originated from seeds treated with imidacloprid, under the conditions of the trial (Stadler, Martinez Gines et al. 2003). To conclude, as there are many controversies concerning this subject, there is no certitude and researches must be continued.

2.2.2.3.22.2.2.3.22.2.2.3.22.2.2.3.2 SSSSUBLETHAL TOXICITY OFUBLETHAL TOXICITY OFUBLETHAL TOXICITY OFUBLETHAL TOXICITY OF PPPPPPPPPPPP Like the chronic exposition of adults or larva, the sublethal toxicity by ppp is often underestimated in ecotoxicological studies on Apis mellifera. However, sublethal effects of deltamethrine on the flight to beehive of pollen-gathering bees could be the origin of colony depopulation observed in the 80’s. Sublethal effect of ppp can be an effect on reproduction, a modification of behaviour, a modification of physiology, a biochemical perturbation. However, the sublethal effects on bees are difficult to be proven. Studies on behaviour of pollen-gathering bees have emphasized the repulsive effect of many synthetic pyrethrinoides-based ppp (Decourtye et al., 2005). The effects of sublethal doses of fipronil on the behaviour of the honeybee were investigated under controlled laboratory conditions. The drug was either administered orally or applied topically on the thorax. A significant reduction of sucrose sensitivity was observed for the dose of 1 ng/bee 1 h after a thoracic application. No significant effect on sucrose sensitivity was obtained with acute oral treatment. A lower dose of fipronil (0.5 ng/ bee applied topically) impaired the olfactory learning of the honeybees. By contrast, locomotor activity was not affected. These results suggest a particular vulnerability of the olfactory memory processes and sucrose perception to sublethal doses of fipronil in the honeybee (El Hassani, Dacher et al. 2005). 2.2.2.42.2.2.42.2.2.42.2.2.4 EEEEARTHWORMS ARTHWORMS ARTHWORMS ARTHWORMS

Earthworms represent a major fraction of the soil invertebrate biomass (>80%). They play an important role in improving soil structure, chemical and biological properties and they are an important part of the food chain. Many studies have been made on the sublethal effects of ppp on the growth and reproduction of earthworms or on their nervous system functioning. By contrast, reports on the recovery of growth, reproduction and nervous system functioning are scarce (Panda & Sahu, 1999). The main pathway of exposure of earthworms to ppp is via contaminated water in the soil. Damage is often observed when heavy rainfall occurs after application of plant protection products (van der Werf, 1996).


Plant protection products have widely varying effects on earthworm populations, with many chemicals having little or no toxicity. In general, the carbamate insecticides and soil fumigants are very or highly toxic to earthworms. Herbicides in general show low toxicity toward worms, although there are some exceptions. Organochlorine and organophosphorus insecticides have varying levels of toxicity (Bohlen, 2002). Abundant literature exists quantifying earthworm mortality in response to different ppp and exposures. The effects of ppp on earthworms depend on the type of ppp and its rate of application, earthworm species and age, and environmental conditions. Annexe 1.12 gives test results of ppp toxicity on earthworms (Duiker & Stehouwer, 2003). The studies simulated normal exposure rates to ppp commonly used in field crops. The table summarizes a great number of studies that were widely used. Methods of evaluation of these studies vary so this table should be used with caution. Most inorganic chemicals tested are no longer in use as ppp. Based on the limited amount of information available, these chemicals do not seem to be very toxic to earthworms, except when they accumulate in soil over a long period of time. Organochlorine insecticides were extensively used from the 1950s to the 1970s, but are longer used in large quantities today. Endosulfan and lindane have been respectively moderately toxic and probably toxic at normal exposure rates. Some organophosphate insecticides, such as acephate, azinphos methyl, chlorpyrifos, ethoprophos, ethyl-parathion, and phorate are very toxic to earthworms. Most of these are already banned. The other organophosphate insecticides listed are non-toxic to moderately toxic to earthworms. Carbamate insecticides and benzimidazole fungicides are very toxic to earthworms. Carbaryl and carbofuran, both commonly used in field crop production, are extremely toxic to earthworms. Pyrethroid insecticides, on the other hand, have not been found to be toxic to earthworms. Most contact fumigant nematicides/fungicides are broad-spectrum ppp that will kill most of the earthworms, even those living deep in the soil. From the other fungicides tested, none was found to be toxic to earthworms except benzimidazole fungicides such as benomyl and carbendazim (not listed). Most herbicides are non-toxic to earthworms, although some, such as 2,4-D, pendimethalin, and simazine, are toxic at high exposure rates. Similar to that of humans, ppp health risks to earthworms depend not only on the toxicity of the chemical but also on the exposure to it. Earthworms that crawl on the soil surface (such as night crawlers) have a higher exposure to surface-applied ppp than those feeding and burrowing below the soil surface. On the other hand, ppp injected in a small fissure in the soil (such as the seed fissure) may not come in contact with many earthworms and therefore will not pose a significant threat for the population at large. Earthworms are most active in spring and fall under favourable temperature and moisture conditions. Ppp application during these periods is most likely to pose a threat to earthworms. If the soil is moist, earthworms will be more active and therefore more likely to come into contact with ppp. The effects of ppp on earthworms also depend on the age of the earthworms. Juvenile earthworms are more sensitive to ppp than adults because they move slower and are not able to burrow away deep into the soil (Duiker & Stehouwer, 2003). The effect of glyphosate (broad spectrum herbicide), 2,4-DB (herbicide) and dimethoate (insecticide and acaricide) on the growth and survival of four earthworm species


(Aporrectodea trapezoides Duges, A. rosea Savigny, A. caliginosa Savigny and A. longa Ude) has been tested in a pasture soil from South Australia (Dalby et al., 1995). The ppp treatments in both experiments had no significant effect on weight change of any earthworm species. A single application at recommended field rates of either glyphosate, dimethoate or 2,4-DB had no effect on the growth or survival of the four earthworm species tested when the ppp were applied directly to the soil surface, or on living plants. It is concluded that one application of either glyphosate, 2,4-DB or dimethoate at recommended rates will not harm on these earthworms species in field experiments in Australia. They cite another study that shows 2,4-D had no measurable effect on earthworm numbers in the field or on earthworm growth in a microcosm even though residues of 2,4-D were found in the tissue of the earthworm (Dalby et al., 1995). Organophosphorus compounds have been indicated to cause reproductive damage. A study, realised in Chile, has analysed the effect of exposure to an organophosphorus, parathion (Pc), on the reproductive parameters (sperm and cocoon production and genotoxicity on male germ cells), the survival, the body weight and the gross anatomical changes of the earthworm Eisenia fetida. The parathion (Pc) has been applied at 3 doses (1478, 739 and 444 mg/kg of soil) and three time intervals of exposure (5, 15 and 30 days) were observed (Bustos-Obregon and Iziga Goicochea 2002). Table 1.5 refers to the percentage of survival of the worms under the doses and at the intervals studied. It can be seen that at low Pc dose, survival is compromised only at long time after exposure (30 days), whereas at the high dose, marked effect is found at 15 days and no survivors by 30 days (Bustos-Obregon and Iziga Goicochea 2002). An acute genotoxic effect, revealed by DNA fragmentation, was seen by 5 days. Alterations in reproductive parameters were conspicuous in regard to the number of sperm, cocoons and worms born, and the histological observation of the gonads and seminal receptacles. In addition, the body weight and survival rate were decreased (Bustos-Obregon and Iziga Goicochea 2002). Table 1-9 refers to the percentage of survival of the worms under the doses and at the intervals studied. It can be seen that at low Pc dose, survival is compromised only at long time after exposure (30 days), whereas at the high dose, marked effect is found at 15 days and no survivors by 30 days (Bustos-Obregon & Iziga Goicochea, 2002). An acute genotoxic effect, revealed by DNA fragmentation, was seen by 5 days. Alterations in reproductive parameters were conspicuous in regard to the number of sperm, cocoons and worms born, and the histological observation of the gonads and seminal receptacles. In addition, the body weight and survival rate were decreased (Bustos-Obregon & Iziga Goicochea, 2002). Coiling, another symptom seen in 100 % of the Pc treated worms, is the consequence of alteration in muscular function, which may explain the difficulties for locomotion of the intoxicated worms and their relative inability to feed. These facts are related with weight loss. Reproduction is also interfered, since worms find their partner less easily and copulation is abnormal in terms of mating posture. There is probably also an alteration in the neuromuscular system involved in sperm transfer (Bustos-Obregon & Iziga Goicochea, 2002).


Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----9: Percentage of survival of the earthworms (Eisenia foetida) with 3 9: Percentage of survival of the earthworms (Eisenia foetida) with 3 9: Percentage of survival of the earthworms (Eisenia foetida) with 3 9: Percentage of survival of the earthworms (Eisenia foetida) with 3 doses of Commercial doses of Commercial doses of Commercial doses of Commercial Parathion® (Pc) and at the 3 intervals studied (BustosParathion® (Pc) and at the 3 intervals studied (BustosParathion® (Pc) and at the 3 intervals studied (BustosParathion® (Pc) and at the 3 intervals studied (Bustos----Obregon & Iziga Goicochea, 2002)Obregon & Iziga Goicochea, 2002)Obregon & Iziga Goicochea, 2002)Obregon & Iziga Goicochea, 2002)

Survival at different exposure days (%)Survival at different exposure days (%)Survival at different exposure days (%)Survival at different exposure days (%) Pc concentrationPc concentrationPc concentrationPc concentration (mg/kg/soil)(mg/kg/soil)(mg/kg/soil)(mg/kg/soil) 5 days5 days5 days5 days 15 days15 days15 days15 days 30 days30 days30 days30 days

0 95,0 97,5 76,3 444 97,5 90,0 32,5 739 90,0 91,3 13,8 1478 91,3 7,5 0

Panda and Sahu (1999) investigated the decline and recovery of the growth and reproduction of an earthworm Drawida willsi, which is dominant in field crops in India, following the application of two recommended doses of malathion (2,2 mg/kg single dose; 4,4 mg/kg double dose) to soil. Growth was calculated in terms of change in weight as a percentage of starting weight. The rate of reproduction was calculated as the total number of cocoons produced per adult worm. They found decreased cocoon production relative to controls. A sharp decline in the growth of D. willsi (57% with 2,2 and 80% within 4,4 mg malathion/kg soil) was observed after 15 days. Under controlled conditions, the decline in growth in each treatment became insignificant after 75 days. And 105 days after exposure, the earthworms resumed normal growth and reproduction, thus indicating that the timing of ppp application under field conditions is crucial when predicting the effect of ppp within an ecologically relevant context. Furthermore, organophosphorus insecticides, particularly malathion, do not persist for long in soil. It takes 1 week for more than 75% to be degraded in soil (Panda & Sahu, 1999). In the United Kingdom, project SCARAB is a field-scale six-year investigation of the effects of ppp use on invertebrates and soil microflora in arable crop systems common in the U.K. Two ppp regimes have been compared: current farm practice (CFP) which represents typical levels of use in the studied localities, and reduced input approach (RIA) in which inputs have been reduced by 50% and no insecticides has been used. The treatments began at three farms in 1990, and effects on earthworm populations have been monitored twice yearly since spring 1993. Particular attention was paid to age and species composition. Results up to spring 1994 showed that although some differences existed between earthworm populations in RIA and CFP plots, they lacked consistency over time and between the pairs of plots, and were of negligible magnitude compared with overall differences between the farms. It was concluded that the two ppp regimes caused no ecologically significant differences in earthworm populations at this stage of the project. The substantial differences in earthworm populations between farms were largely consistent with the expected effects of differences in climate, soil types, crop types, cultivations and ppp use, although the relative importance of these factors can not yet be assessed (Tarrant et al., 1997). A study with three different ppp and the earthworm Eisenia fetida has been undertaken. Vulnerability to adverse effects varied greatly between different ppp products: after 21 days, an imidacloprid exposed population experienced the same mortality as a control population, whereas chlorpyrifos increased mortality by 24%. Ppp also affect reproduction, which has a direct effect on population sustainability (Wadsworth et al., 2003). 2.2.2.52.2.2.52.2.2.52.2.2.5 CCCCONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSION

Most of the elements that have been reported in this part about plant protection products as environmental pollutants are worrying. There are, however, also positive trends that include termination or use restriction of the most harmful compounds. There is a noticeable


movement towards more ecological and biological approaches for controlling pests. Use of integrated approaches to control pests is also increasing. The use of selective plant protection products is essential to preserve useful arthropods. The maintenance of this diversity and number of arthropods is necessary for the natural control of pests but also for farmbirds. But thanks to the stern legislative demands and the continuously evolving and improving research, most of the plant protection products which are presently on the market are selective. Chronic and sub-lethal effects are less studied than acute and lethal effects. However, researches and analyses on chronic and sub-lethal effects must be pushed in the forefront because knowledges are less extensive and less developed. Yet, as shown in the section focussing on bees, it is very important to assess the risk of an active substance. As shown in studies on effects of ppp on earthworms, it is difficult to compare studies one with another. Indeed, each study has its own procedure with dose, way of application... A harmonization of these experiments would be from interest. However, the comparison between effects of a product on an invertebrate is not always possible because climatic conditions can be very different and the dispersion of the product can differ as well. On the other hand, there is a lack of international regulation, even though international agreements have been ratified on this subject. Thus, some countries continue either to produce organochlorine or to use it on a large scale. Some European, American and Asian countries still produce ppp for the export whereas its use is forbidden in the producing country. 2.2.32.2.32.2.32.2.3 Review of effects on vertebratesReview of effects on vertebratesReview of effects on vertebratesReview of effects on vertebrates 2.2.3.12.2.3.12.2.3.12.2.3.1 PPPPLANT PROTECTION PRODLANT PROTECTION PRODLANT PROTECTION PRODLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS ON VERTEBRATESUCTS ON VERTEBRATESUCTS ON VERTEBRATESUCTS ON VERTEBRATES

Plant protection products (ppp) are, by definition, toxic for organisms and they affect a great number of them, target or non-target, directly or indirectly. Organisms can be contaminated directly during the application or indirectly via air, water, soil or ingested food (Philogène, 2005). Therefore, the directive 91/414/EC mentions that testing the possible effects of the active substance on birds and fishes is required for ppp registrations. Thanks to the strict European regulation, authorized products that are used in a correct way do not cause an unacceptable risk for vertebrates. Some plant protection products such as organochlorine, organophosphorus and carbamates can have an action on hormonal systems they are qualified endocrine disrupting chemicals (or EDC). They can fix on hormonal receptors in the cell and have the same comportment as hormones. They can affect the synthesis of steroids and their metabolism, and even act on brain from which they produce a range of effects on hormonal systems necessary for a good organism functioning. All these effects have been observed on reptiles, birds and mammals (Philogène, 2005). The reproduction system of organisms is also sensitive because some ppp behave like oestrogens. The modification of reproductive potential of species can lead to reduction of biodiversity in contaminated areas (Philogène, 2005). The death of mammals by ppp usually results from feeding on contaminated sources. Predatory mammals accumulate higher residues than herbivores. Widespread mortality of wild mammals in association with major pest control programmes has been reported, in


particular when organochlorine pesticides were used. Perinatal or neonatal exposure of mammals to ppp such as aldrin, atrazine, chlordane and dieldrin has shown these substances can elicit a variety of perturbations in the sexual differentiation of mammals (van der Werf, 1996). Whereas the ppp presence or their residues do not show at low doses, an immediate hazard for birds, mammals and other animals; a repeated exposition at these doses, and particularly bioaccumulation, can have consequences on the growth, the development and the reproduction. These issues occur with ppp that act on hormonal systems, ECD. On the surface of ocean, there is a thin layer of oily substances containing bacteria, seaweeds, protozoa, fish eggs and marine invertebrates. Organochlorines have a tendency to accumulate in this layer where it is toxic for organisms who live there and contribute to accumulation in food chain (Philogène, 2005). For lipid-soluble substances, the bioaccumulation process is related to the octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) of the substance. If the partition coefficient is high and the degradation rate low, the compound will accumulate in organisms of the food chain with successive increases at each step; that is called the biomagnification or bioamplification. A ppp that bioaccumulates is potentially more harmful to the environment than a substance with similar exposure and similar toxicity which does not bioaccumulate (van der Werf, 1996). In the present report, effects on birds, fish, marine mammals and amphibians have been reported although effects on other vertebrates have been observed, but the literature about this subject is abundant and it was necessary to make a selection. 2.2.3.22.2.3.22.2.3.22.2.3.2 BBBBIRDSIRDSIRDSIRDS

Birds are among the most studied form of wildlife. By the early 1950s, bird death was observed in fields sprayed with DDT or other insecticides. In these cases mortality generally resulted from secondary poisoning, the birds eating insects disabled by insecticides. The practice of treating seeds with organochlorine insecticides resulted in extensive mortality of many seed-feeding birds. When insufficient quantity of pesticide is consumed to cause mortality, sublethal effects may occur. DDT contamination may disturb reproductive behaviour and result in thin eggshell, that was shown to be a major mechanism of pesticide impact on birds. Data on acute bird toxicity are available for most pesticides, but data on chronic toxicity are often lacking (van der Werf, 1996). The loss of birds of preys (and also fish-eating birds and seed eaters) due to poisoning by organochlorine pesticides is one of the best-documented incidences of direct pesticide effects on birds (Wadsworth et al., 2003). Other pesticides known to represent a direct hazard to birds include alkyl-mercury compounds (presently banned in the European Union), carbamates and organophosphorus. Other problematic compounds include pyrethroids, polychlorinated biphenyls (banned but still released to the environment from a variety of sources, even though production has been stopped) and certain second-generation rodenticides (some are restricted to professional use only) (Wadsworth et al., 2003). With respect to the latter, control of rodent pests on farmland can result in secondary poisoning of birds of preys and other species via the ingestion of poisoned (both alive and dead) rats and mice. Molluscides may also represent a hazard to some bird species. Evidence of population scale effects is currently lacking, but secondary poisoning is a hazard (Wadsworth et al., 2003).


Indirect effects of pesticides on birds via their food supply are well established, the best-documented example being the widespread decline of the Grey Partridge, Perdix perdix. No other species has been studied in such detail, but declines in other farmland birds are also likely to be linked to reductions in invertebrates, weeds and seeds due to pesticide use. Various studies have indicated links with both reductions in breeding success and problems with winter food supplies (Wadsworth et al., 2003). The toxicity of ppp is generally similar to closely related species. Dieldrin and methyl parathion (both banned in the European Union) are considerably more toxic to pheasants and quail than they are to mallards. The variation in toxicity among different pesticides to a particular animal species can be very great, reaching many orders of magnitude. The insecticide endrin (banned in the European Union) is more than 2000 times as toxic to pheasants and quail as many more commonly used insecticides such as carbaryl and permethrin (this one is banned in the European Union). Thus, when choosing pesticides for field use that present the least hazard to non-target wildlife, it is important to know how toxic they are to variety of species. Toxicity data are not the only factor, the rate and frequency of pesticide applications are also important (Nimmo & McEwen, 1994). A study realised in 1988 examined 31 pairs of organic and conventional farms in Denmark and found that the bird carrying capacity of conventionally-farmed land was only 37-51% of the carrying capacity of organically-farmed land. Fifteen of 35 common bird species were found to exhibit a decline with increasing pesticide use while only one showed the reverse trend. A part of the same study showed that many of the herbivorous and non-herbivorous insects known to be important as food for birds as well as a number of plant species important to the maintenance of these herbivorous insects were more abundant in the organically than in the conventionally farmed fields. The former also yielded a higher plant and invertebrate species diversity than conventional fields. In Canada, similar studies undertaken to compare organic to conventional farms in Ontario and in western Canada indicated trends in the same direction (McLaughlin & Mineau, 1995).

2.2.3.2.12.2.3.2.12.2.3.2.12.2.3.2.1 EEEEFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTFFECTS OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS ON BECTION PRODUCTS ON BECTION PRODUCTS ON BECTION PRODUCTS ON BIRDSIRDSIRDSIRDS

2.2.3.2.1.12.2.3.2.1.12.2.3.2.1.12.2.3.2.1.1 Lethal effectLethal effectLethal effectLethal effect

Toxic signs in birds associated with lethal exposure to several commonly used pesticides in 1994 are listed in annexe 1.13 (Nimmo & McEwen, 1994). During the 50’s and early 60’s, there were catastrophic declines in the populations of many species of predatory birds in North America and Europe; this coincided with the introduction of organochlorine pesticides (persistent and bioaccumulable). Two causes of population declines were established. One was a direct toxic effect; body tissues of pesticides increased until the toxic effects became fatal. This was particularly true for the more toxic organochlorines, such as dieldrin. The other effect was to cause a thinning of eggshells but this effect will be discussed in other sections (Dawson, 2000). Decades after their use, they are still exerting a lethal impact in some situations. However, other countries in the world are still relying heavily on some of these insecticides (McLaughlin & Mineau, 1995). Pesticides to which wildlife mortality is most commonly attributed in the United States are the organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides. Dietary toxicity experiments have shown that birds that die from carbamate insecticides do so within a few hours of exposure, whilst from organophosphorus insecticide exposure may extend over 5 days. Chemical, application method, pesticide formulation, and wildlife species may affect the importance


of the different exposure routes (inhalation, dermal, and ingestion from food, water or preening), which in turn may modulate rate of death (Vyas, 1999). A major obstacle to gathering information on field effects is that such events may be difficult to detect. Strong evidence from laboratory trials, field studies, monitoring, and site-investigations illustrates how an obvious adverse effect such as mortality can remain undetected (Vyas, 1999). Granular insecticides such as carbofuran (insecticide, carbamate) can kill a large proportion of the songbird population breeding on the edge of treated fields and therefore likely affect populations of those species, at least regionally. Carbofuran in liquid form has been shown to have an impact on at least one endangered Prairie species, the Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia), although several factors are undoubtedly contributing to the current plight of this species (McLaughlin & Mineau, 1995). The use of the insecticide diazinon on turf was shown to be an important source of mortality for the population of Brant geese (Branta bernicla) wintering in the mid-Atlantic states of the U.S. (McLaughlin & Mineau, 1995).

2.2.3.2.1.22.2.3.2.1.22.2.3.2.1.22.2.3.2.1.2 BioamplificationBioamplificationBioamplificationBioamplification

The spectacular population decline of peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus, is a well-known example of bioamplification and its negative effects. This predator feeds on other winged taking their foods in aquatic or terrestrial environment contaminated by ppp. It is at the beginning of 50’s that a significant decrease of this bird of preys has been noticed in Western Europe and East of North America. About 20 years after, the North American population was almost disappeared, consequence of reproduction troubles linked up with thin eggshell. Then, a relation between these effects and the use of organochlorines has been emphasized. The abolition of DDT use, and most of other organochlorines in Canada and in the United States, has contributed to stop this decline and to allow the building of the peregrine falcon population 30 years later (Philogène, 2005). Another effect of bioaccumulation and bioamplification on burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia, has also been noticed. This bird feeds on little mammals and insects. From 1976 to 1987, the adult population has decreased of 50 % in the South of Saskatchewan (Canada). After the observation that the death was associated with the use of carbofuran used against grasshoppers in the Canadian Prairies, the ban on this ppp has been required in 1991 (bust still allowed now) (Philogène, 2005).

2.2.3.2.1.32.2.3.2.1.32.2.3.2.1.32.2.3.2.1.3 Effects on immune systemEffects on immune systemEffects on immune systemEffects on immune system

Many pesticides are immunosuppressors that reduce an exposed animal’s defences against carcinogens and diseases such as bacterial and virus infections. Immune system processes are diverse and complex, making it difficult to clarify effects of ppp on immune function in wildlife. One of the earliest experiments to examine this problem was a test of mallard susceptibility to viral hepatitis after the ducks have been exposed to DDT. Results indicated increased susceptibility to the virus in ducklings up to 6 weeks of age. Other studies suggest that cumulative effects from exposure to multiple xenobiotics can overwhelm the immune system function (Nimmo & McEwen, 1994). The ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus inhabits intensively farmed areas and may be exposed to organophosphorus by ppp applications to cereal crops. The immunopathological effects of malathion exposure were determined 3 days after a single high dose of 230 mg/kg to 8-week-old birds. There were significant decreases in the weight of lymphoid organs and histologic lesions were evident in both thymus and spleen. These


quantitative and qualitative changes were also seen at a lower dose of 92 mg/kg equivalent to 40 % of LC50, suggesting that sublethal doses of malathion were capable of altering immune function (Galloway & Handy, 2003).

2.2.3.2.1.42.2.3.2.1.42.2.3.2.1.42.2.3.2.1.4 Effect on acetylcholinesterase activity Effect on acetylcholinesterase activity Effect on acetylcholinesterase activity Effect on acetylcholinesterase activity

Use of organophosphorus and carbamate chemicals increased greatly following the elimination of DDT. Although, organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides degrade more rapidly after application than the organochlorines, they are generally more toxic before their break down. These compounds are effective insecticides but can have harmful effects on non-target wild vertebrates by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity. AChE and other cholinesterases (ChE) are essential for normal functioning of the nervous system. Toxic effects of AChE inhibition on wildlife vary with the degree of exposure to, and potency of, the particular organophosphorus or carbamate. Toxic effects can range from minor behavioural changes to severe effects such as paralysis, convulsions and death (Nimmo & McEwen, 1994). Since 1990, the mortality of raptors, particularly bald eagles is investigated, in southwestern British Columbia. Carcasses, sick birds, blood and crop contents from live birds were collected. 780 eagles were examined and diagnosed anticholinesterase poisoning in 80 (10.2%) cases. In the Fraser delta, an intensive agriculture and raptor wintering area, of 183 eagles examined, 53 (29%) were poisoned by anticholinesterase insecticides. Most poisonings occurred during winter and resulted from scavenging on waterfowl carcasses. The ducks were poisoned by ingesting granules of organophosphorus or carbamate insecticides applied the previous spring for wireworm control. Some OPs and carbamates persist up to nine months after application in the low pH conditions of the Fraser delta. The first mortalities were caused by carbofuran. Successive replacement of carbofuran (avian HD50= 0.21 mg/kg) with progressively less toxic, but not necessarily less persistent, alternatives, phorate (HD50=0.34 mg/kg) and fonofos (HD50=3.86 mg/kg) failed to stop annual poisonings. Each of those chemicals has since been withdrawn from local use. Since 2000, chlorpyrifos (HD50=3.76 mg/kg), under a year-by-year registration for wireworm control, has not been related to raptor mortality (Elliott, Wilson et al. 2005). In the United States, organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides exposure information in the CEE-TV (“Contaminant Exposure and Effects-Terrestrial Vertebrates”) database was compared with a retrospective analysis of confirmed and suspected anticholinesterase (AChE) poisoning events from the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) mortality database. Diazinon, carbofuran, parathion, and monocrotophos were the most common AChE pesticides in the CEE-TV database, whereas famphur, carbofuran, diazinon, and fenthion were most prevalent in the NWHC mortality database. AChE pesticide exposure records in the CEE-TV database have increased steadily over time (before 1970, 2 records; 1970–1979, 28 records; 1980–1989, 52 records; 1990–2003, 220 records), presumably reflecting both increased use of these pesticides, and also perhaps more efficient detection and reporting of exposure and die-off events (Rattner et al., 2005).

2.2.3.2.1.52.2.3.2.1.52.2.3.2.1.52.2.3.2.1.5 Endocrine disruptionEndocrine disruptionEndocrine disruptionEndocrine disruption

In 1995, the only xenobiotic oestrogens that have been identified in laboratory, to have effects on avian differentiation have been lipophilic organochlorines, which bioaccumulate and are deposited into the yolk of eggs. Several organochlorine compounds have been identified as weak oestrogens or precursors of oestrogens produced by liver hydroxylation. Organochlorine pesticides identified as estrogenic include kepone, o,p´-DDT, methoxychlor, endosulfan, and dicofol (Fry, 1995).


A review of Dawson (2000) examines laboratory-based evidence that endocrine disruptors could disrupt endocrine function in birds and discusses the evidence of the existence of such effects in free-living birds. According this author, in vitro studies demonstrate that mechanisms for potential endocrine disruption exist, but in vivo studies suggest that such mechanisms are insufficient to overwhelm endogenous homeostatic control. There are only two phenomena in wild birds where endocrine disruption has been cited as a possible cause: eggshell thinning and supernormal clutches. The evidence that it is due to endocrine disruption is examined in this review and presented in following paragraphs (Dawson, 2000). Decreased eggshell thickness resulted in embryo mortality either as a consequence of eggshell breakage or embryo mortality related to thin eggshells, possibly through increased permeability of the eggshell. Thin eggshells became evident soon after use of organochlorine pesticides. As use of organochlorines was gradually phased out in North America and Europe during the 70’s and early 80’s, environmental levels are decreasing and eggshell thickness is increasing (Dawson, 2000). It is generally believed that eggshell thinning is caused by DDE, a major metabolite of DDT. However, the exact mechanism remains uncertain. There are many processes involved in calcification of eggshells that could potentially be affected by DDE, one of these involves endocrine disruption. DDE could act on mobilisation of calcium for eggshell formation, it has been shown to be weakly estrogenic. DDE also causes induction of P450 activity and this effect could, in theory, reduce circulating oestrogen. Most experimental work was done on galliformes and it proved them to be insensitive to the effects of DDE. On the other hand, the predatory birds, as well as suffering greater exposure to DDE, also happen to be more susceptible to its eggshell thinning effect. More recent work points strongly to an effect relating to prostaglandin and calcium metabolism within the shell gland itself, rather than to endocrine disruption (Dawson, 2000). In the early 1970’s there were reports of supernormal clutches, i.e. clutches consisting of five or six eggs rather than the usual three, in Western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, California. Between 8 and 14% of clutches were supernormal. Studies in 1977 have shown that such clutches resulted from female-female pairs with both members of the pair laying eggs in the same nest and they suggested that this phenomena may result from a biased sex ratio in the population. The area around Santa Barbara Island is known to have been heavily polluted with DDT and PCB’s (Dawson, 2000). A study showed that o,p´-DDT or methoxychlor injection into gull eggs mimics the action of oestrogens and results in abnormalities of both male and female embryos, males are feminized. The qualitative effects of o,p´-DDT or methoxychlor were similar to estradiol treatment in gulls, with estradiol being more than 100-fold more potent than o,p´-DDT. However, the p,p’-isomer, the environmentally stable form, had no effect (Fry, 1995). Dawson cites another potential explanation for female-female pairing and supernormal clutches is masculinisation of female behaviour. This has not been supported by the fact that there were no significant differences in hormonal or behavioural differences between females paired with other females and those paired with male Western gulls (Dawson, 2000).

2.2.3.2.1.62.2.3.2.1.62.2.3.2.1.62.2.3.2.1.6 Effects on reproductEffects on reproductEffects on reproductEffects on reproductionionionion

Environmental contamination by ppp results in adverse effects on reproduction of exposed birds. The diversity of pollutants results in physiological effects at several levels, including direct effects on breeding adults as well as developmental effects on embryos.


The effects on embryos include mortality or reduced hatchability, failure of chicks to thrive (wasting syndrome), and teratological effects producing skeletal abnormalities and impaired differentiation of the reproductive and nervous systems through mechanisms of hormonal mimicking of oestrogens. The types of pollutants showed to cause reproductive effects include organochlorine, organophosphorus and, in a fewer number of reports, herbicides, and fungicides (Fry, 1995). The ecological assessment of long term or reproductive effects from pesticide exposure in birds and mammals is currently seen to be problematic. In birds especially, the current test results are difficult to extrapolate to a field situation. For example, whereas a majority of laboratory studies report clutch size reductions in response to increased pesticide doses, this effect is rarely, if ever, seen in the wild in response to exposure to toxicants. Also, current laboratory tests with birds provide a very truncated measure of reproductive performance (Mineau, 2005).

� Bird Embryos and Chicks Bird Embryos and Chicks Bird Embryos and Chicks Bird Embryos and Chicks Direct applications of pollutants on eggs have been documented to cause mortality, reduced hatchability, malformation and reduced survival of chicks hatched from eggs. Direct application of toxicants at high concentrations to wild bird eggs probably occurs rarely in the wild, but it may occur through transfer of contaminants from direct application of agricultural chemicals to eggs in nests adjacent to agriculture (Fry, 1995). According to Fry (1995), mortality and reduced hatchability of eggs were caused by petroleum oils, organophosphorus insecticides, some herbicides (paraquat, trifluralin, prometon and others) and fungicides (maneb). A toxic dose of many products has not been established for direct application because the solvent vehicle is an important determinant of penetration through the eggshell and, therefore, for exposure determination (Fry, 1995). Organophosphorus insecticides have been reported to cause axial skeleton malformations (scoliosis and lordosis), oedema, and stunted growth. The toxicity was compared with application rates, and risk for the organophosphorus tested was highest for malathion, with decreasing risk for dimethoate, diazinon, parathion, and acephate. Carbamate insecticides did not cause malformations at expected environmental exposure concentrations, and of nine fungicides tested only maneb caused malformations (Fry, 1995).

� Adult BirdsAdult BirdsAdult BirdsAdult Birds The range of chemical effects on reproduction of adult birds covers reduced fertility, suppression of egg formation, eggshell thinning and impaired incubation and chick rearing behaviours (Fry, 1995). The best-documented and notorious effect of ppp on birds is eggshell thinning caused by DDE, this results in crushed eggs and breeding failure of many sensitive raptorial and fish-eating birds. According to Fry (1995), eggshell thinning is correlated with DDE inhibition of shell gland calcium ATPase, and species most susceptible to eggshell thinning appear to have reduced ability to metabolize organochlorines. Whether the increased sensitivity to eggshell thinning is related to differences in liver metabolism of organochlorines, the mechanism is unknown. According to Philogène (2005), the phenomenon of thin eggshell of prey bird eggs (falcon, pelican, cormorant, eagle, gull) has allowed to prove the effect of DDE on the metabolism of calcium: the thinning of eggshells is caused by the inhibition of calcium ATPase at level of the gland secreting the eggshell (Philogène, 2005).


Eggshell thinning and breeding failure of birds of preys and seabirds were documented with DDT and its principal metabolite. DDT, however, was not the only ppp to affect the reproduction of birds. Other persistent organochlorine ppp with documented effects included dieldrin, endrin, aldrin, mirex, kepone, chlordane, toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene and lindane. Most of the organochlorines contributed only in a minor way compared to DDT and dieldrin, and most were banned from use in the United States in the early 1970’s but it continues to be used in Asia, Africa, and South America (Fry, 1995). The National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (NCBP) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed and compiled in 1996 a “Contaminant Exposure and Effects-Terrestrial Vertebrates” (CEE-TV) database in the United States (Rattner et al., 2005). Information on biological effects potentially related to contaminant exposure occurs in 9,3% of the records in the database. The most frequently measured effect is eggshell thinning associated with exposure to p,p’-DDE or other organochlorine pesticides. However, a retrospective evaluation (1965–1994) of contaminants in osprey (Pandion haliaetus) eggs for the Atlantic coast showed that p,p’-DDE concentrations have declined since the 1970’s, presumably reflecting restrictions imposed on its use and its degradation in the environment over time (Rattner et al., 2005). Studies have revealed a relationship of cause to effect between organochlorine and hormonal abnormalities linked up reproduction. A study in 1983 has observed that on turtledoves fed with food contained by DDE and mirex (banned), levels of androgen at male, of oestrogens and of progesterones at female, as well as thyroxine and prolactine, were modified in comparison with these observed at control birds. This hormonal modification has an effect on the behaviour at the time of breeding, building the nest, clutch and feeding of young birds. These laboratory studies have been corroborated by observations on the field on gulls of Ontario lake, a site severely polluted by organochlorines in the 70’s (Philogène, 2005). Organochlorine pollutants and organophosphorus ppp may also influence the breeding behaviour of exposed birds. Herring gulls breeding on Scotch Bonnet Island, Lake Ontario, showed decreased incubation attentiveness and decreased defence of territories correlated with a mix of organochlorines. Incubation and chick-rearing behaviour impairment has also been correlated with organochlorine exposure to ring doves and merlins. Parathion has been correlated with altered incubation behaviour in experimentally exposed mallards and laughing gulls (Fry, 1995).

2.2.3.2.22.2.3.2.22.2.3.2.22.2.3.2.2 EEEEXPOSURE OF PLANT PROXPOSURE OF PLANT PROXPOSURE OF PLANT PROXPOSURE OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTSTECTION PRODUCTSTECTION PRODUCTSTECTION PRODUCTS

2.2.3.2.2.12.2.3.2.2.12.2.3.2.2.12.2.3.2.2.1 Seed treatmentsSeed treatmentsSeed treatmentsSeed treatments

Seed treatments are widely used for crop protection and present a particular risk to granivorous birds. Seed treatments provide a convenient method of applying pesticides in reducing the need for spraying, reducing the exposure of the operator to the active substance, placing the active substance where it is most needed and reducing the risk it poses to many non-target organisms. In most poisoning incidents the involved seed was wheat, although this probably reflects the wider availability of treated wheat rather than a lack of potential exposure for other seed types (Prosser & Hart, 2005). A study has been realised in the United Kingdom to identify which species will take and eat a range of crop seeds in common usage in the UK, birds visiting bait stations at which untreated seed was presented were video recorded. The tested seeds were wheat, barley, maize, oilseed rape, grass, peas and pelleted sugarbeet. For many of the species observed


at the bait stations, the amounts of seed consumed during single visits were sufficient to pose a potential risk (toxicity-exposure ratio < 10) if the seed had been treated with one of the more acutely toxic seed treatments. Previous studies have shown that de-husking of seeds can substantially reduce birds exposure (Prosser & Hart, 2005). Between 1987-88 and 1989-90, 18 Sarus cranes (Grus antigone), more than 50 collared doves (Streptopelia decaocto) and a few blue rock pigeons (Columba livia) were found dead during winter in Keoladeo National Park, India, which coincided with the application of aldrin in the crop fields around the Park. Aldrin, an organochlorine pesticide, was used to treat soil and seeds such as wheat, mustard and pea, against termites. Mortality in several species of wildlife has been attributed to aldrin-dieldrin poisoning in many countries. In these birds, aldrin was found at high concentrations in the gastrointestinal tract, and dieldrin at much more than lethal level (4-5 ppm) in the brain, it seems certain that dieldrin, after having been metabolized from aldrin, was responsible for the deaths. The Registration Committee under the Indian Insecticide Act of 1968 has decided to include aldrin in the banned list with the ban taking effect from January 1994 (Muralidharan, 1993).

2.2.3.2.2.22.2.3.2.2.22.2.3.2.2.22.2.3.2.2.2 Multiple exposureMultiple exposureMultiple exposureMultiple exposure

The Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) in the United Kingdom investigates suspected cases of poisoning of vertebrate wildlife on agricultural land. The database of vertebrate incidents over the last 10 years was consulted to investigate cases in which more than one chemical was detected in submitted incidents (Thompson, 1996). In some cases pesticide mixtures, particularly those involving insecticides, have been shown to be synergistic, with reported increases in toxicity of up to 100-fold. Multiple exposure of wildlife can occur through applications of tank mixes or co-formulations, through sequential application to the same crop or by wildlife travelling between treated fields. The interesting combinations in the vertebrate incidents are those between the organophosphorus compounds, dimethoate and triazophos, and between fonofos and chlorfenvinphos, both of which occurred with apparently normal usage. In the case of dimethoate and triazophos the source of exposure could not be definitely identified but was thought to be due to separate uses on cereals. Separate seed treatments were thought to be responsible for the exposure of pigeons to fonofos and dimethoate (Thompson, 1996). In all these cases the detected residues were at or above the LD50 for each of the pesticides and interaction cannot readily be shown as being responsible for the deaths. However, there are inherent limitations in the use of WIIS data to assess the scale of incidents in which more than one chemical is present. Incidents submitted to the vertebrate scheme are analysed until a positive result is achieved. Therefore, more than one pesticide would not be detected unless either it is within the same chemical class or analyses are performed in parallel. This is illustrated by the frequency of organochlorine or organophosphorus pesticide pairings. In addition, only the more toxic pesticides such as insecticides and rodenticides are analysed routinely and, therefore, herbicides and fungicides are unlikely to be pointed out (Thompson, 1996). 2.2.3.32.2.3.32.2.3.32.2.3.3 FFFFISHESISHESISHESISHES

In the UK, studies have shown that pesticide flushes can occur at the headwaters of streams, where stream fauna could be affected. This is of particular concern because such waters are otherwise of high quality and may be fish nursery grounds (Skinner et al., 1997).


Pyrethroids are pesticides that are highly toxic to insects and fish, but are not very toxic to birds or mammals. Aerial applications of pyrethroid pesticides can be harmful to fish such as koi or goldfish in backyard, ornamental pools, particularly if they have a fairly large surface area and are relatively shallow (Paul & Sinnott, 2000). DDT also severely inhibited reproduction of some fish species (Paul & Sinnott, 2000). In 80’s, in the United States, pesticides were found in fish tissues. In fish taken from five national wildlife refuges in the south-eastern United States, average pesticide residue concentrations of total organochlorine chemical, mainly DDT and toxaphene, exceeded 2,0 µg/g (wet weight), this concentration can have a direct threat to fish-eating wildlife. Contamination, while lower at five other refuges, where average concentrations in fish were 0,6 – 1,0 µg/g was still potentially toxic when fish were consumed by predators in the food chain. In an other study (80’s), all bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and common carp samples collected from San Joaquin Valley (California) p,p’-DDE was detected. Also, 6 other substances, chlordane, p,p’-DDD, o,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDT, DCPA and dieldrin, were detected in both bluegill and carp at one or more of the collection sites (Nimmo & McEwen, 1994). Other studies realised by US EPA in 90’s confirm that pesticides persist in the tissues of fish in diverse area around the United States. Although there was a total of 60 compounds studied in the 388 monitoring sites nationwide, pesticides were well represented in what were termed as the most frequently detected bioaccumulative substances. DDE was found in 99 % of samples (Nimmo & McEwen, 1994).

2.2.3.3.12.2.3.3.12.2.3.3.12.2.3.3.1 IIIINSECTICIDESNSECTICIDESNSECTICIDESNSECTICIDES

2.2.3.3.1.12.2.3.3.1.12.2.3.3.1.12.2.3.3.1.1 Organochlorine plant protection productsOrganochlorine plant protection productsOrganochlorine plant protection productsOrganochlorine plant protection products

In continental southern Italy, a study in the 80’s has evaluated the occurrence and the magnitude of chlorinated pesticide aquatic pollution by the analysis of some permanent freshwater fish species. Sampling of common fish (black bullhead Ictalurus melas; bleak Alburnus alburnus alborella; chub Leuciscus cephalus cabeda; common carp Cyprinus carpio; eel Anguilla anguilla and tench Tinca tinca) came from four rivers. The monitored organochlorines were aldrin; dieldrin; endosulfan; heptachlor; heptachlor epoxide; lindane; o-p'DDT; p-p'DDT; o-p'DDD; p-p'DDD; o-p'DDE; p-p'DDE (all banned in European Union) (Amodio-Cocchieri and Arnese 1988). Results show that DDT group (from 17 ng/g to 153 ng/g) and heptachlor epoxide (from 5 ng/g to 39 ng/g) are the compounds found more frequently at quantifiable residue level (limit of quantification: 5 ng/g) in all the collected fishes, while the lowest prevalence was that of endosulfan. Residue levels of DDT exceeded in any case the combined concentrations of the other pesticides, in all the fishes from all the sampling locations. These results are been compared with results obtained in northern and central Italy and the prevalence of the DDT group residues in freshwater fish was confirmed. Analogous surveys were carried out in the United States and it occurs that total DDT residue levels found in the Italian study are lower than these found in fishes from Florida (from 300 ng/g to 1170 ng/g), while heptachlor epoxide residue concentrations are quite similar. Authors of this study concluded that the analysis of permanent freshwater fish species in this area of Italy demonstrates a quite low level of pollution by organochlorine ppp, that never exceeded levels recommended by the US National Academy of Sciences and US National Academy of Engineering (1972) for the protection of aquatic life (Amodio-Cocchieri & Arnese, 1988).


In China, Sun et al. (2005) determined the levels of pollution with persistent organochlorine pesticides in several fish species collected in 2002 from Guanting Reservoir (in the northwest of Beijing, until 1980 used as drinking water resource) compared them with reported data from other inland water bodies and to health-based standards for fish consumption. Now, Guangting Reservoir is expected to resume the status of drinking resource before 2008 because there is a problem on shortage of water. Then, 6 fish species (consumed by the population inhabited in the area) have been analysed as bioindicator for water quality about the concentration of α, β, γ, δ HCH; o,p’- and p,p’-DDE, DDD, DDT; and HCB (fungicide) (widely used from 1950 to 1983 in China). Organochlorine ppp concentrations (sum of HCHs + DDTs + HCB) in fish was in the range of 6,18 ng/g in feral carp (Cyprinus carpio) to 12,78 ng/g in color gudgeon (Abbottina rivularis) with a value of 9,33 ng/g. The dominant part of organochlorine residues in fish was DDTs that accounted for 72,20 – 81,49%, followed by HCHs from 11,70 to 26,32%. DDTs concentrations were in the range from 5,04 to 9,23 ng/g wet weight, p,p’-DDE is dominant in all kinds of fishes. HCB residues were detected in each fish species, but the contamination levels were lower compared with HCHs and DDTs (Sun et al., 2005). It is obvious that fish with high lipid content accumulates more HCHs and DDTs than lean fish, but linear relation between HCHs or DDTs and lipid content was not found. DDT and HCB were included in the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) targeted by the Stockholm Convention. The residue levels of HCHs and DDTs in fish were far below the national food standard of China (1000 µg/kg for HCHs and 2000 µg/kg for DDT). The Canadian tissue residue guidelines (1999) and US Great lakes water quality initiative criteria (on 1995) for protection of fish-eating wildlife are much lower than human health guidelines with values of 14 and 39 ng/g wet weight respectively. Compared to these values mentioned above, the results of this study were not exceeded. Authors suggested that HCHs and DDTs concentration present negligible risk to both humans and wildlife consuming these fish (Sun et al., 2005). The presence and concentrations of organochlorine ppp residues in marine fishes from the coast of Taoyuan (nothwestern Taiwan) has been studied in 1999. In Taiwan, from 1950 to 1974, organochlorine ppp were generally used on farmland and in the environment; after that time, multiple residual and toxicity problems with organochlorine ppp were found. DDT, lindane, aldrin, endrin, dieldrin and heptachlor were analysed (all banned). Only p,p’-DDD and p,p’-DDE were found in the muscle and liver of sampled fish. The highest median concentration in muscle for p,p’-DDD was 488,33 µg/l in July and 104,35 µg/l for p,p’-DDE in October. The highest median concentration in the liver for p,p’-DDD was 796,32 µg/l in July and was 465,62 µg/l in October. The aquatic organisms studied showed an accumulation of ppp, with the highest valves occurring for p,p’-DDD followed by p,p’-DDE. This study showed decreased contents of organochlorine ppp, probably in relation with the ban of the use of these substances (Yuan et al., 2004). In Kenya, 29 species of a tilapia (Sarotherodon alcalicus grahami) were collected from Lake Nakuru between September and October 1990 and samples of liver, kidney, muscle, brain and fat were removed for analysis of organochlorine pesticide. Fat was extracted and the concentration of α, β, γ HCH isomers; aldrin; heptachlor; heptachlor epoxide; endrin; dieldrin, DDD; DDE and DDT was determined. No residues of o,p’-DDD, p,p’-DDD, aldrin, endrin and dieldrin were detected. The highest residue concentration detected was 0,062 mg/kg of p,p’-DDT. The mean residue concentration levels of sum-DDT (0,004 mg/kg) and heptachlor (0,007 mg/kg) were far below the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1982) action limits of 5,0 mg/kg and 0,03 mg/kg, respectively.


There was a negative correlation between length/weight (and therefore age) of fish and DDE concentration. According to Kairu (1999), this probably means that young tilapia may be susceptible to pesticide stress but with time develop physiological strategies to ease it. In another study, it has been found experimentally that the young of some fish species may bioaccumulate more contaminants than the adult. Kairo (1999) concluded that the ppp levels in the fish studied are low and considerably lower than the levels reported to cause chronic effects in fish. Indeed, there was no evidence to show that the residues had any deleterious effects on the health of the fish. Pesticide residue concentration in fish in 1970 and 1990 does not show a significant increase. According to these authors and these results, Lake Nakuru is presently not exposed to heavy pesticide contamination, but there is a gradual build-up of these residues in the biota (Kairu, 1999). The organochlorine ppp have been linked to an increased incidence of disease in feral fish populations and have displayed immunotoxicity in laboratory experiments (Harford, et al., 2005). In Australia, most endosulfan contamination of aquatic ecosystems is a result of drift from crops being sprayed either by air or by boom sprayers and it has often been suspected as the cause of fish kills. Endosulfan residues were detected in wild fish from the areas where endosulfan is used in Australia. Fish sourced from a fish-kill site had an average of 19,9 mg/kg (wet weight) of endosulfan in their livers and 7,8 mg/kg in their gill tissue. In areas away from fish-kill sites, endosulfan was still detected in carp livers with an average level of 0,4 mg/kg. The residues usually consisted of the alpha isomer and endosulfan sulphate, which indicates lower persistence of the beta than the alpha isomer in fish. Despite these observations, there have been relatively few studies concerning the sublethal effects of endosulfan on native Australian fish or its immunotoxicity in exotic and native Australian fish species (Nowak et al., 1995). A study, realised in Australia, describes the first investigation into the phagocytic response of Australian freshwater fish immunocytes in the presence of environmental pollutants. This study used a flow cytometric assay to assess the effect of in vitro exposures to commonly used ppp, on the phagocytic function (a primitive defence mechanism) and cellular composition of head kidney cells from Australian native fish: crimson-spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis), silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus), golden perch (Macquaria ambigua) and Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii). Head kidney immune cells were isolated from the four native fish and they were exposed to the organochlorine endosulfan (Harford et al., 2005). The direct effects of endosulfan on phagocytosis by head kidney cells from these fish species were somewhat contrasting. High endosulfan concentrations (≥10 mg/l) caused a suppression of rainbowfish phagocytosis, while the same concentration significantly increased the phagocytosis of golden perch and Murray cod. According to these authors, it is possible that the modulation of granulocyte activity is due to endosulfan-induced differentiation of immature granulocytes exerted through its endocrine-disrupting properties and ability to mimic cytokine signalling (Harford et al., 2005).

2.2.3.3.1.22.2.3.3.1.22.2.3.3.1.22.2.3.3.1.2 Organophosphorous plant protection productsOrganophosphorous plant protection productsOrganophosphorous plant protection productsOrganophosphorous plant protection products

The same study exposed above, about the effect of in vitro exposures to ppp on the phagocytic response in Australia, has also been realised with the organophosphate chlorpyrifos (broad-spectrum insecticide). In vitro chlorpyrifos exposures of 0,1–10 mg/l resulted in little direct toxicity towards the head kidney cells in any of the studied Australian fish. Murray cod was the most sensitive


native species as its proportion of lymphocytes was significantly reduced by 15% at the highest exposure of 10 mg/l. Past research by this study has shown that in vitro exposure to the more toxic organophosphorus malathion caused severe suppression of silver perch mitogenesis at 10 mg/l (Harford et al., 2005). A study on the behavioural dysfunctions has been realised, in controlled conditions, on rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss) exposed to cholinesterase-inhibiting chemicals (malathion and diazinon). Organophosphorus ppp affect the central nervous system by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, the enzyme that normally hydrolyzes acetylcholine. These chemicals also inhibit cholinesterase in peripheral tissues thus affecting locomotor activity. Two insecticides are tested, malathion at two concentrations (20 and 40 µg/l) and diazinon at three concentrations (250, 500 and 1000 µg/l), after 24 h and 96 h exposure. Results show that malathion-exposed fish exhibited large decreases in distance and speed and swam in a more linear path than control fish after 24 h exposure. By 96 h exposure, fish still swam slower and travelled less distance; fish fully recovered after 48 h in clean water. Diazinon-exposed fish exhibited decreases in distance, speed and turning rate compared to controls. After 48 h recovery in clean water, fish exposed to diazinon had not recovered to control levels. Cholinesterase activity decreased significantly with increasing concentrations of both diazinon and malathion and differed significantly among exposure durations; however, the dose-response relationship was not consistent at all times. Malathion induced a greater magnitude of response in both the biochemistry and behavioural endpoints than diazinon. According to these authors, one possible explanation may be that the malathion dose was closer to a lethal dose than diazinon. This is supported by results of tests realised earlier by the same authors, in which there were test mortalities at a malathion concentration of 50 mg/l; the highest concentration in this test was 40 mg/l. (Brewer et al., 2001). In India, the toxicity of malathion to the freshwater fish Colisa fasciatus (a common fish of southeast Asia extensively used for biological control of mosquito larvae in freshwater) has been examined and the effect of sub-lethal doses of these ppp on biochemical profiles on the fish has been evaluated in laboratory. For toxicity assay, fishes were exposed to 4 different concentrations (2,0; 2,5; 3,0; 3,5 mg/l) for 96 h. Results showed a negative correlation between the lethal concentration (LC) and exposure periods. The LC50 value of malathion was decreased from 3,15 mg/l (24 h) to 2,12 mg/l (96 h) (Singh et al., 2004). Malathion being a neurotoxicant, it interferes with many vital physiological functions and consequently alters the levels of various body constituents in fishes. For biochemical assays, glycogen, pyruvate, total protein and lactate levels in the fish are significantly altered (glycogen, pyruvate and total protein content decreased while lactate content increased) in the liver and muscle tissues of this fish after being exposed to all the doses of malathion (1,0; 2,0 and 3,0 mg/l, exposed for 24 h and for 96 h) (Singh et al., 2004).

2.2.3.3.1.32.2.3.3.1.32.2.3.3.1.32.2.3.3.1.3 CarbamateCarbamateCarbamateCarbamate

In India, the toxicity of carbaryl to the freshwater fish Colisa fasciatus has been examined and the effect of sub-lethal doses of these ppp on biochemical profiles on the fish has been evaluated in laboratory (same experiment that above). For toxicity assay, fishes were exposed to 4 different concentrations (8,0; 8,5; 9,0; 9,5 mg/l) for 96 h. Results showed a negative correlation between the lethal concentration (LC) and exposure periods. The LC50 value of malathion was decreased from 9,04 mg/l (24 h) to 8,00 mg/l (96 h) (Singh et al., 2004).


Like malathion, carbaryl is a neurotoxicant as well. For biochemical assays, glycogen, pyruvate, total protein and lactate levels in the fish are significantly altered in the liver and muscle tissues of this fish after being exposed to all the doses of carbaryl (4,0; 6,0 and 8,0 mg/l, exposed for 24 h and for 96 h) (Singh et al., 2004).

2.2.3.3.1.42.2.3.3.1.42.2.3.3.1.42.2.3.3.1.4 PyrethroidPyrethroidPyrethroidPyrethroid

The pyrethroid insecticide, esfenvalerate, is widely used on orchard crops throughout California. In the aquatic environment, this compound is likely to accumulate in sediments, food particles and benthic organisms due to its lipophilicity and environmental persistence. A pilot project in the United States has tested the hypothesis that esfenvalerate is toxic to medaka (Oryzias latipes) in aqueous exposure (0,19; 0,86 and 9,4 µg/l) and when taken up with the diet. For 7 days fish were fed diets, which contained esfenvalerate in 3 different concentrations (4, 21, 148 mg/kg, measured). Endpoints measured were mortality, fecundity, fertilization and hatching success of embryos, viability of larvae and cellular stress protein (hsp60, hsp70, hsp90) levels (Werner et al., 2002). Mortality of medaka reached 100% after 4 days of aqueous exposure to 9,4 mg/l esfenvalerate. All fish survived the 4-day exposure to 0,86; 0,19 mg/l esfenvalerate and control water. No mortality was observed during the dietary exposure to as much as 148 mg/kg esfenvalerate. Possible effects of dietary esfenvalerate were seen on fertilization and hatching success and the number of non-viable larvae. Stress proteins hsp60 and hsp90 appear to be good indicators of esfenvalerate exposure because these proteins showed a dose-dependent response pattern. Authors have underlined that although dietary esfenvalerate doses given in the experiment were much higher, the information on BCFs in bivalves renders such concentrations plausible. They referred to an other study measured esfenvalerate concentrations of 9 mg/kg dry weight in sediments of a pond sprayed with the pesticide at a rate of application of 25 g/ha. If bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in bivalves are on the order of 10³ as reported for oysters, exposure concentrations of this experiment may well be within an environmentally realistic range. In addition, the relatively long half-life of esfenvalerate can lead to exposure periods that are much longer than our 7-day experiment (Werner et al., 2002).

2.2.3.3.1.52.2.3.3.1.52.2.3.3.1.52.2.3.3.1.5 HerbicidesHerbicidesHerbicidesHerbicides

The University of British Columbia Research Forest in Canada has reported the effects of glyphosate herbicide on rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) viability and behaviour in several field experiments. Laboratory and field 96 h LC50 values were similar: 54,8 and 52,0 mg/l (Hildebrand et al., 1982). Operational application of glyphosate at the recommended field dose of (2,2 kg a.s./ha), as well as 10x and 100x field dose resulted in no mortality to rainbow trout in field streams. Results indicate that operational spraying with this herbicide for weed control should not be detrimental to rainbow trout populations. Several studies have suggested that increases in temperature can markedly affect the susceptibility of fish to pesticides. Specifically, the toxicity of glyphosate to rainbow trout and bluegills increased with increasing temperature Their avoidance-preference study indicated that rainbow trout are capable of detecting glyphosate in the aquatic environment and, where possible, would avoid potentially toxic levels. In addition, extreme situations such as 100x field doses are diluted to such a degree upon application to streams that they do not reach avoidance concentrations (threshold concentration in the vicinity of 40 mg/l). Indeed, glyphosate concentrations, even at the 100x field dose, dropped very rapidly within the first hour so that lethal concentrations were


not approached. These experiments emphasize the incompatibility of many laboratory and field studies (Hildebrand et al., 1982). A study has been realised in the United States in 80’s on toxicity, uptake and elimination of bromacil and diuron in freshwater fish. These ppp are two of the more persistent herbicides in soils. Fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), 30 days old, were exposed to technical grade bromacil and diuron in flow-through tests to determine acute toxicity. LC50 values for bromacil were 185; 183; 182 and 167 mg/l at 24, 48, 96, and 168 h, respectively; and for diuron, 23,3; 19,9; 14,2 and 7,7 mg/l at 24, 48, 96, and 192 h, respectively. Eggs, newly hatched fry, and juvenile fish were continuously exposed to lower concentrations of the herbicides for 64 days. Growth was reduced at the lowest bromacil exposure of 1,0 mg/l. The "no effect" concentration for diuron was 33,4 µg/l, while the lowest concentration which resulted in adverse effects was 78,0 µg/l. Adverse effects at 78,0 µg/l were an increased incidence of abnormal or dead fry immediately after hatch and decreased survival throughout the exposure period. This study has shown that bromacil and diuron do not accumulate in fish tissue to a large extent. The low levels of diuron residues in fish tissue were rapidly eliminated upon transfer of the fish to clean water. Neither herbicide was highly toxic to fish upon acute exposure. Potential adverse effects upon fish from application of these herbicides would be more likely to occur with diuron in situations where it was applied directly to the water during a period of embryonic or early post-embryonic development (Call et al., 1987). Acute toxicity tests with various fish species revealed relatively high 96 h LC50 values for atrazine and diuron, ranging from 4,5 to 100 g/l and 3 to 60 mg/l, respectively. Studies on chronic toxicity of these herbicides indicate that much lower concentrations may nevertheless induce morphological, biochemical, and physiological alterations in fish. Furthermore, inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity has been shown in response to sublethal concentrations of atrazine and diuron, suggesting possible adverse effects on fish behaviour (Saglio & Trijasse, 1998). Results of a study in France, in controlled conditions, indicate that a short-term exposure to a relatively low concentration (5 µg/l) of atrazine or diuron can affect various behaviours of fish not only directly but also indirectly by altering the chemical perception of natural substances of eco-ethological importance (Saglio & Trijasse, 1998). 2.2.3.42.2.3.42.2.3.42.2.3.4 MMMMARINE MAMMALSARINE MAMMALSARINE MAMMALSARINE MAMMALS

In recent years, several species of marine mammals and birds have been affected by uncommon diseases and unusual mortalities. While several possible causative factors have been attributed for these events, a prominent suspect is exposure to man-made toxic contaminants. Particularly, some of these man-made chemicals such as organochlorines can disrupt normal endocrine physiology in animals (Tanabe 2002). Concerning contamination of marine mammals by pesticides, most of the studies have thus above all highlighted the presence of several organochlorine pollutants in these animals. Extremely high concentrations have been found in animals afflicted with diseases and/or victims of mass mortalities. Elevated contamination by organochlorines has been found in open sea animals such as cetaceans which seemed to be attributable to their low capacity to metabolize toxic persistent contaminants. The results of CMES studies our studies focus on exposure and toxic effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals, indicate that these chemicals may impose toxic effects in animals even at the current levels of exposure. In


general, marine mammals accumulated the dioxin-like compounds with much higher concentrations than humans, implying higher risk from exposure in wildlife (Tanabe 2002). For example, the marine ecosystem of California is highly contaminated by organochlorine pollutants (OCs) like PCBs and DDT that have been historically discharged to the Palos Verdes Shelf in southern California. In the early 1970s, California sea lions, Zalophus californianus, contained very high tissue levels of DDT (blubber levels of up to 145 mg/kg). The California sea lion is a useful sentinel for monitoring levels of fat-soluble contaminants in the coastal waters of the western United States. As long-lived, apex predators at the top of a complex ocean food web, with high body lipid content, they become sinks for organochlorines such as PCBs and DDT that, because of their high lipophilicity and persistency, have accumulated in the marine food chain for several decades. Since the cessation of DDT manufacture in the United States and the dumping of its by-products in southern California waters in 1970, levels in sea lions have decreased by over one order of magnitude between 1970 and 2000. In 2002, serum concentrations of total DDT were 28+/-19 mg /kg lipid weight. Organochlorine pollutants have been linked to reproductive impairment, immunotoxicity, skeletal abnormalities, endocrine disruption and disease outbreaks in several marine mammal populations. In recent years, various biomarkers have been used to measure exposure, as well as potential effects, of environmental contaminants on wildlife populations. Among them, serum levels of vitamin A and thyroid hormones appear to be modulated by several OCs such as PCBs and may therefore represent useful biomarkers. The observed level of OCs still exceeded levels that affected reproductive success, vitamin A and thyroid hormone levels in captive harbour seals. As juvenile California sea lions are useful sentinels of coastal contamination, the high levels encountered in their serum is cause for concern about the ecosystem health of the area (Debier, Ylitalo et al. 2005). 2.2.3.52.2.3.52.2.3.52.2.3.5 AAAAMPHIBIANSMPHIBIANSMPHIBIANSMPHIBIANS

Several studies have highlighted the negative effects of herbicides and especially atrazine on the reproduction system of amphibians. Indeed, the triazine very commonly used herbicide atrazine has been suggested to be a potential disruptor of normal sexual development in male frogs (Murphy, Hecker et al. 2006). For example, the effects of exposure to water-borne atrazine contamination on wild leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) were investigated in different regions of the United States and find that 10−92% of males show gonadal abnormalities such as retarded development and hermaphroditism. These results are supported by laboratory observations, which together highlight concerns over the biological effects of environmental atrazine on amphibians (Hayes, Haston et al. 2002). 2.2.3.62.2.3.62.2.3.62.2.3.6 CCCCONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSION

The present report focused on effects of plant protection products on birds and fishes but there are other wild vertebrates on which effects have been reported. Problems reported on birds concern especially plant protection products on which measures have already been taken. The adverse effects of chemicals on wildlife have been signalled for revision of law and implementation of new regulations to prevent adverse effects. Considering fishes, there are no many observations in the field and as demonstrated in a study, the effects can differ according to the situation, in laboratory or in controlled conditions or in fields. For marine mammals, most of the reported studies concern contaminations by organochlorines. There is little information on specific contaminations by other pesticides.


Concerning amphibians, atrazine seems to be a potential disruptor of normal sexual development in male frogs.


3333 EEEEXPOSURE ASSESXPOSURE ASSESXPOSURE ASSESXPOSURE ASSESSMENTSMENTSMENTSMENT

Given the complexity of pesticide exposure, characterizing and appropriately assessing exposure in epidemiologic studies is a challenge. In chronic disease studies, exposure assessment tools need to accurately characterize historic exposures. Detailed questionnaires and, to a lesser extent, biological markers have proved useful tools to assess long-term exposure. Additionally, information on other factors that influence pesticide exposure, such as application methods and use of PPE can be collected to better estimate exposure. Exposure estimates can be further improved through the use of integrated metrics, such as exposure algorithms, job exposure matrices and mapping techniques. All pesticide exposure measures are clearly better when collected prospectively, that is prior to disease onset, because most exposures do not leave ‘foot prints’ indicating exposure duration and intensity and because time and disease can influence recall of exposures as well as interpretation of biological markers. The primary goal of exposure estimation in epidemiology is to correctly rank individuals with regard to exposure level in the study population. To reduce exposure misclassification, it is critical to separate the non-exposed from the low and moderately exposed individuals. To date most of the focus on pesticide epidemiology has been in agricultural settings because the pesticide exposures are anticipated to be larger and farmers can provide better information regarding their pesticide exposure history than the general population because they buy and apply the chemicals themselves (Blair & Zahm, 1993).

3.1 Exposure to pesticides in agriculture

Pesticides are substances or preparations that are used with the intention of protecting against damage to property, sanitary nuisances or other comparable inconveniences caused by plants, animals or micro-organisms. Pesticides can be used as plant protection agents in agriculture or gardening or as biocides, i.e. substances prepared for consumer applications and intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of or exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism. The use of pesticides is thus widespread in agriculture and elsewhere. Despite the many advantages attributed to pesticides, their use can have considerable side effects. As pesticides are designed to control or destroy living organisms, they constitute a potential health hazard to the agricultural workers who use them or are exposed to them. Consequently, pesticide use is inevitably associated with chemical exposure. Exposure is a widely used term, but not well defined. For the present purpose it is considered to be the amount of compound (pesticide) available for inhalation, dermal and oral absorption, frequently denoted as external exposure, in contrast to internal exposure, which refers to the amount absorbed (Van Hemmen, 1993). 3.1.13.1.13.1.13.1.1 Occupational pesticide exposureOccupational pesticide exposureOccupational pesticide exposureOccupational pesticide exposure Occupational exposure to pesticides mainly occurs during mixing, loading, application and flagging and during manual activities in treated crops (re-entry). Exposure during agricultural practices also occurs in case of troubleshooting, repair of nozzles and the cleaning of formulation packs and the equipment used for mixing, loading and application (Van Hemmen, 1993).


3.1.23.1.23.1.23.1.2 Operators, farm workers aOperators, farm workers aOperators, farm workers aOperators, farm workers and bystanders nd bystanders nd bystanders nd bystanders In the following section the risks arising from occupational, non-dietary exposure to agricultural pesticides, covering the three categories of people mentioned in the European Council Directive 91/414/EC, are briefly discussed:

� Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide operatorsoperatorsoperatorsoperators Pesticide operators are people who mix, load and apply pesticides. Since the pesticide handler works with the concentrated product, exposure during mixing and loading can form an important part of the total exposure of the pesticide operator. Operators are not only exposed to pesticides during mixing, loading and spraying but also during seed treatment, application of granules, dipping into pesticide solution or pouring pesticide solution onto plants (Vercruysse & Steurbaut, 2002).

� (Farm) workers(Farm) workers(Farm) workers(Farm) workers Post-application (re-entry) exposure takes place during maintenance activities (e.g. harvesting, bending, tying up and thinning), during which frequent contact with treated crops occurs. The exposure level may be quite high and exposure may occur every day, which is generally not the case for mixer-loaders and applicators. For some crops, a worker sometimes needs to enter the treated areas relatively soon after pesticides have been applied. Major exposure routes after re-entry are inhalation and dermal absorption. Dermal exposure is considered to be by far the most important exposure route during re-entry activities (Van Hemmen & Brouwer, 1997; Hamey, 1999; Vercruysse, 2000). The amount of resulting exposure for a certain activity depends on the amount of residue on foliage, on the intensity of contact to the foliage and on the time of contact. Inhalation exposure potentially may occur to residual vapour and airborne aerosols, which in turn are restricted to a relatively short period after application. Also resuspended aerosols through the movement of the crops as well as some dust during re-entry activities may result in inhalation exposure. Outdoors there will be rapid dissipation of vapour aerosols, leading to much lower inhalation potential than indoors (e.g. barns, stables and greenhouses).

� BystandersBystandersBystandersBystanders

In most cases exposure of bystanders will occur by contact with spray drift during application process. Bystander exposure when spraying greenhouse crops and when applications are performed with treated seeds, granules, plants dipped in pesticide solution or when a pesticide solution is poured onto the plant, is considered negligible (Vercruysse, 2002).

3.1.33.1.33.1.33.1.3 Secondary exposureSecondary exposureSecondary exposureSecondary exposure

The term secondary exposure concerns playing children and pregnant women who are vulnerable population groups with respect to risks related to pesticide use. High-risk populations can be defined as groups which are either more highly exposed to an environmental agent or more susceptible to its effects (Ashford et al., 1990):

� ChildrenChildrenChildrenChildren

Children can be exposed to pesticides from multiple sources and through multiple pathways. Because of the differences in physiology and behaviour, children’s exposure to pesticides is expected to be different than exposures experienced by adults. Children younger than 6 months of age may be mostly exposed through breast milk ingestion or inhalation, whereas dermal absorption and ingestion may be the major


exposure routes when children begin to crawl what increases their hand-to-mouth behaviour. Children’s behaviour and the way that they interact with their environment may profoundly affect the magnitude of their exposure to contaminants. For example, children crawl around on the floor where toxic chemicals adsorbed to dust and other particulate materials tend to reside. Exposure to pesticides is also a function of the specific physical activities in which a child is engaged, the duration, frequency and location of these activities (outdoors, indoors, etc.) and the child’s own activity level. Relevant physiologic characteristics with regard to pesticide exposure that considerably differ from adults are a higher metabolic rate and a higher energy requirement. These differences imply that the oxygen, water and food requirements per unit of body weight are greater than those required by an adult, resulting in higher relative exposures to environmental contaminants in air and food (Hubal et al., 2000). Another important physiological difference between children and adults is the permeability of the skin. Skin permeability is highest at birth and decreases in the first year of life so that the skin permeability of a 1-year-old child is similar to that of an adult (Bearer, 1995). In terms of risk, children may also be more vulnerable to environmental pollutants because of differences in absorption, excretion and metabolism, as in early life the absorption and retention of environmental chemicals is greater. The metabolic pathways responsible for detoxification differ with age so foetuses and children have a lower ability to detoxify exogenous agents and to repair suffered damage (Perera, 1997). In addition, some differences exist between adult and children responses to pesticide residues in foodstuffs. Development of most of the biochemical and physiological processes in the main systems (central nervous, endocrine, immunologic and reproductive systems) take place during the two first years of life (NRC, 1993). In consequence, children’s response to pesticide residues can differ in terms of quantity and quality. Experimental evidences of pesticide exposure through diet have been proved, as all 23 children’s urines samples contained metabolites of malathion and chlorpyrifos, in a study designed to assess dietary exposure to organophosphorous pesticides. The fact that these metabolites are found in the urine does not necessarily mean that there is a direct negative effect, but it signifies that the active substance is assimilated in the body. More striking is the fact that median urinary concentrations of the metabolites pre-cited decreased within a short delay in response to the modification of diet intakes (Lu et al., 2006). As the immunological system is under development during early years, children’s sensitivity to chemical contaminants such as pesticides needs to be taken into account (Sténuit et al., 2003). Exposure through food chain is less known than direct pesticide exposure (parents exposition through work and living in an agricultural area), for which more studies exist, and therefore presents a lack of accurate data. In this case precaution approach should be applied to avoid health complication to children and newborns. Taking account of these uncertainties, children have to be considered as a sensitive population group (Vial, 1996). Although concluding that epidemiological studies were not all reporting clear cut statistical higher toxicity related to pesticide exposure, conclusions of the wide literature review of Sténuit et al. were highlighting the importance of adopting a precaution approach. Because of children’s higher sensitivity to pesticide residues, the European Commission has imposed for the baby food’s finished product, although temporarily (Directives 99/39/CE et 99/50/CE), a MRL of 0,01 mg/kg. Moreover, a safety factor of 10 for extrapolation to weak


population groups (interspecies difference) is taken into account when considering young children.

� Pregnant womenPregnant womenPregnant womenPregnant women The toxicity of pesticides on human reproduction is largely unknown. Several studies (Restrepo et al., 1990; Taha & Gray, 1993; Pastore et al., 1997) have reported positive associations between occupational exposure and foetal death (spontaneous abortion or stillbirth). In addition to the nature of the chemical substance and its target, the consequences due to exposure to chemical agents depend on the timing of exposure relative to the critical windows in development of the foetus or reproductive system. For example, exposure to harmful substances during the first three months of pregnancy might cause a birth defect or a miscarriage. During the last six months of pregnancy, exposure to reproductive hazards could slow the growth of the foetus, affect the development of its brain or cause premature labour. So timing of exposure is very important characterizing the reproductive toxicity of pesticides. Research by Arbuckle et al. (2001) showed moderate increases in risk of early abortions for preconception exposures to triazines, phenoxyacetic acid herbicides and other herbicides. For late abortions, preconception exposure to glyphosate, thiocarbamates, and the miscellaneous class of pesticides was associated with elevated risks. Post-conception exposures were generally associated with late spontaneous abortions. Post-conception exposures to specific pesticides also tend to damage the foetus or foetal placenta rather than cause chromosomal anomalies. Reproductive hazards may not affect every pregnancy. Whether a woman or her baby is harmed depends on how much of the hazard they are exposed to, when they are exposed, how long they are exposed and how they are exposed.

� Placental contaminationPlacental contaminationPlacental contaminationPlacental contamination It has been proved that neurotoxical organophosphate and carbamate pesticides are able to pass the placental barrier (Sténuit et al., 2003). Experiments led by Whyatt et al. (2003) showed the presence in newborns’ umbilical cord of residues or their metabolites of chlorpyriphos, diazinon, bendiocarbe, proxopur, dicloran folpet, captafol and captan, at a frequency ranging from 43 to 83% of the 230 samples analyzed. Barnett et al. (1994) and Banerjee et al. (1996) led experimental works and concluded that pesticides can have a toxic impact on the immune system. In 2005, the Centre for Environment and Health released the results of a 4-year monitoring program focused on new-born health. The study strived to show the concentration of ppDDE in umbilical cord in different areas in northern Belgium. In orchards areas, ppDDE residue concentrations were lower than the mean value for the overall campaign, whereas in rural areas ppDDE residue concentrations were found higher than the mean value. In industrial areas, sampling uptakes did not allow to confirm statistically the results obtained. Within industrial areas, ppDDE residue concentrations were found above the mean concentration and heterogeneity has been noticed in the different zones (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005). In farmer population, prenatal exposure linked with parental occupational exposure may result in higher rate of tumours compared to non farmer population (Kristensen et al., 1997) 3.1.43.1.43.1.43.1.4 Consumers Consumers Consumers Consumers 3.1.4.13.1.4.13.1.4.13.1.4.1 FFFFOOD CONTAMIOOD CONTAMIOOD CONTAMIOOD CONTAMINATION AS A RESULT ONATION AS A RESULT ONATION AS A RESULT ONATION AS A RESULT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTIONUTIONUTIONUTION

As they produce their own foodstuff, private producers are at risks if considered the environmental contaminants. Even if they avoid the use of pesticides, self-produced vegetables or animal products can contain pesticide residues. Organochlorines are good examples to illustrate the situation.


In a study led by Van Overmeire et al. (2005), comparison of different contaminant concentrations in eggs from private owners (PO) and chicken farms (CF) has been made. Results for most organochlorine pesticides were well below the Belgian tolerated levels. Only for the sum of DDT, DDE and DDD some high exceedings, up to 10 times the tolerated level, were observed for eggs coming from private owners. DDT, and more particularly, the main compound in the technical pesticide product, was found in all PO eggs. The most striking finding of this study is the clear distinction between the results obtained for the eggs from private owners and those for free-range eggs obtained from professional farms. Apparently several types of contaminants encompassing OCs are present in the environment and they finally accumulate in the eggs via soil-egg transfers. This is to be expected from their long residence time in the environment and their bioaccumulating potential. The threat for human health increases by the presence of a mixture of different toxic compounds at elevated levels, which leads to an increased risk for additive or synergetic effects between compounds. Other studies on residues of organochlorine pesticides in farmed and wild salmons (Hites et al., 2004) as well as in wild eels (Goemans, 2003) and on residues of hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH) into milk (EFSA, 2005) tend to confirm this statement. 3.1.4.23.1.4.23.1.4.23.1.4.2 IIIIMPORTANT FACTORS FORMPORTANT FACTORS FORMPORTANT FACTORS FORMPORTANT FACTORS FOR CON CON CON CONSUMERSUMERSUMERSUMER’’’’S EXPOSURE ASSESSMENS EXPOSURE ASSESSMENS EXPOSURE ASSESSMENS EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTTTT

Risk assessment is mainly based on the comparison of the dietary exposure and the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Dietary exposure is calculated using a very simple model, namely (Nasreddine and Parent-Massin, 2002) :

consumed food ofAmount ion x concentrat Residue Exposure= Where Exposure is given in mg a.s./kg b.w./day, Residue concentration in mg a.s./kg foodstuff and Amount of food consumed in kg foodstuff/day. If exposure to pesticide residues is higher than the ADI, one can establish that human health is threatened. In general, human exposure to pesticides may be classified in several ways. An exposure can be acute or chronic, occupational or non-occupational, intentional or non-intentional, accidental or incidental. Regarding to pesticide adverse effects resulting from dietary exposure, many factors can influence their severity, such as doses, mechanisms of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, the health status of individuals (Hajŝlová, 1998). Involving the combination of contamination data (pertaining to the levels of chemical substances in foods) with food consumption data (related to food consumption habits of a particular group of the population), exposure assessment allows estimating the dietary intake of the substance of concern (Nasreddine & Parent-Massin, 2002).

Intake (mg/day) = Occurrence (mg/kg) x Consumption (kg/day)

Intake estimates are usually expressed as per unit body (mg/(kg bodyweight.day)) so that meaningful comparisons can be established with the ADI, which is expressed in this unit. Contamination data are based on analytical determinations of the levels of substances in particular foods.


Food consumption is coming from results of dietary surveys. In fact, three different approaches can be applied to assess the dietary exposure to a substance:

� The total diet study (TDS), which is also known as the market basket approach; � The duplicate-meal study (DMS); � The selective analysis of individual food items.

Compared by Tsuda et al. (1995), no major differences were obtained between the TDS and DMS methods. Although food consumption information is sometimes collected by private organisations or university researchers, most information about food consumption is collected and maintained by governments (Tomerlin, 2000). Another exposure assessment can be set up for the registration dossier of a new pesticide to be tested. Use of a toxicity parameter called Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) is widespread to assess exposure. Regarding to Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), data on food residue obtained in accordance with intensive but adequate pesticides application will be used to fix a maximum limit of residue quantity not to be over boarded. Theoretical Maximum Daily Intake (TMDI) has been set up to figure out foodstuff toxicity. Knowing the ADI, the residue content in main consumed food, and the national hypothetic diet, TMDI can be calculated. If TMDI, reported to human body weight, stays below ADI this mean risks can be considered as acceptable. If this is not the case, often TMDI needs to be reconsidered to match reality with estimations, as TMDI is often an overestimation (Hughes, 2002). Risk characterization consists in comparing intake estimates with acceptable or tolerable intakes and thus evaluating the potential health risk for the individual. More precisely, intakes accounting for one pesticide residue will be summed according to diet habits and then compared to the ADI (Hughes, 2002). If intake estimates are lower than ADI, the pesticide can be considered as safe for consumers. On the other hand, if intake estimates are higher than ADI, redefined assessment can be conducted since government authorities usually address dietary risk by following “worst case scenarios” (Tomerlin, 2000). A series of experiments as described in Dir. 91/414/EC allows to determine the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect) which means the highest dose of the active ingredient that does not cause any adverse effects on human health (Hughes, 2002). The ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) is widely used to describe “safe” levels of intake on a daily basis in the diet over a lifetime without appreciable risk to health. It is generated from the NOAEL using at least a 100-fold safety factor resulting from uncertainties about the applicability of test results to human (Nasreddine & Parent-Massin, 2002). Two 10-fold safety factors that account for interspecies and intraspecies variability, respectively, are therefore applied to NOAEL (Tomerlin, 2000).

(100)factor safety

.day)bodyweight (mg/kg NOAEL .day)bodyweight ADI(mg/kg =

It is to be noted that the NOAEL used to calculate the ADI is chosen from tests cited above by selecting the most appropriate value. This choice is made depending on the exposure duration (acute/chronic exposure), and on the species used for the testings (the most sensitive or the most appropriated is chosen). Because of the possibility that short-term excursions might give rise to acute toxicity, the concept of the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) has been developed to assess acute hazard


and tests are led to assess acute toxicity of pesticide residues (Hajŝlová, 1998, Nasreddine and Parent-Massin, 2002). 3.1.4.33.1.4.33.1.4.33.1.4.3 FFFFOOD RESIDUES AND CULOOD RESIDUES AND CULOOD RESIDUES AND CULOOD RESIDUES AND CULTIVATION MODESTIVATION MODESTIVATION MODESTIVATION MODES

Coupled with the wide spread of various studies, food crises which have struck Europe over the last years have largely contributed to bring pesticide issues and organic farming under the spotlight. In this context, mass media played an important role by addressing human health and environmental concerns to public opinion. Organic farming, which prohibits most synthetic pesticides and restricts the use of permitted natural pesticides, appears to offer food predominantly free of pesticide residues, and consumers perceive organic food to be a lower-residue choice (Hartman, 1996). Yet some pesticides are used in organic productions including sulphur, copper-based fungicides, oil sprays, insecticidal soaps, and insect pheromones (Walz & Scowcroft, 2000 ; OMRI, 2001). Aiming at meeting health requirements, organic production strives to meet as well global quality requirements, i.e. not only in integrating the organoleptic and nutritional properties of the produced food but also socio-economic and environmental aspects linked to the whole production system (Pussemier et al., 2005). The Integrated Pest Management category (IPM) encompasses many pest management technologies and systems now in use, which share a prevention-based approach. IPM production systems rely heavily on scouting fields for pest population levels and linking pesticide applications or other interventions to empirical evidences of economic damages (Baker et al., 2002). IPM interventions include biological methods to keep pest populations within tolerable limits and multiply tactics to promote vigorous crop growth and strong plant defence mechanisms (Benbrook et al., 1996). To be distinguished from other production systems, conventional grown foods can be defined as foods marketed with no claim that would qualify them for any labels (Baker et al., 2002). 3.1.4.43.1.4.43.1.4.43.1.4.4 CCCCOMPARAISON BETWEEN POMPARAISON BETWEEN POMPARAISON BETWEEN POMPARAISON BETWEEN PRODUCTION SYSTEMSRODUCTION SYSTEMSRODUCTION SYSTEMSRODUCTION SYSTEMS

When it comes to comparing organic farming with conventional agriculture, observations and further on conclusions on pesticide residues within these production modes need reliable sets of database in order to identify any significant differences. In Belgium, the study carried out by the Scientific Committee of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain showed clearly that, compared to foodstuff obtained through conventional farming, organic foodstuff contained lower amounts of residues (Pussemier et al., 2006). Similar studies have been led in the USA by different private and public organisations involved in food security. Among the three production systems, tests were carried out to observe the probability to have detectable pesticide residues, multiple residues in samples with residues, and the level of residue concentrations in samples with residues. Even if some differences in the sampling and analysis methodology need to be taken into account, results from these studies showed the same pattern than the Belgian one, giving a significant lower presence of residues in the following order : organic farming < IPM < conventional agriculture. It has also showed the lower probability to have detectable pesticide residues in the samples as well as a lower probability to have multiple residues in the samples of organic foodstuff (Baker et al., 2002). The reason why organic samples may be contaminated can be linked with spraying too shortly before harvest, post-harvest contamination resulting from fungicides treatment during transport or storage, mixing treated and untreated products somewhere between farm and retail as well as possible mislabelling (Baker et al. 2002).


On the other hand, it was also highlighted that organic products are likely to be slightly contaminated through environment. Indeed bioaccumulation of pesticides (DDT, drins, HCH’s,…) in the soil can affect free-range animals in organic farming, while drifts from sprays in adjacent fields account for potential exposure to pesticides. On this basis, one can consider both production systems as vulnerable (Pussemier et al., 2006). Lu et al. (2006) studied dietary intakes of 23 children exposed to pesticides only by diet, as proved by the lack of residential pesticide use. Authors concluded that organic diets are contributing to reduce children’s OP pesticide exposure and the health risks as may be associated with these exposures. Further on, such reduction in exposure was dramatic and immediate, and is most obvious for OP pesticides, such as malathion and chlorpyrifos, that are commonly and predominantly used in conventional agricultural production. 3.1.4.53.1.4.53.1.4.53.1.4.5 CCCCONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSION

It is obvious that organic products present some additional advantages in terms of pesticide residues but it has to be noticed that for pesticides the safety margins are already very important in conventional agriculture. In some cases, it seems that organic products present specific risks associated to natural toxins, for example, because they are obtained according to « natural » or « home made » production modes. This can be explained by the potential lack of professionalism of the growers or by no clearing of hygienic requirements in the EEC regulation (Pussemier et al, 2006). Nevertheless, it is to bear in mind that from a toxicological point of view, residue concentration whatever the production mode should not exceed the threshold of Maximum Residue Limit in order to respect regulation. To guarantee food safety, it is a duty not to exceed the ADI value. Thus, one can argue that conventional food will not present a risk because general exposure is mostly less than one percent of this value (Winter, 2001 ; Pussemier et al., 2006). Further on, one should admit that old pesticides that are no longer authorised or new ones not yet integrated into the monitoring strategies currently under use must stay a matter of concern for their potential toxic effects. As the market shares for organic products seem likely to continue to grow in coming years, it is important for organic systems to ensure food quality and to earn consumer confidence over the long-term by developing rigorous and transparent standards and certification procedures. 3.1.53.1.53.1.53.1.5 Professionals or general population (biocides)Professionals or general population (biocides)Professionals or general population (biocides)Professionals or general population (biocides) Annex V of the Directive 98/8/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, distinguishes 23 biocidal product-types. Product-type 18 is defined as ‘Insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods’ and covers products used for the control of arthropods (e.g. insects, arachnids and crustaceans). With regard to biocides, product-type 18 is the subject of this study. Within the biocide PT18 group, insecticides are biocides for controlling insects like cockroaches, bugs , flies, gnats, mosquitoes, ants, silverfish, moths, beetles, plant louse, aphid, greenfly, scale lice, lice, fleas of dogs and cats, ticks, katydid, grass hoppers, cicadas and other insects in non-agricultural settings. These insects are parasites or vector (reservoir) systems and cause severe diseases to human and/or to domestic animals. Acaricides are biocides toxic to spider mites and mites. The non-agricultural use of both groups of biocides includes controlling insects in and around domestic, public and industrial buildings, in sewer systems, for veterinary purposes in animal housings, control of animal parasites (pets) and controlling insects in food stores. Furthermore, biocides used to control


other arthropod species are included in product-type 18. Their non-agricultural use is in and around homes, commercial and industrial sites, lawns, golf courses, highway medians, etc. (Baumann et al., 2000; Van Dokkum, 1998 in van der Poel & Bakker, 2001). Over the last decade the risk of chronic disease due to long-term exposure to low doses of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides in the household and work environment has been intensively debated in the German media and scientific literature. It has now reached a point where pest control operators even refuse to use pyrethroids, because of extensive public objection (Leng et al., 2003; in Kolaczinski & Curtis, 2004). Sources of exposure are thought to be carpets and wallpaper, treated at the time of manufacture, the use of electric vaporisers that release low concentrations of volatile pyrethroids in the room air to prevent nuisance biting by mosquitoes or the treatment of flea infestations of domestic animals (Pröhl et al., 1997; in Kolaczinski & Curtis, 2004). According to the authors, this debate has been limited to Germany and does not seem to be the result of a difference in pesticide legislation or indoor insecticide use compared to other European countries. A prospective study was specifically designed to clarify the level of exposure of the population after indoor use of pyrethroids (Leng et al., 2003). Study participants were given examinations (general medical, neurophysiological and questionnaire-based interview) before and several times after the appropriately performed professional application of a pyrethroid-containing product for pest control. In the majority of cases pyrethroids were inhaled, leading to a significant increase in metabolite concentrations during the initial 3 days after application, when compared to pre-exposure levels. However, though metabolites were increased they did not exceed the background level of the general population, which is thought to result primarily from dietary uptake. Over the following 10 to 12 months, metabolite concentrations of study participants decreased to levels close to those pre-exposure and did not exceed background levels reported by other authors. It should be noted that, given the short tissue half-lives of pyrethroids, the excretion of metabolites over many months would only be expected if significant exposure continued (Kolaczinski & Curtis, 2004). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides (e.g., chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, and lindane) have been found widely in residential air and indoor surfaces in homes in cities in the United States. Many of these OCs have been banned for decades, and hence they are found more often in older homes. Typical residential concentrations of OC and other pesticides in air range from 1-400 ng/m3 leading to average exposures among children as high as 4 ng/day mm. Chlordane has been used in 24 million U.S. homes, usually as a termiticide, and it has been detected in the home environment as long as 35 years after use (Savage, 1989; cited by Landrigan et al., 1999). Children of color residing in old, poorly maintained housing are especially likely to be exposed to persistent pesticides (Mott, 1995; cited by Landrigan et al., 1999). In addition to being proportionately more heavily exposed to pesticides than adults, infants and children are biologically more vulnerable to them (Landrigan et al., 1999). The most deadly vector-borne disease, malaria, kills over 1.2 million people annually, mostly African children under the age of five. Dengue fever, together with associated dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF), is the world's fastest growing vector-borne disease (WHO, 2006). Other vector-borne diseases include Japanese encephalitis, West Nile virus, … Indoor spraying of insecticides has been the main strategy for malaria vector control in Mexico. Until the year 2000, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane) was used in this program. Since then, deltamethrin has been the insecticide selected for indoor spraying of dwellings in malarious areas (Chanon et al. 2003). Deltamethrin is one of the insecticides recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for indoor spraying (WHO 2001),


and is one of the insecticides being used for treatment of mosquito nets (Barlow et al., 2001). To maintain coverage in Africa alone, 50 million nets a year are needed (WHO 2003). These examples show that the exposure of the general public to PT18 biocides is a current issue. Environmental exposure is limited to some specific applications, since PT18 substances are mainly used indoors. In order to evaluate the human and environmental health risk from these exposures, effects of PT18 biocides should be reviewed. However, insecticides, acaricides and products used for the control of other arthropods (e.g. pyrethroids, carbamates, organophosphates, organochlorines, …) can also be used in agricultural settings. This is underpinned by the fact that several PT18 active substances are also ingredients of agricultural plant protection products (e.g. chlorpyrifos). 3.1.63.1.63.1.63.1.6 Factors influencing exposureFactors influencing exposureFactors influencing exposureFactors influencing exposure Various relevant variables that can effect dermal and inhalation exposure in different agricultural settings are mentioned in literature. The most important parameters are (Van Hemmen, 1992a; Franklin & Worgan, 2005):

� Formulation: liquids, such as emulsifiable concentrate (EC) solutions and aqueous suspensions are prone to splashing and occasionally spillage, resulting in permeation of clothing and skin contact. Solids, such as wettable powders (WPs), granules and dusts, may present a plume of dust while being loaded into application equipment, so producing both a respiratory hazard and exposures to the face and eyes. Some newer water-dispersable granules (WG) have been formulated to drastically reduce this potential exposure;

� Type of equipment used; � Task being performed; � Amount of pesticide handled; � Packaging: the opening of bags, depending on type, may result in significant

exposure. The size of cans, bottles or other liquid containers may affect the potential for spillage and splashing;

� Environmental conditions: climatological factors, such as temperature and humidity, may influence chemical volatility, perspiration rate and use of protective clothing. Wind can have a profound effect on spray drift and resultant operator exposure;

� Hygienic behaviour: worker care with regard to pesticide handling can also have substantial impact on exposure. Workers who avoid mixing and spraying during windy conditions can reduce their exposure. Proper use and maintenance of protective clothing are also important behaviours associated with reduced chemical exposures;

� Duration of activity: in addition to measuring the unit exposure for a worker on a daily basis for a particular scenario, exposure and risk assessment requires knowledge and characterization of the frequency and duration of exposure, both on a seasonal and lifetime basis;

� Personal protective equipment: protective clothing, such as chemical-resistant gloves, coveralls and respiratory protection (masks) can dramatically reduce skin contact and inhalation exposure. As mentioned above, pesticides may enter the body through the mouth, lungs and/or skin. However, the skin is the most significant route of entry to the pesticide user (Maibach et al., 1971; Gold et al., 1982; Tjoe NY et al., 1994; De Cock et al.,


1998). Because the skin represents the most significant exposure site, an important means for minimizing pesticide exposure during almost any operation is the use of a barrier between the person and the chemical, i.e. the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The term PPE encompasses all clothing and equipment worn over or in place of normal work clothing for the purpose of protecting the worker from pesticide exposure (e.g. coveralls, gloves, protective eyewear, respirators) (Branson & Sweeney, 1991). Although farmers feel that their usual work clothing provides excellent protection, fabric penetration research does not support this. Shirting-weight fabrics offer some limited protection against light spray or field strength pesticides. Heavier-weight fabrics such as denim and twill are better barriers. With a heavier spray or a spill, usual work clothing does not give sufficient protection. Even with engineering controls such as closed systems and enclosed cabs, there are tasks and/or situations that can result in pesticide operator exposure (Branson & Sweeney, 1991). Therefore, the use of PPE to serve as barrier to dermal exposure is considered vital for providing some measure of protection for those working with and nearby pesticides.

Many studies have been conducted on the effectiveness and reduction potential of different types and forms of PPE (Vercruysse, 2000). Fabric penetration research showed that protective clothing and coveralls of various materials and designs were effective in reducing exposure and that pesticide formulation, volume or spray regime, concentration and active ingredients influence the barrier properties of fabrics. Clothing evaluation research clearly shows that not one fabric offers 100% protection for all pesticides and exposure situations. Therefore, protective clothing recommendations on the safe handling of products are an important part of pesticide manufacturer’s guidance to customers (Krieger et al., 1998). This implies that the manufacturers must have data to support these recommendations on their product labels (Easter & Nigg, 1992). Some pesticide reaches the skin due to garmet openings, not solely to fabric penetration. Therefore, it is essential that workers also use control strategies to minimize exposure (Branson & Sweeney, 1991). Fenske et al. (1990) reported that contact with contaminated clothing during and following work also is an important potential source of dermal exposure and recommended that attention be directed to studies that monitor this type of exposure. Protective clothing is worn under a variety of environmental conditions. Many workers exposed to hazardous chemicals are reluctant to wear protective clothing because of discomfort. Research is still needed in the comfort, fit, sizing and dexterity or movement areas. This work is critical if user acceptability of protective clothing is to be attained. If workers perceive that pesticide exposure is a serious risk, then comfort and ease of use may become less salient (Branson & Sweeney, 1991). The challenge is significant.

The evaluation of occupational exposure to pesticides is an integral part of the risk assessment process. The risks involved with pesticide use depend on their toxicity as well as the level of exposure per route of uptake into the body (Chester, 1993). Toxicity is an intrinsic property of a particular compound and has to be assessed for every pesticide separately, but the risk to which it gives rise is determined by the degree of absorption by the various routes of uptake and by its bioavailability. The level of exposure is affected by the type of work being done and the worker’s hygienic behaviour (Van Hemmen, 1993).


3.1.73.1.73.1.73.1.7 Exposure routesExposure routesExposure routesExposure routes The major routes of exposure are inhalation and dermal absorption (Lundehn et al., 1992). Although pesticides are generally absorbed more efficiently through the lungs than through the skin (Durham & Wolfe, 1962), the dermal route predominates in many circumstances (Maibach et al., 1971; Gold et al., 1982; Tjoe NY et al., 1994; De Cock et al., 1998). However, this does not imply that inhalation exposure can be neglected for risk assessment, for example in cases in which operators are dealing with relatively volatile compounds, especially indoors, and compounds with relatively low dermal absorption. The oral exposure in agriculture is of a minor importance when appropriate hygienic measures are taken (Van Hemmen, 1992a). In addition, uptake through the eyes is possible when pesticides splash up. This mainly occurs during mixing and loading activities (Van Hemmen, 1993). 3.1.7.13.1.7.13.1.7.13.1.7.1 IIIINHALATION EXPOSURENHALATION EXPOSURENHALATION EXPOSURENHALATION EXPOSURE

Pesticides, dependent on the type of formulation, are mainly present in the breathing zone during mixing and loading activities. Solids, especially powdery formulations with small granular size, penetrate more easily in the respiratory organs than liquid products do, except for volatile liquids (Kangas & Sihvonen, 1996). When applying pesticides by means of hand-held equipment there is a greater inhalation exposure risk than when a tractor sprayer is used. The inhalation exposure risk also increases when using fumigation and foggers (Kangas et al., 1995). As mentioned above, exposure via inhalation is usually low compared to dermal absorption, but respiratory exposure in most cases leads to a more efficient uptake than dermal exposure (Durham & Wolfe, 1962). 3.1.7.23.1.7.23.1.7.23.1.7.2 DDDDERMAL EXPOSUREERMAL EXPOSUREERMAL EXPOSUREERMAL EXPOSURE

When working with pesticides, dermal exposure is generally considered to be more important than respiratory exposure. The formulation and the type of packaging affect dermal exposure, especially during mixing and loading activities (JMP, 1986; Stevenson et al., 1994). The amount of chemical entering the body by dermal absorption depends on many factors such as the amount of product or diluted spray contaminating the clothing and uncovered skin, on the amount of chemical reaching the skin through the clothing and the rate at which the chemical in contact with the external skin surface is absorbed precutaneously (JMP, 1986; Stevenson et al., 1994). Physiochemical properties of the active ingredient, mainly fat solubility and chemical structure, affect precutaneous absorption. Climatic and environmental factors, such as humidity and air temperature, can enhance dermal absorption. Sunshine and heat increase the blood flow through the skin, also resulting in an accelerated dermal absorption (Fiserova-Bergerova, 1993; Stevenson et al., 1994). Other variables influencing dermal absorption are the size of the exposed area, location on the body and the duration of dermal exposure. Percutaneous absorption also increases in case of a skin disease or abrasion (Fenske, 1993; Maibach & Feldman, 1974; Stevenson et al., 1994). Hands, wrist, arms, head and thighs are the most commonly contaminated areas of skin during pesticide work. The application method, either hand-held or vehicle-mounted, also affects the exposure level (e.g. knapsack application frequently gives rise to leakage and increased dermal exposure) (Fenske, 1990). The use of gloves and other personal protective equipment reduces exposure, especially during mixing and loading (Kangas et al., 1995; Vercruysse, 2000).


3.1.7.33.1.7.33.1.7.33.1.7.3 OOOORAL EXPOSURE RAL EXPOSURE RAL EXPOSURE RAL EXPOSURE

Oral exposure is normally relatively small compared to the other two exposure routes. Oral exposure usually occurs accidentally and can be avoided by taking appropriate hygienic measures. However, pesticides may end up in the mouth if hygienic aspects are ignored (e.g. eating or smoking with unwashed hands). Inhaled pesticides may be transported from the respiratory tract to the gastrointestinal tract by the mucus which is swallowed, so in case of high dermal exposure or inhalation exposure to relatively particles, the possibility of secondary ingestion should be considered (Van Hemmen, 1992a). All this shows that exposure can occur at almost every part of the (clothed) body. A differentiation has to be made between the total amount of pesticide coming in contact with the whole body covered and not covered by clothing, called the potential exposure, and the amount of pesticide directly exposing the skin and exposing the skin after penetration through the clothing, which is called the actual exposure. This differentiation is very important since only the amount that eventually reaches the skin is hazardous (Van Hemmen, 1993; Van Hemmen, 1997).

3.2 Operator exposure models During the last 20 years in Europe and North America, several descriptive deterministic models have been introduced to predict pesticide operators’ dermal and inhalation exposure (JMP, 1986; PSD, 1992 ; Lundehn et al., 1992; PHED, 1992; Van Hemmen, 1992a; EUROPOEM I, 1996 and EUROPOEM II, 2003). The tasks which are taken into account in the operator exposure models are the mixing and loading of the undiluted pesticide product and the final application work. With the use of the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) the exposure of flaggers (ground workers during aerial application) can also be modelled (PHED, 1992). EUROPOEM II (European Predictive Operator Exposure Model, second version) also includes bystander exposure (i.e. the incidental exposure of people not involved in the actual pesticide work) and re-entry exposure (i.e. the exposure of harvesters, pickers, etc. after the pesticides have been applied). The databases of EUROPOEM have been completed and adapted to new situations (e.g. greenhouses), but the original aim of the EUROPOEM II studies to frame new formulas for re-entry exposure and bystander exposure has not yet been attained. The operator exposure models are based on the assumption that the level of exposure is dependent on for example the type of pesticide formulation, spraying techniques and equipment, environmental conditions and the hygienic measures taken by the worker (table 1-10). The chemical or toxicological properties of the pesticide are considered to be less important. The exposure is considered external (i.e. the amount of a pesticide available for inhalation or dermal absorption under the ambient conditions is calculated). Possible oral exposure must be assessed by biological monitoring which however is not included in the models (Van Hemmen, 1992b). The descriptive databases are based on data sets with which it is possible to estimate a surrogate exposure level with suitable statistics, so that it is possible to use the database for other comparable exposure situations. The validity of the measurements within the database and the amount and quality of the determinants recorded leads credence to the accuracy of the exposure estimates (Van Hemmen, 1993). The main determinants of re-entry exposure are the quantity of pesticide applied, decay and the type and duration of contact (Popendorf, 1992).


Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----10:10:10:10: Factors affecting the quality of underlyiFactors affecting the quality of underlyiFactors affecting the quality of underlyiFactors affecting the quality of underlying data in the database of predictive operator ng data in the database of predictive operator ng data in the database of predictive operator ng data in the database of predictive operator models (Van Hemmen, 1993; Mäkinen, 2003)models (Van Hemmen, 1993; Mäkinen, 2003)models (Van Hemmen, 1993; Mäkinen, 2003)models (Van Hemmen, 1993; Mäkinen, 2003)

FactorsFactorsFactorsFactors Work taskWork taskWork taskWork task agricultural Mixing and loading:

Formulation (e.g. solid vs liquid), particle size of solid products, size and shape of the container, number of operations, amount of formulation used, loading technique

Application: Spraying method (tractor vs handheld spraying, downwards vs. upwards), equipment and technique, particle size of the aerosol, amount applied, area treated, application time

climatic temperature, wind speed and direction, relative humidity analytical accuracy, reproducibility, stability, field recovery personal clothes, personal protective equipment, level of personal hygiene statistical representativity, grouping and variability of data, percentiles used as

surrogates

For risk assessment purposes, the exposure data obtained for relevant use scenarios can be compared with an appropriate accepted exposure level (e.g. Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL)) based on the toxicological profile of the compound. 3.2.13.2.13.2.13.2.1 Existing exposure modelsExisting exposure modelsExisting exposure modelsExisting exposure models In the following section a short overview is given of the various models that have been described in detail in the literature, namely the United Kingdom POEM, the German model, the Dutch model, the North American - Canadian PHED model and the harmonised European EUROPOEM for applicators; in the last parts there is dealt with the probabilistic and deterministic models for the consumer. 3.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.1 UKUKUKUK POEM:POEM:POEM:POEM: PPPPREDICTIVE REDICTIVE REDICTIVE REDICTIVE OOOOPERATOR PERATOR PERATOR PERATOR EEEEXPOSURE XPOSURE XPOSURE XPOSURE MMMMODEL ODEL ODEL ODEL (PSD,(PSD,(PSD,(PSD, 1992;1992;1992;1992; VVVVERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSE,,,, 2000;2000;2000;2000;

FFFFRYER ET ALRYER ET ALRYER ET ALRYER ET AL.,.,.,., 2004)2004)2004)2004)

The former UK Joint Medical Panel of the Scientific Subcommittee on Pesticides and the British Agrochemicals Association developed the Predictive Operator Exposure Model (POEM) to predict the level of exposure likely to be experienced by operators preparing and applying agricultural pesticides in the UK. The Predictive Operator Exposure Model operates as an Excel spreadsheet and divides operator exposure calculations into two distinct parts:

1. Exposures associated with handling the concentrated formulation; 2. Exposures associated with the actual application of the diluted formulation.

Dermal exposures to liquid pesticide formulations during mixing and loading activities are estimated from the container size, design and volume. For solid pesticide formulations, dermal exposures are estimated based on the weight of the product being used. Exposure levels are predicted from a series of conservative assumptions and default values, derived from limited generic exposure monitoring and application study data. Where available, 75th percentile data values are used. It is assumed that the hands are the only part of the body exposed during mixing and loading activities. Dermal exposures for this pathway can be adjusted to reflect the impact of any protective gloves that may be worn. The number of


mixing or loading operations per day and the concentration of the active ingredient in the formulation are used to determine the total daily dermal exposure to the active ingredient during mixing and loading activities. Dermal and inhalation exposures during application activities are estimated for specific application techniques. Scenarios are included for the following techniques: tractor-mounted/drawn field crop sprayer with hydraulic nozzles, tractor-mounted boom and rotary disc atomisers, tractor drawn air assisted orchard sprayers, low level hydraulic knapsack sprayers and low and high level handheld rotary disc sprayers. Dermal and inhalation exposures are estimated for each scenario on the basis of conservative assumptions and default values taken from generic monitoring and application study data. Dermal exposures to the hands, trunk and legs are considered separately. The impact of any clothing worn on these areas can be incorporated. The duration of application activities and the concentration of the active ingredient in the diluted formulation are used to determine the total daily dermal and inhalation exposures during application activities. Exposure levels can be converted into absorbed doses using dermal and inhalation absorption factors. POEM contains the default assumptions that 100% of the active ingredient in the inhaled air is absorbed into the body and that 10% of the active ingredient in contact with the skin is absorbed into the body. Pathway-specific and total absorbed doses can be calculated using POEM. The total absorbed dose is adjusted for the bodyweight of the operator. 3.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.2 GGGGERMAN MODEL ERMAN MODEL ERMAN MODEL ERMAN MODEL (L(L(L(LUNDEHN ET ALUNDEHN ET ALUNDEHN ET ALUNDEHN ET AL.,.,.,., 1992;1992;1992;1992; KKKKANGAS ANGAS ANGAS ANGAS &&&& SSSSIHOVENIHOVENIHOVENIHOVEN,,,, 1996;1996;1996;1996; VVVVERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSE,,,, 2000;2000;2000;2000;

FFFFRANKLIN RANKLIN RANKLIN RANKLIN &&&& WWWWORGANORGANORGANORGAN,,,, 2005)2005)2005)2005)

The German model for assessing operator exposure is based on data from (unpublished) experimental studies conducted by the German pesticide manufacturing industry. Dermal exposure is assessed with pads and hand washing, and for assessing the inhalation exposure personal air samplers were used. The exposure is determined following different steps. In a first step the potential exposure is calculated for the operator who is supposed to be moderately dressed with half of the upper arms, forearms, thighs and lower legs unprotected. For the purposes of analysing the potential dermal exposure further differentiation is made. Therefore the operator body is divided into three parts: hands, head and rest of body. For the mixing/loading operations, it is assumed that exposure is almost exclusively limited to the hands. Because oral exposure is stated to be experimentally accounted for inhalation exposure, oral exposure data are not considered. However, in situations with a significant contribution of non-respirable particles, oral and inhalation exposure should be differentiated. The exposure data have been grouped according to specific techniques and the geometric means of these groups of data were calculated. Exposure is expressed in units of weight per unit amount of active substance handled (mg/kg a.s./day). The potential exposure is then compared to the tolerable exposure for the different body parts. In a second step, the actual exposure, i.e. the amount of pesticide on the skin after penetration through the clothes, is determined for every body part. Finally, the actual exposure is compared to the AOEL value. In order to make it possible to reduce exposure by recommending specific protective measures, estimates of the effectiveness of these measures are also presented in the model. 3.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.3 DDDDUTCH MODEL UTCH MODEL UTCH MODEL UTCH MODEL (V(V(V(VAN AN AN AN HHHHEMMENEMMENEMMENEMMEN,,,, 1992199219921992AAAA))))

The Dutch model is based on a profound review of available exposure data in the published literature throughout the world. For inhalation exposure the data obtained by stationary air


sampling were considered inadequate, whereas those data obtained with respirators were accepted for the databases, although respirators are considered not to be very suitable for inhalation exposure measurement purposes. In view of the relatively small number of data available, all methods to assess dermal exposure were accepted. Since the author regarded dermal exposure of hands as particularly important, an exception was made with respect to methods assessing this exposure route. Data gathered for this purpose and obtained by unsuitable methods were not accepted by the author. The collected data were statistically classified in graphs and the 90th percentile was taken as surrogate exposure level. The actual exposure for mixing and loading was assumed to be 50-100% of the potential exposure. Conversion of potential exposure to actual exposure for the various application types was very difficult on the basis of the available data, since the scarce data on the distribution of contamination over the body covered a wide range. Van Hemmen (1993) considered it reasonable to use 50% of the potential exposure as a conservative estimate of actual exposure for most of the application techniques. Exposure values are expressed as mg product/hour or ml spray/hour. Dermal exposure during mixing and loading is not only limited to exposure of the hands. In the Dutch model however only dermal exposure of the hands and inhalation exposure is considered. The values for inhalation exposure should not be used for volatile pesticides, because these pesticides may give rise to higher exposure levels. In case of open air applications the exposure level is considered to be dependant on application time, concentration in the formulation and amount of pesticide applied. 3.2.1.43.2.1.43.2.1.43.2.1.4 PHED:PHED:PHED:PHED: PPPPESTICIDE ESTICIDE ESTICIDE ESTICIDE HHHHANDLERS ANDLERS ANDLERS ANDLERS EEEEXPXPXPXPOSURE OSURE OSURE OSURE DDDDATABASE ATABASE ATABASE ATABASE (PHED,(PHED,(PHED,(PHED, 1995;1995;1995;1995; VVVVAN AN AN AN HHHHEMMENEMMENEMMENEMMEN,,,, 1993;1993;1993;1993;

KKKKANGAS ANGAS ANGAS ANGAS &&&& SSSSIHOVENIHOVENIHOVENIHOVEN,,,, 1996;1996;1996;1996; VVVVERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSEERCRUYSSE,,,, 2000;2000;2000;2000; FFFFRANKLIN RANKLIN RANKLIN RANKLIN &&&& WWWWORGANORGANORGANORGAN,,,, 2005)2005)2005)2005)

The Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) was designed by a task force consisting of representatives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Health Canada and the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA). The PHED (V1.0) was initially released in 1992. A second version of the model (PHED V1.1) was released in 1995. The PHED is a software tool consisting of two parts: a generic database of measured exposure values designed to predict pesticide exposures during mixing, loading, application and flagging under actual field conditions and a set of computer algorithms used to subset and statistically summarize the selected data. The assumption is made that exposure while handling pesticides can be estimated generically (i.e. data included in the database are identified neither by chemical or formulation name nor by physico-chemical properties), because exposure is a function of the physical parameters (e.g. application method, packaging type, clothing scenario and formulation) of the handling and application process. There are four different files for modelling available in PHED: (1) mixer/loader, (2) applicator, (3) combined mixer/loader/applicator and (4) flagger. From these files, users select criteria and variables to reflect the exposure scenario they want to evaluate: a subset is created. This lets the user the possibility to select specific conditions for analysis, ensuring that the data best fit reality. The user can select exposure data: inhalation exposure, total dermal exposure and combined inhalation and dermal exposure. The subset algorithms in PHED are based on the central assumption that the magnitude of handler’s exposures to pesticides are primarily a function of activity (mixing, loading, application), formulation type, application technique (backpack sprayer, ground boom tractor, aerial rotary wing,…) and clothing scenarios (gloves, normal clothing and protective clothing). Once the data for a given exposure scenario have been selected, the data are normalized with user-selected variables, resulting in standard unit exposures expressed as exposure per


time unit (mg a.s./h), exposure per applied dose active ingredient (mg a.s./kg a.s.) or a combination of both (mg a.s./kg a.s./h) and if desired further normalized to the treated surface (mg a.s./kg a.s./h/ha). Following normalization, the data are statistically summarized. The distribution of exposure values for each body part (head, neck, nape, chest, back, upper arm, under arm, thighs, shins and feet) is categorized as normal, lognormal or other (neither normal nor lognormal). A central tendency value is then selected from the distribution of the exposure values for each body part. These values are the arithmetic mean for normal distributions, the geometric mean for lognormal distributions and the median for all other distributions. Once selected, the central tendency values for each body part are composed into a ‘best-fit’ exposure value representing the entire body. The unit exposure values calculated by PHED generally range from the geometric mean to the median of the selected data set. To add a consistency and quality control to the obtained values, the PHED Task Force has evaluated all data within the system and has developed a set of grading criteria to characterize the quality of the original study data (ranging from grade A, highest data quality, to grade E, lowest data quality). The assessment of data quality is based on the number of observations and the available quality control data. The latest version PHED V2.0 contains new monitoring techniques and additional statistical capabilities so exposure calculations can be expressed as percentiles 10th, 50th, 75th or 90th. PHED V2.0 is windows-based and further data analysis with Excel-spreadsheets is possible. 3.2.1.53.2.1.53.2.1.53.2.1.5 DDDDIFFERENCES BETWEEN TIFFERENCES BETWEEN TIFFERENCES BETWEEN TIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HE HE HE UK,UK,UK,UK, GGGGERMANERMANERMANERMAN,,,, DDDDUTCH AND UTCH AND UTCH AND UTCH AND USUSUSUS----CCCCANADIAN EXPOSURE MODANADIAN EXPOSURE MODANADIAN EXPOSURE MODANADIAN EXPOSURE MODELSELSELSELS

The major differences between the four above-mentioned predictive operator exposure models are largely due to restricted geographical representativeness of the data (e.g. agricultural techniques, climatic conditions and the equipment used in the various countries differ), to the source of data (e.g. studies conducted by industry versus published research), to the variability in sampling methods and the procedures used for estimating the exposure levels from databases and to the choice of statistics used (Van Hemmen, 1993; Kangas & Sihvonen, 1996). A general overview of the aforementioned models, which emphasises some of the factors causing differences between the different approaches, is presented in following table 1-11.


Table 1Table 1Table 1Table 1----11: Description of different predictive operator exposure models (Van Hermmen, 111: Description of different predictive operator exposure models (Van Hermmen, 111: Description of different predictive operator exposure models (Van Hermmen, 111: Description of different predictive operator exposure models (Van Hermmen, 1992b; Van 992b; Van 992b; Van 992b; Van Hemmen, 1993; Kangas & Sihvonen, 1996; Mäkinen, 2003)Hemmen, 1993; Kangas & Sihvonen, 1996; Mäkinen, 2003)Hemmen, 1993; Kangas & Sihvonen, 1996; Mäkinen, 2003)Hemmen, 1993; Kangas & Sihvonen, 1996; Mäkinen, 2003)

3.2.1.63.2.1.63.2.1.63.2.1.6 HHHHARMONISED ARMONISED ARMONISED ARMONISED EUEUEUEU PESTICIDE OPERATOR PESTICIDE OPERATOR PESTICIDE OPERATOR PESTICIDE OPERATOR EXPOSURE MODELEXPOSURE MODELEXPOSURE MODELEXPOSURE MODEL:::: EUROPOEMEUROPOEMEUROPOEMEUROPOEM

Predictive models have been, and are still being, used in registration procedures for pesticide products. In order to be able to harmonise the approach used in Europe, not only regionally but also methodologically, much effort has been put in the development of a joint model (Van Hemmen, 1997). The European Union Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 controls the authorisation and placing on the market of plant protection products. The role and importance of plant protection products, the removal of national barriers to trade, the harmonisation of national legislative provisions relating to the authorisation of plant protection products, provisions as to data requirements and decision-making criteria and standards for protection of health and the environment are all provided for in the Directive.


Within the EU, different predictive models have been used to estimate likely levels of operator exposure by various Member States in their authorisation processes. At the request of and funded by the European Commission (AIR3 CT93-1370), a harmonised model for predicting pesticide handlers’ exposure, with strict criteria concerning the relevancy and representativeness of the field studies in the database and incorporating the best features of existing models presently used in Europe, was developed in 1996 (EUROPOEM, 1996). The EUROPOEM (EUROpean Predictive Operator Exposure Model) database was developed by a group of experts, representing governments, industry and academia. The number of data in the first version was however considered small and unrepresentative for certain exposure scenarios, and therefore, a more-validated and enlarged model was developed. In addition, EUROPOEM I did not contain a model to predict the exposure of re-entry workers or bystanders. These features are also developed in the new version, EUROPOEM II, which is still unaccomplished (EUROPOEM II, 2003). Some critical data gaps, for example exposure in greenhouses, were filled with a project funded by the European Commission (SMT4-CT96-2048). The EUROPOEM models specifically aim at having representative data in their databases. Therefore, all the field studies included are carefully selected according to transparently described criteria agreed upon a priori and use justified statistical methods. The field sampling of both versions followed the protocol approved in an OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) guidance document (OECD, 1997). The accuracy of the model even increased in the updated second version, as it contains more field data obtained from modern pesticide use scenarios and more work has been done to validate the default values, such as protection factors of personal protective equipment and clothing (Van Hemmen, 1997; Mäkinen, 2003). From the resulting databases typical surrogate potential exposure values are obtained, which are determined by their use for either acute or chronic health effects and by the size of the database. For large databases (over 50-100 data points) the 75th percentile is taken if the exposure is considered leading to chronic effects. For smaller databases (20-50 data points) a more conservative 90th percentile is taken as surrogate value and none at all for very small databases (15-20 or less data points). The choice for the 75th percentile is based on the assumed or observed lognormal distribution of the exposure data, as being the most relevant typical value for long-term effects, since the 75th percentile of log-normal distributions is nominally very similar to a calculated arithmetic mean. However, the arithmetic mean as such is irrelevant for log-normal distributions. The surrogate exposure levels for each scenario modelled are compared with an AOEL value derived from relevant toxicological data, usually the no-observed adverse effect level of a subchronic study. When the ratio of exposure and the AOEL is below 1, the exposure in the scenario is considered acceptable. Exceeding the AOEL value leads to a more-detailed assessment according to the tiered approach (Van Hemmen, 1997; Vercruysse, 2000).

3.2.1.73.2.1.73.2.1.73.2.1.7 DDDDETERMINISTIC MODEL FETERMINISTIC MODEL FETERMINISTIC MODEL FETERMINISTIC MODEL FOR THE CONSUMEROR THE CONSUMEROR THE CONSUMEROR THE CONSUMER

Nowadays, deterministic models are used to estimate consumers’ exposure to pesticides. This model uses point estimates, that are so called because single-point estimates are made for a range of factors in the dietary intake calculation, e.g. the amount of food consumed, the residue concentration and the bodyweight of the consumer (Travis et al., 2004). This can be a reasonable approach for estimating possible exposures from a single food. However, the chance of such an exposure occurring is very low, given that the estimate is based on a high consumer eating food containing high residues (Hamilton et al., 2004). Summing point estimates across foods will lead to an estimate of food consumption


that is extremely large and unrealistic. Therefore, the resulting estimate of exposure to pesticides is correspondingly large and unrealistic (Hamilton et al., 2004 ; Travis et al., 2004).

3.2.1.83.2.1.83.2.1.83.2.1.8 PPPPROBABILISTIC MODEL FROBABILISTIC MODEL FROBABILISTIC MODEL FROBABILISTIC MODEL FOR THE CONSUMEROR THE CONSUMEROR THE CONSUMEROR THE CONSUMER

Pesticide exposure could be calculated more accurately with a probabilistic modelling, such as the Monte Carlo model, to refine risk assessment (Tomerlin, 2000; Hughes, 2002; Renwick, 2002; Travis and al., 2004; Hamilton et al., 2004). In this model, data distributions are sampled at random instead of assuming uniform values for the model input variables. In other terms, this approach consists in a random combination of residue levels with the distribution of food consumption to produce a distribution of residue intake across the population studied. The modelling requires much more than the deterministic method, e.g. single unit residue data and individual food consumption per day – not average or typical food consumption. Therefore the analysis begins by selecting an individual from the population. That individual’s intake is simulated, including his or her exposure from each source. The intakes from each of the sources are then combined to provide a profile for that individual. Then the simulation is repeated for the individuals (n) in the sub-population and the results are presented as a frequency distribution of daily doses (or doses averaged over the specified time interval) for the sub-population (Hamilton et al., 2004). In Belgium, as a public database with individual data based on food consumption is unavailable for the moment, probabilistic assessment can hardly be done.


4444 REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

Abou-Donia, M.B., Makkawy, H.M., Campbell, G.M. (1985). Pattern of neurotoxicity of n-hexane, methyl n-butyl ketone, 2,5-hexanediol, and 2,5-hexanedione alone and in combination with ethyl O-4-nitrophenyl phenylphosphonothioate in hens. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 16: 85-100.

Acquavella, J., Olsen, G., Cole, P., Ireland, B., Kaneene, J., Schuman, S. & Holden, l. (1998). Cancer among farmers: a meta-analysis. Annals of Epidemiology, 8: 64-74.

Aigner, E.J., Leone, A.O., and Falconer, R.L. (1998). Concentrations and enantiomeric ratios of organochlorine pesticides in soils from the US corn belt. Environmental Science and Technology, 32: 1162-1168.

Alavanja, M.C., Blair, A. & Masters, M.N. (1990). Cancer mortality in the U.S. flour industry. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 82: 840-848.

Alavanja, M.C., Hoppin, J.A., Kamel, F. (2004). Health effects of chronic pesticide exposure: cancer and neurotoxicity. Annual Review of Public Health, 25: 155-197.

Alavanja, M.C.R., Samanic, C., Dosemeci, M., Lubin, J., Tarone, R., Lynch, C.F., Knott, C., Thomas, K., Hoppin, J.A., Barker, J., Coble, J., Sandler, D.P., Blair, A. (2003). Use of agricultural pesticides and and prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study Cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157: 800-814.

Alguacil, J., Kauppinen, T., Porta, M., Partanen, T., Malats, N., Kogevinas, M., Benavidas, F.G., Obiols, J., Bernal, F., Rifa, J., Carrato, A. (2000). Risk of pancreatic cancer and occupational exposures in Spain. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 44: 391-403.

Ames, B.N., Magaw, R., and Gold, L. (1987). Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards. Science, 236: 271-80.

Ames, B.N., Profet, M., and Gold, L.S. (1990). Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87, 7777–7781.

Ames, R., Steenland, K., Jenkins, B., Chrislip, D., Russo, J. (1995). Chronic neurologic sequelae to cholinesterase inhibition among agricultural pesticide applicators. Archives of Environmental Health, 50: 440–444.

Ames, R.G., Steenland, K., Jenkins, B., Chrislip, D., Russo, J. (1995). Chronic neurologic sequelae to cholinesterase inhibition among agricultural pesticides applicators. Archives of Environmental Health, 50: 440-444.

Amodio-Cocchieri, R. and A. Arnese (1988). "Organochlorine pesticide residues in fish from southern Italian rivers." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 40(2): 233-239.

Amosteng-Adjepong, Y., Satiakumar, N., Detzell, E., Cole, P. (1995). Mortality among workers at a pesticide manufacturing plant. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 37: 471-478.

Anger, W., Moody, L., Burg, J., Brightwell, W.S., Taylor, B.J., Russo, J.M., et al. (1986). Neurobehavioural evaluation of soil and structural fumigators using methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride. Neurotoxicology, 7: 137–156.


Arbuckle, T.E., Lin, Z.Q., Mery, L.S. (2001). An exploratory analysis of the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion in Ontario farm population. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109: 851-857.

Armijo, R., Orellana, M., Medina, E. (1981). Epidemiology of gastiric-cancer in Chile. 1. case control study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 10: 53-56.

Ashford, N.A., Spadafor, C.J., Hattis, D.B., Caldart, C.C. (1990). Monitoring the Worker for Exposure and Disease: Scientific, legal and ethical considerations in the use of biomarkers. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Baker, B.P., Benbrook, C.M., Groth E., Benbrook, C.M. (2002). Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest managment (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. food additives and contaminants, 19:427-446.

Balarajan, R. & Acheson, E.D. (1984). Soft tissue sarcomas in agriculture and forestry workers. Journal of Epidemiology and Municipality Health, 38: 113-116.

Baldi, I., Fileul, L., Mohammed-Brahim, B., Fabrigoule, C., Dartigues, J.F., Schall, S., Drevet, J.P., Salamon, R., Brochard, P. (2001). Neuropsychologic effects of long-term exposure to pesticides: results from the French Phytoner study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109: 839-844.

Baldi, I., Lebailly, P., Mohammed-Brahim, B., Letenneur, L., Dartigues, J.F., Brochard, P. (2003). Neurodegenerative diseases and exposure to pesticides elderly. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157: 409-414.

Banerjee, B.D., Koner, B.C., Ray, A. (1996). Immunotoxicity of pesticides: perspectives and trends. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 34: 723-733.

Barbosa, E.R., da Costa, M.D.L, Bacheschi, L.A, Scaff, M., Leite, C.C. (2001). Parkinsonism after glycine-derivate exposure. Movement Disorders, 16: 565-568.

Barnett, J.B., Rodgers, K.E., (1994). Pesticides in Immunotoxicology and immunopharmacology, Eds JH Dean, Luster MI, Munson AE, Kimber I, 2nd ed, pp 191-212 New York Raven Press.

Barthel, E. (1981). Increased risk of lung cancer in pesticide-exposed male agricultural workers. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 8: 1027-1040.

Baumann, W., Hesse, K., Pollkläsner, D., Kümmerer, K. and Kümpel, T. (2000). Gathering and Review of Environmental Emission Scenarios for Biocides. Report developed in the context of the EU project entitled « Gathering, review and development of environmental emission scenarios for biocides (EUBEES) » - Grant SUBV 99/134534.

Bazylewicz-Walczak, B., Majczakowa, W., Szymczak, M. (1999). Behavioural effects of occupational exposure to organophosorous pesticides in female greenhouse planting workers. Neurotoxicology, 20: 819-826.

Beard, J., Sladden, T., Morgan, G., Berry, G., Brooks, L., McMichael, A. (2003). Health impacts of pesticide exposure in a cohort of outdoor workers. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111: 724-730.

Bearer, C.F. (1995). How are children different from adults. Environmental Health Perspectives, 103: 7-12 Suppl.

Becher, H., Flesh-Jansy, D., Kauppinen, T., Kogevinas, M., Steindorf, K., Manz, A., Wahrendorf, J. (1996). Cancer mortatlity in German male workers exposed to phenoxy herbicides and dioxins. Cancer Causes & Control, 7: 312-321.


Behari, M., Srivastava, A.K., Das, R.R., Pandey, R.M. (2001). Risk factors of Parkinson’s disease in Indian patients. Journal of Neurological Sciences, 190: 49-55.

Beinat, E. & Van den Berg, R. (1996). Euphids, a decision support system for the admission of pesticides. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, Report 712405002.

Belgaqua and Phytofar (2002). Livre Vert, Belgaqua - Phytofar: 38.

Berkowitz, G.S., Wetmur, J.G., Birman-Deych, B., Obel, J., Lapinski, R.H., Godbold, J.H., Holzman, I.R. and Wolff, M.S. (2004). In Utero Pesticide Exposure, Maternal Paraoxonase Activity, and Head Circumference. Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 113, number 3, Pages 388-391.

Betarbet, R., Sherer, T.B., MacKenzie, G., Garcia-Osuna, M., Panov, A.V., greenamyre, J.T. (2000). Chronic systemic pesticide exposure reproduces features of Parkinson’s disease. Nature Neuroscience, 3: 1301-1306.

Bhatt, M.H., Elias, M.A., Mankodi, A.K. (1999). Acute and reversible parkinsonism due to organophosphate pesticide intoxication: five cases. Neurology, 52: 1467-1471.

BHK Consulting Engineers (2000). Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption - preparation of a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority setting. Final report of a study assigned by the European Commission DG ENV. M0355008/1786Q/10/11/00.

Biobest (1999). Side effects of pesticide on bumblebees and beneficials. Biobest Biological Systems, Belgium, 19p.

Blair, A. & Hayes, R. (1982). Cancer risks associated with agriculture: epidemiologic evidence. Basic Life Science, 21: 93-111.

Blair, A. & Zahm, S.H. (1991). Cancer among farmers. Occupational Medicine-State of the Art Reviews, 3: 335-354.

Blair, A. & Zahm, S.H. (1993). Patterns of pesticide use among farmers: implications for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology, 4: 55-62.

Blair, A. & Zahm, S.H. (1995). Agricultural exposures and cancer. Environmental Health Perspect, 103: 205-208.

Blair, A., Grauman, D.J., Lubin, J.H., Fraumeni, J.F. (1983). Lung cancer and other causes of death among licensed pesticides applicators. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 71: 31-37.

Blair, A., Zahm, S.H., Pearce, N.E., Heineman, E.F., Frauùeni, J.F. (1992). Clues to cancer etiology from studies of farmers. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 18: 209-215.

Blatter, B.M., Roeleveld, N., Ziethuis, G.A., Mullaart, R.A., Gabreels, F.J. (1996). Spina bifida and parental occupation. Epidemiology, 7: 188-193.

Blondell, J. (1997). Epidemiology of pesticide poisoning in the United States with special reference to occupational cases. Occup. Med., 12, 209-220.

Bohlen, P. J. (2002). "Earthworms." Encyclopedia of Soil Science: 370-373.

Bohnen, N.I. & Kurland, L.T. (1995). Brain-tumor and exposure to pesticides in humans: a review of the epidemiologic data. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 132: 110-121.


Bond, G.G., Wetterstroem, N.H., Roush, E.A., McLaren, E.A., Lipps, T.E., Cook, R.R. (1988). Cause-specific mortality among employees engaged in the manufacture, formulation or, packaging of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and related salts. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45: 98-105.

Bonde, J.P., Comhaire, F., Ombelet, W. (1998). Environmental influences on speramtogenesis and sperm quality. In Andrology in the nineties, Middle East Fertility Society Journal 3, Suppl. 1.

Boros, L.G. & Williams, R.D. (2001). Isofenphos induced metabolic changes in K562 myeloid blast cells. Leukemia Research, 25: 883-890.

Boros, L.G., Torday, S., Lin, S., Bassilian, M., Cascante, M., Lee, W.N. (2000). Transforming growth factor B2 promotes glucose carbon incorporation into nucleic acid ribose through the nonoxidative pentose cycle in lung epithelial carcinoma cells. Cancer Research, 60: 1183-1185.

Bosma, H., van Boxtel, M.P., Ponds, R.W., Houx, P.J., Jolles, J. (2000). Pesticide exposure and risk of mild cognitive dysfunction. Lancet, 356: 912-913.

Branson, D.H. & Sweeney, M. (1991). Pesticide personal protective clothing. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 122: 81-109.

Bretagne-eau-pure (2004). "Bassin versant du Haut-Couesnon: Fougères, une expérience radicale." La lettre de Bretagne Eau Pure 20.

Brewer, S. K., E. E. Little, et al. (2001). "Behavioural Dysfunctions Correlate to Altered Physiology in Rainbow Trout (Oncorynchus mykiss) Exposed to Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Chemicals." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 40(1): 70-76.

Breysse, P., Farr, N., Galke, W., Lanphear, B., Morley, R. and Bergofsky, L. (2004). The Relationship between Housing and Health: Children at Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 112, number 15, pages 1583-1588.

Brown, A.S. & Susser, E.S. (1997). Sex differences in rpevalence of congenital neural defects after periconceptional famine exposure. Epidemiology, 8: 55-58.

Brown, V. (2004). Chapter 8 : The Impact of Herbicides on Invertebrates. The Impact of Herbicides on Weed Abundance and Biodiversity - PN0940. J. Marshall, V. Brown, N. Boatman, P. Lutman and G. Squire, IACR, CAER, CSL, Scottish Crops Research Institute.

Brownson, R.C, Reif, J.S., Chang, J., Davis, J.R. (1990). An analysis of occupational risk for brain cancer. American Journal of Public Health, 80: 169-172.

Brownson, R.C., Alavanja, M.C., Chang, J.C. (1993). Occupational risk for lung cancer among smoking women: a case-control study in Missouri (United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 4: 138-151.

Burmeister, L.F. (1990). Cancer in Iowa farmers: recent results. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 18: 295-301.

Bustos-Obregon, E. and R. Iziga Goicochea (2002). "Pesticide soil contamination mainly affects earthworm male reproductive parameters." Asian J Androl 4: 195-199.

Butterfield, P.G., Valanis, B.G., Spencer, P.S., Lindeman, C.A., Nutt, J.G. (1993). Environmental antecedents of young-onset Parkinson’s disease. Neurology, 43: 1150-1158.


Buxton, J.A., Gallagher, R.P., Le, N.D., Band, P.R., Bert, J.L. (1999). Occupational risk factors for prostate cancer mortality in British Colombia, Canada. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 35: 82-86.

Calabrese, E.J. (1985). Uncertainty factors and interindividual variation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 5:190–196

Calabrese, E.J. (2004). Hormesis: a revolution in toxicology, risk assessment and medicine. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 5 (Special issue), 37-40

Calabrese, E.J., Baldwin, L.A. (2002). Defining hormesis. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 21: 91-97.

Calabrese, E.J., Beck, B.D. and Chappell, W.R. (1992). Does the animal-to human uncertainty factor incorporate interspecies differences in surface area? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 15:172–179

Call, D. J., L. T. Brooke, et al. (1987). "Bromacil and diuron herbicides: Toxicity, uptake, and elimination in freshwater fish." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 16(5): 607-613.

Calle, E.E., Frumkin, H., Henley, S.J., Savitz, D.A., Thum, M.J. (2002). Organochlorines and breast cancer. CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 52: 301-309.

Calvert. G.M., Mueller, C.A., Fajen, J.M., Chrislip, D.W., Russo, J., Briggle, T., Suruda, A.J., Steenland, K. (1998). Health effects associated with sulfurly fluoride and methyl bromide exposure among structural fumigation workers. American Journal of Public Health, 88: 1774-1780.

Cantor, K.P. & Silberman, W. (1999). Mortality among aerial applicators and flight instructors: follow-up from 1965-1988. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36: 239-247.

Cantor, K.P., Blair, A., Everett, G., Gibson, R., Burmeister, L.F., Brown, L.M., Schuman, L., Dick, F.R. (1992). Pesticides and other agricultural risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among men in Iowa and Minnesota. Cancer Research, 52: 2447-2455.

Carabias-Martinez, R., E. Rodriguez-Gonzalo, et al. (2003). "Evolution over time of the agricultural pollution of waters in an area of Salamanca and Zamora (Spain)." Water Research 37(4): 928-938.

Carter, A. D. and I. J. Heather (1995). Pesticides in Groundwater. Pesticides-Developement, Impacts, and Controls. G. Best and D. Ruthven. Cambridge, The Royal Society of Chemistry: 180.

Cavel, J., Hemon, D., Mandereau, L., Delmotte, B., Severin, F., Flandrin, G. (1996). Farming, pesticide-use and hairy-cell leukemia. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 22: 285-293.

CDC, Centers for disease control and prevention (1986). Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Aldicarb Food Poisoning from Contaminated Melons -- California April 25, 1986 / 35(16);254-8

CDC, Centers for disease control and prevention (1999). Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Aldicarb as a Cause of Food Poisoning -- Louisiana, 1998. April 09, 1999 / 48(13);269-271

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2000). Illnesses Associated With Use of Automatic Insecticide Dispenser Units — Selected States and United States, 1986–1999. Morbidity and mortality Weekly Report. June 9, 2000 / Vol. 49 / No. 22, pages 492 – 495.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Surveillance for Acute Insecticide-Related Illness Associated with Mosquito-Control Efforts --- Nine States, 1999—2002. Morbidity and mortality Weekly Report. July 11, 2003 / 52(27);629-634.

Cerejeiraa, M. J., P. Vianab, et al. (2003). "Pesticides in Portuguese Surface and Ground Waters." Water Research 37(5): 1055-1063.

Cerhan, J.R., Cantor, K.P., Williamson, K., Lynch, C.F., Torner, J.C., Burmeister, L.F. (1998). Cancer mortality among Iowa farmers: recent results, time trends, and lifestyle factors. Cancer Causes & Control, 9: 311-319.

Chambers, P. A., A.-M. Anderson, et al. (2000). La qualité des eaux de surface. La santé de l'eau : vers une agriculture durable au Canada. D. R. Coote and L. J. Gregorich. Ottawa, Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada: 200.

Chancellor, A.M., Slattery, J.M., Fraser, H., Warlow, C.P. (1993). Risk factors for motor neuron disease – a case control study based on patients from the Scottish motor neuron disease register. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 56: 1200-1206.

Chauzat, M.-P., N. Cougoule, et al. (2004). Participation de l'Afssa-Sophia-Antipolis à l'étude DGA1-BASF. J.-P. Faucon. France, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments - Site de Sophia Antipolis: 8.

Chave, P. A. (1995). Pesticides in Freshwaters from Arable Use. Pesticides-Developement, Impacts, and Controls. G. Best and D. Ruthven. Cambridge, The Royal Society of Chemistry: 180.

Chester, G. (1993). Evaluation of agricultural worker exposure to, and absorption of, pesticides. Annals of Occupation Hygiene, 37: 509-523.

Chyska, P. (2004). Indicator Fact Sheet (WHS1) : Pesticides in Groundwater. EEA.

Ciesielski, S., Loomis, D.P., Mims, S.R., Auer, A. (1994). Pesticide exposures, cholinesterase depression, and symptoms among North Caroline migrant workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 84: 446-451.

Claeys, S., Steurbaut, W., Marot, J., Godfriaux, J., Maraite, H. (2004). Land- en tuinbouwers versus bestrijdingsmiddelen : kennis, houding en gedrag. Resultaten van een enquête in fruit-, groente- en akkerteelt (2002-2003). 67p.

Coats, J.R. (1991). Pesticide degradation mechanisms and environment activation, in Pesticide transformation products : Fate and significance in the Environnment (eds. L. Somasundaram and J.R. Coats), ACS symposium Series 459, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 10-31.

Cocco, P. & Benichou, J. (1998). Mortality from cancer of the male reproductive tract and environmental exposure to the antiandrogen p,p’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene in the United States. Oncology, 55: 334-339.

Cocco, P., Kazernouni, N., Zahm, S.H. (2000). Cancer mortality and environmental exposure to DDE in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108: 1-4.

Codex Alimentarius (2000). Possibilité d'établir des LMR spécifiques pour les aliments à base de céréales et les préparations pour nourrissons. CX/PR 00/9. La Haye : CCPR, 12 p

Coggon, D., Pannett, B., Winter, P.D. (1991). Mortality and incidence of cancer at four factories making phenoxy herbicides. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48: 173-178.


Coggon, D., Pannett, B., Winter, P.D., Acheson, E.D., Bonsall, J. (1986). Mortality of workers exposed to 2 methyl-4chlorphenoxyacetic acid. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 12: 448-454.

Cole, D.C., Carpio, F., Julian, J., Leon, N., carbotte, R., De Almeida, H. (1997). Neurobehavioural outcomes among farm and nonfarm rural Ecuadorians. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 19: 277-286.

Coli, W.M. (2004). New England apple pest management guide. United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, University of Massachusetts, 160p.

Comhaire, F. & Janssen, C. (2001). Evaluation of possible impacts of endocrine disruptors on the North Sea ecosystem. Project assigned by the Belgian Science Policy. Research project MN/DD2/002.

Corrigan, F.M., Wienburg, C.L., Shore, R.F., Daniel, S.E., Mann, D. (2000). Organochlorine insecticides in substantia nigra in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health – Part A, 59: 229-234.

CRP (2004). Guide de bonne pratique phytosanitaire - Partie générale - 2004, Comité régional PHYTO, Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Direction du Développement et de la Vulgarisation.

Cuzik, J. & De Stavola, B. (1988). Multiple myeloma – a case-control study. British Journal of Cancer, 57: 16-20.

Dai, H., Asakawa, F., Suna, S., Hirao, T., Karita, T., Fukunaga, I. and Jitsunari, F. (2003). Investigation of Indoor Air Pollution by Chlorpyrifos: Determination of Chlorpyrifos in Indoor Air and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol in Residents’ Urine as an Exposure Index. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 8, pages 139–145, September 2003.

Dalby, P. R., G. H. Baker, et al. (1995). "Glyphosate, 2,4-DB and dimethoate: Effects on earthworm survival and growth." Soil Biology and Biochemistry 27(12): 1661-1662.

Daniell, W., Barnhart, S., Demers, P., Costa, L.G., Eaton, D.L., Miller, M. (1992). Neuropsychological performance among agricultural pesticide applicators. Environ Res 59:217–228

Davis, J.M., Svendsgaard, D.J. (1990). U-shaped dose–response curves: their occurrence and implications for risk assessment. J Toxicol Environ Health 30: 71–83

Davis, K.L., Yesavage, J.A., Berger, P.A. (1978). Possible organophosphate-induced parkinsonism. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 166: 222-225.

Dawson, A. (2000). "Mechanisms of Endocrine Disruption with Particular Reference to Occurrence in Avian Wildlife: A Review." Ecotoxicology 9(1 - 2): 59-69.

De cock, J., Heederik, D., Kromhout, H., Boleij, J.S., Hoek, F., Wegh, H., Tjoe NY, E. (1998). Exposure to captan in fruit growing. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 59: 158-165.

de Joode, B.V., Wesseling, C., Kromhout, H., Monge, P., Garcia, M., Mergler, D. (2001). Chronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupational exposure to DDT. Lancet, 357: 1014-1016.

Deapen, D. & Henderson, B.E. (1986). A case-control study of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 123: 790-799.

Decourtye, A., M. Tisseur, et al. (2005). Toxicité et risques liés à l'emploi de pesticides chez les pollinisateurs : cas de l'abeille domestique. Enjeux phytosanitaires pour l'agriculture et


l'environnement. C. Regault-Roger, G. Fabres and J. R. Philogène. Paris, Tec & Doc Lavoisier: 225-241.

Degloire, M. (pers. comm .). Electronic minutes of the Belgian Higher Health Council – Ecotoxicology.

Dejonckheere, W. & Steurbaut, W. (1996). Pesticiden: Gebruik en milieurisico’s. Monografie Stichting Leefmilieu, Uitgeverij Pelckmans, Kapellen.

Dewailly, E., Dodin, S., Verreault, R., Ayotte, P., Sauve, L., Morin, J., Brisson, J. (1994). High organochlorine body burden in women with estrogen receptor-positive breast-cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86: 232-234.

DGRNE. (2005). "Tableau de bord de l'environnement walllon 2005." from http://mrw.wallonie.be/dgrne/eew/download.asp.

Dich, J. & Wiklund, K. (1998). Prostate cancer in pesticide applicators in Swedish agriculture. Prostate, 34: 100-112.

Dich, J., Zahm, S.H., Hanberg, A., and Adami, H.-O. (1997). Pesticides and cancer. Cancer Causes and Control 8, 420-443.

Dijkstra, E.H, Falke, H.E., Garthoff, J.A., Van herwijnen, F.R., De Jong, D., De Jonge, J., Lans, M.C., Meeusen, J.J., Oomen, P., Schreuder, R.H., Tas, J.W., Verkleij, C.M., Van Vliet, P.J., Van Wetering, J.M. (1999). Handleiding voor de Toelating van Bestrijdingsmiddelen, versie 0.1.

Dolk, H., Vrijheid, M., Armstrong, B., Abramsky, L., Bianchi, F., Garne, E., Nelen, V., Robert, E., Scott, J.E.S., Stone, D., Tenconi, R. (1998). Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet, 352: 423-427.

Donna, A., Betta, P., Robutti, F. (1984). Ovarian mesothelial tumors and herbicides; a case-control study. Carcinogenesis, 5: 941-942.

Donna, A., Cosignani, P., Robutti, F. (1989). Triazine herbicides and ovarian epithelial neoplasms. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 15: 47-53.

Doucet-Personeni, C., M. Halm, et al. (2003). Imidaclopride utilisé en enrobage de semences (Gaucho®) et troubles des abeilles - Rapport final. France, Comité Scientifique et Technique de l'Etude Multifactorielle des Troubles des Abeilles (CST): 221.

Dubus, I. G., J. M. Hollis, et al. (2000). "Pesticides in rainfall in Europe." Environmental Pollution 110(2): 331-344.

Duiker, S. and R. Stehouwer (2003). Earthworms, The Pennsylvania State University - Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences: 10.

Durham, W.F. & Wolfe, H.R. (1962). Measurement of the exposure of workers to pesticides. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 26: 75-91.

Easter, E.P. & Nigg, H.N. (1992). Pesticide protective clothing. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 129: 1-16.

EDEN. (2005). The Prague Declaration on Endocrine Disruption. Endocrine Disruption Research, 12 p Elsabbagh H.S., El-Tawil O.S., 2001. Immunotoxicity of cupravit and previcur fungicides in mice. Pharmacological Research. Academic Press, London. 43: 1, 71-76.

EFSA. (2005a). Opinion of the scientific panel on contaminants in the food chain on a request from the commission related to gamma-HCH and other hexachlorocyclohexanes as


undesirable substances in animal feed. Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-067, adopted on 4 July 2005, The EFSA Journal (2005) 250, 1 – 39

EFSA. (2005b). Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to A Harmonized Approach for Risk Assessment of Substances Which are both Genotoxic and Carcinogenic. (Request No EFSA-Q-2004-020). The EFSA Journal (2005) 282, 1-31

Ekbom, A., Wicklund-Glynn, A., Adami, H.O. (1996). DDT and testicular cancer. Nature, 347: 553-554.

El Hassani, A. K., M. Dacher, et al. (2005). "Effects of sublethal doses of fipronil on the behaviour of the honeybee (Apis mellifera)." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behaviour 82(1): 30-39.

Elliott, J., L. Wilson, et al. (2005). Poisoning of birds of prey by anticholinesterase insecticides in agricultural areas of southwestern British Columbia. Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference, Washington.

Engel, L.S, Keifer, M.C., Checkoway, H., Robinson, L.R., Vaughan, T.L. (1998). Neurophysiological function in farm workers exposed to organophosphate pesticides. Arch Environ Health 53:7–14.

Ensenbach, U., Nagel, R.. (1995). Toxicity of complex chemical mixtures: acute and long-term effects on different life stages of zebrafish (Brachydanio rerio). Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 30: 151-157

Erikson, M., Hardell, L., berg, N.O., Moller, T., Axelson, O. (1981). Soft-tissue sarcomas and exposure to chemical substances: a case-referent study. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 38: 27-33.

EUREAU. (2001). "Keeping Raw Drinking Water Resources Safe From Pesticides." from http://www.eeb.org/activities/water/EU1-01-A56-pesticides-final.pdf.

European Chemicals Bureau (2000). Technical guidance document in support of the Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market – guidance on data requirements for active substances and biocidal products. Final draft version 4.3.2 October 2000.

European Chemicals Bureau (2000). Technical guidance document in support of the Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Guidance on data requirements for active substances and biocidal products. Final draft Version 4.3.2. October 2000.

Europoem (1996). The development, maintenance and dissemination of e European Predictive Operator Exposure Model (EUROPOEM) Database, final report. BIBRA International, Carshalton, UK, 51p.

Even, I., Berta, J.L. et Volatier, J.L. (2002). Evaluation de l’exposition théorique des nourrissons et des enfants en bas âge aux résidus de pesticides apportés par les aliments courants et infantiles. Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA).

Falck, F., Ricci, Jr., Wolf, M.S., Goldbold, J., Deckers, P. (1992). Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyl residues in human breast cancer lipids and their relation to breast cancer. Archives of Environmental Health, 47: 143-146.

Falk, R.T., Pickle, L.W., Fontham, E.T. (1990). Occupation and pancreatic cancer in Louisiana. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 18: 565-576.


Fall, P.A., Fredrikson, M., Axelson, O., Granerus, A.K. (1999). Nutritional and occupational factors influencing the risk of Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study in southeastern Sweden. Movement Disorders, 14: 28-37.

FAO Newsroom (2004). Farm workers need to be better protected against pesticides – FAO and UNEP call for stronger safety measures. 22 September 2004, Geneva/Rome.

Farahat, T.M., Abdelrasoul, G.M., Amr, M.M., Shebl, M.M., Farahat, F.M., Anger, W.K. (2003). Neurobehavioural effects among workers occupationally exposed to organophosphorous pesticides. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60: 279-286.

FASFC. (2005). Terminologie en matière d’analyse des dangers et des risques selon le codex alimentarius. Federal Agency for the Security of the Food Chain, 46 pp.

Faucon, J.-P., C. Aurieres, et al. (2004). Etude expérimentale de la toxicité de l'imidaclopride distribué dans le sirop de nourrisseurs à des colonies d'abeilles (Apis mellifera). France, AFSSA, Laboratoire d'études et de recherches sur la pathologie des petits ruminants et des abeilles: 32.

Faustini, A., Forastiere, F., Di Betta, L., Magliola, E.M., Percucci, C.A. (1993). A cohort study of mortality among farmers and agricultural workers. Med. Lav., 84: 31-41.

Fenske, R.A. (1990). Non-uniformal dermal deposition patterns during occupational exposure to pesticides. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19: 332-337.

Fenske, R.A. (1993). Dermal exposure assessment techniques. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 37: 687-706.

Fenske, R.A., Blacker, A.M., Hamburger, S.J. & Simon, G.S. (1990). Worker exposure and protective clothing performance during manual seed treatment with lindane. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19: 190-196.

Fiedler, N., Kipen, H., Kelly-McNiel, K., Fenske, R. (1997). Long-term use of organophosphates and neuropsychological performance. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 32: 487-496.

Figatalamanca, I., Mearelli, I., Valente, P., Bascherini, S. (1993). Cancer mortality in a cohort of rural licensed pesticide users in the province of Rome. International Journal of Epidemiology, 22: 579-583.

Fiserova-Bergerova, V. (1993). Relevance of occupational skin exposure. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 37(6): 673-685.

Fleming, L., Bean, J.A., Rudolph, M., Hamilton, K. (1999). Cancer incidence in a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators in Florida. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 41: 279-288.

Fleming, L., Mann, J.B., Bean, J., Briggle, T., Sanchez Ramos, J.R. (1994). Parkinson’s disease and brain levels of organochlorine pesticides. Annals of Neurology, 36: 100-103.

Fleming, L.E. et al. (1997). Emerging issues in pesticide health studies. Occup. Med., 12, 387-397.

Forastiere, F., Quercia, A., Miceli, M., Settimi, L., Terenzoni, B., Rapiti, E., Faustini, A., Borgia, P., Cavariani, F., Perucci, C.A. (1993). Cancer among farmworkers in central Italy. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environment Health, 19: 382-389.


Franceschi, S., Barbone, F., Bidoli, E., Guarneri, S., Serraino, D., Talamini, R., Lavecchia, C. (1993). Cancer risk in farmers: results from a multi-site case-control study in north-eastern Italy. International Journal of Cancer, 153: 740-745.

Franklin, C.A. & Worgan, J.P. (2005). Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Pesticides. Wiley, England, 421p.

Fry, D. M. (1995). "Reproductive Effects in Birds Exposed to Pesticides and Industrial-Chemicals." Environmental Health Perspectives 103: 165-171.

Fryer, M., Collins, C., Colvile, R., Ferrier, H., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2004). Evaluation of currently used exposure models to define a human exposure model for use in chemical risk assessment in the UK. Department of Environmental Science and Technology Imperial College London, UK, 205p.

Fryzek, J.P., Garabrant, D.H., Harlow, S.D., Severson, R.K., Gillespie, B.W., Schenk, M., Schottenfeld, D. (1997). A case-control study of self-reported exposures to pesticides and pancreatic cancer in southeastern Michigan. International Journal of Cancer, 72: 62-67.

Galloway, T. and R. Handy (2003). "Immunotoxicity of Organophosphorous Pesticides." Ecotoxicology 12(1 - 4): 345-363.

Gammon, M.D., Wolff, M.S., Neugut, A.I., Eng, S.M., Teitelbaum, S.L., Britton, J.A., Terry, M.B., Levin, B., Stellman, S.D., Kabat, G.C., Hatch, M., Senie, R., et al. (2002). Environmental toxins and breast cancer on Long Island. II. Organochlorine compound levels in blood. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 11: 686-697.

Ganzelmeier, M, Rautmann, D., Spangenberg, R., Streloke, M., Hermann, M. Wenzel-bruger, H.J., Walter, H.F. (1995). Studies on the drift of plant protection products. Results of a test program carried out throughout the Federal Public of Germany. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Berlin-Wien, 111p.

Garabrant, D.H., Held, J., Langholz, B., Peters, J.M., Mack, T.M. (1992). DDT and related compounds and risk of pancreatic cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84: 764-771.

Gaughan, L.C., Ángel, J., Casida, J. (1980). Pesticide interactions: effects of Organophosphorus pesticides on the metabolism, toxicity, and persistence of selected pyrethroid insecticides. Pesticide Biochem; 14:18-25.

Gauthier, E., Fortier, I., Courchesne, F., Pepin, P., Mortimer, J. (2001). Environmental pesticide exposure as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: a case-control study. Environmental Research, 86: 37-45.

Genootschap Plantenproductie en Ecosfeer Werkgroep Plantenbescherming (1999). Neveneffecten van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen op mens en milieu in perspectief geplaatst. Coda, Tervuren.

Giacomazzi, S. and N. Cochet (2004). Environmental impact of diuron transformation: a review. Chemosphere. 56: 1021-1032.

Gilliom, R. J. (1997). Pesticides in Surfaces Waters, U.S. Geological Survey.

Go, V., Garey, J., Wolff, M.S. and Pogo, B.G.T. (1999). Estrogenic Potential of Certain Pyrethroid Compounds in the MCF-7 Human Breast Carcinoma Cell Line. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 107, Number 3, March 1999.

Goemans, G., Belpaire, C., Raemaeckers, M., Guns, M. (2003). Het Vlaamse palingpolluentenmeetnet, 1994-2001: gehalten aan polychloorbifenylen,


organochloorpesticiden en zware metalen in paling. Wetenschappelijke Instelling van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Ontwerprapport. IBW.Wb.V.R.2003.99. 56p. + bijlagen

Gold, L. S., and Zeiger, E. (1997). “Handbook of Carcinogenic Potency and Genotoxicity Databases.” CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Gold, L.S., Slone, T.H., Ames, B.N., and Manley, N.B. (2001). Pesticide Residues in Food and Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis. In: Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Second Edition (R. Krieger, ed.), San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 799-843.

Gold, R.E., Leavitt, J.R.C., Holsclaw, T., Tupy, D. (1982). Exposure of urban applicators to carbaryl. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 11: 63-67.

Gomes, J., Lloyd, O.L., Revitt, D.M. (1999). The influence of personal protection, environmental hygiene and exposure to pesticides on the health of immigrant farm workers in a desert country. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 72: 40-45.

Gorell, J.M., Johnson, C.C., Rybicki, B.A., Peterson, E.L., Richardson, R.J. (1998). The risk of Parkinson’s disease with exposure to pesticides, farming, well water and rural living. Neurology, 50: 1346-1350.

Grady, D., Gebretsadik, T., Kerlikowske, K., Ernster, V., Petti, D. (1995). Hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer – A meta-analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 85: 304-313.

Granieri, E., Carreras, M., Tola, R. (1988). Motor neuron disease in the province of Ferrara, Italy, in 1964-1982. Neurology, 38: 1604-1608.

Greenwald, P., Kovasznay, B., Collins, D.N. (1984). Sarcomas of soft tissue after military service. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73: 1107-1109.

Gunnarson, L.G., Bodin, L., Sodertfeldt, B., Axelson, O. (1992). A case-control study of motor neuron disease – its relation to heritability, and occupational exposures, particularly to solvents. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49: 791-798.

Hajŝlová, J. (1998). Pesticides. Environmental contaminants in Food. 215-272

Hamburg, H. v. and P. J. Guest (1997). "The Impact of Insecticides on Beneficial Arthropods in Cotton Agro-Ecosystems in South Africa." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 32(1): 63-68.

Hamey, P.Y. (1999). Assessing risk to operators, bystanders, and workers from the use of plant protection products. Proceedings of the XI Symposium Pesticide Chemistry, 11-15 September 1999, Cremona, Italy, 619-631.

Hamey, P.Y. (2001). The need for appropriate use information to refine pesticide user exposure assessment. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 45: 69-79.

Hansen, N.E., Karle, H., Olsen, J. (1989). Trends in the incidence of multiple myeloma in Denmark 1943-1982: a study of 5500 patients. European Journal of Haematology, 42: 72-76.

Hardell, L. & Ericksson, M. (1988). The association between soft-tissue sarcoma and exposure to phenoxyacetic-acids: a case-referent study. Cancer, 62: 652-656.

Hardell, L. & Sandstrom, A. (1979). Case-control study – soft-tissue sarcomas and exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and chlorophenols. British Journal of Cancer; 39: 711-717.


Hardell, L., Ericksson, M., Lenner, P., Lundgren, E. (1981). Lymphoma and exposure to chemicals, especially organic solvents, chlorophenols and phenoxy herbicides: a case-control study. British Journal of Cancer, 43: 169-176.

Hardell, L., Ericksson, M., Nordstrom, M. (2002). Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: Pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies. Leukemia & Lymphoma, 43: 1043-1049.

Harford, A. J., K. O'Halloran, et al. (2005). "The effects of in vitro pesticide exposures on the phagocytic function of four native Australian freshwater fish." Aquatic Toxicology 75(4): 330-342.

Hautier, L., J.-P. Jansen, et al. (2004). Etablissement de listes de sélectivité de pesticides vis-à-vis de l'entomofaune utile dans le cadre de développement de programmes de lutte intégrée en culture de pommes de terre de consommation. 34ème Congrès du Groupe Français des Pesticides, Université de Marne-la-Vallée.

Hayes, H.M., Tarone, R.M., Casey, H.W., Huxsoll, D.L. (1990). Excess of seminomas observed in Vietnam service U.S. military working dogs. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 82: 1042-1046.

He, F. (2000). Neurotoxic effects of insecticides – current and future research: a review. Neurotoxicology, 21: 829-835.

Henderson, P.T., Brouwer, D.H., Opdam, J.J., Stevenson, H., Stouten, J.T. (1993). Risk assessment for worker exposure to agricultural pesticides: review of a workshop. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 37: 499-507.

Hertzman, C., Wiens, M., Bowering, D., Snow, B., Calne, D. (1990). Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study of occupational and environmental risk factors. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 17: 349-355.

Higginson, J. (1966). Etiologic factors in gastrointestinal cancer in men. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 37: 537-549.

Hildebrand, L. D., D. S. Sullivan, et al. (1982). "Experimental studies of rainbow trout populations exposed to field applications of Roundup herbicide." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 11(1): 93-98.

Hites, R.A., Foran, J.A., Carpenter, D.O., Hamilton, M.C., Knuth, B.A., Schwager, S.J. (2004). Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon. Science, Vol. 303 226-229

Hoar, S.K., Blair, A., Holmes, F.F., Boysen, C.D., Hoover, R., Hoover, R., Fraumeni, J.F. (1986). Agricultural herbicide use and risk of lymphoma and soft-tissue sarcoma. JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association, 256: 1141-1147.

Hoerger, F.D. & Kenaga, E.E. (1972). Pesticides residues on plants, correlation of representative data as a basis for the estimation of their magnitude in the environment. Environmental Quality. Academic Press, New York, I, 9-28

Hoogenraad, T. (1988). Dithiocarbamates and Parkinson’s disease (letter). Lancet, 1: 767.

Hoppin, J.A., Tolbert, P.E., Flander, W.D., Zhang, R.H., Daniels, D.S., Ragsdale, B.D., Brann, E.A. (1999). Occupational risk factors for sarcoma subtypes. Epidemiology, 10: 300-306.

Hsing, A.W. & Devesa, S.S. (2001). Trends and patterns of prostate cancer: What do they suggest? Epidemiologic Reviews, 23: 3-13.


Hu, J., Mao, Y., White, K. (2002). Renal cell carcinoma and occupational exposure to chemicals in Canada. Occupational Medicine-Oxford, 52: 157-164.

Hubal, E.A.C., Sheldon, L.S., Burke, J.M., McCurdy, T.R., Barry, M.R., Rigas, M.L., Zartarian, V.G., Freeman, N.C.G. (2000). Children’s exposure assessment: A review of factors influencing children’s exposure, and the data available to characterize and assess the exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108: 475-486.

Hubble, J.P., Kurth, J.H., Glatt, S.L., Kurth, M.C., Schellenberg, G.D., Hassanein, R.E.S., Lieberman, A. (1998). Gene-toxin interaction as a putative risk factor for Parkinson’s disease with dementia. Neuroepidemiology, 17: 96-104.

Hughes, I. (2002). Risk Assessment of Mixture of Pesticides and Similar Substances. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environnment. Food Standards Agency, 298 pp.

IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer (1986). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. An updating of IARC Monograph Volume 1 to 42. Suppl. 7, Lyon, France.

IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer (1991). Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application, and Some Pesticides. 53: 535. Lyon, France.

Infante-Rivard, C., Labuda, D., Krajinovic, M., Sinnett, D. (1999). Risk of childhood leukemia associated with exposure to pesticides and with gene polymorphisms. Epidemiology, 10: 481-487.

Jansen, J.-P. (2004). Effets non intentionnels de la protection phytosanitaire du froment sur les parasites et prédateurs spécifiques des pucerons des céréales, Université Libre de Bruxelles. Doctorat: 185.

Janssens, J., Van Hecke, E., Bruckers, L. (2002). Crop protection products, birth defects & (childhood) cancer. A research project of the Province of Limburg and the Limburgs Universitair Centrum. Diepenbeek, Belgium, 127p.

Jepson and N. W. Sotherton. Wellesbourne, The Association of Applied Biologists: 19-28.

Ji, B.T., Silverman, D.T., Stewart, P.A., Blair, A., Swanson, G.M., Baris, D., Greenberg, R.S., Hayes, R.B., Brown, L.M., Lillemoe, K.D., Schoenberg, J.B., Pottern, L.M., Schwartz, A.G., Hoover, R.N. (2001). Occupational exposure to pesticides and pancreatic cancer. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 39: 92-99.

JMP, Joint Medical Panel (1986). UK Predictive Operator Exposure Model (POEM): Estimation of exposure and absorption of pesticides by spray operators, SC 8001. Joint Medical Panel of the Scientific Subcommittee on Pesticides and British Agrochemical Association. MAFF, Pesticides Registration Department, Harpenden, Herts, UK.

Johnson, F.E., Kugler, M.A., Brown, S.M. (1981). Soft tissue sarcomas and chlorinated phenols (letter). Lancet, 2: 40.

Kairu, J. K. (1999). "Organochlorine pesticide and metal residues in a cichlid fish, Tilapia, Sarotherodon (=Tilapia) alcalicus grahami Boulenger from Lake Nakuru, Kenya." International Journal of Salt Lake Research 8(3): 253-266.

Kamrin, M.A. (2000). Pesticide Profiles. Toxicity, Environmental Impact, and Fate. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton – New York. ISBN 0-8493-2179-4.


Kang, H.K., Weatherbee, L., Breslin, P.P., Lee, Y., Shepard, B.M. (1986). Soft tissue sarcomas and military service in Vietnam: a case comparison group analysis of hospital patients. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 28: 1215-1218.

Kangas, J. & Sihvonen, S. (1996). Comparison of predictive models for pesticide operator exposure. TemaNord 1996:560. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark, 48 p.

Kangas, J., Manninen, A., Liesivuori, J. (1995). Occupational exposure to pesticides in Finland. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 58(1-4): 423-429.

Kauppinen, T., Partanen, T., Degerth, R., Ojajarvi, A. (1995). Pancreatic cancer and occupational exposure. Epidemiology, 6: 498-502.

Kauppinen, T., Riala, R., Seitsamo, J. (1982). Primary liver cancer and occupational exposure. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environment Health, 18: 18-25.

Keene, D.L., Hsu, E., Ventureyra, E. (1999). Brain tumors in childhood and adolescence. Pediatric Neurology, 20: 198-203.

Keifer, M., Mahurin, R. (1997). Chronic neurologic effects of pesticide overexposure. Occup Med 12:291–304.

Keller-Byrne, J.E., Khuder, S.A., Schaub, E.A. (1997). Meta-analyses of prostate cancer. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 31: 580-586.

Kenaga, E.E. (1973). Factors to be considered in the evaluation of toxicity of pesticides to birds in their environment. Environmental Quality and Safety. Academic Press, New York, II, 166-181.

Khuder, S.A. & Mutgi, A.B. (1997). Meta-analyses of multiple myeloma and farming. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 32: 510-516.

Kitamura, S., Suzuki, T., Ohta, S., Fujimoto, N. (2003). Antiandrogenic activity and metabolism of the organophosphorus pesticide fenthion and related compounds. Environ Health Perspect 111:503–508

Kogevinas, M., Kauppinen, T., Winkelmann, T., Becher, H., Bertazzi, P.H., Beuno-de-Mesquita, H.B., Coggon, D., Green, L., Johnson, E., Littorin, M., Lynge, E., Marlow, D.A., Mathews, J.D., Neuburger, M., Benn, Y-T., Pannett, B., Pearce, N., Saracci, R. (1995). Soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in workers exposed to phenoxy herbicides, chlorophenols and dioxins: two nested case-control studies. Epidemiology, 6: 396-402.

Kolaczinski, J.H. and Curtis, C.F. (2004). Chronic illness as a result of low-level exposure to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides : a review of the debate. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42 : 697-706.

Kreuger, J. (1998). "Pesticides in stream water within an agricultural catchment in southern Sweden, 1990-1996." Science of the Total Environment 216(3): 227-251.

Krieger, R.I., Dinoff, M., Korpalski, S., Peterson, J. (1998). Protectiveness of Kleengard LP and Tyvek-Saranex 23-P during mixing/loading and airblast applications in treefruits. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 61: 455-461.

Kristensen, P., Irgens, L.M., Andersen, A., Bye, A.S., Sundheim, L. (1997). Birth defects in the offspring of Norwegian farmers, 1967-1991. Epidemiology ;8:537-44.

Kristensen, P., W. Brüsch, et al. (2004). Nature and Environment 2003 : Water in Denmark. D. EPA, Danish Ministry of the Environment: 40.


Kross, B.C., Burmeister, L.F., Ogilvie, L.K., Fuortes, L.J., Fy, C.M. (1996). Proportionate mortality study of golf course superintendents. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29: 501-506.

Kruder, S.A., Mutgi, A.B., Schaub, E.A., Tano, B.D. (1999). Meta-analysis of Hodgkin’s disease among farmers. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 25: 436-414.

Kuhnlein, H.V., Chan, H.M. (2000). Environment and contaminants in traditional food systems of Northern Indigenous peoples. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 20, 596-626.

Kuopio, A.M., Marttila, R.J., Helenius, H., Rinne, U.K. (1999). Environmental risk factors in Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders, 14: 928-939.

Landrigan, P.J., Claudio, L., Markowitz, S.B., Berkowitz, G .S., Brenner, B.L., Romero, H., Wetmur, J.G., Matte, T.D., Gore, A.C., Godbold, J.H. and Wolff, M.S. (1999). Pesticides and Inner-City Children: Exposures, Risks, and Prevention. Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements Volume 107, Number S3, June 1999.

Langston, J.W. (1996). The etiology of Parkinson’s disease with emphasis on the MPTP story. Neurology, 47: S153-160.

Lapidot-Lifson, Y., Prody, C.A., Ginzbberg, D., Meytes, D., Zakut, H., Soreq, H. (1989). Coamplification of human acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase gene in blood-cells – correlation with various leukemias and abnormal megakaryocytopoiesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 86: 4715-4719.

Le Couteur, D.G., McLean, A.J., Taylor, M.C., Woodham, B.L., Board, P.G. (1999). Pesticides and Parkinson’s disease. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 53: 122-130.

Lee, E., Burnett, C.A., Lalich, N., Cameron, L.L., Seitto, J.P. (2002). Proportionate mortality of crop and livestock farmers in the United States, 1984-1993. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 42: 410-420.

Leefmilieu en Kanker (1997). Vereniging voor Kankerbestrijding, Brussel.

Levine, R.S. and Doull, J. (1992). Global estimates of acute pesticide morbidity and mortality. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 129, 29-50.

Lev-Lehman, E., Evron, T., Broide, R.S., Meshorer, E., Ariel, S., Seidman, S., Soreq, H. (2000). Synaptogenesis and myopathy under acetylcholinesterase overexpression. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience, 14: 93-105.

Lindsay, J., Hebert, R., Rockwood, K. (1997). The Canadian study of health and aging: risk factors for vascular dementia. Stroke, 28: 526-530.

Liou, H.H., Tsai, M.C., Chen, C.J., Jeng, J.S., Chang, Y.C., Chen, R.C. (1997). Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study in Taiwan. Neurology, 48: 1583-1588.

London, L. & Myers, J.E. (1998). Use of a crop and a job specific exposure matrix for retrospective assessment of long-term exposure in studies of chronic neurotoxic effects of agrichemicals. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55: 194-201.

London, L., Myers, J.E., Nell, V., Taylor, T., Thompson, M.L. (1997). An investigation into neurologic and neurobehavioural effects of long-term agrichemical use among deciduous fruit farm workers in the Western Cape, South Africa. Environmental Research, 73: 132-145.


Longley, M. (1999). "A review of pesticide effects upon immature aphid parasitoids within mummified hosts." International Journal of Pest Management 45(2): 139-145.

Lowengart, R.A., Peters, J.M., Cicioni, C., Buckley, J., Bernstein, L., Prestonmartins, S., Rappaport, E. (1987). Childhood leukaemia and parents’ occupational and home exposures. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 79: 39-46.

Lu, C., Toepel, K., Irish, R., Fenske, R. A., Barr, D. B., Bravo, R. (2006). Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children's Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (2) : pp. 260-263

Luchtrath, H. (1983). The consequences of chronic arsenic poisoning among Moselle wine growers – Pathoanatomical investigations of post-mortem examinations between 1960 and 1977. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 105: 173-182.

Lundehn, J.R., Westphal, D., Kieczka, H., Krebs, B., Löcher-Bolz, S., Maasfeld, W., Pick, E.D. (1992). Uniform principles for safeguarding the health of applicators of plant protection products (Uniform Principles for Operator Exposure). Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Heft 227, Berlin, Germany, 61p.

Luttik, R. (2004). Report of the Workshop on pesticide risk indicators for man and the environment. Workshop organised in the framework of HAIR, 24-26 may 2004, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 26p.

Lynge, E., Storm, H.H., Jensen, O.M. (1987). The evaluation of trends in soft tissue sarcoma according to diagnostic criteria and consumption of phenoxy herbicides. Cancer, 60: 1896-1901.

Ma, X., Buffler, P.A., Gunier, R.B., Dahl,G., Smith, M.T., Reynolds, P. (2002). Critical windows of exposure to household pesticides and the risk of childhood leukemia. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110: 955-960.

Mabuchi, K., Lilienfeld, A.M., Snell, L.M. (1979). Lung cancer among pesticide workers exposed to inorganic arsenicals. Archives of Environmental Health, 34: 312-318.

Mabuchi, K., Lilienfeld, A.M., Snell, L.M. (1980). Cancer and occupational exposure to arsenic – a study of pesticide workers. Preventive Medicine, 9: 51-77.

MacMahon, B., Monson, R.R., Wang, H.H., Zheng, T. (1988). A second follow-up of mortality in a cohort of pesticide applicators. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 30: 429-432.

Maibach, H.I. & Feldman, R. (1974). Systematic Absorption of Pesticides through the Skin of Man. In Occupaitional Exposure to Pesticides (PB 244259). Federal Working Group on Pest Management. NTIS, Washington D.C., U.S.A.

Maibach, H.I., Feldmann, F.J., Milby, T.H. & Serat, W.F. (1971). Regional variation in percutaneous penetration in man. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 23: 208-211.

Mäkinen, M. (2003). Dermal epxosure assessment of chemicals – an essential part of total exposure assessment at workplaces. Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Kuopio, Finland, 88p.

Maraite, H., Steurbaut, W., Debognie, P. (2004). Development of awareness tools for a substainable use of pesticides. Final report Scientific Support Plan for a Sustainable Development Policy (SPSD II) - Part 1 Sustainable production and consumption patterns, Belgian Science Policy, Brussels, Belgium, 105p.


McConnell, R., Keifer, M., Rosenstock, L. (1994). Elevated quantitative vibrotactile threshold among workers previously poisoned with methamidophos and other organophosphate pesticides. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 25: 325-334.

McDowell, I., Hill, G., Lindsay, J., Helliweel, B., Costa, L., Breattie, L., Hertzman, C., Tuokko, H., Gutman, G., Parhad, I., Parboosingh, J., Bland, R., Newman, S., Dobbs, A., Hazlett, C., Rule, B., Darcy, C., et al (1994). The Canadian study of health and aging: risk factors for Alzheimer disease in Canada. Neurology, 44: 2073-2080.

McDuffie, H.H., Pahwa, P., McLaughlin, J.R., Spinelli, J.J., Fincham, S., Dosman, J.A., Robson, D., Skinnider, L.F., Choi, N.W. (2001). Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and specific pesticides exposures in men: Cross-Canada study of pesticides and health. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 10: 1155-1163.

McDuffle, H.H., Klaasen, D.J., Dosman, J.A. (1990). Is pesticide use related to risk of primary lung cancer in Saskatchewan? Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32: 996-1002.

McGuire, V., Longstreth, W.T., Nelson, L.M., Koepsell, T.D., Checkoway, H., Morgan, M.S., vanBelle, G. (1997). Occupational exposures and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a population-based case-control study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 145: 1076-1088.

McLaughlin, A. and P. Mineau (1995). "The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 55(3): 201-212.

Meco, G., Bonifati, V., Vanacore, N., Fabrizio, E. (1994). Parkinsonism after chronic exposure to the fungicide maneb (manganese ethylene bis-dithiocarbamate). Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 20: 301-305.

Mehler, L.N.; O’Malley, M.A. and Krieger, R.I. (1992). Acute pesticide morbidity and mortality: California. Reviews Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 129, 51-66.

Meinert, R., Schuz, J., Kaletsch, U., Kaatsch, P., Michaelis, J. (2000). Leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood and exposure to pesticides: results of a register-based case-control study in Germany. American Journal of Epidemiology, 11: 639-649.

Mellemgaard, A., Engholm, G., McLaughlin, J.K., Olsen, J.H. (1994). Occupational risk factors for renal cell carcinoma in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 20: 160-165.

Menegaux, F. and Clavel, J. (2004). Non-occupational exposure to pesticides and childhood acute leukaemia. INSERM U170-IFR69, 16 av. Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94800 Villejuif, France Tel: 33 1 45 59 51 53 – Fax: 33 1 45 59 51 51 – E-mail: [email protected].

Menegaux, F., Baruchel, A., Bertrand, Y., Lescoeur, B., Leverger, G., Nelken, B., Sommelet, D., Hémon, D. and Clavel, J. (2006). Household exposure to pesticides and risk of childhood acute leukaemia. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2006; 63:131-134; doi:10.1136/oem.2005.023036.

Milham, S. (1996). Occupational mortality in Washington State, 1950-1989. DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 96-133.

Milieu en Gezondheid. (2005). Het Vlaams Humaan Biomonitoringsprogramma wordt uitgevoerd in opdracht van de Vlaamse Overheid door het Steunpunt Milieu en Gezondheid - Resultatenrapport: Pasgeborenen campagne. Vlaams Humaan Biomonitoringprogramma, Milieu & Gezondheid (2002-2006), Monitoring voor actie

Mills, P.K. & Yang, R. (2003). Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45: 249-258.


Mineau, P. (2005). "A Review and Analysis of Study Endpoints Relevant to the Assessment of Long Term Pesticide Toxicity in Avian and Mammalian Wildlife." Ecotoxicology 14(8): 775-799.

Ministère-français-de-l'agriculture (2003). Etat d'avancement des travaux des groupes régionaux "phyto" chargés de la lutte contre la pollution des eaux par les produits phytosanitaires. France, Ministère de l'agriculture, de l'alimentation, de la pêche et des affaires rurales. Ministère de l'écologie et du développement durable.

Miquel, G. and H. Revol (2003). Rapport sur la qualité de l'eau et de l'assainissement en France, Office parlementaire d'évaluation des choix scientifiues et des technologies, Sénat français. Rapport 215.

Moreby, S. J., N. W. Sotherton, et al. (1997). "The effects of pesticides on species of non-target Heteroptera inhabiting cereal fields in southern England." Pesticide Science 51: 39-48.

Moses, M. (2002). Cancer in children and pesticide exposure. Summary of selected studies. Pesticide Education Center. P.O Box 225279, San Francisco CA 94122-5279. [email protected].

Muralidharan, S. (1993). "Aldrin poisoning of Sarus cranes (Grus antigone) and a few granivorous birds in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, India." Ecotoxicology 2(3): 196-202.

Nagao, M. & Sugimura, T. (1993). Carcinogenic factors in food with relevance to colon-cancer development. Mutation Research, 290: 43-51.

Nagy, K.A. (1987). Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds. Ecological Monographs, 57: 111-128.

Nanni, O., Amadori, D., Lugaresi, C., Falcini, F., Scarpi, E., Saragoni, A., Buiatti, E. (1996). Chronic lymphocytic leukaemias and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas by histological type in farming-animal breeding workers: A population case-control study based on a priori exposure matrices. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53: 652-657.

Nasredrinne, L. and Parent-Massin, D. (2002). Food contamination by metals and pesticides in the European Union. Should we worry ? Toxicology letters 127:29-41

National Research Council. (1993). Pesticide in the diet of infant and children. Washington. National Academy Press, 386 p.

Neishabouri, E.Z., Hassan, Z.M., Azizi, E., Ostad, S.N. (2004). Evaluation of immunotoxicity induced by diazinon in C57bl/6 mice. Toxicology. Elsevier Science Ltd,Oxford, UK. 196: 3, 173-179.

Nelson, L.M. (1996). Epidemiology of ALS. Clinical Neuroscience, 3: 327-331.

Nimmo, D. R. and L. C., McEwen (1994). Chapter 8 : Pesticides. Handbook of Ecotoxicology. P. Calow. Cambridge, Blackwell Scientific Publications. 2: 155-203.

NIS, Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek (2000). Landbouwstatistieken. Land- en tuinbouwtelling op 15 mei 1999. Ministerie van Economische Zaken. 194p.

Nixon, S., Z. Trent, et al. (2003). Europe's water : an indicator-based assessment. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency (EEA).

Norris, R. F. and M. Kogan (2005). "Ecology of interactions between weeds and arthropods." Annual Review of Entomology 50: 479-503.


Nowak, B., A. Goodsell, et al. (1995). "Residues of endosulfan in carp as an indicator of exposure conditions." Ecotoxicology 4(6): 363-371.

OECD, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1995). Report of the OECD Workshop on Environmental Hazard/Risk Assessment. OECD, Environmental Health and Safety Publications.

OECD, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1997). Guidance document for the conduct of studies of occupational exposure to pesticides during agricultural application. OECD, Environmental Health and Safety Publications. Series on Testing and Assessment No. 9, Paris, France, 57p.

Ohayo-Mitoko, G.J., Kromhout, H., Simwa, J.M., Boleij, J.S., Heederik, D. (2000). Self reported symptoms and inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity among Kenyan agricultural workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57: 195-200.

Ongley, E. D. (1996). Chapter 4: Pesticides as water pollutants. Control of water pollution from agriculture - FAO irrigation and drainage paper. FAO. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Ott, M.G., Olson, R.A., Cook, R.R, Bond, G.G. (1987). Cohort mortality study of chemical workers with potential exposure to the higher chlorinated dioxins. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 29: 422-429.

PAN UK. (2005). The List of the Lists. Pesticide Action Network UK, Briefing 3, 20 p

Panda, S. and S. K. Sahu (1999). "Effects of malathion on the growth and reproduction of Drawida willsi (Oligochaeta) under laboratory conditions." Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31(3): 363-366.

Parker, A.S., Cerhan, J.R., Putnam, S.D., Cantor, K.P., Lynch, C.F. (1999). A cohort study of farming and risk of prostate cancer in Iowa. Epidemiology, 10: 452-455.

Partanen, T., Kauppinen, T., Degerth, R., Moneta, G., Mearelli, I., Ojajarvi, A., Hernberg, S., Koskinen, H., Pukkala, E. (1994). Pancreatic-cancer in industrial branches and occupations in Finland. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 25: 851-856.

Pastore, L.M., HertzPicciotto, I., Beaumont, J.J. (1997). Risk of stillbirth from occupational and residential exposures. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54: 511-518.

Paul, E. A. and T. J. Sinnott (2000). Information Bulletin - Fish and Wildlife Related Impacts of Pesticides Used for the Control of Mosquitoes and Blackflies. New York, New York State Departement of Environmental Conservation. Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Ressources. Bureau of Habitat.

Pearce, N.E., Smith, A.H., Howard, J.K., Sheppard, R.A., Giles, H.J., Teague, C.A. (1986). Case-control study of multiple myeloma and farming. British Journal of Cancer, 54: 493-500.

Perera, F.P. (1997). Environment and cancer: Who are susceptible? Science, 278: 1068-1073.

Petrelli, G., Siepi, G., Miligi, L., Vineis, P. (1993). Solvents in pesticides. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environment Health, 19: 63-65.

Petrovitch, H., Ross, G.W., Abbott, R.D., Sanderson, W.T., Sharp, D.S., Tanner, C.M., Masaki, K.H., Blanchette, P.L., Popper, J.S., Foley, D., Launer, L., White, L.R. (2002). Plantation work and risk of Parkinson disease in a population-based longitudinal study. Archives of Neurology, 59: 1787-1792.


PHED, Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (1992). Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database. Reference Manual. Versar Inc., Springfield, Virginia.

PHED, Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (1995). Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database – User’s guide version 1.1. Versar Inc., Springfield, Virginia, 91p.

Philogène, B. J. R. (2005). Effets non intentionnels des pesticides organiques de synthèse : impact sur les écosystèmes et la faune. Enjeux phytosanitaires pour l'agriculture et l'environnement. R.-R. C. Paris, Lavoisier: 1013.

Pickle, L.W., Mason, T.J., Howard, N., Hoover, R.N., Fraumeni, J.F. (1987). Atlas of US cancer mortality among Whites: 1950-1980. DHHS. Publ. No. (NIH) 87-2900.

Pilkington, A., Buchanan, D., Jamal, G.A., Gillham, R., Hansen, S., Kidd, M., Hurley, J.F., Soutar, C.A. (2001). An epidemiological study of the relations between exposure to organophosphate pesticides and incides of chronic peripheral neuropathy and neuropsychological abnormalities in sheep farmers and dippers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58: 702-710.

Pimentel, D. (2002). "Silent Spring Revisited - have things changed since 1962?" Pesticide Outlook: 205-206.

Pineda, F. (1998). Evaluation du modèle EUROPOEM d’exposition des utilateurs de produits phytopharmaceutiques dans les conditions agricoles belges. Rapport nE d/1998/2505, Ministry of Public Health and Environment, 70p.

PMEP (Pesticide Management Education Programme) – Cornell University, New York (http:// pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/core-tutorial/module09/index.html)

Popendorf, W. (1992). Reentry field data and conclusions. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 128: 71-117.

Porru, S., Placidi, D., Carta, A., Gelatti, U., Ribero, M.L., Tagger, A., Boffetta, P., Donato, F. (2001). Primary liver cancer and occupation in men: a case-control study in a high-incidence area of northern-Italy. International Journal of Cancer, 94: 878-883.

Preux, P.M., Condet, A., Anglade, C., Druet-Cabanac, M., Debrock, C., Macharia, W., Couratier, P., Boutros-Toni, F., Dumas, M. (2000). Parkinson’s disease and environmental factors. Matched case-control study in the Limousin region, France. Neuroepidemiology, 19: 333-337.

Priyadarshi, A., Khuder, S.A., Schaub, E.A., Priyadarschi, S.S. (2001). Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis. Environmental Research, 86: 122-127.

Prosser, P. and A. D. M. Hart (2005). "Assessing Potential Exposure of Birds to Pesticide-Treated Seeds." Ecotoxicology 14(7): 679-691.

PSD, Pesticides Safety Directorate (1992). UK Predictive Operator Exposure Model (POEM): A users guide. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, York, UK, 38p.

Pullen, A. J., P. C. Jepson, et al. (1992). "Terrestrial non-target invertebrates and the autumn application of synthetic pyrethroids: Experimental methodology and the trade-off between replication and plot size." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (Historical Archive) 23(2): 246-258.

Pussemier, L., Larondelle, Y., Van Peteghem, C., Huyhebaert, A. (2006). Chemical safety of conventionally and organically produced foodstuffs: a tentative comparison under Belgian conditions. Food control 17: 14-21


Pussemier, L., Mohimont, L., Huyghebaert, A., Goyens, L. (2004). Enhanced levels of dioxins in eggs from free range hens ; a fast evaluation approach. Talanta 63: 1273-1276

Rattner, B., K. Eisenreich, et al. (2005). "Retrospective Ecotoxicological Data and Current Information Needs for Terrestrial Vertebrates Residing in Coastal Habitat of the United States." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 49(2): 257-265.

Réal, B., A. Dutertre, et al. (2002). "Drainage, ruissellement : transferts de produits phytosanitaires. Expérimentations sur sept campagnes " Perspectives Agricoles 277: 22-27.

Renwick A.G. (2002). Pesticide residue analysis and its relationship to hazard characterisation (ADI/ARfD) and intake estimations (NEDI/NESTI). Pest Manag Sci 58: 1073-1082

Renwick A.G. and Lazarus N.R. (1998). Human variability and noncancer risk assessment—an analysis of the default uncertainty factor. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 27:3–20

Renwick A.G., Dorne J.-L.C.M. and Walton K. (2001). Pathway-related factors: the potential for human data to improve the scientific basis of risk assessment. Human Ecol Risk Assess 7:165–180

Repetto, R. & Baliga, S.S. (1996). Trends and patterns of pesticides use. In Pesticides and the Immune System: Public Health Risks pp. 3-8. Washington DC: World Resour. Inst.

Restrepo, M., Munoz, N., Day, N.E., Parra, J.E., Deromero, L., Xuan, N.D. (1990). Prevalence of adverse reproductive outcomes in a population occupationally exposed to pesticides in Colombia. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 16: 232-238.

Reuber, M.D. (1980). Carcinogenicity and toxicity of methoxychlor. Environmental Health Perspectives, 36: 205-219.

Reus, J., Leendertse, P., Bockstaller, C., Fomsgaard, I., Gutsche, V., Lewis, K., Nilsson, C., Pussemier, L., Trevisan, M., Van der Werf, H., Alfarroba, F., Blümel, S., Isart, J., McGrath, D., Seppälä, T. (1999). Comparing environmental risk indicators for pesticides. Results of the European CAPER project. CLM, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 184p.

Reynolds, P., Von Behren, J., Gunier, R.B., Goldberg, D.E., Hertz, A., Harnly, M.E. (2002). Childhood cancer and agricultural pesticide use: An ecologic study in California. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110: 319-324.

Ribbens, P.H. (1985). Mortality study of industrial-workers exposed to aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 56: 75-79.

Richard S., Moslemi S., Sipahutar H., Benachour N., Seralini G.-E. (2005). Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase. Environ Health Perspect 113:716–720

Roldán-Tapia, L ., Leyva, A., Laynez, F. and Santed, F.S. (2005). Chronic Neuropsychological Sequelae of Cholinesterase Inhibitors in the Absence of Structural Brain Damage: Two Cases of Acute Poisoning. Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 113, number 6, June 2005.

Romieu, I., Hernandez-Avila, M., Lazcano-Ponce, E., Weber, J.P., Dewailly, E. (2000). Breast cancer, lactation history, and serum organochlorines. American Journal of Epidemiology, 152: 363-370.


Rosano, A., Botto, L.D., Botting, B., Mastroiacovo, P. (2000). Infant mortality and congenital anomalies from 1950 to 1994: an international perspective. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54: 660-666.

Rovedatti, M. G., P. M. Castane, et al. (2001). "Monitoring of organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides in the water of the reconquista river (buenos aires, argentina)." Water Research 35(14): 3457-3461.

Sack, D., Linz, D., Shukla, R., Rice, C., Bhattacharya, A., Suskind, R. (1993). Health status of pesticide applicators: postural stability assessments. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 35: 1196-1202.

Saftlas, A.F., Blair, A., Cantor, H.P., Hanrahan, L., Anderson, H.A. (1987). Cancer and other causes of death among Wisconsin farmers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 11: 119-129.

Saglio, P. and S. Trijasse (1998). "Behavioural Responses to Atrazine and Diuron in Goldfish." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35(3): 484-491.

Salazar-García, F., Gallardo-Díaz, E., Cerón-Mireles, P., Loomis, D., and Borja-Aburto, V.H. (2004). Reproductive Effects of Occupational DDT Exposure among Male Malaria Control Workers. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 112, Number 5, April 2004.

Sanchez-Ramon, J., Hefti, F., Weiner, W.I. (1987). Paraquat and Parkinson disease (letter). Neurology, 37: 728.

Sarma, R. & Jacobs, J. (1982). Thoracic soft tissue sarcoma in Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange. New England Journal of Medicine, 306: 1109.

Sathiakumar, N. & Delzell, E. (1997). A review of epidemiological studies of triazine herbicides and cancer. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 27: 599-612.

Satiakumar, N., Delzell, E., Austin, H., Cole, P. (1992). A follow-up study of agricultural chemical production workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 21: 321-330.

Savage, E.P., Keefe, T.J., Mounce, L.M., Heaton, R.K., Lewis, J.A., Burcar, P.J. (1988). Chronic neurological sequelae of acute organo-phosphate pesticide poisoning. Archives of Environmental Health, 43: 38-45.

Savettieri, G., Salemi, G., Arcara, A., Casata, M., Castiglione, M.G., Fierro, B. (1991). A case-control study of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neuroepidemiology, 10: 242-245.

Scheidleder, A., J. Grath, et al. (1999). Groundwater quality and quantity in Europe. EEA. Copenhagen: 123.

Schiavon, M., C. Perringanier, et al. (1995). "The Pollution of Water by Pesticides - State and Origin." Agronomie 15(3-4): 157-170.

Scorecard : The pollution information site. (2005). Suspected Endocrine Toxicants. Green Media Toolshed. http://www.scorecard.org/health-effects/chemicals-2.tcl?short_hazard_name=endo&all_p=t

Sechi, G.P., Agnetti, V., Piredda, M., Canu, M., Deserra, F., Omar, H.A, Rosati, G. (1992). Acute and persistent parkinsonism after use of diquat. Neurology, 42: 261-263.

Sechser, B. (1988). "Complementary short term and seasonal field tests of several orchard pesticides to measure their impact on the beneficial arthropod fauna." Journal of Pest Science (Historical Archive) 61(4): 67-70.


Seidler, A., Hellenbrand, W., Robra, B.P., Vieregge, P., Nischan, P., Joerg, J., Oertel, W.H., Ulm, G., Schneider, E. (1996). Possible environmental, occupational, and other etiologic factors for Parkinson’s disease: A case-control study in Germany. Neurology, 46: 1275-1284.

Semchuk, K., Love, E.J., Lee, R.G. (1992). Parkinson’s disease and exposure to agricultural work and pesticide chemicals. Neurology, 42: 1328-1335.

Settimi, L., Masina, A., Andrion, A., Axelson, O. (2003). Prostate cancer and exposure to pesticides in agricultural settings. International Journal of Cancer, 104: 458-461.

Sever, L.E. (1995). Looking for causes of neural-tube defects – where does the environment fit in. Environmental Health Perspectives, 103: 165-171 Suppl.

Singh, S. K., P. K. Tripathi, et al. (2004). "Toxicity of Malathion and Carbaryl Pesticides: Effects on Some Biochemical Profiles of the Freshwater Fish Colisa fasciatus." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 72(3): 592-599.

Skinner, J. A., K. A. Lewis, et al. (1997). "An Overview of the Environmental Impact of Agriculture in the U.K." Journal of Environmental Management 50(2): 111-128.

Smith, A.H., Pearce, N.E., Fisher, D.O., Giles, H.J., Teague, C.A., Howard, J.K. (1984). Soft tissue sarcoma and exposure to phenoxyherbicides and chlorophenols in New Zeeland. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73: 1111-1117.

Snodgrass, W.R. (2001). Diagnosis and treatment of poisoning due to pesticides. In: Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Volume I: Principles. (Ed: Krieger, R.) Academic Press, California, 912p.

Soliman, A.S., Smith, M.A., Cooper, S.P., Ismail, K., Khaled, K., Ismail, S., McPherson, R.S., Seifeldin, I.A., Bondy, M.L. (1997). Serum organochlorine pesticide levels in patients with colorectal cancer in Egypt. Archives of Environmental Health, 52: 409-415.

Srivastava, A., Srivastava, M.K., and Raizada, R.B. (2006). Ninety-day toxicity and one-generation reproduction study in rats exposed to allethrin-based liquid mosquito repellent. The journal of Toxicological Sciences, Vol.31, No.1, 1-7.

Stadler, T., D. Martinez Gines, et al. (2003). "Long-term toxicity assessment of imidacloprid to evaluate side effects on honey bees exposed to treated sunflower in Argentina." Bulletin of Insectology, Proceedings 8th International Symposium of the ICP-BR Bee Protection Group HAZARDS OF PESTICIDES TO BEES Bologna (Italy), 2002 LVI (1): 77-81.

Stallones, L. & Beseler, C. (2002). Pesticide poisoning and depressive symptoms among farm residents. Annals of Epidemiology, 12: 389-394.

Stark, J. D. and J. E. Banks (2003). "Population-level effects of pesticides and other toxicants on arthropods." Annual Review of Entomology 48: 505-519.

Steenland, K., Dick, R.B., Howell, R.J., Chrislip, D.W., Hines, C.J., Reid, T.M., Lechman, E., Laber, P., Krieg, E.F., Knott, C. (2000). Neurologic function among termiticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108: 293-300.

Steenland, K., Jenkins, B, Ames, R.G., O’Malley, M., Chrislip, D., Russo, J. (1994). Chronic neurological sequelae to organophosphate pesticide poisoning. American Journal of Public Health, 84: 731-736.

Stemhagen, A., Slade, J., Altman, R. (1983). Occupational risk factors and liver cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology, 117: 443-454.


Sténuit, J., Van Hammée, M.-L. (2003). Aperçu sur l’épidémiologie des pesticides. Pesticide Action Network Belgium, 51 pp.

Stephens, R., Spurgeon, A., Calvert, I.A, Beach, J., Levy, L.S., Berry, H., Harrington, J.M. (1995). Neuropsychological effects of long-term exposure to organophosphates in sheep dip. Lancet, 345: 1135-1139.

Stephenson, B., Czespulkowski, W., Hirst, W., Mufti, G. (1996). Deletion of the acetylcholinesterase locus at 7q22 associated with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Leukemia Research, 20: 235-241.

Sterk, G., S. A. Hassan, et al. (1999). "Results of the seventh joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS-Working Group Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms." BioControl 44(1): 99-117.

Stevenson, H., Opdam, J.J.G., Van Ommen, B., De Raat, W.K., De Kort, W.L.A.M. (1994). Protocol for the estimation of dermal absorption according a tiered approach on behalf of the risk assessment of pesticides. TNO-report V94.129, TNO, The Netherlands.

Stoate, C., N. D. Boatman, et al. (2001). "Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe." Journal of Environmental Management 63(4): 337-365.

Stokes, L., Stark, A., Marshall, E., Narang, A. (1995). Neurotoxicity among pesticide applicators exposed to organophosphates. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52: 648-653.

Strosser, P., M. Pau Vall, et al. (1999). Agriculture, environnement, développement rural: faits et chiffres - les défis de l'agriculture. Eau et agriculture : contribution à l'analyse d'une relation décisive mais difficile, La Commission européenne.

Sturgeon, S.R., Brock, J.W., Potischman, N., Needham, L.L., Rothman, N., Brinton, L.A., Hoover, R.N. (1998). Serum concentrations of organochlorine compounds and endometrial cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 9: 417-424.

Sun, Y. Z., X. T. Wang, et al. (2005). "Persistent Organochlorine Pesticide Residues in Fish from Guanting Reservoir, People Republic of China." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 74(3): 537-544.

Sunderland, K. D. (1992). Effects of Pesticides on the Population Ecology of Polophagous predators. Interpretation of Pesticide Effects on Beneficial Arthropods. R. A. Brown, P. C.

Taha, T.E., Gray, R.H. (1993). Agricultural pesticide exposure and perinatal-mortality in central Sudan. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 71: 317-321.

Tanabe, S. (2002). "Contamination and toxic effects of persistent endocrine disrupters in marine mammals and birds." Marine Pollution Bulletin 45(1-12): 69-77.

Tarrant, K. A., S. A. Field, et al. (1997). "Effects on earthworm populations of reducing pesticide use in arable crop rotations." Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29(3-4): 657-661.

Taylor, C.A., Saint-Hilaire, M.H., Cupples, L.A., Thomas, C.A., Burchard, A.E., Feldman, R.G., Myers, R.H. (1999). Environmental, medical, and family history risk factors for Parkinson’s disease: A new England-based case control study. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 88: 742-749.

Theiling, K. M. and B. A. Croft (1988). "Pesticide side-effects on arthropod natural enemies: A database summary." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 21(3-4): 191-218.

Thiruchelvam, M., Richfield, E.K., Baggs, R.B., Tank, A.W., Cory-Slechta, D.A. (2000). The nigrostriatal dopaminergic system as a preferential target of repeated exposures to


combined paraquat and maneb: implications for Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neuroscience, 20: 9207-9214.

Thomas, T.L. & Waxweiler, R.J. (1986). Brain tumors and occupational risk factors – A review. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 12: 1-15.

Thomas, T.L., Krekel, S., Heid, M. (1985). Proportionate mortality among male corn wet-milling workers. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14: 432-437.

Thompson, H. M. (1996). "Interactions between pesticides; a review of reported effects and their implications for wildlife risk assessment." Ecotoxicology (Historical Archive) 5(2): 59-81.

Tjoe NY, E., De Cock, J., Boleij, J. (1994). Maatregelen ter reductie van blootstelling aan bestrijdingsmiddelen in de fruitteelt. Rapport 1994-471, Vakgroep Humane Epidemiologie en Gezondheidsleer, Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, 49p.

Tomerlin, J.R. (2000). New methodologies for assessment of risk from pesticide residues. BCPC symposium proceedings n°75. Human Exposure to Pesticide Residues, Natural Toxins and GMOs : Real and perceived risks. pp. 15-28

Tomlin, C. (1994). The Pesticide Manual – 10th Edition. The British Crop Protection Council and The Royal Society of Chemistry. ISBN 0-948404-79-5.

Tsuda, T., Inoue, T., Kojima, M., Aoki, S. (1995). Market basket and duplicate portion estimation of dietary intakes of cadmium, mercury, arsenic, copper, manganese and zinc by Japanese adults. J. AOAC Int. 78:1363-1368

US EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Office of Pesticide Programs. Chemicals evaluated for carcinogenicity. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/carlist/

US EPA. (2004). Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential. Health Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 42p.

US EPA. (2005). Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms. http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/aterms.html

van der Poel, P., and Bakker, J. (2001). Emission Scenario Documents for Biocides. Emission scenarios for all 23 product types of the Biocidal Products Directive (EU Directive 98/8/EC). RIVM Report 601450009.

van der Werf, H. M. G. (1996). Assessing the impact of pesticides on the environment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 60: 81-96.

Van Hemmen, J.J & Brouwer, D.H. (1997). Exposure assessment for pesticides: operators and harvesters risk evaluation and risk management. Meded. Fac. Landbouwkundige Toegepaste Biol. Wet. Univ. Gent 62, 113-131.

Van Hemmen, J.J (1992a). Agricultural pesticide exposure data bases for risk assessment. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 128: 1-85.

Van Hemmen, J.J. (1992b). Estimating worker exposure for pesticide registration. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 128: 43-54.

Van Hemmen, J.J. (1993). Predictive exposure modelling for pesticide registration purposes. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 37: 541-564.

Van Hemmen, J.J. (1997). Pesticide worker exposure assessment for registration purposes. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 4: 1-15.


Van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Hanot, V., De Temmerman, L., Hoenig, M. and Goeyens, L. (2005). Chemical contamination in eggs of free-range hens in Belgium. Food contaminants (submitted).

Vandana, S.A., Suke, R.S., Pasha, S.G., Abhijit Bhattacharya Banerjee, B.D. (2005). Lindane-induced immunological alterations in human poisoning cases. Clinical Biochemistry. Elsevier Inc.,San Diego, USA. 38: 7, 678-680.

Vercruysse, F. & Steurbaut, W. (2002). POCER, the pesticide occupational and environmental risk indicator. Crop Protection, 21: 307-315.

Vercruysse, F. (2000). Occupational exposure and risk assessment during and after application of pesticides. Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences, University Ghent, Belgium, 201p.

Vereniging voor Kankerbestrijding (1996). Vlaamse Studiedag ‘Gewasbeschermings-middelen en gezondheid’, Houthalen.

Verschueren, K. (1983). Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals – 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold – New York. ISBN 0-442-28802-6.

Vickerman, G. P. and K. D. Sunderland (1997). "Some Effects of Dimethoate on Arthropods in Winter Wheat." Journal of Applied Ecology 14: 767-777.

Vieira, E.R., Torres, J., Malm, O. (2001). DDT environmental persistence from its use in a vector control program: a case study. Environmental Research Section A 86:174-182

Vineis, P., Faggiano, F., Tedeschi, M., Ciccone, G. (1991). Incidence rates of lymphomas and soft-tissue sarcomas and environmental measurements of phenoxy herbicides. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 83: 362-363.

Vineis, P., Terracini, B., Ciccone, G. (1987). Phenoxy herbicides and soft-tissue sarcoma in female rice weeders – A population-based case-referent study. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 13: 9-17.

Vyas, N. B. (1999). "Factors influencing estimation of pesticide-related wildlife mortality." Toxicology and Industrial Health 15(1-2): 186-191.

Wadsworth, R. A., P. D. Carey, et al. (2003). A Review of research into the Environmental and Socio-Economics Impacts of Contemporary and Alternative Arable Cropping Systems. UK, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology - Natural Environment Research Council: 91.

Wal, J.M., Pascal, G. (2000). In: Aggett P.J., Kuipper H.A. (Eds.), Novel food and novel hazards in the food chain. Risk Assessment in the Food Chain of Children, Nestlé Nutrition Workshop Series, Paediatric Programme, Nestec Ltd, Vevey/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, 44:235-259.

Walker, B., Jr., Stokes, L.D. and Warren, R. Environmental factors associated with asthma. Journal of the National Medical Association 2003; 95:152-166.

Walter, J. Crinnion, W.J. (2000). Environmental Medicine, Part 4: Pesticides - Biologically Persistent and Ubiquitous Toxins. Altern Med Rev 5(5)432-447

Wang, H.H., MacMahon, R.R. (1979). Mortality of pesticide applicators. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 21: 741-744.

Wang, X.Q., Gao, P.Y., Lin, Y.Z., Chen, C.M. (1988). Studies on hexachlorocyclohexane and DDT contents in human cerumen and their relationships to cancer mortality. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 1: 138-151.


Ware, G.W. (1989). The Pesticide Book, Third edition, Thomson Publications, Fresno.

Watkins, M.L., Scanlon, K.S., Mulinare, J., Khoury, M.J. (1996). Is maternal obesity a risk factor for anencephaly and spina bifida? Epidemiology, 8: 507-512.

Weiderpass, E., Adami, H.O., Baron, J.A., Wicklund-Glynn, A., Aune, M., Atuma, S., persson, I. (2000). Organochlorines and endometrial cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 9: 487-493.

Werner, I., J. Geista, et al. (2002). "Effects of dietary exposure to the pyrethroid pesticide esfenvalerate on medaka (Oryzias latipes)." Marine Environmental Research 54: 609-614.

Wesseling, C. Antich, D., Hogstedt, C., Rodriguez, A.C., Ahlbom, A. (1999). Geographical differences of cancer incidence in Costa Rica in relation to environmental and occupational pesticide exposure. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28: 365-374.

WHO (2006). On line information (http://www.who.int/en/).

Whyatt, R.M., Barr, D.B., Camann, D.E., Kinney, P.L., Barr, J.R., Andrews, H.F., Hoepner, L.A., Garfinkel, R., Hazi, Y., Reyes, A., Ramirez, J., Cosme, Y., and Perera, F.P. (2003). Contemporary-Use Pesticides in Personal Air Samples during Pregnancy and Blood Samples at Delivery among Urban Minority Mothers and Newborns. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(5):749-56

Whyatt, R.M., Rauh, V., Barr, D.B., Camann, D.E., Andrews, H.F., Garfinkel, R., Hoepner, L.A., Diaz, D., Dietrich, J., Reyes, A., Tang, D., Kinney, P.L. and Perera, F.P. (2004). Prenatal Insecticide Exposures and Birth Weight and Length among an Urban Minority Cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 112, Number 10, July 2004, Pages 1125-1132.

Wiklund, K. & Holm, L. (1986). Soft tissue sarcoma risk in Swedish agricultural and forestry workers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 76: 229-234.

Williams, CH, Casterline, JL. (1970). Effects of toxicity and on enzyme activity of the interactions between aldrin, chlordane, piperonyl butoxide and banol in rats. Experimental Biology Med 135: 46-50.

Wingren, G., Frederiksonn M., Brage, H.N., Nordenskjold, B., Axelson, O. (1990). Soft tissue sarcoma and occupational exposures. Cancer, 66: 806-811.

Winter, C.K. (2001). Pesticide Residues in the Food Supply. Food Toxicology Ed. William Helferich and Carl K. Winter. CRC press, Boca Raton, Florida. 163-185

Wong, O., Brocker, W., Davis, H.V. (1984). Mortality of workers exposed to organic and inorganic brominated chemicals, DBCP, TRIS, PBB and DDT. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41: 15-24.

Woods, J.S., Polissar, L., Severson, R.K. (1987). Soft-tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in relation to phenoxyherbicides and chlorinate phenol exposure in western Washington. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 78: 899-910.

Yemanerberhan, H., Bekele, Z., Venn, A., Lewis, S., Parry, E. & Britton, J. (1997). Prevalence of wheeze and asthma and relation to atopy in urban and rural Ethiopia. The Lancet, Volume 350, Issue 9071, 12 July 1997, Pages 85-90.

Yeni-Komshian, H. & Holly, E.A. (2000). Childhood brain tumours and exposure to animals and farm life: a review. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 14: 248-256.


Yuan, Y. C., Y. K. Yuan, et al. (2004). "Accumulation of Organochlorine Pesticides in Marine Fishes from Coast of Taoyuan in Taiwan." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 73(2): 306-311.

Zahm, S.H. (1997). Mortality study of pesticide applicators and other employees of a lawn care service company. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 39: 1055-1067.

Zahm, S.H., Blair, A., Holmes, F.F. (1988). A case-referent study of soft-tissue sarcoma and Hodgkin’s disease – farming and insecticide use. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 14: 224-230.

Zahm, S.H., Weisenburger, S.S., Babbit, P.A., Saal, R.C., Vaught, J.B. et al. (1990). A case-control study of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in eastern Nebraska. Epidemiology, 1: 349-356.

Zheng, T., Zahm, S.H., Weisenburger, D.D., Zhang, Y., Blair, A. (2001). Agricultural exposure to carbamate pesticides and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43: 641-649.

Zhong, Y. & Rafnsson, V. (1996). Cancer incidence among Icelandic pesticide users. International Journal of Epidemiology, 25: 1117-1124.


TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE WITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE WITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE WITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USEAND BIOCIDE USEAND BIOCIDE USEAND BIOCIDE USE

1111 AAAANALYSIS OF THE POSSINALYSIS OF THE POSSINALYSIS OF THE POSSINALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIROBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIROBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIROBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES FROMNMENTAL DAMAGES FROMNMENTAL DAMAGES FROMNMENTAL DAMAGES FROM

PESTICIDES IN PESTICIDES IN PESTICIDES IN PESTICIDES IN BBBBELGIUM WITH IDENTIFIELGIUM WITH IDENTIFIELGIUM WITH IDENTIFIELGIUM WITH IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE CATION OF KNOWLEDGE CATION OF KNOWLEDGE CATION OF KNOWLEDGE GAPSGAPSGAPSGAPS

1.1 Review of the current situation about water quality in the local context of Belgium

1.1.11.1.11.1.11.1.1 IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In Belgium, there are some 300 active substances of plant protection products and most of them do not induce residues in water sources for the production of drinking water. However, residues of plant protection products can be detected and water quality monitoring data show that herbicides are the group of ppp most frequently detected in ground- and surface-waters. Availability and persistence of an herbicide in the plant/soil environment for effective weed control also means that the herbicide is potentially available for transport in the water phase away from its intended target area. These residues are a preoccupation for water producers and for industries of plant protection products too because the European legislation is very strict about this. It is preferable to prevent or minimize the water contamination because treatments or blending requirements are complex and expensive (Carter 2000; Belgaqua and Phytofar 2002). A further concern over herbicide residues in water is their potential impact on non-target aquatic organisms. Indeed, watercourses can be polluted by industrial and domestic effluents and by contaminated run-off. Plant protection products can affect the functioning of flora and faun and accumulate in tissues throughout food chain (DGRNE, 2005). 1.1.21.1.21.1.21.1.2 State for State for State for State for ground watersground watersground watersground waters 1.1.2.11.1.2.11.1.2.11.1.2.1 IIIIN N N N WWWWALLOON ALLOON ALLOON ALLOON RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

On the basis of transfer model (absorption in soil and persistence of substances) and quantities sold in Belgium, the research of about sixty actives substances and metabolites is assessed as pertinent for ground waters. In practice, seventy-seven substances are currently measured by drinking water producers since 2001 (Delloye, 2005b). In Walloon Region, the current monitoring is constituted by tests passed on drinking water producers since 90’s and the first data of patrimonial network of monitoring since 2003; these data are included in CALYPSO database (Delloye, 2005a). A global view of these average results in each water catchments shows that herbicides of agricultural use and non-agricultural use (domestics uses, garden, municipalities, railway…) are responsible for most of the problems in ground waters and these active substances have globally a significant impacts (Delloye, 2005b):

- Atrazine and its principal metabolite (desethylatrazine) are most often found in groundwaters (more 50 % of contaminations observed);

- Several contaminations are caused by the use of bentazone, diuron, bromacile, simazine;

- Some cases caused by chloridazon, isoproturon and chlortoluron are signaled.


For what concerns agricultural uses, the atrazine was essentially used in maize; the bentazone is used in maize, cereals, peas and beans, the chloridazon is used in beets culture, isoproturon and chlortoluron are used in cereal. Diuron, bromacile, simazine are principally used for non-agricultural uses. Atrazine, simazine and bromacile have not been included in annexe I of directive 91/414/CEE. But the removal of atrazine poses new questions about substitute molecules. For most cases of contaminations by atrazine, it is hardly possible to prove the agricultural or non-agricultural origin. However, the non-agricultural origin of the next 2 most frequent contaminants simazine and diuron is hardly refutable and is a strong argument in favour of he non-agricultural origin of atrazine in ground waters also (Debongnie et al., 2003). The most affected groundwaters are located in « les Sables Bruxelliens », « les Graviers de Meuse », « les Calcaires du Synclinorium de Dinant » and « les Craies de Hesbaye ». Indeed, some ground waters benefit from natural protection more efficiency by filter function of soil (Guillaume, 2005). According to TBE 2004 and on the whole, plant protection products alter 3 water masses on 33 and they are declared as a risk by this. Figure 2-1 shows herbicides with higher concentrations in ground waters in Walloon region from 1996 to 2003. Figure 2-2 shows the situation of ppp with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) corresponds to exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----1: 1: 1: 1: Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996----2003) 2003) 2003) 2003) (DGRNE, 2005)(DGRNE, 2005)(DGRNE, 2005)(DGRNE, 2005)


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----2: 2: 2: 2: Situation of ppp with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) Situation of ppp with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) Situation of ppp with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) Situation of ppp with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) corresponds to corresponds to corresponds to corresponds to exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005)exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005)exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005)exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005) The atrazine and its principal metabolite, desethylatrazine, are both molecules with most items. The atrazine was used like total herbicide at high doses on roads, paths, parkings, etc until 1991 and used like selective herbicide (principally in maize) until 2004. This active substance is forbidden for an alone use since February 2002 and totally forbidden since September 2004 by the decision 2004/247//EC (and stock use until September 2005). World Health Organisation (WHO) evaluates its toxicity level at 2 µg/l. This active substance can to degraded in two relevant metabolites: the desethylatrazine and the deisopropylatrazine. The first metabolite would have a longer lifespan than atrazine, already particularly persistent. Some groundwaters are contaminated by atrazine and its metabolites for long term because the transfer time is very long. However, protection areas around water catchments are installed, it’s a measure complying with water framework directive (Delloye, 2005a). In the last assessment period (2001-2004), atrazine detected for 26 % of together drinking water points and first sites of representative network of the Walloon Region (this network is building and it completes data supply by drinking waters producers in order to have a fully representative sampling of water masses). There is an exceeding of potable norm of 3,6 %. The desethylatrazine detected for 29 % and an exceeding of potable norm of 5,1 %. In comparison with previous assessment period, concentrations of atrazine and desethylatrazine decrease very slowly but significantly. The decreasing of atrazine and desethylatrazine concentrations only begins and the end of this item will be in several years for some groundwaters with long answer times. This decreasing is probably linked with the use restrictions of this active substance (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005).

Pesticides avec impact sur les eaux souterraines - Situation après janvier 2001 (données partielles :les étiquettes reprennent le nombre de sites contrôlés; 3 à 4 analyses par site)

323

375

233

326

340

477

483

340

443

426

323

337

64

77

29

16

7

15

13

4

4

2

43

37

22

9

3

8

10

3

1

23

18

15

2

1

1

1

3

10

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Déset.atrazine

Atrazine

dichlorobenzamide

Bentazone

Bromacile

Diuron

Simazine

Déprop.atrazine

Isoproturon

Chlortoluron

Pentachlorophenol

Lénacile

Sub

stan

ce o

u m

étab

olite

Classe_0 (teneur moyenne < 25 ng/l) Classe_1 (25 < teneur < 50) Classe_2 (50 < teneur < 100) Classe_3 (teneur > 100 )


However, the evolution of groundwaters contamination by the bentazone and total herbicides for non-agricultural uses (bromacile, diuron, simazine…) are very worrying. This situation is principally explained by a use increase of bentazone and by a professionalism lack of herbicide occasional users (unsuitable doses, unsuitable spray…) (DGRNE 2005). In 2005, detection rates are for the bromacile of 5,5 % and for diuron of 5,2 % (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). The monitoring of most catchments shows the appearance of other molecules like, the 2,6-dichlorobenzamide or BAM. The BAM is a metabolite of dichlobenil that is used as selective herbicide in nurseries and in fruit crops and as total herbicide (with higher doses) for non-agricultural uses, particularly to weed graveyard paths. The dichlobenil is measured since 15 years but rarely detected because it quickly transforms into BAM (DGRNE 2005). The analysis method was elaborated in 2003 and since this year, the BAM is tested in groundwaters and these values for data even if partial are alarming (detection rate of 22 % and exceeding of potable norm of 5,0 %) (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). Restriction of use has been imposed by European Commission: the simazine was forbidden by decision 2004/247/EC since February 2004 (and stock use until September 2005) but Belgium has obtained a derogation and can use this active substance for essential uses until December 2007 (commercialisation until January 2007) because there isn’t alternative solution yet (Phytoweb, 2005). On advice of the Comity for agreation of ppp intended to agricultural use, agreements of some products based on bentazone have been taken away since 2004 (like in potatoes crop) to limit the bentazone use and to prevent the groundwaters contamination (Phytoweb 2005). On advice of Comity for agreation of ppp intended to agricultural use, agreements of products based on diuron have been forbidden since 2002 (and stock use until April 2004), except products with diuron mixed with other active substances and which have a effective control with maximum 1,5 kg/ha*year. This decision has been taken because the diuron is frequently found at a concentration higher than legal norm in groundwaters and surface waters (Phytoweb 2005). With local impacts, active substances for agricultural use must also be noted (isoproturon for cereals and chlortoluron for beet). For both, there is a decreasing of impacts since 2001 (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). In general and conversely to the rapid reaction in surface waters, the time between an event occurring at surface level and the pollution of groundwaters can take from 10 to 15 years, considering the transfer time of water in ground (Guillaume, 2005). Figure 2-3 shows the evolution of groundwaters quality for several herbicides in the Walloon Region between 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. Figure 2-4 shows the evolution of ppp presence rate in groundwaters in the Walloon Region before and after 2001. This year is pivot maximal possible to have a balance of sites on which data are available before and after a year (Delloye, 2005).


Figure2Figure2Figure2Figure2---- 3: 3: 3: 3: Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Walloon Region (between 1996Walloon Region (between 1996Walloon Region (between 1996Walloon Region (between 1996----1999 and 20001999 and 20001999 and 20001999 and 2000----2003) (DGRNE, 2005)2003) (DGRNE, 2005)2003) (DGRNE, 2005)2003) (DGRNE, 2005)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----4: 4: 4: 4: Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after 2001 (Delloye, 2005)2001 (Delloye, 2005)2001 (Delloye, 2005)2001 (Delloye, 2005)

According to « Observatoire des eaux souterraines (Division Eau – DGRNE) » and according to monitoring of drinking water producers, it’s difficult to draw trends in the time but it however would seem that pollution levels peaks have decreased since 1999 for the two most important families (triazines and substituted ureas). They think this improvement results from better practices in agricultural, particularly for ground waters influenced by surface waters (Delloye, 2005b). However, most polluted catchments are not used

Evolution du taux de présence des pesticides dans les nappes en W allonie (300 à 500 sites contrôlés)

0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80

Déset.atrazine

Atrazine

dichlorobenzamide

Bentazone

Bromacile

Diuron

Simazine

Déprop.atrazine

Isoproturon

Chlortoluron

Pentachlorophenol

Lénacile

Sub

stan

ce o

u m

étab

olite

indice

avant janvier 2001 Après janvier 2001


anymore and then it has a positive influence about statistics and it seems better (DGRNE, 2005). Since 2001, a global improvement of the quality of ground water is observed when considering ppp for agricultural use. However, more localized impacts of several total herbicides for non-agricultural use are still worrying. 1.1.2.21.1.2.21.1.2.21.1.2.2 IIIIN N N N FFFFLEMISH LEMISH LEMISH LEMISH RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

In Flanders, the qualitative and quantitative ground water status is monitored through a series of measurement networks. There are specific networks, for drinking water extractions, nature reserves, agricultural areas, landfill sites and potentially polluting industries. To have a picture of groundwater quality, a selection of wells of groundwater network of AMINAL has been sampled during Spring 2005 and the MIRA report shows results. 11 plant protection products or their metabolite are tested. These products are most of the time used according to sales figures, it is the case for of atrazine and its metabolite desethylatrazine, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, simazine, diuron, bentazon, linuron, isoproturon, chlortoluron and metolachlor. Norms of 0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone and 0,5 µg/l for total ppp have been used. In this sampling, there are 279 wells. For the majority, one sampling has been realised but for 20 % of the wells, two samplings have been realized at two different depths to try to draw up a vertical repartition of ppp. Results of this study are reported in table 2-1 (Claeys et al., 2005). The table shows if a ppp or a metabolite is detected in groundwater, if the norm of 0,1 µg/l is exceed and the repartition between 2 sampling of a same well but at different level. In this study, the atrazine and the desethylatrazine exceed the norm of 0,1 µg/l in, respectively, 6,6 % and 9,1 % of the cases. The metabolite of glyphosate, AMPA, exceeds the norm in 2,1 % of the cases. When the vertical repartition is analysed, most ppp or metabolite have been found in higher level of sampling; except AMPA. In 4,8 % of cases, the norm of 0,5 µg/l is exceed for the sum of ppp. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----1: 1: 1: 1: 11 plant protection products and some metabo11 plant protection products and some metabo11 plant protection products and some metabo11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish lites are been tested for the Flemish lites are been tested for the Flemish lites are been tested for the Flemish Region to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (ClaeysRegion to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (ClaeysRegion to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (ClaeysRegion to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2005)2005)2005)2005)


Results can be analyzed by wells in order to obtain a picture of among contaminated sites (table 2-2). It turns out that for 5,7 % of sampling sites, the norm of 0,5 µg/l for total ppp and relevant metabolite is exceeded and that 10,8 % of sampling sites exceed the norm of 0,1 µg/l for a ppp. Then, 16,5 % of sites do not match with norms (Claeys et al., 2005). On the basis of these data, a horizontal repartition has been drawn up (Annexe 2.1). This map shows that--- there is no issue for big areas (along polders, the North of Oriental and Occidental Flanders, the North of « Campine » and along « Meuse »). But in others area, ppp are always detected. Most of the sites that are exceeding norms are located in the South of Occidental Flanders in the silt nearby the « Dendre » and surrounding areas. The plentiful presence of silt can be a possible cause (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----2: 2: 2: 2: 11 p11 p11 p11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish lant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish lant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish lant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., 2005), 2005), 2005), 2005) Number of

samples > 0 µg/l; ≤0.5 µg/l incl. < 0.1 µg/l

> 0 µg/l; ≤0.5 µg/l With at least 1 exceeding, incl. > 0.1 µg/l

> 0.5 µg/l Exceeding total standard (≥ 0.1 µg/l or sum ≥ 0.5 µg/l)

Sum 279 60 30 16 46 Percentage (%)

21.5 10.8 5.7 16.5

With regard to ground waters intended to drinking water, the quality of them is controlled by water production companies. Studies from 1991 to 2002 have been made in the Flemish Region and the ranking according to 4 main geological eras (primary limestone, secondary chalk, tertiary sand and quaternary alluvium) are done for 5 herbicides (chosen according to importance of their use). Results show (Annexe 2.2) that simazine, diuron and isoproturon are not or almost not found at above concentrations 0,05 µg/l in these waters in Flanders. However, atrazine and its metabolite, desethylatrazine, are found at higher concentrations than 0,05 µg/l and even than 0,1 µg/l except in primary era but this layer contribute just for a little part of groundwater in Flanders and only a little number of data are available. In other layers, the situation seems to improve for both substances (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.1.31.1.31.1.31.1.3 State for surface watersState for surface watersState for surface watersState for surface waters 1.1.3.11.1.3.11.1.3.11.1.3.1 SSSSURFACE WATERS INTENDURFACE WATERS INTENDURFACE WATERS INTENDURFACE WATERS INTENDED TO DRINKING WATERED TO DRINKING WATERED TO DRINKING WATERED TO DRINKING WATER

Water production companies test surface waters intended to drinking waters and the results are summarized in the report of Belgaqua and Phytofar of 2002 for the Belgian situation. Measures sites were located in catchment area of Meuse, Escaut and Yser 4 active substances and 1 metabolite (atrazine, desethylatrazine, simazine, diuron and isoproturon) are analyzed. These substances are selected because they are regularly detected in surface waters. But other active substances are also punctually detected. Results are shown quarterly because analyses are made more often during Spring and Summer (generally periods in which ppp concentrations are higher) than others period for economic reasons (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). In the catchment area of « Meuse », in general, a gradual improvement has been observed between 1993 and 2001. In surface waters, climatic conditions can act upon observations of a particular year. For atrazine, the evolution of its concentration shows a seasonal


profile according to spring application. A chart of application date for different ppp is shown in annex 2.3. Measured concentrations in 2001 are reduced about by half since 1993. This decreasing are more obvious in « Haute Meuse » and the norm of 0,1 µg/l is only occasionally exceeded. Concentrations of simazine are lower that atrazine. There is less seasonal variation because its appearance is not a direct result of run-off and a part comes from groundwaters, observed values are rather stable and in general less than 0,2 µg/l. The temporal profile of diuron is almost similar of the ones of atrazine and simazine but the variability is clearly more important. There are very high peaks at fixed moment and concentrations increase also from upstream to downstream. In general, the diuron is the ppp most often present in water of « Meuse ». Concentrations of isoproturon are variable during the year but they generally stay less than 0,3 µg/l (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). In the catchment area of « Yser », few samplings have been realised but it seems to draw up a reduction trend of some active substances, more particularly, atrazine, simazine and diuron. However, in general, concentrations of these are higher than in water of « Meuse ». Annual maximum of atrazine and diuron was near or above 5 µg/l, there are also great peak for isoproturon. The combination of low flow and the important use in this catchment area are the principal reasons of high levels and high variability. But direct dumping of ppp in surface waters can also cause these high concentration peaks. In autumn and winter, concentrations are lower but generally above potability norm. Other ppp are also detected in « Yser » and sometimes at high levels (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). In catchment area of « Escaut », concentrations of atrazine, diuron and isoproturon is stable at quite high level with peaks above 0,1 µg/l almost each year until 2000. In 2001, a reduction is observed for all active substances, except isoproturon. Others ppp are detected in surface waters. Although their presence are less regular in a year and geographically more localized, it can pose a problem at water producers. Between 1999 and 2001, products shown in table 2-3 have been detected for surface waters intended to drinking water at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 µg/l (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance has been detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----3: 3: 3: 3: Products detectedProducts detectedProducts detectedProducts detected, between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 , between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 , between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 , between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance has been detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)has been detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)has been detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)has been detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)

0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l >=>=>=>= 0,5 µg/l 0,5 µg/l 0,5 µg/l 0,5 µg/l Carbendazim (2001) Chloridazon (2001) Chloropropham (2001) Linuron (2001) Chlorotoluron (2001) Metamitron Cyanazine (2001) Metazachlore (2001) Desisopropylatrazine (2001) Metobromuron (2001) Ethofumesate (2001) Metolachlore Metabenzthiazuron (2001) Metoxuron Terbutryn (2001) Monolinuron (2001) Terbutylazine (2001)

Analyses realized on sampling taken in « Escaut » and some effluents between 2000 and 2002 show that no watercourses are totally free from contaminations. Some active substances are found in more important concentrations in water and often during application periods (Spring and Summer for the majority). Ppp most frequently detected in


sampling are atrazine, diuron, glyphosate and isoproturon. Beyond frequent detection, result of analyses on these sampling for year 2002 show that limiting ppp for a good aptitude of water to biology are essentially atrazine, simazine, lindane, endosulfan, diuron, isoproturon, chlorothalonil, metolachlore, parathion-ethyl and prosulfocarbe (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). 1.1.3.21.1.3.21.1.3.21.1.3.2 IIIIN THE N THE N THE N THE WWWWALLOON ALLOON ALLOON ALLOON RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

In the Walloon Region, plant protection products are controlled by stations located downstream the most sensible sub-catchment area (Escaut, Dendre, Senne, Dyle-Gette and Meuse aval) (DGRNE, 2005). Figure 2-5 shows plant protections products with higher concentrations in surface waters in the Walloon Region from 1998 to 2004.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----5: 5: 5: 5: Plant protection products with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon Plant protection products with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon Plant protection products with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon Plant protection products with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon Region (1998Region (1998Region (1998Region (1998----2004) (D2004) (D2004) (D2004) (DGRNE, 2005)GRNE, 2005)GRNE, 2005)GRNE, 2005)

According to « Tableau de bord de l’environnement wallon 2005 », there are more and more plant protection products for non-agricultural uses in watercourses. The diuron (total herbicide principally for non-agricultural uses) and the atrazine are both molecules with the most items in watercourses. Both molecules are in decreasing in the most measurement stations, probably because of use restrictions (see above in state of groundwater). However, the « Division Eau » of the « DGRNE » observes more and more frequently the presence of glyphosate (total herbicide, the most frequently used by private) in high concentration in watercourses. The quality of the Walloon watercourses is improving for others ppp like simazine, lindane (forbidden by European decision 2000/801/EC) or isoproturon. There are two measures networks, principally realised by « Institut Scientifique de Service Public » (ISSeP): the first network monitors physicochemical parameters in surface waters since 1994 (since 2004, 21 ppp on 31 sampled sites are allowed); the second network is very specific to « hazardous substances » on 7 official sampling sites (there are some


sampling unsystematic on 21 others stations). Since 2004, the new list enumerates 14 hazardous substances (ppp) considered as relevant by the Walloon Administration and for these substances, quality objectives have been set for surface waters (non intendended to drinking water) (except for glyphosate, bromacile and dichlobenil). This list is presented in table 2-4. General characteristics and uses are summarized in annexe 2.4. Some of these substances are included in annexe X of directive 2000/60/CE like hazardous substance at European level (Rung et al., 2005). In the context of the Directive 2000/60/CE, each Member State of the European Union has to make a list of the catchment areas that are on their territory and its attach to hydrographic districts. Wallonia does not have its own hydrographic district. The Walloon catchment areas are attached to four international hydrographic districts: the « Meuse », the « Escaut », the « Rhin » and the « Seine » (Rung et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----4: 4: 4: 4: "Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon region for 14 relevant substances. NF "Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon region for 14 relevant substances. NF "Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon region for 14 relevant substances. NF "Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon region for 14 relevant substances. NF means that “quality objectives” have not still means that “quality objectives” have not still means that “quality objectives” have not still means that “quality objectives” have not still been set by this ministry (Rungbeen set by this ministry (Rungbeen set by this ministry (Rungbeen set by this ministry (Rung et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

From 1998 to 2004, samplings for the monitoring were only taken between April and August and this could bias results. Then, since 2005, monitoring is realized on the whole year. Results from both measurement networks have been analysed in an intermediate report of Rung (2005). In the whole, with regard to the hydrographic district of the « Escaut », ppp most frequently detected in samples are atrazine, diuron, isoproturon and glyphosate. For the « Meuse » atrazine, diuron and isoproturon are also found but also ion bromure, simazine and chlortoluron. For the hydrographic district of the « Rhin », it is rather lindane, atrazine and simazine. Currently no sampling station is located in the hydrographic district of the « Seine » (Rung et al., 2005). Since 2001, for atrazine, all the results of analyses show a reduction of the average concentrations lower than 0,1 µg/l for the majority of the intake points. In 2002, the threshold of 2 µg/l is respected on all of the points. These trends are currently confirmed by the results of analyses for the year 2004. The average concentration highest recorded is of 0,640 µg/l (Rung et al., 2005).


For the diuron, on all the studied catchment areas, no exceeding of the quality objective was recorded (Rung et al., 2005). For the isoproturon, there is a slight proportion exceeding the quality objective (Rung et al., 2005). For the glyphosate, results of 2003 and 2004 seem to show an increasing trend but it needs to be confirmed by following results. However, the analysis of its metabolite, AMPA, will maybe be interesting (Rung et al., 2005). The great majority of the organochlorine compounds are not any more to market. However, the lindane (insecticide not approved any more in Belgium since 2001) relatively stays present in surface waters but since 2000, there is a failing trend (Rung et al., 2005). 1.1.3.31.1.3.31.1.3.31.1.3.3 IIIIN THE N THE N THE N THE FFFFLEMISH LEMISH LEMISH LEMISH RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

Since 1996, the VMM (Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij) has sampled the surface water in about one hundred sites in Flanders and since 2003, they have analysed one hundred of plant protection products and of metabolites. Results of measurements in 2004 show that, like for the other years, a great number of ppp are not detected or only sporadically. On the other hand, a little number of ppp are frequently found in surface waters. MCPA, atrazine, isoproturon, linuron, carbendazim, chloridazon, simazine and bentazone are detected in 30 to 50 % of samples. Diuron, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA are detected in more than 50 % of measurements. But the lindane, which is forbidden since 2001, is still detected and the linuron is more frequently detected in 2004 (40 %) than in 2003 (5 %) (Claeys et al., 2005). In 2004, a large variety of ppp per sampling sites was particularly found in the «Haspengouw» fruit region and in the «Yser » basin (Map 2-1).

Map 2Map 2Map 2Map 2----1: 1: 1: 1: Number of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004 (VMM In ClaeysNumber of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004 (VMM In ClaeysNumber of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004 (VMM In ClaeysNumber of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004 (VMM In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005) The analysis of results from 1999 to 2003 shows that for endosulfan, methidathion, parathion, isoproturon, metalochlore, monolinuron and terbutryn, the percentage of detection of these substances is stayed constant.


For atrazine, simazine and diuron, there is a decreasing trend but percentages of detections are still high. Diuron was detected in 2003 in 84 % of sampling sites. For 2,4-D, bentazon, chloridazon and linuron, an increasing trend of percentage of detection is revealed. With regard to ppp or metabolite concentrations found in surface waters, table 2-5 shows an evolution of concentrations for several substances from 1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average realised on a period of 3 years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors. For ppp that are subject to restrictive measures for their use, results show that the average concentration of these substances like atrazine and diuron decreases in watercourses. On the other hand, for 2,4-D, linuron, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA annual average concentrations increase on the concerned period. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----5: 5: 5: 5: Evolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their metabolite from Evolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their metabolite from Evolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their metabolite from Evolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their metabolite from 1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average r1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average r1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average r1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average realised on a period of 3 ealised on a period of 3 ealised on a period of 3 ealised on a period of 3 years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors (VMM In Claeys(VMM In Claeys(VMM In Claeys(VMM In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2005)2005)2005)2005)


A general evaluation is not possible because no particular standards exist for all substances (MIRA 2003). Concentrations of these products found in surface waters can be compared with existing base quality norms or European norms or others reference values. The median on 1 year of an organochlorine must be lower or equal to 0,1 µg/l and the total of organochlorine must be lower or equal to 0,2 µg/l, these are base quality norms for organochlorine. With regard to organochlorine, lindan (3 sites) and α- and β-endosulfan (respectively 13 and 11 sites) are the cause of exceeding the quality norm. For some ppp, there are threshold values in Flanders (table 2-6). But for lots of substances like diuron, glyphosate, carbendazim, bentazon, mecoprop, isoproturon, MCPA, the metabolite endosulfan sulphate, dichlorprop (2,4-DP), chlortoluron, 2,4-D and chloridazon, there are still not available quality norms. Then, for these products, the comparison with relevant references is interesting like PNEC (“Predicted No-Effect Concentration”) that gives a concentration of safety at long term or MAC (“Maximum Admissable Concentration”) that is based on acute toxicology, a value that could normally never been exceeded. These references are based on ecotoxicology data of December 2003 and they are given in table 2-7. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----6: 6: 6: 6: Base quality Base quality Base quality Base quality norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders (VLAREM II in Claeys(VLAREM II in Claeys(VLAREM II in Claeys(VLAREM II in Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----7: 7: 7: 7: PNEC and MAC values for several plant protection products and their metabolites based PNEC and MAC values for several plant protection products and their metabolites based PNEC and MAC values for several plant protection products and their metabolites based PNEC and MAC values for several plant protection products and their metabolites based on ecotoxicological data of December on ecotoxicological data of December on ecotoxicological data of December on ecotoxicological data of December 2003 (VMM In Claeys2003 (VMM In Claeys2003 (VMM In Claeys2003 (VMM In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Results of analyses of several plant protection products or their metabolites were compared with PNEC and MAC values of table 2-7 for 2003 and 2004 and exceeding percentage are shown in Table 1-8. For MAC values, almost all concerned substances exceed these values in some sites in 2004. In function of the substances, the percentage of sites exceeding these values varies from 1 % to 32 %. In other words, it means that an acute effect is possible in watercourses by these substances. For PNEC values, the percentage that exceeds these values is often low except for dimethoate, diuron, α- and β endosulfan, endosulfan sulfate and glyphosate. The linuron exceeded the PNEC value in 2004 whereas in 2003, there are not any exceeding and the percentage exceeding the MAC value doubled in comparison with 2003. For the dimethoate, an increasing trend of the values is also clearly determined. On the other hand, percentages of isoproturon and lindane are lower in 2004 than in 2003. Table 2-8 shows that the use of diuron in Flanders is a problem to reach the good quality state of water like definite in the water framework directive. Indeed, the diuron is in excess in almost half of sampling sites during too long period. On the other hand, the glyphosate is in excess in a quarter of sampling sites.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----8: 8: 8: 8: Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and MAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM in ClaeysMAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM in ClaeysMAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM in ClaeysMAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM in Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

1.1.3.41.1.3.41.1.3.41.1.3.4 SSSSOURCES OF CONOURCES OF CONOURCES OF CONOURCES OF CONTAMINATIONTAMINATIONTAMINATIONTAMINATION

The “SEPTWA (System for the Evaluation of Pesticides Transport to Surface Waters)” model developed by « Centre d’Etude et de Recherche Vétérinaires et Agrochimiques de Tervuren (CERVA) » allows to assess emissions of plant protection products to surface and groundwaters. Simulations for priority substances of water framework directive have been realised. These simulations also show that some active substances found in great quantities in surface water (like diuron) come from applications realised by the non-agricultural sector (Table 9) (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). Users of ppp, and more particularly herbicides, are multiple and it is often difficult to identify responsible person. However, the pilot project for catchment basin of Nil (Walhain-St-Paul) developed by the CERVA from 1998 to 2001 showed that 50 % to 75 % (according to molecule) of quantity of plant protection products found in surface water directly come from direct losses by manipulations of products on impermeable surfaces. Indeed, these surfaces favour run-off ways of product to watercourses by sewerage system or by ditch. A reduction of ppp quantity found in the Nil from 60 % to 80 %, according to the active substances, was obtained after 2 years of consultation with farmers. Like all users of herbicides, municipalities contribute also to surface and ground waters contamination and the percentage of applied quantity found in the Nil is more important for non-agricultural use products than agricultural use products because they are principally applied on impermeable surfaces (table 2-9: example for diuron) (Pussemier et al., 2001); (SPGE).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----9: 9: 9: 9: Percentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and nonPercentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and nonPercentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and nonPercentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and non----agricultural agricultural agricultural agricultural uses (SPGE)uses (SPGE)uses (SPGE)uses (SPGE)

DiuronDiuronDiuronDiuron Quantities found in thQuantities found in thQuantities found in thQuantities found in the Nil e Nil e Nil e Nil (march to june 1999)(march to june 1999)(march to june 1999)(march to june 1999)

Total applied Total applied Total applied Total applied amountsamountsamountsamounts

Percentage of total applied Percentage of total applied Percentage of total applied Percentage of total applied amounts found in the Nilamounts found in the Nilamounts found in the Nilamounts found in the Nil

Agricultural use

8,8 kg 1077 kg 0,8 %

Non-agricultural

use 10,3 Kg 53,4 kg 19,3 %

These results show that contaminations routes of waters in Belgium differ from other countries. Indeed, contaminations come mainly from non-agricultural use and direct losses in agricultural use (Pussemier, personal commentary, 2006). A way to limit pollution risks is to promote actions that lead to a more reasoned application of herbicides on private and public spaces (DGRNE, 2005). 1.1.41.1.41.1.41.1.4 LegislationLegislationLegislationLegislation The European Directive 98/83/EC about drinking water stipulates the limit of quantity of active substance at 0,1 µg/l for one pesticide and at 0,5 µg/l for total pesticides in the drinking water. This directive also imposes this value at relevant metabolites, products of reaction and products of degradation. These values reflect the principle of precaution and they aren’t necessary in relation with limits of risk for human health. For four insecticides (aldrine, dieldine, heptachlore and heptachlore epoxyde) the parametric value is 0,03 µg/l. Another European Directive, the directive 2000/60/EC, establishes a framework for community action in the field of water policy. This water framework directive provides an integrated framework for assessment, monitoring and management of all surface waters and groundwater based on their ecological and chemical status. Several European directives about water quality or water pollution are going to be repealed by the water framework directive. It will be the case for 75/440/CEE concerning the quality required of surface water intended for drinking water in the Member States; 76/464/CEE on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community; 80/68/CEE on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances. For the moment, there are no norms for ground waters but they are in preparation and should be the same as the portability norms (Delloye, 2005c) (see also task 1). 1.1.51.1.51.1.51.1.5 ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion Water analyses realized in Belgium have shown that mainly herbicides are found in waters. Table 2-10 gives a summary of the current situation of the main ppp found in waters in Belgium.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----10: 10: 10: 10: Summary of the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in BelgiumSummary of the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in BelgiumSummary of the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in BelgiumSummary of the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in Belgium

Active substancesActive substancesActive substancesActive substances TypesTypesTypesTypes UsesUsesUsesUses Current Current Current Current situationssituationssituationssituations

MeasuresMeasuresMeasuresMeasures

Atrazine + desethylatrazine

Herbicide

Maize

� Banned since 2004

Bentazone Herbicide Non-agric. + maize, cereals, peas and beans

� ! Use restrictions (forbidden in potatoes since 2005)

Diuron Herbicide Non-agric. � ! Bromacile Herbicide Non-agric. ! Banned since 2002 Simazine Herbicide Non-agric. � Banned since 2004

(essential uses permitted until 2007)

Chloridazon Herbicide Beet � Isoproturon Herbicide Cereals (�) - Chlortoluron Herbicide Cereals � Dichlobenil + BAM Herbicide Non-agric. ! Use restrictions since

2006 Glyphosate + AMPA

Herbicide Mainly non-agric. + agric.

� !

Lindane Insecticide Beet + maize � Banned since 2000 Linuron Herbicide Potatoes � 2,4 D Herbicide Non-agric. +

grasslands + cereals

�

It seems that concentrations of atrazine and of its metabolite, desethylatrazine decrease in groundwaters but the decreasing is low because of times of reactions are long. It is probably linked with the use restrictions of this active substance. However, the concentration of substitute products can increase in reply to these restrictions (DGRNE 2005). Another issue is the non-agricultural use of plant protection products; the concentration of these herbicides is worrying. Two other products are worrying: in Wallonia, dichlorobenzamide or BAM is measured since 2003 and first data are alarming and in Flanders, the metabolite of glyphosate, AMPA, exceeds the portability norm of a pertinent metabolite in several cases. For surface waters intended to drinking water, water producers have observed in general a gradual improvement. But in catchment area of “Yser”, there are high concentration of atrazine and diuron and high peaks for isoproturon. For all surface waters in Wallonia, diuron and atrazine cause most of the issues but both molecules are in decreasing in most measurement stations. However, glyphosate is more and more found in high concentrations watercourses. In Flanders, diuron, glyphosate and AMPA are detected in more than 50 % of measurements and concentrations of atrazine and diuron decrease but concentrations of 2,4-D, linuron, glyphosate and AMPA increase. However, concentrations measured must be compared with norm or quality objectives or others referential values in order to determine impact on aquatic organisms.


1.2 Review of the current situation about other environmental contaminations in the local context of Belgium

Recent studies, performed in the Flemish region, about the effects of ppp on all compartments of the environment are summarized in the report “Verspreiding van bestrijjdingmiddelen” of the “Vlaamse milieumaatschapij”. The risk index evaluation for all compartments had also be done through the POCER-indicator for the period going from 1992 to 2004 (figure 2-6) (Claeys et al., 2005). This gives an estimation of the risk for a compartment per hectare of treated surface with the considered active substance. It is thus important to note that the use's frequency of the active substance is not taken into account.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----6: 6: 6: 6: Risk for the 12 compartments of POCERRisk for the 12 compartments of POCERRisk for the 12 compartments of POCERRisk for the 12 compartments of POCER----indicator (Flanders 1992indicator (Flanders 1992indicator (Flanders 1992indicator (Flanders 1992----2004) (Claeys 2004) (Claeys 2004) (Claeys 2004) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005) 1.2.11.2.11.2.11.2.1 Invertebrates and fishes in North Sea and SchelInvertebrates and fishes in North Sea and SchelInvertebrates and fishes in North Sea and SchelInvertebrates and fishes in North Sea and Scheldt dt dt dt In 2001, at 16 places in the Belgian North sea and in the western Scheldt, different invertebrates (crabs and shrimps), flat fishes (tunas, dabs, plaices) and cods were sampled. These samples were analyzed among others for 10 different chlorinated pesticides (OCP’s). The results are presented as the sum of the hexachlorocyclohexane-isomers (HCH), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), pentachlorobenzene and DDT and its metabolites (figure 2-7) (Claeys et al., 2005).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----7: 7: 7: 7: OCP concentrations in invertebraOCP concentrations in invertebraOCP concentrations in invertebraOCP concentrations in invertebrates and livers of flat fishes and cods in North Sea and tes and livers of flat fishes and cods in North Sea and tes and livers of flat fishes and cods in North Sea and tes and livers of flat fishes and cods in North Sea and Scheldt (ClaeysScheldt (ClaeysScheldt (ClaeysScheldt (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

In comparison with other studies, the North Sea OCP’s values are similar to seas elsewhere in the world. On the other hand, the Scheldt is highly contaminated with OCP's. The city and/or the port of Antwerp seem to have an impact on this OCP pollution in the Scheldt (Claeys et al., 2005). The five substances with the highest risk index per hectare of treated surface for water organisms are chloropicrin, dazomet, methyl bromide, dichlorvos and lenacil. High risk-indices are the result of high application doses combined with low MTC (Maximum Tolerable Concentrations). Lenacil is an exception: it is not applied in high doses, but has low MTC and moreover very low Koc-value. In 2004, the risk for water organisms in Flanders has decreased of 44% in comparison with 1992, mainly because of reduced sales of methyl bromide (see higher, Figure 6) (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.21.2.21.2.21.2.2 InvertebratesInvertebratesInvertebratesInvertebrates 1.2.2.11.2.2.11.2.2.11.2.2.1 EEEEARTHWORMSARTHWORMSARTHWORMSARTHWORMS

By combination of a high application dose and a rather low LC50 for the earthworms, methyl bromide is the substance with the highest risk index per hectare of treated surface for earthworms. 1,3-Dichloropropene and chloropicrin come on the second and third place. The curve of the risk for earthworms in Flanders (see higher, figure 2-6) has decreased in 2004, up to 30% compared to the situation in 1992. Decreasing sales of methyl bromide during this period explain this trend (Claeys et al., 2005). Benomyl and carbendazim are also particularly lethal to earthworms and also exhibit this repellent effect, which results in the avoidance of feeding in treated soils.


1.2.2.21.2.2.21.2.2.21.2.2.2 PPPPESTS PREDATORS AND PESTS PREDATORS AND PESTS PREDATORS AND PESTS PREDATORS AND PARASITESARASITESARASITESARASITES

There are several substances with high risk index per hectare of treated surface for useful arthropods (carbofuran, methiocarb, dimethoate, dichlorvos and chlorpyrifos). The risk curve for the useful arthropods in Flanders (see higher, figure 2-6) has a fluctuating pattern with a reduction of 27% in 2004 (in comparison with 1992) (Claeys et al., 2005). To encourage farmers to take beneficial insects into consideration and to use products that are less harmful for them, the CRA-W measures the impact of products authorized in Belgium on the commonest useful arthropods in different crops. In cereals, the effects of fungicides and insecticides applied when beneficials insects are active were assessed with respect to the aphids main natural enemies, namely the Hymenoptera Aphidiidae, syrphids and ladybirds. In potatoes, all the fungicides and insecticides used during the growing period were assessed for the same auxiliaries as in cereals. The results were distributed to farmers in the form of easy-reference selectivity lists (Annex 2.5). The respect of these lists will be mandatory in the various quality specifications applicable to potatoes (Jansen 2005). The results of these two programmes indicate that provided avoiding certain products at specific times, it is perfectly possible to combine cost-effective, good quality production with effective crop protection and safeguarding useful insect fauna. A similar research programme is under way for field market garden crops such as carrots, peas, onions and beans (Jansen, 2005). Other studies are performed in vegetable fields by FUSAGX. The results showed that biodiversity in terms of family numbers was significantly higher in unsprayed crops. As expected, insecticides were very toxic on auxiliaries. Even fungicides, which showed a moderate acute toxicity, had negative effects on long-term parameters on both development and reproduction (Colignon et al., 2001); (Colignon et al., 2003). 1.2.2.31.2.2.31.2.2.31.2.2.3 BBBBEESEESEESEES

Since 1998, Walloon beekeepers and their associations report high bees’ mortalities, which may be related to the use of seed treatments and particularly imidacloprid and fipronil (Haubruge et al., 2004). Beekeepers consider than mortality under 10% is acceptable. Currently, mortality levels are respectively 16% in Wallonia and 22% in Flanders (Nguyen Bach et al., 2005). The substances with the highest risk per hectare of treated surface for bees are imidacloprid, 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin and methyl bromide. For methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin the high risk index are explained by the high application doses. High risk of imidacloprid (and also lindane, but absent in 2004, because it was prohibited in 2002) is mainly due to the low LD50 for bees, in combination with relatively high sales figures. Chlorpyrifos has also very low LD50 for bees, but since sales are relatively low, this risk becomes not directly apparent. The risk curve for bees (see higher, Figure 1-6) shows a recent decreasing trend between 1992 and 2002. The increase in 1996, and 1997, can mainly be explained by rising sales of lindane, chloropicrin and imidacloprid during that period (Claeys et al., 2005). However, surveys performed by “SPF matières premières” in 2000-2001 and CARI in 2003 and 2005 haven’t permit to link positively bees’ mortality and use of systemic insecticides. The situation in Belgium is very different from the French situation (described in Task 1). Indeed, in our country, the areas of sunflower crops are insignificant. In Belgium, imidacloprid is mostly used for seed treatments of maize, beet, winter barley and winter wheat (Haubruge, Thomé et al. 2004). Fipronil is mostly (84,8% of the use) used for seed


treatments of beet (Pissard, Van Bol et al. 2005). Among these crops, maize is the only crop with a pollen character. Decline of bees could be caused by their consumption of pollen coming from treated maize. Nevertheless, in Belgium, only 3 % of the maize crops are treated with imidacloprid. Bees’ mortality could also be caused by pollen and/or nectar consumption in crops such as colza or green manures following beets or cereals treated with imidacloprid. Indeed, in Belgium, about 80 % of beets seeds are treated with imidacloprid. However, in crop rotation, beet is frequently followed by a cereal and rarely by colza or green manure. Moreover, information concerning imidacloprid concentration in plants sowed after treated crops are very rare and little conclusive about the potential transfer of the insecticide (Haubruge et al., 2004). As a multitude of factors play a role in this problem, since 2004, FUSAGX and ULG perform an exploratory and multifactorial study about bees’ mortality in Wallonia. Concerning pesticides, several molecules were detected in beehives: carbofuran (insecticide), flusilazole (fungicide), trifloxystrobine (fungicide), methiocarbe sulfoxide (anti-slugs and insecticide) and imidacloprid (systemic insecticide). However, those residues were very small. Thus, the intermediate results of this study showed that imidacloprid and fipronil might not be responsible of this decline. Indeed, for FUSAGX and ULG this problem may come from a disease caused by the varroa (Nguyen Bach et al., 2005). Nevertheless, a recent study of CARI showed that the varroa is not involved in the colonies’ decline. For CARI, the observed symptoms of the recent bees’ decline are also different from all known bee diseases (Lefebvre & Bruneau, 2005). As there are many controversies concerning this subject, there is no certitude and researches must be continued. 1.2.31.2.31.2.31.2.3 VertebratesVertebratesVertebratesVertebrates 1.2.3.11.2.3.11.2.3.11.2.3.1 FFFFISHES ISHES ISHES ISHES

As bio-indicator, eel is particularly relevant because of its wide distribution, its high fat content, its benthic way of life and its place in the food chain. Because the eel stays at the same place during its growth phase, measurements in eel give an accurate picture of the pollution situation on those places. Measuring lipophil ppp in water and water floor is hampered by the small concentrations and difficult detection. Measuring in eel offer the analytical advantage that the fatty tissues content high concentrations of ppp accumulated through processes of bio-accumulation and bio-magnification (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). Since 1994, eels from Flemish territorial waters have been collected and the presence of different organochlorines (NB: currently most of the organochlorines are banned in Belgium) has been tested. These measures are compared with values from neighbouring countries. Especially the concentrations of lindane have been found very high in comparison with values from our neighbouring countries. The highest lindane concentration in eel in literatures is 171 ng/g fresh weight whereas, in Flanders, in 2002, on a number of locations, retrieved values were up to 2000 ng/g fresh weight). The main reason for these extreme high values in eel is that until 2002 lindane was still very common as a pesticide in Belgian agriculture (mainly for beet and corn). Only as from June 2002 the use of lindane is prohibited by law. In most other countries lindane has since long been banned. Following this prohibition, the concentrations of lindane in eel are expected to decrease significantly in Flanders starting from 2003. The continuation of the Flemish eel pollutant monitoring network will point out if this indeed will be the case. Between 1994 and 2003,


we can already speak of a positive trend of decrease for lindane (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). As in most of the other ‘developed’ countries, pesticides like DDT, dieldrin, HCB, … have been banned in Belgium, since the beginning of the 1970’s. Although banned, they are still being found in quite high concentrations in some small niches of our environment. This points out the extreme persistence of these pollutants (some of these niches are located in dead arms of the Scheldt where the sediments are not renewed for years) or, that illegal stocks are still being used. However, the real sources of these niches' concentrations remain unknown (Pussemier, personal commentary); (Maraite, personal commentary); (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). In the case of the sum of DDT (banned since 1974 in Belgium) and its derivatives, the highest average concentration detected in Flanders (680 ng/g fresh weight) is of the same order of magnitude as reported in international literatures (720 ng/g fresh weight). Between 1994 and 2003, we can speak of a more or less unchanged situation despite ban on DDT use (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). For the same period, the situation for dieldrine (banned since 1974 in Belgium) is also more or less unchanged but HCB (hexachlorobenzenes) (banned since 1974 in Belgium) contamination is decreasing. As at this moment there is no Belgian edibility norm, the values are compared with Dutch norms for edibility of fish from surface water (lindane: 200 ng/g, dieldrine: 100 ng/g, HCB: 100 ng/g, sum DDT's: 1000 ng/g fresh weight. For lindane, this standard is exceeded at 8 places on 42. For dieldrine, average concentrations retrieved on 8 locations exceed the standard. Neither the means for HCB, nor the means for sum DDT's exceed the standard (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). According to Dembélé et al. (2000), fishes are also often exposed to organophosphates and carbamates. These ppp inhibit the acetyl cholinesterase and the measure of the remaining acetyl cholinesterase activity in carp brain, for instance, is a reliable diagnostic tool for chronic organophosphates and carbamates pollution. 1.2.3.21.2.3.21.2.3.21.2.3.2 BBBBIRDSIRDSIRDSIRDS

Chloropicrin, metamitron, 1,3-dichloropropene, metam-sodium and methyl bromide are the substances with the highest risk per hectare of treated surface for the birds. High risk-indices are the result of both high application doses and small LD50 for birds. Methyl bromide has particularly low lethal dose. In 2004, a reduction of 87 % of the risk index (in comparison with 1992) was reached because of the fall in sales of methyl bromide and chloropicrin (see higher, Figure 1-6) (Claeys et al., 2005).

1.2.3.2.11.2.3.2.11.2.3.2.11.2.3.2.1 SSSSONGBIRDSONGBIRDSONGBIRDSONGBIRDS Data on organochlorines in terrestrial animals are quite rare. Most of the available data are for terrestrial top-predators, like e.g. birds of prey. Concerning (smaller) terrestrial mammals (prey animals) such as songbirds and mice, for example, there are virtually no data available. However, they are the basis of several food chains in wild. Thus, monitoring pollution level of these small animals is very important. In 2001, a study around Antwerp searched for organochlorines in mice and songbirds. Organochlorines concentrations in tissues of songbirds were higher than in mice. As showed in table 2-11, the component with the highest concentration is DDE, the main metabolite of DDT. This product is very persistent and accumulates in high degree in biological tissues (Claeys et al., 2005).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----11: 11: 11: 11: Organochlorines in songbirds (median Organochlorines in songbirds (median Organochlorines in songbirds (median Organochlorines in songbirds (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Data concerning songbirds and mice (not presented here) show that even small, not-carnivore animals, of which are assumed that they haven’t already too large bio-magnification or -accumulation, nevertheless considerably accumulate organochlorines. Moreover, in songbirds, higher concentrations were measured than expected on the basis of their position in the food chain (Claeys et al., 2005).

1.2.3.2.21.2.3.2.21.2.3.2.21.2.3.2.2 BBBBIRDS OF PREYIRDS OF PREYIRDS OF PREYIRDS OF PREY In the past, many studies about organochlorine pollution in birds of prey have been performed. In 1960s, as a result of environmental pollution with DDT, different species of birds of prey were virtually eradicated. In the aftermath of the decimating, several monitoring programmes were set up to prevent such a calamity in the future. Now, approximately 40 years later, the organochlorines in Europe, which were then responsible for the reduced reproduction success of the birds, are strictly regulated and most of the birds of prey populations are now rebuild. Nevertheless, recent data concerning organochlorines in birds of prey are always interesting, in the light of the high sensitivity of these animals for such pollutants. Several tissues of buzzards and sparrowhawks collected in Flanders in the period 2001-2003 were examined. Results are presented in tables 2-12 and 2-13 (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----12: 12: 12: 12: Organochlorines in buzzards (median Organochlorines in buzzards (median Organochlorines in buzzards (median Organochlorines in buzzards (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: hhhhexachlorobenzene; TN: transexachlorobenzene; TN: transexachlorobenzene; TN: transexachlorobenzene; TN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2005) 2005) 2005) 2005)

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----13: 13: 13: 13: Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Cnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Cnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Cnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeyslaeyslaeyslaeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

The results show that organochlorines concentrations can still up to now be high. The concentrations are dependent upon the tissues and the species. Concentrations are considerably (average 10x) higher in sparrowhawks than in buzzards. This can be explained


among others by the feeding pattern of these 2 birds. Sparrowhawks feed mainly on songbirds whereas the buzzards eat mainly mice (see higher) and other small mammals and insects but only occasionally songbirds. Thus, the major parts of the exposition to the persistent organic pollutants for these top-predators also occur through the feeding. The highest concentrations were found in fatty tissues. This tissue is a storage place. Some individuals especially show concentration orders of magnitude still higher than median that is presented here. Individuals differ for what concerns habitat, health condition, etc., which can strongly influence the pollution level of the bird. For these birds with exceptionally high concentrations, it is not excluded that they can still undergo disadvantageous impacts of the exposition to organochlorines. It is important to notice that there is no indication that the pollution, which is here measured in the birds of prey, is recent. It concerns a historical pollution, which might be retrieved for decades in our environment. Indeed, DDT concentrations of the same size magnitude were already measured in Flemish sparrowhakws and buzzards end 1990s and even in the years 70. Thus, in the last decade, there were no considerable decreasing in the organochlorine concentrations in Flemish birds of prey (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.3.31.2.3.31.2.3.31.2.3.3 FFFFOXESOXESOXESOXES

Recent data concerning organochlorines in foxes are very interesting but very rare. Foxes are interesting “bio-monitoring” animals because they live near the man, adapt rapidly to their habitat, they are mammals with developed metabolising processes (such as man), they live across the whole Europe... (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----14: 14: 14: 14: Organochlorines in foxes (median Organochlorines in foxes (median Organochlorines in foxes (median Organochlorines in foxes (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; TN: transTN: transTN: transTN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Organochlorine concentrations in foxes (table 2-14) are much lower than expected on the basis of their position in the food chain. This indicates that foxes have specific metabolizing processes. Former experimentations with foxes and dogs also determined that they were capable of rapid metabolizing, which results in “special” profiles and low concentrations. Indeed, for organochlorines, we see low concentrations in the tissues of the fox, with exception of the metabolite OxC, of which the concentration is considerable. This indicates an active conversion of the pesticides precursors. This conversion or metabolizing of the organochlorines doesn’t mean however that these pollutants are harmless. Indeed, the formed metabolites have sometimes higher toxicity than the pollutants themselves. Until now, there are not yet studies concerning these metabolites in foxes. Therefore, conclusions can’t be drawn (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.3.41.2.3.41.2.3.41.2.3.4 HHHHEDGEHOGSEDGEHOGSEDGEHOGSEDGEHOGS

The hedgehog is a common mammal species in Flanders. A number of characteristics of his life style makes that these are possibly vulnerable for pollution. Hedgehogs stand at a relatively high level in the food chain and thus can accumulate organochlorines through their prey animals (among others insects, earthworms, snails and larvae). They live in high densities in (sub)-urbane areas which are frequently characterized by high levels of pollution. Moreover, hedgehogs are relatively long living and thus accumulation of organochlorines can result in chronic toxicological effects. Hedgehogs from Flanders and


Brussels were collected during the period 2002-2003. Four organochlorines were analysed: dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane and its metabolites (DDT's) (banned since 1974 in Belgium), hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH's) (lindane: banned since 2000 in EU), hexachlorobenzene (HCB) (banned since 1974 in Belgium) and chlordanes (banned since 1981 in Belgium). Results are showed in table 2-15 (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----15: 15: 15: 15: Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima –––– ng/g fat) (Claeysng/g fat) (Claeysng/g fat) (Claeysng/g fat) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Currently, there are no other (international) studies concerning organochlorines in hedgehogs. To give an idea of the degree of contamination and possible toxicity, the values are thus compared to concentrations in other terrestrial mammals. The average DDT concentrations in hedgehogs were similar to those in Dutch shrews sampled about 10 years ago. This indicates that DDT's are still present in important level in our terrestrial ecosystem. Hedgehogs and other insectivores are particularly sensitive for DDT-poisoning because earthworms and snails, important prey animals of the hedgehog, highly accumulate DDT. Nevertheless, DDT’s concentrations in hedgehogs were lower than the values, which are associated with mortality in shrews. We can conclude that hedgehogs accumulate considerable concentrations of organochlorines compared to other terrestrial mammals. Moreover, DDT values are particularly high in the light of the decreasing use (ban) of these molecules during the last decades (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.3.51.2.3.51.2.3.51.2.3.5 MMMMAMMALS IN GENERALAMMALS IN GENERALAMMALS IN GENERALAMMALS IN GENERAL

The risk index per hectare of treated surface for the mammals is mainly affected by the soil disinfectants (methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, metam-sodium and dazomet) because of their high use doses and high sales figures. Moreover, dazomet and 1,3-dichloropropene have also a low LD50 for mammals. The risk curve (see higher, Figure 1-6) shows a recent decreasing trend up to 2001. In 2002 and the next years, there is however a stagnation and even a light increase. This tendency is related to the variations in the sales figures of chloropicrin (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.41.2.41.2.41.2.4 AtmosphereAtmosphereAtmosphereAtmosphere The transfer of pesticides to the atmosphere leads to a contamination of all atmospheric phases: gaseous, aerosol particles, fog droplets or rainwater. As their vapor pressure is generally below 10 Pa (except for fumigants) which is the limit defined in Europe above which organic compounds are considered to be volatile compounds, these chemical products are considered as low volatile to semi-volatile. This means that when exposed to the atmosphere after field application to the soil or leaves’ surface, a fraction of them can volatilise and reach the atmosphere as a gas. Indeed, volatilization may represent a major dissipation pathway for pesticides applied to soils or crops, accounting for up to 90% of the application dose in some cases. On the day of application, pesticide volatilization rates


ranged from 0,1 gram per ha and per hour for prometton compound to 80 g/ha.h for fonofos, for example. In general, pesticides are volatilized from plant surfaces to a greater extent and faster than from the soil. Volatilization continues for from a few days to several weeks (or sometimes even more), occasionally displaying a diurnal cycle. The pesticides can also reach the atmosphere by other pathways: the droplets emitted from the nozzles can either evaporate before reaching the soil or the plant surface, or be transported at long distances by the wind during drift. Moreover, due to the wind erosion process, wind can remove soil particles with pesticide molecules fixed on them from the soil surface (figure 2-8) (Bedos et al., 2002a); (Bedos et al., 2002b).

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----8888: Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the : Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the : Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the : Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the atmosphere (Bedosatmosphere (Bedosatmosphere (Bedosatmosphere (Bedos et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2002a2002a2002a2002a)))) These three processes result in highly variable amounts of pesticides. The total emissions of pesticides may range from several percent up to almost all the applied quantities. The fraction of pesticide going to the atmosphere depends on many factors linked to the product itself, to the soil or the crop, to meteorology (temperature, soil moisture, nature of the soil or the crop) and to the application technique. However, the complex interactions between these factors make it difficult to give an estimate of the amount of pesticide volatilized and the resulting concentrations in the atmosphere. These complex interactions in addition to analytical difficulties mean that the knowledge on the occurrence and the behaviour of pesticides in the atmosphere is still relatively poor compared to other atmospheric pollutants (Bedos et al., 2002a). There doesn’t exist complete and long-term Belgian study about this subject. But, even if not many data describing the occurrence of pesticides are available in Europe, studies of this type are performed in our neighbouring countries: France (Bedos et al., 2002a) and the Netherlands (Duyzer, 2003). In Belgium, the only measurements of this type are performed by the VMM since 1997. Each week, the VMM measures the amounts of the organochlorines, the organophosphophates, the organonitrogenous herbicides, the “acid herbicides” and the total herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA in rainwater in Flanders (VMM, 2004). Results show that, for endosulfan (figure 2-9) (organochlorine banned from 2006 onwards in EU) and lindane (organochlorine banned since 2000 in EU) (figure 2-10), the decreasing tendency of the past years continued in 2004 to sometimes hardly measurable values.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----9: 9: 9: 9: Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 (VMM, 2004)(VMM, 2004)(VMM, 2004)(VMM, 2004)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----10: 10: 10: 10: Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

Among the organophosphates, diazinon, dichlorvos and dimethoate remain the most frequently detected components. The recent decreasing trend of the period 2001/2002/2003 (figures 2-11 and 2-12) did unfortunately not continue in 2004.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----11: 11: 11: 11: Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----12: 12: 12: 12: Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

Concerning the organonitrogenous herbicides, the situation was less favourable and there was no substantial reduction of the measured quantities. The amounts of atrazine, diuron and isoproturon remain high in 2004. There is also a continuous increase of metolachlor and propachlor since 2000. Among the “acid herbicides”, the amounts of MCPA showed a sudden increase in 2003-2004 with regard to 2002 (figure 2-13). 2,4-D, 2,4-DP and MCPP become also more frequently detected.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----13: 13: 13: 13: Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

The total herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, which have not been observed above the threshold of detection in 2003, reappear in 2004. The more or less regularity of the quantities of ppp detected in rainwater over the year, also during periods in which the use of ppp is not obvious, indicates that the sources become less clear (VMM, 2004). In France, monitoring of pesticides in the atmosphere started at the end of the 80’s. Comparisons with concentrations measured in Europe are also done. Most of the pesticides were observed in the different compartments: rainwater, fog and gas/particulate. The concentration for one compound is very variable. An important part of the variability might be due to the measurement conditions, especially the distance to the source. This contamination is observed throughout the year (continuous background presence of pesticides in the atmosphere), sometimes displaying a seasonal pattern. Measured concentrations in rainwater in France were very high, with maximum values reaching 60 µg/l. Concentrations in fog were much higher than in rainwater. Dubus et al. (2000) (cited by Bedos et al., 2002) recently carried out an overview about pesticides in rainwater across Europe. This shows that concentrations for rainwater mostly measured are: for lindane (based on 60 studies carried out in Europe, the USA and Canada) up to 813 ng/l with an average of a few tens of ng/l; for atrazine (more than 90 studies) up to 5000 ng/l (found in France) with an average concentration of a few 10 ng/l; for mecoprop (36 studies), a maximum of 60 000 ng/l was found in France. Dubus et al. also indicated that the most frequently monitored pesticides in rain were lindane, atrazine, MCPA, simazine, dichlorprop, isoproturon, mecoprop, DDT, terbuthylazine and aldrin, and the most frequently detected are lindane and its isomer. We can note that in the Paris area, triazines were detected in nearly 85% of the samples collected in spring and autumn in the air (Bedos et al., 2002a). 80 and 50 different pesticides molecules have been found in rain respectively in Europe (Bedos et al., 2002a) and in The Netherlands (Duyzer, 2003). As no legislation gives maximum concentration for exposure to pesticide in the atmospheric compartment, results concerning rainwater are compared with the EU


drinking water limit (0,1 µg/l for one compound, 0,5 µg/l for several). More than 60% of the French samples had concentrations of atrazine, alachlor and dinoterb higher than 0,1 µg/l (Bedos et al., 2002a). In the Netherlands, 17 of the 50 compounds exceeded the maximum permissible for surface water and 22 exceeded the standard for drinking water (Duyzer, 2003). In The Netherlands, the compounds with the highest concentrations in rain are the following (averaged over one month): captan (12 µg/l), metoxuron, chlorpropham, dimethoate, propachlor, chlorothalonil, dichlorvos, atrazine (with a maximum of 0,9 µg/l) (Bedos et al., 2002a). Regarding the gaseous and particulate phases, the measured concentrations in France range from not detected to 185 ng/m3. Pesticide concentrations in the atmosphere in Europe in the particulate or gaseous phase are not as well documented as in rainwater. In The Netherlands, Tas et al. (1996) (cited by Bedos et al., 2002) reported results obtained for two pesticides: 1,3- dichloropropene (8 µg/m3 just after treatment) and methyl isothiocyanate. Chevreuil et al. (1996) (cited by Bedos et al., 2002) concluded that the concentrations of lindane and atrazine in the gaseous phase in Paris were similar to the concentrations measured in other places in Europe (Bedos et al., 2002a). In France, very high values (2,6 µg/m3) have been measured locally around the treatment areas (Bedos et al., 2002a). Compounds which have been banned (DDT, aldrine and dieldrine) are also still present in the atmosphere in France. They have been detected in fog less often than locally used pesticides. But, when present, their concentrations can be as high as that of a pesticide used nearby. They were also detected in rainwater, aerosols and the gaseous phase. These observations were explained as long-range transport, post-application volatilization, or wind erosion (Bedos et al., 2002a). It is also striking that pesticides which could be expected to be not very volatile based on their physico-chemical characteristics are found in the atmosphere (Bedos et al., 2002a). As this knowledge relies only upon the compounds which are sought for, informations presented here are not really representative of the actual atmospheric contamination. Moreover, some measurements are only valid on a local scale. It is difficult to compare data since many factors are involved. A more complete interpretation would require a better knowledge of the proximity of the treatment area, the application dose, time lag between observations and application and the total amount of pesticides used on a regional scale (Bedos et al., 2002a). 1.2.51.2.51.2.51.2.5 SoilsSoilsSoilsSoils There is no systematic monitoring of ppp in the soils in Belgium. However, most of pollutants transfer through the soil and their behaviour in soil conditions the potential pollution. To reduce the environmental impact of organic pollutants and pesticides, it is necessary to understand their transfer through the soil and the mechanisms affecting their fate in soils, among which the most important are their retention and their transformation. The pesticides degradation is due to the chemical degradation and the microbial degradation. The detoxification mechanisms mainly depend on the aptitude of soil microorganisms to degrade the different pollutants. However, other phenomena are responsible for the stabilization of the pollutants through the formation of non-extractable residues usually called "bound residues". The detoxification due to bound residues formation is effective to protect, for example, the water supply at short-term delay. Indeed, the bioavailability of the compounds is determined by several pesticides-, crop- and soil-


dependent factors, including percentage crop cover of soil area, sorption, leaching and degradation of the compound. Percentage crop cover is important when calculating the actual dose reaching the soil. Typically, herbicides are used when the crop is either absent or quite small, resulting in a high proportion of the herbicide reaching the bare soil. In contrast, fungicides and insecticides are generally used on dense crops and the exposure to the soil is much lower. The direct sorption of pesticides to soil decreases the available concentration of the pesticide in the soil water significantly, and the effects of a compound may differ substantially just for this reason. However, interrogations remain about the eventual liberation of the stored pollutants and the long-term consequences of their accumulation in soils (Barriuso, Calvet et al. 1996); (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996); (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). The mode of action of pesticides differs. In general, pesticides can be designed to affect specific processes in the target organisms or to affect general processes. To minimize the side-effects of pesticides, compounds that affect only specific processes in the target organisms are most suitable (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). In 1996, a study was carried out by the UCL concerning the transformation and degradation kinetics of the pesticides and the identification of their metabolites. Concerning the herbicides the results showed that in most cases the metabolites have a strong herbicide activity, sometimes as powerful as the parent herbicide. They also sometimes have an activity spectrum different from the parent herbicide. Thus, these metabolites take a great part and in the persistence of the herbicide activity. This can also explain some cases of residual phytotoxicity. Some herbicide active substances such as isoxaben and imazamethabenz-methyl 1 have an ideal degradation pattern resulting in final non-toxic metabolites without herbicide activity. The degradation of other active substances such as diflufenican, methabenzthiazuron and carbetamide, for example, end up in toxic metabolites which are irreversibly adsorbed on the soil organic matter (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996). Concerning the fungicides, some secondary metabolites (of the furalaxyl for example) can also have a fungicide activity. The degradation kinetics, in direct relation with the efficiency, depends on many factors (meteorological conditions, field, year…) (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996). Another study testing fenpropimorph, fungicide and thus being expected to affect non-target soil-inhabiting fungi showed that this compound had no immediate toxic effect. Nevertheless, during degradation of fenpropimorph a more bioavailable degradation product, fenpropimorphic acid, is formed. At the time of the appearance of fenpropimorphic acid, active saprotrophic fungi were substantially affected, indicating that the biological activity of the fungicide may be attributed to both the mother compound and metabolites, which may be more mobile in soil (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). Concerning the insecticides, some active substances such as carbofuran, carbosulfan, furathiocarb have secondary metabolites with high insecticide activity. On the other hand, chlorfenvinphos, for instance, have non-insecticide secondary metabolites. The degradation kinetics, in direct relation with the efficiency, depends also on many factors (meteorological, field, year…). Another main factor of the degradation is the field history: application of the same insecticide during many years leads to a quicker degradation and thus a lower efficiency. This is due to the microorganisms adaptation and is particularly marked for organosphosphorous and carbamates insecticides (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996).


Finally, the study showed that at the end of the crop, concentrations in pesticides and their metabolites are generally hardly to not detectable (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996). As little is known about the chronic effect of herbicides on the soil microbial community, with most studies focusing on acute impacts, a Belgian study investigated the effect of 20 years of atrazine and metolachlor application on the community structure, abundance and function of bacterial groups in the bulk soil of a maize monoculture. The results indicate that the long-term use of the herbicides atrazine and metolachlor resulted in an altered soil community structure, in particular for the methanotrophic bacteria. These observed changes did not cause a decreased community function (methane oxidation), probably because the total abundance of the methanotrophs in the soil system was preserved (Seghers, Verthe et al. 2003). In an other study, the effect of three phenyl urea herbicides (diuron, linuron, and chlorotoluron) on soil microbial communities was studied by using soil samples with a 10-year history of treatment. The results showed that the microbial community structures of the herbicide-treated and non-treated soils were significantly different. Moreover, the bacterial diversity seemed to decrease in soils treated with urea herbicides. In addition, enrichment cultures of the different soils in medium with the urea herbicides as the sole carbon and nitrogen source showed that there was no difference between treated and non-treated soils in the rate of transformation of diuron and chlorotoluron but that there was a strong difference in the case of linuron. In the enrichment cultures with linuron-treated soil, linuron disappeared completely after 1 week whereas no significant transformation was observed in cultures inoculated with non-treated soil even after 4 weeks. In conclusion, this study showed that both the structure and metabolic potential of soil microbial communities were clearly affected by a long-term application of urea herbicides (el Fantroussi, Verschuere et al. 1999). Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. (2001) have also reported that bacteria and fungi can be harmed by these compounds in high concentrations. Moreover, even if it would be expected that sulphonylurea herbicides do not harm microarthropods, Rebecchi et al. (2000) (cited by Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001) found that triasulfuron resulted in a decrease in some Collembolan species in agricultural soil. This effect was not explained, but shows that the complexity of side-effect measurement in general is problematic in environmental systems. The fungicide mancozeb has also been proved to exert a long-term inhibitory effect on aerobic dinitrogen fixers in natural soil. Indeed, the ammonium-oxidising group of nitrifiers was inhibited in the long term (3 months) in the soils investigated (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). As said above, while much literature provides evidence for direct effects of pesticides on populations of a wide range of soil microorganisms, it offers few information on short-term or long-term changes of microbial diversity on a community scale. According to guidelines for the approval of pesticides, side-effects on soil microorganisms should be determined by studying functional parameters such as carbon or nitrogen mineralization. However, the microbial diversity may have been markedly changed following pesticide use despite unaltered metabolism, and such changes may affect soil fertility (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001).


1.2.61.2.61.2.61.2.6 Summary Summary Summary Summary Table 2-16 gives an overview of the monitored active substances (H: herbicide, F: fungicide, I: insecticide and SODE: soil disinfectant) which contaminate the invertebrates (Inv.), the useful arthropods (Us. arthr.), the bees, the earthworms (Earthw.), the fishes (Fi.), the birds (Bi.), the hedgehogs (Hedg.) and the atmosphere (Atm.) in Belgium. This summarizing table makes it clear that a great part of the problems concerns active substances from which the use is now forbidden or restricted. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----16:16:16:16: Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments and the measures concerning these substances in Belgiumand the measures concerning these substances in Belgiumand the measures concerning these substances in Belgiumand the measures concerning these substances in Belgium

Active substancesActive substancesActive substancesActive substances TypesTypesTypesTypes

Inv.Inv.Inv.Inv.

Us. Us. Us. Us. arthr.arthr.arthr.arthr.

BeesBeesBeesBees EartEartEartEarthw.hw.hw.hw. Fi.Fi.Fi.Fi. Bi.Bi.Bi.Bi. Hedg.Hedg.Hedg.Hedg. Atm.Atm.Atm.Atm. MeasuresMeasuresMeasuresMeasures

Atrazine H + Banned since 2004

Diuron H +

Isoproturon H +

Lenacil H + +

MCPA H +

Metamitron H +

Metolachlor H + Banned since 2002

Propachlor H + 1,3 dichloropropene SODE + + Chloropicrin SODE + + + + +

Methyl bromide SODE + + + + + Banned since 2006

Fipronil I +? Imidacloprid I +? Dazomet F + +

Organophosphates +

Chlopyrifos I +

Diazinon I/SODE

+

Dichlorvos I + + + +

Dimethoate I + Use restrictions since 2004

Carbamates + Carbofuran I + + Metam-sodium SODE + Methiocarb I + Organochlorines

Chlordane I + Banned since 1981

DDT I + + + Banned since 1974

Dieldrine I + Banned since 1974

Endosulfan I + Banned since 2006

HCB I + + Banned since 1974

Lindane I + + + Banned since 2000


1.3 Review of application techniques and effects on the drift problem The literature about spray drift is very abundant. In Belgium and particularly in Flanders, a very complete review of literature has been done in 2004 by the “Centrum voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek in Merelbeke”, “Departement voor Gewasbescherming, Universiteit Gent” and “Departement voor Agrotechniek en Economie, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven” (“Het belang van drift en haar reducerende maatregelen ter bescherming van het milieu in Vlaanderen”) (Nuyttens et al., 2004). 1.3.11.3.11.3.11.3.1 DriftDriftDriftDrift 1.3.1.11.3.1.11.3.1.11.3.1.1 DDDDEFINITION OF DRIFTEFINITION OF DRIFTEFINITION OF DRIFTEFINITION OF DRIFT

Pesticide spray drift can be defined as the physical movement of a pesticide through air at the time of application or soon thereafter, to any site other than that intended for application. Spray drift shall not include movement of pesticides to off-target sites caused by erosion, migration, volatility, or contaminated soil particles that are windblown after application (EPA, 1999). 1.3.1.21.3.1.21.3.1.21.3.1.2 IIIIMPACTS OF DRIFTMPACTS OF DRIFTMPACTS OF DRIFTMPACTS OF DRIFT

Spray drift can affect human health and the environment. For example, spray drift can result in pesticide exposures to farmworkers, other bystanders, and wildlife and its habitat. Drift can also contaminate surface waters and cause phytotoxicity or illegal pesticide residues in other crops. The proximity of individuals and sensitive sites to the pesticide application, the amounts of pesticide drift, and toxicity of the pesticide are important factors in determining the potential impacts from drift (EPA, 1999); (SPF Santé Publique, 2005). Drift is also undesirable for economic reasons. Indeed, drift reduces efficiency of the treatment with a lower rate of application on the intended target and increased costs due to losses. With these economic, environmental and health concerns, some changes in choice of equipment and packaging have been initiated (Matthews, 1995). 1.3.1.31.3.1.31.3.1.31.3.1.3 FFFFAAAACTORS INFLUENCING DRCTORS INFLUENCING DRCTORS INFLUENCING DRCTORS INFLUENCING DRIFTIFTIFTIFT

When pesticide solutions are sprayed by ground spray equipment or aircraft, droplets are produced by the nozzles of the equipment. Many of these droplets can be so small that they stay suspended in air and are carried by air currents until they contact a surface or drop to the ground. A number of factors influence drift, including weather conditions (relative wind speed, wind direction and temperature), topography, the crop or area being sprayed, application equipment and methods, and decisions by the applicator (EPA, 1999); (Meli et al., 2003).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----17: 17: 17: 17: InterInterInterInter----related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004)related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004)related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004)related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004) SprayerSprayerSprayerSprayer ApplicationApplicationApplicationApplication TargetTargetTargetTarget WeatherWeatherWeatherWeather OperatorOperatorOperatorOperator Design application

rate variety wind speed skill

Droplet size nozzle orientation

canopy structure

wind direction attitude

Fan size forward speed area temperature Air volume every row humidity Air velocity and direction

alternate row

Evaluating losses due to drift is difficult since accurate studies are expensive and variability is high. When considering research regarding spray drift measurement, it is important to realize the limitations of those studies. Differences in methodology, canopy characteristics, wind and other weather factors, and planting density may all significantly affect the results of drift studies (Stover et al., 2002).

1.3.1.3.11.3.1.3.11.3.1.3.11.3.1.3.1 EEEEXPERTISE OF APPLICATXPERTISE OF APPLICATXPERTISE OF APPLICATXPERTISE OF APPLICATORSORSORSORS In all discussion about spray drift risk, there seems to be universal agreement that the competence of the people who apply chemicals is the foundation of all further risk mitigation approaches. That competence implies an understanding of all important risk factors affecting spray drift and suggests a responsible and constructive attitude on the part of the operator (APVMA, 2005).

1.3.1.3.21.3.1.3.21.3.1.3.21.3.1.3.2 DDDDROPLET SIZEROPLET SIZEROPLET SIZEROPLET SIZE Spray droplet size is one of the most important factors in spray drift risk. Smaller droplets have greater potential for drifting off target (APVMA, 2005). Identification of a drift-prone droplet size threshold is attractive but somewhat arbitrary. Some researchers have suggested 100µm as the threshold for droplets with high drift potential, others have suggested 141µm (Spray Drift Task Force, 1997 cited by Stover et al., 2002), while still others indicate that droplets under 200µm are very prone to drift when wind speed exceeds 8 kilometres per hour (Zhu et al., 1994 cited by Stover et al.,). As mentioned in table 2-18 (BES, 2002), studies performed in wind tunnel indicated a strong non-linear increase in drift with decreased droplet size category threshold (Taylor et al., 2004). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----18: 18: 18: 18: Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet diameter (BES, 2002)diameter (BES, 2002)diameter (BES, 2002)diameter (BES, 2002)

Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter in µmin µmin µmin µm

Droplet calledDroplet calledDroplet calledDroplet called Time required to fall Time required to fall Time required to fall Time required to fall 3 m in still air3 m in still air3 m in still air3 m in still air

Distance covered Distance covered Distance covered Distance covered falling 3 m in falling 3 m in falling 3 m in falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind4,8 kilometres per hour wind4,8 kilometres per hour wind4,8 kilometres per hour wind

5 Fog 66 minutes 4,8 kilometres

100 Mist 10 seconds 125 metres

500 Light rain 1,5 seconds 2,1 metres

1000 Moderate rain 1 second 1,4 metres


1.3.1.3.31.3.1.3.31.3.1.3.31.3.1.3.3 WWWWIND SPEED AND DIRECTIND SPEED AND DIRECTIND SPEED AND DIRECTIND SPEED AND DIRECTIONIONIONION Wind speed and direction are the primary meteorological determinants of the amount of material that is moved off-target as well as the direction that the material moves. Though wind direction is not discussed in relation to the magnitude of drift from an application, if the consideration is to prevent drift to a specific location that is considered sensitive, then wind direction is the critical variable as the direction of air movement determines the direction in which material will drift. The fluctuation in wind direction can also be used as an indicator of the amount of atmospheric turbulence and, therefore, the amount of dilution of a cloud of fine droplets (Thistle, 2004). Wind speed influences the distance the droplets drift, but it does not have a big influence on droplet size (BES, 2002). According to APVMA (2005), a wind speed range of between 3 and 15 kilometres per hour is acceptable for most situations. Research into efficiency of herbicide applications in Oxfordshire (UK) (Harris et al., 1992 cited by (Skinner et al., 1997) also showed that in gentle wind (10,8-13 kilometres per hour) 87-93% of the spray was deposited on the target area, 2-3% on the soil outside the target area, 1-4% of this by drift up to 8 metres downwind and the remainder, up to 10% was lost by volatilisation or further spray drift. Laboratory studies indicate that wind speed as low as 4,8-8 kilometres per hour (3-5 mph) substantially deflected droplets <200 µm in diameter (figure 2-14). Smaller droplets were deflected more than larger droplets (Stover et al., 2002).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----14:14:14:14: Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2002)2002)2002)2002)

1.3.1.3.41.3.1.3.41.3.1.3.41.3.1.3.4 HHHHUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUREUREUREURE

Temperature and relative humidity affect the likelihood of smaller droplets impinging on the target. At a relatively high temperature and low humidity, significant evaporation can occur before some spray droplets reach the target, reducing the size of droplets and increasing the influence of ambient air movement. This is especially important with droplets smaller than 70 microns. At 80% humidity, 30°C (86°F) and wind speeds of 18 kilometres per hour (11,2 mph) any 50 µm or smaller droplet will evaporate before it


travels 0,5 metres (1,6 ft). Even larger droplets evaporate to some extent as the temperature increases or the humidity decreases (Stover et al., 2002).

1.3.1.3.51.3.1.3.51.3.1.3.51.3.1.3.5 FFFFORMULATIONSORMULATIONSORMULATIONSORMULATIONS Dust formulations, very popular during the late 1940s and 1950s, caused high drift problems. Now, their uses are limited. The least drift-prone formulations of pesticides are pellets and granules. The use of these formulations is limited because they cannot be effectively applied to foliage. They are widely used to apply pesticide to the soil or in treating aquatic weeds (BES, 2002). A study showed also differences in potential drift among different formulations of a same active substance. Indeed, for instance, glyphosate formulations influenced droplets size distribution and thus drift (VanDyk, 1998).

1.3.1.3.61.3.1.3.61.3.1.3.61.3.1.3.6 HHHHEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEAEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEAEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEAEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEASESESESE Spray release height is one of the major factors affecting spray drift potential. Indeed, the amount of time that droplets remain airborne and exposed to wind currents depends on the height of the release (BES, 2002). Studies performed in wind tunnel showed that doubling the boom height increased airborne drift by a factor of three under some conditions (Taylor et al., 2004). The effect of sprayer boom height on spray drift was measured in the field. A drift reduction of around 50% was found when lowering boom height from 0.70 m to 0.50 m as well as lowering from 0.50 m to 0.30 m above crop canopy. Lowering further down will give even more drift reduction, up to 90% but also causes stripes in the application (van de Zande et al., 2004). Thus, the best is to use the lowest boom height that still offers sufficient overlap given the boom movement (Wolf, 2004). In practice, this parameter is controlled within relatively narrow limits. Aerial applicators seek a compromise between optimal spray placement and safety and generally maintain a release height between 1 and 3 metres. Applicators using ground boom equipment are constrained, in most cases, by nozzle design and placement that fixes release height to a narrow range in order to achieve uniform spray deposition (APVMA, 2005).

1.3.1.3.71.3.1.3.71.3.1.3.71.3.1.3.7 DDDDIRECTION OF RELEASEIRECTION OF RELEASEIRECTION OF RELEASEIRECTION OF RELEASE The correct orientation of the spray release and thus of the nozzles is crucial if pesticide is to be targeted correctly (Landers & Farooq, 2004). For example, in orchards, the applicator should ensure that spray droplets are contained within the canopy and not directly sprayed into the air above the canopy (figure 2-15) (CSIRO, 2002).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----15: 15: 15: 15: Nozzle position of the conventional airNozzle position of the conventional airNozzle position of the conventional airNozzle position of the conventional air----assisted sprayer assisted sprayer assisted sprayer assisted sprayer used for the pesticide sprayings used for the pesticide sprayings used for the pesticide sprayings used for the pesticide sprayings (Vercruysse(Vercruysse(Vercruysse(Vercruysse et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 1999)1999)1999)1999)

1.3.1.3.81.3.1.3.81.3.1.3.81.3.1.3.8 TTTTIME OF APPLICATIONIME OF APPLICATIONIME OF APPLICATIONIME OF APPLICATION

The time of day of application is important mainly in the way it relates to atmospheric conditions. Evening and night-time hours are frequently associated with stable air conditions. Stable conditions are often referred to as “inversions”. These are conditions where very little air mixing occurs. Because of the low dispersion conditions, pesticide droplets may remain in the air as a concentrated cloud and drift off target but remain concentrated. This scenario can result in a concentrated cloud of pesticide droplets landing downwind and possibly causing damage to non-targets. Thus, spray operations should particularly not be conducted during inversion conditions (APVMA, 2005); (BES, 2002); (Thistle, 2004).

1.3.1.3.91.3.1.3.91.3.1.3.91.3.1.3.9 SSSSTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPMENTMENTMENTMENT,,,, CANOPY GEOMETRY AND CANOPY GEOMETRY AND CANOPY GEOMETRY AND CANOPY GEOMETRY AND DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY A crop is a complex target in which thickness, shape, and foliage density varies. Spray drift risk, particularly for ULV applications, can be substantially increased when a crop is too small to act as an adequate “trap” to capture small spray droplets. Dormant deciduous orchards also present a higher risk situation during spray or air-blast applications (APVMA, 2005). In a Belgian study performed in a semi-dwarf orchard, the highest downwind ground deposits were measured when the trees did not have full foliage (during blossom) (Vercruysse et al., 1999). According to (van de Zande et al., 2004), spraying trees without leaves increases spray drift 2 to 3 times compared to spraying trees with full foliage. In Belgium, many orchards have planting and pruning systems that result in a discontinuous leaf wall. Not spraying these gaps can result in a considerable drift quantity reduction (Jaeken et al.,) Trials in Italian vineyards indicated a considerable influence of the canopy characteristics on the amount of drift deposit assessed on the ground in the area adjacent to the vineyard sprayed. Vineyards featured by a narrower spacing and compact vegetation gave lower drift than vineyards featured by wider spacing and thinner canopy (Balsari and Marucco 2004). According to Stover et al. (2002), variability in deposition within the tree canopy appears to increase as tree canopy density increases.


1.3.1.3.101.3.1.3.101.3.1.3.101.3.1.3.10 NNNNUMBER OF APPLICATIONUMBER OF APPLICATIONUMBER OF APPLICATIONUMBER OF APPLICATIONSSSS Spray drift risks for some products may be acceptable for one or for a small number of applications, but where the residue effect is persistent, more applications may have an additive result that raises risk to an unacceptable level (APVMA, 2005). 1.3.21.3.21.3.21.3.2 Application techniqApplication techniqApplication techniqApplication techniques of plant protection products mostly used in ues of plant protection products mostly used in ues of plant protection products mostly used in ues of plant protection products mostly used in

Belgium and their effects on drift problemBelgium and their effects on drift problemBelgium and their effects on drift problemBelgium and their effects on drift problem Apart from a few specialized application techniques such as dusting, a pesticide is formulated to be mixed with water and the diluted mixture pumped through one or more hydraulic nozzles (Matthews, 1995; Vancoillie, 2002). Drift is not only associated with outdoor applications. Indoors, some pesticides can move offsite in air currents created by ventilation systems and forced air heating and cooling systems (BES, 2002). Annexe 2.6 presents the percentages of drift reduction in function of the spraying technique (SPF, 2005). 1.3.2.11.3.2.11.3.2.11.3.2.1 IIIIMPACT OF THE APPLICAMPACT OF THE APPLICAMPACT OF THE APPLICAMPACT OF THE APPLICATION EQUIPMENT SPECITION EQUIPMENT SPECITION EQUIPMENT SPECITION EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS AND SETTINFICATIONS AND SETTINFICATIONS AND SETTINFICATIONS AND SETTINGSGSGSGS

1.3.2.1.11.3.2.1.11.3.2.1.11.3.2.1.1 SSSSPRAYER SPEEDPRAYER SPEEDPRAYER SPEEDPRAYER SPEED

A series of experiments with boom sprayer showed an increase in spray drift with increasing speed (van de Zande, Stallinga et al. 2004). On the whole, slower speeds are better. With a conventional boom-sprayer, there is really no concern below 6-8 kilometres per hour (10 mph) (Nuyttens et al., 2004) (figure 2-16). Another study showed that when the sprayer speed passes from 6 kilometres per hour to 10 kilometres per hour, the potential drift doubles (Panneton, 2001).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----16: 16: 16: 16: Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and 8 kilometres per ho8 kilometres per ho8 kilometres per ho8 kilometres per hour) and ur) and ur) and ur) and different distances from the application area (Nuyttensdifferent distances from the application area (Nuyttensdifferent distances from the application area (Nuyttensdifferent distances from the application area (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004))))

1.3.2.1.21.3.2.1.21.3.2.1.21.3.2.1.2 FFFFAN SPEED AN SPEED AN SPEED AN SPEED ((((AIRAIRAIRAIR----BLAST SPRAYERBLAST SPRAYERBLAST SPRAYERBLAST SPRAYER))))

Field trials conducted in an orchard indicated that reducing fan speed by 25%, resulted in considerably less drift, with coverage at 6,1m and 12,2m from the target row being 16% and 0,20% respectively (Landers & Farooq, 2004).


1.3.2.1.31.3.2.1.31.3.2.1.31.3.2.1.3 SSSSPRAY PRESSUREPRAY PRESSUREPRAY PRESSUREPRAY PRESSURE Spray pressure has a controversial effect on drift. Indeed, results obtained for different studies can strongly vary. Spray pressure influences not only droplet size but also droplet speed. A high pressure decreases the droplet size, as showed in table 2-19, (which increases spray drift) but also increases the droplet speed (which decreases spray drift). On the whole, a balance of these two opposite effects must be done and the effect of the spray pressure on spray drift is not very important compared to other factors (Lebeau, personal commentary, 2006). Table2Table2Table2Table2----19: 19: 19: 19: Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 µm in diamµm in diamµm in diamµm in diameter (VanDyk, 1998)eter (VanDyk, 1998)eter (VanDyk, 1998)eter (VanDyk, 1998)

Spay pressureSpay pressureSpay pressureSpay pressure % of volume in droplets <191µm% of volume in droplets <191µm% of volume in droplets <191µm% of volume in droplets <191µm

20 PSI / 1,36 bars 26 40 PSI / 2,72 bars 36 60 PSI / 4,08 bars 42

1.3.2.1.41.3.2.1.41.3.2.1.41.3.2.1.4 NNNNOZZLE TYPE OZZLE TYPE OZZLE TYPE OZZLE TYPE

Methodology to classify spray nozzles for driftability was developed based on laboratory measurements and spray drift model calculations (van de Zande et al.,). An increase in the size of the produced droplets reduces drift but according to references traditionally accepted, it should lead to a reduced efficiency. Nevertheless, according to recent studies, efficiency is not necessarily altered by an increase in the droplet size (ITV, et al., 2005).

� Nozzle categoriesNozzle categoriesNozzle categoriesNozzle categories In Belgium, a survey was carried out on basis of the data of the mandatory inspection of sprayers for the period 1999-2001. A sample of 2017 of these sprayers gives a good picture of the nozzles used on Belgian sprayers. Results (presented in table 2-20) show that there are two main classes of nozzles: flat fan nozzles (94,5%) and turbulence nozzles (5,5%). Turbulence nozzles are mostly used in fruits crops. The flat fan nozzles can be divided in 3 groups: standard flat fan nozzles (conventional nozzles), drift reducing flat fan nozzles: pre-orifice nozzles and air induced flat fan nozzles. Among those, the standard flat fan nozzles are by far the most popular (85,8%). Nozzles with drift reducing properties are not yet frequently used (drift reducing flat fan nozzles: 2,7%; air induced nozzle: 6%) (Nuyttens et al., 2004).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----20: 20: 20: 20: The different nozzles groups and their partitioningThe different nozzles groups and their partitioningThe different nozzles groups and their partitioningThe different nozzles groups and their partitioning by mark ( by mark ( by mark ( by mark (NuyttensNuyttensNuyttensNuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004))))

Standard dopStandard dopStandard dopStandard dop BrandnameBrandnameBrandnameBrandname Flat fan (%)Flat fan (%)Flat fan (%)Flat fan (%) LowLowLowLow----drift (predrift (predrift (predrift (pre----

orifice) (%)orifice) (%)orifice) (%)orifice) (%) Air induction (%)Air induction (%)Air induction (%)Air induction (%)

Whirl chamber Whirl chamber Whirl chamber Whirl chamber (%)(%)(%)(%)

Agrotop - - 1.3 - Albuz 47.7 0.3 2.8 3.3 Delavan - 0.2 - - Hardi 19.5 0.3 0.6 1.6 Lechler 1.2 - 0.7 0.1 Lurmark 0.4 - - - Nozal 2.1 - 0.2 - Rex - - - 0.3 Tecnoma 0.3 - - - Teejet 14.7 1.9 0.3 0.3 total 85.5 2.7 6 5.5

� Drift potential of flat fan nozzlesDrift potential of flat fan nozzlesDrift potential of flat fan nozzlesDrift potential of flat fan nozzles (Wolf, 2004) (Wolf, 2004) (Wolf, 2004) (Wolf, 2004)

- Conventional: finest spray, reliable performance, can be drift prone, used at 1,4 to 4,1 bars (20 to 60 psi), >28 litres per ha (3 gpa).

- Pre-Orifice: reduce drift about 50%, reliable efficacy at low volumes, used at 2 to 4,1 bars (30 to 60 psi) or higher, > 47 litres per ha (5 gpa).

- Low-Pressure Air Induced: reduce drift about 50 to 70%, used at 2 to 4,1 bars (30 to 60 psi) or higher, > 47s litre per ha (5 gpa).

- High Pressure Air Induced: reduce drift 70 to 90%, used at 4,1 to 5,4 bars (60 to 80 psi) or higher, > 65 litres per ha (7 gpa).

1.3.2.21.3.2.21.3.2.21.3.2.2 AAAAERIAL SPRAYINGERIAL SPRAYINGERIAL SPRAYINGERIAL SPRAYING

In Belgium, aerial sprayings are sometimes used for treatment of colza crops. But, this type of application requires prior agreement of the Minister (AR 28/02/94) on advice of the “Comité d’agréation” and thus is rarely used (CRP, 2004).The potential for drift is greater for aerial applications due to higher heights of spray release, higher speeds of the aircraft and greater air turbulence in the wake of the aircraft that can shatter droplets into smaller droplets more drift prone (APVMA, 2005; ARS, 2006). 1.3.2.31.3.2.31.3.2.31.3.2.3 TTTTRADITIONAL BOOM SPRARADITIONAL BOOM SPRARADITIONAL BOOM SPRARADITIONAL BOOM SPRAYING YING YING YING

Spraying of the liquid is obtained by fragmentation of this liquid under pressure through nozzle. The droplets obtained are splashed by their own kinetic energy without help of auxiliary fluid. In relation to spray drift, this type of application has some advantages such as being able to keep spray release height low, operating at slower speeds that do no shatter droplets. However, it can also result in unacceptable amounts of spray drift. (APVMA, 2005). In Belgium, this application method is typically used for arable crops spraying. These sprayers represent 96% of the controlled sprayers (Nuyttens et al., 2004).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----17: 17: 17: 17: Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., 2004), 2004), 2004), 2004)

Drift resulting of applications of around 300 litres/ha with a boom height of 0,5 metre varies predominantly with nozzle type, nozzle size and spray pressure (van de Zande et al.,). However, it seems that the potential drift of this application method does not exceed 10% of the total applied amount (Benoît et al., 2005) 1.3.2.41.3.2.41.3.2.41.3.2.4 UUUULTRALTRALTRALTRA----LLLLOWOWOWOW----VVVVOLUME SPRAYING OLUME SPRAYING OLUME SPRAYING OLUME SPRAYING (ULV)(ULV)(ULV)(ULV)

ULV pesticides formulated in low-volatile oil-based carriers are applied “straight from the can” at total application rates of 2-5 litres/ha. This low rate of carrier is achieved by generating small droplets (50-100 µm VMD). Such droplet sizes allow large numbers of droplets to be generated, thereby compensating for the low volume of carrier. The technology can be highly efficient. However, ULV application can have a significantly higher drift potential than conventional low of high volume application (CSIRO, 2002). According to (Pimentel et al., 1993), under ideal weather conditions, only 25% of the pesticide lands in the target area and 75% drifts off into the environment. This application technology is not very used in Belgium (Lebeau, personal commentary, 2006). 1.3.2.51.3.2.51.3.2.51.3.2.5 AAAAIR ASSISTED SPRAYINGIR ASSISTED SPRAYINGIR ASSISTED SPRAYINGIR ASSISTED SPRAYING

In airairairair----assisted boomsassisted boomsassisted boomsassisted booms, air is delivered from a fan to a sleeve mounted alongside the spray so that a jet or curtain of air entrains the droplets and projects them into the crop canopy. These were designed to provide better penetration of the crop canopy and control pests and diseases in the lower canopy.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----18: 18: 18: 18: Examples of sprayers with airExamples of sprayers with airExamples of sprayers with airExamples of sprayers with air----assisted booms (Nuyttensassisted booms (Nuyttensassisted booms (Nuyttensassisted booms (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2004)2004)2004)2004)

When there is sufficient foliage to filter the droplets from the airstream, their use also reduces downwind drift (Matthews, 1995) (figure 2-19).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----19: 19: 19: 19: Effects of nozzle types and airEffects of nozzle types and airEffects of nozzle types and airEffects of nozzle types and air----assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction (Nuyttens (Nuyttens (Nuyttens (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., 2004), 2004), 2004), 2004)

On the contrary, this method should not be used if there are small plants or for a soil surface treatment (Matthews, 1995). Indeed, in this case, the air jet increases the risk of drift up to a 15-fold factor (Vancoillie, 2002); (Panneton, 2001). When done properly, air-assist can decrease drift even when fine sprays and lower water volumes are used (Wolf, 2004). AirAirAirAir----assisted sprayersassisted sprayersassisted sprayersassisted sprayers such as nebulizers and atomisers are used for localised treatments in horticulture and fruit arboriculture (orchards). Due to the height of traditional tree crops,


such as apples, air is used to project spray to the top of the canopy, which, could result in significant spray drift from above the trees (figure 2-20). These sprayers represent about 4% of the controlled Belgian sprayers (Nuyttens et al., 2004).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----20: 20: 20: 20: Examples of airExamples of airExamples of airExamples of air----assisted sprayers used in orchards in assisted sprayers used in orchards in assisted sprayers used in orchards in assisted sprayers used in orchards in Belgium (NuyttensBelgium (NuyttensBelgium (NuyttensBelgium (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004))))

Atomization is based on formation of very fine droplets, which are not only transported but also dispersed on high speed by an air jet. Micro-atomization is based on the active substances dispersion into small particles in suspension. These particles can be liquid or solid. Applied quantities of active substances are particularly light (Matthews, 1995; Vancoillie, 2002; CRP, 2004). The trend to using dwarf varieties and other changes in the planting of orchards has enabled development of other equipment. Some sprayers now use cross-flow fans close to the canopy (figure 2-21; top). Other manufacturers have designed “tunnel sprayers” (figure 1-21; middle and figure 2-22), in which a mobile canopy protects the tree from a crosswind during application. Spray which passes through the canopy is impacted on the tunnel and recycled (Vancoillie, 2002). When spraying an orchard in a full-leaf situation (LAI 1,5-2) and an average wind speed of 3 m/s with cross-flow fan sprayers, the spray-drift deposition on the soil at 4,5-5,5 m downwind of the last tree is 6,8 % of the application rate per surface area. Compared to this reference situation a tunnel sprayer can achieve a reduction in spray drift on the soil surface of 85-90 % and a cross-flow fan sprayer with reflection shields of 55% (van de Zande et al., 2004; Nuyttens et al., 2004). In Belgium, tunnel sprayers are very rarely used principally because protection against hail hampers their passage (Nuyttens et al., 2004; Lebeau, personal commentary, 2006).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----21: 21: 21: 21: Representation of used spraying Representation of used spraying Representation of used spraying Representation of used spraying systems and situations isystems and situations isystems and situations isystems and situations in orchard spraying (Top: n orchard spraying (Top: n orchard spraying (Top: n orchard spraying (Top: crosscrosscrosscross----flow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: crossflow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: crossflow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: crossflow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: cross----flow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zandeflow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zandeflow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zandeflow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zande et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004)2004)2004)2004)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----22: 22: 22: 22: Examples Examples Examples Examples of tunnels spraof tunnels spraof tunnels spraof tunnels sprayers (Nuyttensyers (Nuyttensyers (Nuyttensyers (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004)))) 1.3.31.3.31.3.31.3.3 LegislationLegislationLegislationLegislation The European Directive 91/414/EEC, concerning the authorization procedure for plant protection products, requires the calculation of pesticide spray drift during application through the use of look-up tables based on Ganzelmeier tables (1995) or other models generally accepted. According to drift experiments conducted for a variety of ground application scenarios in different field and orchard crops, the Ganzelmeier tables give the 95th percentile distributions of percentage residue deposits relative to downwind distance from a crop row (Felsot, 2005) (Annexe 2.7).


2222 RRRREVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE TOXICITY ND BIOCIDE TOXICITY ND BIOCIDE TOXICITY ND BIOCIDE TOXICITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN

BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

2.1 Acute pesticide exposure in Belgium (National Poison Centre Belgium, 2004)

The calls that reach the National Poison Centre of Belgium reflect exposure rather than poisoning (figure 2-23). Concerning pesticides there are two different ways of exposure: accidental and deliberate. Accidental ingestion (young children, pets, cattle), skin and eye contamination and inhalation are categorized under accidental exposure, whilst suicide by ingestion or injection is the most important example of deliberate exposure. In the year 2004 the National Poison Centre of Belgium received 51 692 calls. The total pesticide exposure was calculated as the total number of calls for product exposure with at least one agent type 25 ‘phytoagronomic’. Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison 23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison 23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison 23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison Centre Belgium, 2004)Centre Belgium, 2004)Centre Belgium, 2004)Centre Belgium, 2004)

If more light is shed on the human beings, about 56% are adults whereas the other 44% considers children. Two percent of the children are between 10 and 14 years old, 4% between 5 and 9, 28% can be placed in the category from 1 to 4 years old, 3% is younger than 1, and from 7% of them the age is not known. A distinction was also made between the different categories of pesticides, and the result was that 37% of the cases were caused by agricultural pesticides, 27% by biocides, 22% rodenticides, 8% were fertilizers and 6% were unknown. The most common exposure routes in order to adults exposure are oral contact, inhalation, skin contact and eye contact. Oral and inhalation contact concern more than 72%. The most common exposure routes in order to children exposure are oral contact, skin contact, inhalation, eye contact and ear and noise contact. Oral contact concerns more than 86%.

animals: 34%

adults: 36%

children: 30%


2.2 Chronic pesticide exposure: cancers and birth defects in Belgium (Janssens et al., 2002)

In order to analyze the influence of crop protection products on the health of the local population, both variables must first be described. A study conducted by Janssens et al. (2002) aimed primarily at studying the chronic diseases among growers and their neighbours (bystanders), because acute effects of crop protection products have been well studied before the approval for sale file is submitted to the government. The effects of residues of crop protection products among consumers are also extensively studied and described elsewhere in the literature (Dejonckheere & Steurbaut, 1996; Vereniging voor Kankerbestrijding, 1996; Leefmilieu en Kanker, 1997; Bonde et al., 1998; Genootschap Plantenproductie en Ecosfeer, 1999). Chronic diseases usually have a variety of causal factors and time between the exposure and the appearance of the disease frequently spans many years. Both factors make it difficult to establish how the person in question developed the disease. This is undoubtedly the case for syndromes in connection with crop protection products. The study by Janssens et al. (2002) therefore mainly took its bearings from the influence of the different types of crop protection products, more particularly those crop protection products applied in the fruit production, on the incidence of cancer, mainly those cancers for which a connection with crop protection products is suspected. The most common cancers in Belgium are lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer. There are also cancers that have a possible relation with crop protection products and that, as such, are already extensively described in literature. These include testicular cancer, lymphomas and sarcomas. A birth defect that, besides other causes, has a known connection with environmental factors is spina bifida. The most recent mortality figures with respect to cancer date from 1994. 2.2.12.2.12.2.12.2.1 Lung cancerLung cancerLung cancerLung cancer

Lung cancer gives the highest rate of mortality of all cancers, because recovery is possible in only 20 percent of the patients. It is the most common cancer in Belgium. In 1994, 3479 new cases of lung cancer by men and 617 by women were recorded; the real incidence is probably even higher. The smoking of cigarettes is one of the main causes of lung cancer. Other causal factors are described but their impact is still not sufficiently proved, and they are probably not particulary important compared to smoking. Crop protection products are repeatedly described as carcinogenic in literature (e.g. Mabuchi et al., 1979; Barthel, 1981; Wang et al., 1988; Brownson et al., 1993; Wesseling et al., 1999). However, other authors do not find this relation (e.g. McDuffle et al., 1990; Faustini et al., 1993; Figa-Talamanca et al., 1993; Cantor & Silbermann, 1999). If crop protection products are involved in the development of lung cancer, then it is possibly due to the direct inhalation of pesticides by the fruit-grower or his neighbour. The highest lung cancer mortality is found among men in the fruit growing districts. A relation between lung cancer by men and crop protection product use in growing regions is thus plausible. The study found no correlation with the incidence of lung cancer by women in fruit growing regions. For men on the other hand, a correlation is found and therefore, a correlation with acaricide use is also suggested, given the fact that these crop protection products are particularly used in the fruit sector. The observed difference between men and women might suggest that if there is indeed a causal relation, lung cancer is more likely to affect the fruit grower rather than his neighbours or bystanders. Yet, further research is recommended before any valid conclusion can be drawn. The report also showed that it is


impossible to deny that there is a correlation between crop protection products and lung cancer mortality for men. Further in depth research on this item is surely advisable. 2.2.22.2.22.2.22.2.2 Colorectal cancerColorectal cancerColorectal cancerColorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer affects men and women, mostly in the colon and in the rectum. Because of its frequent occurrence by both sexes and its relatively high death rate, colorectal cancer is an important cancer in Belgium. In 1994, 2028 new cases of colorectal cancer by men were recorded and 1983 cases by women. In various publications it is mentioned that there is a causal connection between crop protection products and colorectal cancer (e.g. Nagao & Sugimura, 1993; Soliman et al., 1997). However, other authors find no (e.g. Sathiakumar & Delzell, 1997; Cantor & Silbermann, 1999). Given that colorectal cancer is a frequent problem, this disease will also be prevalent in the fruit growing districts of the country. The medical literature is not clear as to the role of crop protection products in the emergence of colorectal cancer, but analysis of this relationship is justified by the fact that colorectal cancer is common in the fruit growing regions. The study conducted by Janssens et al. (2002) revealed that for male colorectal cancer there is a positive relation between the incidence of colorectal cancer and defoliant use, but not general pesticide use. The study concluded that the hypothesis that there is a correlation between colorectal cancer and an intense exposure to crop protection products, as used in fruit growing, cannot be defended. However, more research on the correlation with potato cultivation and the use of defoliants is necessary as a positive correlation was shown between male colorectal cancer and defoliants and potato cultivation. 2.2.32.2.32.2.32.2.3 Hormone dependent cancersHormone dependent cancersHormone dependent cancersHormone dependent cancers

Interference with the hormonal balance may lead to the emergence of hormone-dependent cancers. Certain chemical compounds, known as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC), are believed to have an adverse effect on humans. Crop protection products make up a large part of these EDC. Breast and prostate cancer are two notorious hormone-dependent cancers in Belgium. The most frequent cancer in women is breast cancer. In 1994, 4 911 new cancers were recorded, but the real figure is probably higher. Crop protection products may upset the hormonal balance, as sufficiently known for DDT. The incidence of prostate cancer has considerably increased in western countries, which may be partially ascribed to a better detection with tumour markers. In 1994, 2 739 new case were recorded in Belgium. In the study by Janssens et al. (2002) a relationship was found between defoliant use and the occurrence of breast cancer. For the incidence of prostate cancer a connection with defoliants and growth regulators was found. The data however reveal no relation with fruit production, neither between hormone dependent cancers and fruit growing nor between hormone dependent cancers and crop production products intensively used in fruit cultivation. It seems that the crop protection products for fruit growing available on the market are composed of chemical compounds without obvious hormone disturbing activity. 2.2.42.2.42.2.42.2.4 Testicular cancerTesticular cancerTesticular cancerTesticular cancer

Testicular cancer mainly affects young men and has increased in frequency the last decades. One of the possible factors possibly involved in the emergence of testicular cancer comes in the form of crop protection products (Reuber, 1980; Hayes et al., 1990; Fleming et al., 1999). In 1994, 117 new cases of testicular cancer were reported in Belgium. The


search for a correlation with environmental factors is made more difficult by this low number. Janssen et al. (2002) found a significant correlation between growth regulators and testicular cancer mortality. The relation with plant growth regulators is biologically unknown and therefore, further research is required. 2.2.52.2.52.2.52.2.5 Soft tissue sarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaSoft tissue sarcomassss

Different studies indicate the possible effect of crop protection products on the incidence of soft tissue sarcomas (Hardell & Sandstrom, 1979; Johnson et al., 1981; Sarma & Jacobs, 1982; Balarajan & Acheson, 1984; Greenwald et al., 1984; Smith et al., 1984; Kang et al., 1986; Wiklund & Holm, 1986; Lynge et al., 1987; Vineis et al., 1991; Kogevinas et al., 1995; Hoar et al., 1996). In the period 1985 to 1994, 668 deaths in Belgium were ascribed to soft tissue sarcomas. In the study by Janssens et al. (2002) exposure to crop protection products did not seem to have any appreciable influence on mortality due to soft tissue sarcomas based on the obtained data, so they concluded that the hypothesis that there is a correlation between soft tissue sarcomas and exposure to crop protection products in areas of intense use could not be defended based on the data used in the study. 2.2.62.2.62.2.62.2.6 Spina bifidaSpina bifidaSpina bifidaSpina bifida

Spina bifida is a rare defect of the neural tube, which forms between day 17 and day 20 of the pregnancy. Although the causal factors are not well known, folic acid deficiency in the diet is an important factor in developing countries (Rosano et al., 2000). For the developed countries in the West, folic acid deficiency cannot be excluded but geographical differences can hardly have a nutritional cause. The neural tube is extremely sensitive to toxic substances in the environment. Crop protection products, of which large quantities are used in fruit production, are candidates for neural tube defects (Sever, 1995; Blatter et al., 1996; Watkins et al., 1996; Brown & Susser, 1997; Dolk et al., 1998). In Belgium approximately 30 cases per year are expected. This value does not include the aborted cases of spina bifida. Janssens et al. (2002) did not substantiate the hypothesis that the modern crop protection products are a causal factor in the risk of spina bifida in Belgium. However, more research is recommended.


3333 PPPPESTICIDE AND ESTICIDE AND ESTICIDE AND ESTICIDE AND BBBBIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSEIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSEIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSEIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN SSMENT IN SSMENT IN SSMENT IN BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

3.1 Uncertainties and special problems with regard to exposure

3.1.13.1.13.1.13.1.1 RelevRelevRelevRelevance of specific applicationsance of specific applicationsance of specific applicationsance of specific applications In task 1, attention was drawn towards the use of insecticides in mosquito control programs, as to avoid vector-borne diseases. Figure 2-24 shows a geographical distribution of the number of deaths from vector-borne diseases.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----24: Deaths from vector24: Deaths from vector24: Deaths from vector24: Deaths from vector----borne diseases (WHO, 2006)borne diseases (WHO, 2006)borne diseases (WHO, 2006)borne diseases (WHO, 2006)

For Europe, the number of deaths from vector-borne diseases equals 0-1 VBD deaths/million. It can thus be concluded that this specific application of insecticides is not relevant for Belgium. This application will not be discussed further in this report.

3.1.23.1.23.1.23.1.2 Problems with availability of dataProblems with availability of dataProblems with availability of dataProblems with availability of data From task 1, it is furthermore clear that information on incidents and acute effects of pesticides and biocides PT18 can be retrieved from national pesticide poisoning surveillance programs. Such a program does actually not exist in Belgium. In the framework of the federal plan to reduce the impact of pesticides and biocides (PRP), the Federal Services for the Environment (FSE) authorized the Belgian Anti Poison Centre (BAPC) to carry out preliminary research to establish such a surveillance system. This includes the following tasks (Van Bol, pers. comm.):

� Overview of telephone calls to the BAPC over the last 3 years concerning the products involved;

� Detailed overview of the gathering of information by the BAPC on effects of pesticides/biocides in the neighbouring countries, in particular France, the Netherlands, U.K. and Germany. The situation in other countries might be added when useful information is available;


� Detailed proposal of classification of the products, involved in calls on pesticides/biocides. The classification will take into account any developments on European (Eurostat) and international (OESO, WHO, FAO...) level. The proposed classification could be based on a distinction between products for amateur use, professional agricultural and professional non-agricultural use. It should take into account the hazards of the product (class, risk phrases, …) ;

� Proposal for an index card of a telephone call, for urgent calls involving pesticides/biocides. The index card should contain detailled information distinguishing:

� calls from hospitals, (veterinary) doctors � calls resulting in advice of hospital admission or of contacting a doctor � lethal cases � cases resulting in serious poisoning of the animal

� A concrete test on minimally 20 useful cases to test the index card and to finalize the project in accordance with concrete experience ;

� Results of contacts with different stakeholders ; the problems with regard to chronic poisoning will be brought up during these contacts ;

� Proposal for follow-up program of poisonings linked to pesticides/biocides from 2007 onwards, based on the results of the project, other aspects of the PRP and the possible development of structures which are to be integrated on the level of acute medical assistance.

Sales figures give an indication of the use pattern of biocides and PT18 biocides. These figures are managed by the FSE. However, several bottle-necks exist:

� the reported sales figures are incomplete. This is amplified by the fact that, through the many consolidations of mainly biocide producing companies, a great share of the permit holders is located abroad. This hampers the effective reporting of sales figures;

� there is a significant time lag between the reporting and the processing of the sales figures, this is again mainly a problem for biocides;

� sales data are reported by volume of active substance sold. This does not allow for an accurate exposure assessment (see 3.4.3), since product type/formulation is not always known (this is certainly the case for biocides).

Currently, for biocides the incompleteness of the sales figures is dealt with as follows:

� if data are available for the previous year and the next year (e.g. 2001 and 2003), an average of these years is assumed for the in-between year (in this example 2002);

� if no data are available for a next year, the data of the previous year are used (e.g. data available for the year 2001 but not for the year 2002 ⇒ data 2002 ≈ data 2001).

Callebaut et al. (2004) suggested the following measures to deal with the lack of adequate sales figures for biocides:

� set a regular reporting of sales figures as a condition to maintain the authorization of the biocidal product in question. A possibility should be included to, whether or not temporarily, suspend the authorization if the sales figures are not reported (in good time);


� the Royal Decision of May 20031 states that the Federal Minister for the Environment can identify products for which each person, who sells that product to the user, should annually register the amount in weight or in volume of that product he has sold in Belgium during the past year. An identification of such products has not been carried out yet. An effective approach of this procedure is to identify the relevant products, based priority lists.

3.2 Exposure of the consumer at the Belgian level 3.2.13.2.13.2.13.2.1 Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for

consumersconsumersconsumersconsumers 3.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.1 RRRRESIDUE CONCENTRAESIDUE CONCENTRAESIDUE CONCENTRAESIDUE CONCENTRATION TION TION TION

In Belgium, lack of information about pesticide residue concentrations does not allow to assess precisely the exposure. Data used for estimating the exposure are MRLs, that are worst-case concentration levels. Estimation based on real exposure, as measured in national surveillance programs and distribution sector of previous year, could help to gain a better picture of residue concentration levels in foodstuffs in Belgium. This approach will be trustworthy if concentration levels are calculated with robust data and scientifically rigorous techniques. 3.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.2 AAAAMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMEDEDEDED

The GEMS/Food approach of estimating diet consumption has been really useful to calculate the dietary exposure. It provides an estimation in broad terms with food balance sheets. However, this diet database encompassed only 5 different food diets in the world. WHO is currently revising these Food Regional Diets, and by working on food consumption with a “cluster” approach will soon come up with a modified Food commodities list (WHO, 2005). This adaptation should allow greater accuracy in estimation, and therefore in risk assessment. A national database on food consumption of individuals would be really useful, as it could allow greater precision. Some countries do already have their own detailed specific diet surveys. In Belgium, a recent publication (May 2006) named “National food consumption survey in Belgium, 2004”2 has been released by the Scientific Institute of Public Health. The study contains informations on the consumption of foodstuffs by the Belgian population coupled with other factors such as gender, age, body weight, and height. 3.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.3 CCCCOCKTAILSOCKTAILSOCKTAILSOCKTAILS

As FASFC reported it, samples with multi-residues detected are getting more frequent in terms of quantity these last years. Moreover, the number of pesticides in multi-residue samples is also increasing. Nevertheless, this increase in positive samples has to be nuanced, because the analyzing techniques are improving continuously and the proper authorities search for more substances than they did a decade ago –because of the improved techniques. And the more substances that are looked for, the higher the chance that one or several of these are retrieved.

1 BG 11/07/2003 2 Available at http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/epifr/foodfr/table04.htm


Since interaction effects between pesticides have been proved (Hughes, 2002), special attention needs to be focused on multi-pesticide treatments supported by one commodity. However, if the residues are not detected in amounts above the NOAEL there are no interactions, because interaction effects are only relevant at dosis close to the NOAEL (Hughes et al., 2002). The surveillance in Belgium is not random but is targeted on products where previous experience or other information suggests that there are likely to be problems. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to assess the frequency with which residues, below or above legally enforcible maximum residue limits (MRLs) occur. It is even more difficult to assess the frequency of multiple residues occurring in the same product. A representative program of surveillance would be necessary to assess the frequency of residues, including multiple residues. Decisions about which pesticides are to be analyzed should be made by expert groups at intervals based on knowledge of products believed to be in use at the time in question. 3.2.1.43.2.1.43.2.1.43.2.1.4 PPPPROCESSING FACTROCESSING FACTROCESSING FACTROCESSING FACTOROROROR

Since many of the plants and plant products are processed before they reach the consumer or before being eaten, processing studies allow a better estimate to be made of consumer’s exposure to residues. Processing has to be considered into dietary intake estimate since not considering it may lead to an overestimation of the exposure To achieve a more realistic estimate of dietary intake, it is necessary to identify breakdown or reaction products generated by the process, to relate the levels of the residue in processed products to levels in the raw agricultural commodity, and to determine quantitative distribution of residues in the various intermediate and end products (Banasiak, 2005). Actions such as washing, trimming, peeling, milling, cooking, or juicing may all cause reduction in residue concentration (Tomerlin, 2000 ; Winter, 2001). A proper dietary exposure model will account for such reductions in residues, as well as for the occasional situation in which residues may increase as a result of processing. 3.2.23.2.23.2.23.2.2 Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring

program program program program In Belgium, the official instance responsible for the monitoring programs is the Federal Agency for the Security of the Food Chain (FASFC). Grocers, retailers, auctions, and consumer’s union are also leading some tests on targeted foodstuffs to ensure quality of the foodstuffs sold or react in case of pesticide residues concentration exceeding. 3.2.2.13.2.2.13.2.2.13.2.2.1 TTTTHE HE HE HE FFFFEDERAL EDERAL EDERAL EDERAL AAAAGENCY GENCY GENCY GENCY

3.2.2.1.13.2.2.1.13.2.2.1.13.2.2.1.1 OOOORIGINRIGINRIGINRIGIN

In 2000, grouping of all departments involved into the supervision of the food chain in Belgium led to the creation of a new entity known as the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. But a distinction had to be made as policies preparation and implementation are clearly separate sectors. Therefore the preparation of the policy for food safety and the imposition of its standards have been committed to the Federal Public Service for Public Health. The Food Agency rather verifies that legislation and standards are respected by all role-players within the food chain. Monitoring and controls, from the first to the last step of the food chain, supplying certificates and authorizations to carry out activities in the food chain, development of traceability and identification systems are the main tasks of FAFSC. Other assignments consist in providing scientific advices on risks


regarding food, preventing problems occurring in the food chain and also ensure contacts with general public. This work, achieved by experts, helps to guarantee the highest safety level for consumers.

3.2.2.1.23.2.2.1.23.2.2.1.23.2.2.1.2 AAAACTIVE WORKCTIVE WORKCTIVE WORKCTIVE WORK Working methods within the FAFSC are organized as a loop-system. Foodstuff controls are programmed by the Control Policy department which is also responsible for the integration and development of the control measures. Further on, practical application of controls is implemented by the Control department which organizes and plan the uptake of samples needed for residue tests. Analysis of samples are achieved in the Laboratory department that groups various official laboratories. If an offence is noticed through sample analysis, the General Services department of FAFSC is in charge of legal prosecution. Eventually, results from laboratories are provided to the Control Policy department which will be able to operate the risk assessment and report to UE the national data. Following an established plan based on risk assessment, controls are led in order to gather, data on residues sought to be found in vegetables, fruits, cereals, and processed products from local or imported foodstuffs, in different geographical places and along the complete food chain. For choosing which foodstuff and how many samples to collect and residues to test, the Control Policy department relies on previous identification of problematic residues based on previous controls in Belgium and Europe, toxicological data (ARfD, ADI), the analytical and budgetary possibilities as well as the importance of foodstuff in diets, RASFF messages, other information. Controls are carried out by both federal and independent certified laboratories. Depending of the residue concentration, exceeding of MRLs in samples can lead to a simple warning, an official report with a fine, and when the dietary intake calculations indicate a risk for the consumer (evaluated following document SANCO/3346/2001) then a national and international rapid alert is issued. Measures to protect consumers are therefore taken like tracing and calling back the foodstuffs for destruction. In addition to the annual co-ordinated program of Pesticide Residue Monitoring in Food of Plant Origin of the European Union, the FAFSC is also in the charge of the national programme of food controls.

3.2.2.1.33.2.2.1.33.2.2.1.33.2.2.1.3 FFFFRAMEWORK OF RAMEWORK OF RAMEWORK OF RAMEWORK OF FAFSCFAFSCFAFSCFAFSC On the 28th of February 1994 the transposition in a royal decree of the European directive 91/414 concerning pesticide storage, market, and uses laid the foundation of the Belgian legislative framework related to the pesticides. Royal decrees linked with the work of FASFC are defining pesticides spraying , MRLs thresholds , pre-harvest controls , foodstuff controls , and samples analysis . Belgian pesticides market encompasses around 1000 accepted pesticides (around 350 active substances) that are used in around 160 types of crops. 3.2.2.23.2.2.23.2.2.23.2.2.2 EUEUEUEU CO CO CO CO----ORDINATED PROGRAMME ORDINATED PROGRAMME ORDINATED PROGRAMME ORDINATED PROGRAMME

Reports given back to the European Commission by the EU countries and others who have signed the European Economic Agreement (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) are containing two types of results. Firstly, some results provided by the countries are obtained through the EU co-ordinated follow-up enforcement. Secondly, others results are provided by national surveillance programmes. The FASFC is establishing the control programme in order to integrate the follow-up enforcement into the national surveillance programme.


3.2.2.2.13.2.2.2.13.2.2.2.13.2.2.2.1 DDDDATA FROM THE FOLLOWATA FROM THE FOLLOWATA FROM THE FOLLOWATA FROM THE FOLLOW----UP ENFUP ENFUP ENFUP ENFORCEMENTORCEMENTORCEMENTORCEMENT In the special EU co-ordinated programme for 2003 (EU, 2003), latest data available, eight commodities (cauliflower, sweet peppers, wheat, aubergines, rice, grapes, cucumber and peas) from the rolling programme, were analysed for 42 different pesticides by each of the EU-members. Commodities in this programme are not necessarily produced within the country but they can be bought in markets or shops. Although the total minimum number of samples recommended in the co-ordinated programme in the EU is constant (496 samples every year), this number has been greatly exceeded in all previous years. In 2003, around 8600 samples were analysed, but not every sample was analysed for all the 42 pesticides. With regard to the eight commodities investigated, about 65 % of the samples were noted without detectable residues, 32 % of the samples contained residues of pesticides at or below the MRL (national or EC-MRL), and 3.9 % above the MRL.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----25: Co25: Co25: Co25: Co----ordinated followordinated followordinated followordinated follow----up enforcement, % of sampup enforcement, % of sampup enforcement, % of sampup enforcement, % of samples exceeding national and EC MRLs for les exceeding national and EC MRLs for les exceeding national and EC MRLs for les exceeding national and EC MRLs for the 8 commodities, 2003the 8 commodities, 2003the 8 commodities, 2003the 8 commodities, 2003

Results for the 8 commodities as well as most often detected residues are given in the Tables 2-21 and 2-22.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----21: Overview of the European results21: Overview of the European results21: Overview of the European results21: Overview of the European results of the EU co of the EU co of the EU co of the EU co----ordinated programme in 2ordinated programme in 2ordinated programme in 2ordinated programme in 2003 (national or 003 (national or 003 (national or 003 (national or ECECECEC----MRLs)MRLs)MRLs)MRLs)

Samples with Samples with Samples with Samples with detected residuesdetected residuesdetected residuesdetected residues CommodityCommodityCommodityCommodity

≤ MRL≤ MRL≤ MRL≤ MRL MRL<MRL<MRL<MRL< Grapes 57% 5% Peppers 34% 6% Cucumber 24% 3% Wheat 22% 0,3% Aubergines 18% 3%

5,7

3,9

32,7

0,9 0,7

0 0

0,30,811,1

2

2,22,6

4,3

3,6

9,5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NLPO

R D BLI

EFI

N F S E EL A DK UK

IIR

LNO

RIC

E L

% o

f sam

ples

exc

eedi

ng M

RLs


Rice 12% 0,2% Peas 19% 2% Cauliflower 17% 1%

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----22: Pesticides detected in overall22: Pesticides detected in overall22: Pesticides detected in overall22: Pesticides detected in overall Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for the the EU cothe the EU cothe the EU cothe the EU co----ordinated programme in 2003ordinated programme in 2003ordinated programme in 2003ordinated programme in 2003

PesticidePesticidePesticidePesticide % of samples% of samples% of samples% of samples PesticidePesticidePesticidePesticide % of samples% of samples% of samples% of samples

procymidone 11% methomyl 2.4%

maneb group 10% methamidophos 2%

iprodione 5.9% chlorpyriphos-methyl 1.8%

chlorpyriphos 5.5% cypermethrin 1.8%

endosulfan 5% malathion 1.8%

benomyl group 4.5% captan+folpet 1.6%

pirimiphos-methyl 3.9% 23 out of 42 pesticides < 1%

azoxystrobin 3.5%

The frequencies of MRL exceedings for single pesticide detections are all below 1%, except for methomyl, where 1,34% of all samples analysed exceeded MRL. For 12 substances no exceedings has been reported. If these figures are compared to previous year evaluations, the overall comparative picture on residues at or below the MRL is one where there has been little or no change in many pesticide/commodity combinations. Although some pesticide/commodity combinations have had a notable increase in the frequency of samples with residues, there have been a roughly similar number of cases where the frequency has had a notable decline. On all eight commodities as a whole, pesticides samples in 2003 have had a frequency of detection lower than in 2002 and similar to the average of previous years. However, data are not completely comparable given that commodities and pesticides evaluated were different in the various years. It should also be born in mind that comparison in time is difficult due to the fact that some MRLs have changed since 1999. For example, in the case of metalaxyl on peppers the MRL was reduced in 2000 to the limit of determination and the increase in the frequency of exceedings mentioned above should be seen in this context. Chronic exposure assessments demonstrate that the intake of pesticides remains clearly below the ADI and there is no concern of chronic toxicity. However, for the assessment of acute exposure, ARfD was exceeded in nine cases (EU, 2003).

3.2.2.2.23.2.2.2.23.2.2.2.23.2.2.2.2 DDDDATA FROM THE NATIONAATA FROM THE NATIONAATA FROM THE NATIONAATA FROM THE NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRL SURVEILLANCE PROGRL SURVEILLANCE PROGRL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMMESAMMESAMMESAMMES Results obtained by national surveillance programs from EU-members do not follow a same pattern in the overall. Considering the size of the population, less-populated countries did test less samples than highly-populated countries (figure 2-26).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----26: National surveillance programmes, comparison 26: National surveillance programmes, comparison 26: National surveillance programmes, comparison 26: National surveillance programmes, comparison of the number of samples taken by of the number of samples taken by of the number of samples taken by of the number of samples taken by 100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)

When the numbers of pesticides sought for and found is compared, the number of pesticides sought for in Belgium is below the mean value for European countries, whereas the amount of pesticides found is slightly above the mean value. Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 2003)2003)2003)2003) Belgium’s samples percentage of fresh fruit and vegetables above the MRLs reached 4,3%, EU average being 5,6%. The Netherlands, Portugal and Germany show a percentage of samples exceeding MRLs around or above 9%, and those from United Kingdom, Liechtenstein and Italy do not reach 2% of exceedings.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

LIE

ICE

NO

R

FIN DK

IRL S L A NL EL D I B E F

UK

PO

R

Num

ber of

sam

ples

/100

.000

hab

.

3311 16

13086 99

147

68 77 48101 80 81 85

47 45 22

246

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

D NL I A F S E

NOR

FIN UK

DK B

POR EL IRL L

LIE

ICE

Num

ber

of p

estic

ides


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----28: National 28: National 28: National 28: National Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)

These results have to be carefully handled since analysis methods, number of pesticides sought for, test sensitivity and limits of quantification (LOQ) can differ from a country to another. 3.2.2.33.2.2.33.2.2.33.2.2.3 BBBBELGIAN NATIONAL SURVELGIAN NATIONAL SURVELGIAN NATIONAL SURVELGIAN NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMMEEILLANCE PROGRAMMEEILLANCE PROGRAMMEEILLANCE PROGRAMME

In 2004, an amount of 1766 samples of fruits, vegetables, cereals, and processed products were taken in various proportions by the FAFSC on the Belgian market (FASFC, 2004).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 (FASFC, 2004)(FASFC, 2004)(FASFC, 2004)(FASFC, 2004)

The percentage of samples from Belgian origin reached 62%. As part of the national surveillance programme, analysis of these samples allowed to show that national or EU harmonized Maximum Residue Levels were exceeded in 77 samples of fruits and vegetables (4,8%). Exceeding was noticed in 4% of the imported products, and in 5,3% from Belgian products.

14,6

11,1

6,5 6,3 6,3

4,84,3 4,2

3,63,1

2,6 2,3 2,3 2,2 1,81,3 1

8,9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

NL P D F

FIN S E B A

IRL

DK

LIE EL L

NO

R IIC

EU

K

% o

f sam

ples

MR

Ls<

31,0%

59,3%

0,4% 9,3%

Fruits Vegetables Cereals Processed products


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----30: Comparison of the 30: Comparison of the 30: Comparison of the 30: Comparison of the number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)

Relatively high percentages of MRL’s exceedings were found in stem vegetables (10,8%, mainly celery) and leafy vegetables (4,9%, mainly lettuce). Note that in this report exceedings were counted not taking into account the uncertainty on the analytical result. One exceedings was observed for processed products, and none for cereals. For fruits and vegetables, the percentage of exceedings in 2004 (4,8%) is higher than in 2003 (4,3%). However, the number of samples analysed is noticeably higher than in the previous years).

FiFiFiFigure 2gure 2gure 2gure 2----31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of 31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of 31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of 31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of samples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetablessamples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetablessamples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetablessamples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetables

No residues were found in 54% of the samples of fruits and vegetables and 84% of the samples of processed products. Out of a list of 181 different pesticide residues sought in fruit and vegetables, a total of 61 were found at least once during the monitoring programme of 2004. The ten most frequently found pesticide residues, in decreasing order of frequency (found/sought) are: chlorpropham, orthophenyl-phenol, bromide ion, chlormequat, propamocarb, dithiocarbamates, iprodione, imazalil (table 2-23). Most of these are found by single residue methods, which are only carried out when the presence of residues is expected

1,6

6,7

5,3

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

BE EU OTHER

Nu

mb

er o

f sa

mp

les

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

MR

Ls

exce

edin

g (

%)

4,84,3

5,4

4,1

0

400

800

1200

1600

2001 2002 2003 2004

Num

ber

of s

ampl

es

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

MR

Ls e

xcee

din

gs

(%)


(chloropham, orthophenyl-phenol and chlormequat for example). When counted in absolute number of findings, the ten most frequently found pesticide residues, in decreasing order of number of findings, are: iprodione, dithiocarbamates,bromide ion, chlorpropham, tolyfluanid, imazalil, procymidone and propamocarb.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)

Fruit and VegetablesFruit and VegetablesFruit and VegetablesFruit and Vegetables

2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004

CHLORMEQUAT CHLORMEQUAT CHLORPROPHAM CHLORPROPHAM

PROPAMOCARB BROMIDE ION PROCHLORAZ ORTHOPHENYL-PHENOL

BROMIDE ION IMAZALIL BROMIDE ION BROMIDE

IMAZALIL ETEPHON CHLORMEQUAT CHLORMEQUAT

PROCHLORAZ PROPAMOCARB IMAZALIL PROPAMOCARB

CHLORPROPHAM DITHIOCARBAMATES DITHIOCARBAMATES DITHIOCARBAMATES

DITHIOCARBAMATES CHLORPROPHAM PROPAMOCARB IPRIDIONE

IPRIDIONE CARBENDAZIM IPRIDIONE IMAZALIL

THIABENDAZOLE THIABENDAZOLE CYPRODINIL PROCHLORAZ

CARBENDAZIM IPRIDIONE CARBENDAZIM ETEPHON

Note that orthophenyl-phenol is not registered in Belgium. Its presence in the food chain is mostly due to citrus post-harvest treatment done in foreign countries. In cereals, out of 29 pesticide residues sought for, bromide ion, dichlorvos, malathion, clorpyriphos-methyl, pirimiphos-methyl, pirimiphos-ethyl and lindane were detected (table 2-24). Residues of lindane were found only once in 2004 and contamination must have occurred accidentaly.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)

CerealsCerealsCerealsCereals

2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004

BROMIDE ION DICHLORVOS MALATHION PIRIMIPHOS-ETHYL

DICHLORVOS CLORPYRIPHOS-METHYL BROMIDE ION

PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL

MALATHION PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL LINDANE

PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL MALATHION

When observing the number of samples containing multi-residues, it appears that this number has increased these last years (figure 2-32).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----32: Number of samples containing multi32: Number of samples containing multi32: Number of samples containing multi32: Number of samples containing multi----residues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgiumresidues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgiumresidues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgiumresidues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgium

3.2.33.2.33.2.33.2.3 Non official residue monitoringNon official residue monitoringNon official residue monitoringNon official residue monitoring 3.2.3.13.2.3.13.2.3.13.2.3.1 TTTTEST EST EST EST AAAACHATSCHATSCHATSCHATS/T/T/T/TEST EST EST EST AAAAANKOOPANKOOPANKOOPANKOOP

Leader of consumer’s union in Belgium, Test Achats/Testaankoop (2002) did investigate the quality of the food chain in 2002. The article released after targeted foodstuff tests showed that:

� 20 out of 29 lettuce samples tested did present detectable pesticide residues. On these 20 samples, 16 were containing more than one pesticide residue. Only one sample with propamocarb residue exceeded the MRL. Analysis of 4 lettuces coming from organic farming showed that no pesticide residues were found.

� 13 out of 28 grapes samples tested contained pesticide residues. 8 of these 13

samples were presenting multi-residue. But more striking is the fact that 9 samples exceeded the MRL. Pesticides which were exceeding MRL are cyprodinil, pyrimethanil, and etephon. One organic grape sample was showing the highest concentration of cyprodinil residues. Most of these grapes were coming from Italy, where MRL are lower than in Belgium.

3.2.3.23.2.3.23.2.3.23.2.3.2 DDDDELHAIZEELHAIZEELHAIZEELHAIZE

Within the framework of this project, information were gathered in the distribution sector by contacting Delhaize. The pesticide monitoring implemented by the Quality department follows two main orientation and samples are taken mostly on fresh fruits and vegetables. Random sampling occur twice a month and around 25 samples are taken in the fruits and vegetables central storing place. Targeted sampling are done when the Quality department come across any alert, given by the FASFC or by other international instances. Targeted sampling can also be decided on the basis of the EU coordinated program. Samples are analyzed by Phytolab for a large scope of pesticides. Global results were given for 2004 and 2005. In 2004, 14 out of the 290 samples (5,8%) were detected with an exceeding of MRL, whereas MRL exceeding occurred in 16 of the

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2001 2002 2003 2004

Num

ber

of s

ampl

es2 residues

3 residues

4 residues

5 residues

6 residues

7 residues

8 residues


246 samples (7,3%) in 2005. These figure are higher than those obtain by the FASFC, but it can be explained by the fact that targeted sampling do encounter more MRL exceeding. Exceeding concerned mainly celery, grape, lettuce, citrus and beans. In case of MRL exceeding, process followed by Delhaize is to report the FASFC of the exceeding, as well as the supplier of the foodstuff. In some cases, if these MRL exceeding are repeated over the years, Delhaize end up changing supplier in order to ensure food safety for consumers. If more than 3 different pesticides are found in one sample, the commodity and its origin are noted and followed carefully in the next monitorings. 3.2.3.33.2.3.33.2.3.33.2.3.3 OOOOTHERSTHERSTHERSTHERS

Although not available with more precise figures for the moment, monitoring led by the large-scale distribution between 1995 and 2001 reported that 12% and 49% of the samples originated from organic and conventional sector respectively, were above the detection limit (Pussemier et al., 2006). No other information were taken about other sources of data. However, non official controls (retailers, auctions, etc) are to be taken into account in further studies. Data they may provide could be useful for a complete analysis of contaminations in the food chain. 3.2.3.43.2.3.43.2.3.43.2.3.4 RRRREVIEW OF THE SITUATIEVIEW OF THE SITUATIEVIEW OF THE SITUATIEVIEW OF THE SITUATION OF RISK ASSESSMENON OF RISK ASSESSMENON OF RISK ASSESSMENON OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CONSUMERST FOR CONSUMERST FOR CONSUMERST FOR CONSUMERS

3.2.3.4.13.2.3.4.13.2.3.4.13.2.3.4.1 RRRRISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENT

MRLs exceeding do not necessarily mean that toxicological endpoints are surpassed since they are not a toxicological limit sensu sticto. Indeed exceeded MRLs are rather strong indicators of violations of good agricultural practices (Nasreddine et al., 2002). If the residue level in food exceeds the MRL, the theoretical maximum daily intakes and the ADI have to be taken into account in order to assess clearly the risk for the consumer. More detailed risk assessment will be achieved in task 3.

3.2.3.4.23.2.3.4.23.2.3.4.23.2.3.4.2 IIIIN N N N EEEEUROPEUROPEUROPEUROPE Risk assessment has been made by Nasreddine et al. (2002) for Europe, with figures obtained from the program of monitoring entitled ‘Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union’ in 1996. Lettuce was the crop with the highest number of positive results, with residue levels exceeding the MRLs more frequently than in any of the other investigated crop. Even though, this residue concentration intake, when compared to ADI by application of the average consumption of lettuce, was equal to 11,5% of the ADI. When others MRLs limits were not complied, the pesticide exposure did not reached 1% of the ADI. In 1997, there was no exceeding of the ADI. In 1998, the highest residue exposure, for methidathion group, reached 10% of the ADI, whereas in 1999 all the pesticide exposures ranged between 0,43% and 1,4%.

3.2.3.4.33.2.3.4.33.2.3.4.33.2.3.4.3 IIIIN N N N BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM In Belgium, a comparable exercise can be done with the latest figure from the surveillance program of 2004 (FASFC, 2004). The pesticide-commodity combination were chosen among the combinations that had the highest exceeding of MRLs observed. The table 2-25 indicates that intakes did not reached the ADI in the cases where most of the MRLs exceeding were observed. Consumption has been calculated with figures from GEMS/Food. The sum of pesticides from maneb group were found above the MRLs in 5 samples out of 166. Nevertheless, the highest residue concentration reached 13 mg of active substance/kg food stuff, leading to comparison of the Estimated Intake with the ADI. For maneb group and lettuce, the ratio is a slightly under 10%.


Even though not exhaustive, this table shows that dietary exposure of highest exceeding are far from reaching the ADI value. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity----pesticidespesticidespesticidespesticides in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : 1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)

CommodityCommodityCommodityCommodity PesticidePesticidePesticidePesticide Highest Highest Highest Highest

concentrationconcentrationconcentrationconcentration (mg/kg)

MRLMRLMRLMRL (mg/kg)

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated IntakeIntakeIntakeIntake

(mg/kg b.w./day)

ADI ADI ADI ADI (mg/kg b.w./

day)

% of % of % of % of ADIADIADIADI

Lettuce maneb group

13 5 4,88E-03 0,05 9,75

Strawberries methiocarb 0,15 0,05 5,50E-05 0,02 0,28

Carrots chlormequat 0,23 0,05 2,03E-05 0,05 0,04

3.2.3.4.43.2.3.4.43.2.3.4.43.2.3.4.4 OOOOTHERTHERTHERTHER

Similar study was led by Winter (1992) is USA. The comparison was made between the Theoretical Maximum Residue Concentration (TMRC) and the ADI for 35 selected pesticides that were subject to EPA tolerance decision from 1988 to 1991. Albeit based on worst case approach, the ADI was exceeded only for one pesticide, and for 23 of the 35 pesticides studies TMRCs were accounting for less than 5% of the ADI.

3.2.3.4.53.2.3.4.53.2.3.4.53.2.3.4.5 CCCCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS Nasreddine et al. (2002) concluded in their study that, based on scientific criteria, the risks related to the presence of pesticides residues in food are considered minimal. Even though requiring further analysis, situation seem to be similar for Belgium. Besides, not even an alert of acute poisoning was given during last years surveillance controls. When analyzing results obtained during EU monitoring of pesticide residues, few cases of exceeding the MRLs are noted. Taking into account ADI parameters, it is unlikely that a consumer would be exposed to levels exceeding MRLs all his life. But a small proportion of pesticides groups are likely to give rise to acute effects via the food chain, namely some groups of insecticides, a few fungicides and certain herbicides. Although many molluscicides and rotenticides have the potential to be acutely toxic they are unlikely to represent a hazard via food (Mars, 2000 ; Harris et al., 2000). In fact, risk assessments preformed in the EU, using the ARfD, shows that there is no reason for having concerns over the presence of pesticide residues in food in the European Union (Nasreddine et al., 2002). However, one should keep in mind that risk assessment is a continually evolving process. New information on contaminants, their implicated health effects, the reduction of uncertainties and the variability of the individuals and of the target groups, as well as their occurrence in food are all factors that should be continuously studied and monitored (Kuhnlein and Chan, 2000). Deeper risk assessment will be done in task 3. 3.2.3.53.2.3.53.2.3.53.2.3.5 EEEENVIRONMENTAL PESTICINVIRONMENTAL PESTICINVIRONMENTAL PESTICINVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDES IN FOODSTUFF IN DES IN FOODSTUFF IN DES IN FOODSTUFF IN DES IN FOODSTUFF IN BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

3.2.3.5.13.2.3.5.13.2.3.5.13.2.3.5.1 IIIINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION

It is important to make a distinction between the main streams of foodstuffs production that are good under control thanks to the monitoring programs applied by the public authorities (e.g. main agricultural crops and animal products such as cereals, fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs) and some other parallel streams that are much less


controlled (e.g. home-produced food, fish products, etc). In the latter case there can be some specific problems with environmental pesticides and other contaminants. Indeed, although not anymore a priority in the monitoring programs, banned pesticides such as organochlorines can still be found in the food chain. There are several studies carried out in order to detect the presence of these pesticides in the environment. Often found with other chemical compounds (PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals) organochlorines and their metabolites are still able to contaminate living organisms nowadays. Results tend to indicate that these accumulated pesticides have to be taken into account in the risk assessment for consumers.

3.2.3.5.23.2.3.5.23.2.3.5.23.2.3.5.2 WWWWELL CONTROLLED FOODSELL CONTROLLED FOODSELL CONTROLLED FOODSELL CONTROLLED FOODSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFS

3.2.3.5.2.13.2.3.5.2.13.2.3.5.2.13.2.3.5.2.1 Residues in milkResidues in milkResidues in milkResidues in milk

Even though hexachlorocyclohexanes were technically banned in 2003 in the European Union, residues can still be found into the food chain. The EFSA journal published a study in which different HCH isomers; α, β, and γ (also known as lindane); were sought for in different countries of Europe (EFSA, 2005). Because of the lipophilic properties and persistence in the environment, β-HCH followed by α-HCH and to a lesser extent γ-HCH may give rise to bioaccumulation and biomagnification through the food chain. HCHs are rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, pass the placenta and are transferred into milk. The toxicity of the isomers varies, γ-HCH being the most acutely neurotoxic followed by α-HCH. β-HCH penetrates less readily into the central nervous system, is more persistent and tends to accumulate in the body over time. Data from European countries, which banned the production and use of technical HCH at an early stage, indicate a permanent decline of HCH exposure to humans. Market basket studies performed between 1994 and 2003 in the Czech Republic indicate a significant decline of approximately 60 % for the average daily intake of HCH isomers. Human milk monitoring programmes in various countries revealed a corresponding decline of β-HCH levels up to 80 % since the 1980s. In current human milk samples α- and γ-HCH are only found occasionally. Considering the decreasing concentration of HCHs in breast milk in some European countries, current human exposure through food in the European Union is likely to be very low, in the lower range of 1-10 ng/kg b.w./day. In contrast, human milk samples from some East European and developing countries with a more recent use of technical HCH show higher levels, indicating a higher exposure. Recent controls done in Belgium indicate that organochlorine residues in milk exceed the limit in less than 1% of the samples tested (table 2-26). In both cases, the exceeding involved lindane. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----26: Control of OC resid26: Control of OC resid26: Control of OC resid26: Control of OC residues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)ues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)ues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)ues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)

2001 2002 2003 2004

number of samples tested 190 176 175 173 number of samples above the limit 0 0 1 1

3.2.3.5.2.23.2.3.5.2.23.2.3.5.2.23.2.3.5.2.2 Residues in fishesResidues in fishesResidues in fishesResidues in fishes

In a study carried out by Hites et al. (2004), over two metric tons of farmed and wild salmon from around the world have been analysed for organochlorine contaminants (DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane,…). Salmon are relatively fatty carnivorous fish that feed high in the food


web, and they bioaccumulate contaminants such as pesticides. Results showed that concentrations of these contaminants were significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild. Indeed, out of the 14 organochlorines contaminants sought for, 13 were found in a significantly higher concentration in farmed salmon. European-raised salmon have significantly greater contaminant loads than those raised in North and South America, indicating the need for further investigation into the sources of contamination. The human health effects due to diet exposure to organochlorines are a function of contaminant toxicity, concentration in fish tissues, and fish consumption rates. Although risk/benefit computation is difficult, risk analysis indicates that consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption.

3.2.3.5.33.2.3.5.33.2.3.5.33.2.3.5.3 LLLLESS CONTROLLED FOODSESS CONTROLLED FOODSESS CONTROLLED FOODSESS CONTROLLED FOODSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFS

3.2.3.5.3.13.2.3.5.3.13.2.3.5.3.13.2.3.5.3.1 Contaminated eggs from free range hensContaminated eggs from free range hensContaminated eggs from free range hensContaminated eggs from free range hens

In Belgium, eggs from private owners and commercial farms were analysed and compared on their pesticide residues concentration (Van Overmeire et al., 2005). Because organochlorinated compounds such as DDT and metabolites can accumulate in the environment, it is still possible that some residues enter the food chain. Analysis showed that eggs from private owners, compared to eggs from commercial farms, were far more contaminated. Results for most organochlorine pesticides were well below the Belgian tolerated levels. Only for the sum of DDT, DDE and DDD some high exceedings, up to 10 times the tolerated level, were observed for eggs coming from private owners. DDT, and more particularly, the main compound in the technical pesticide product, was found in all PO eggs. Figures obtained through analysis of private owners eggs can be compared with other form another study of Viera et al. (2001), on eggs from Brazil that were sampled in the vicinity of places where DDT had been used 7 and 9 years before the sampling. It appears from soil analysis that the problem was coming from the sheltered area were hens from private owners were living. Even though used before DDT was banned, still some residues bio-accumulated in the soil were responsible for the eggs contamination.

3.2.3.5.3.23.2.3.5.3.23.2.3.5.3.23.2.3.5.3.2 Wild eelsWild eelsWild eelsWild eels

In a survey carried out between 1994 and 2001, the Institute for Forestry and Game Management showed interesting results about OCs residue in wild eels (Goemans, 2003). Eels were chosen because they can be considered as bio-indicator. Samples were taken in public waters, in 263 locations of the Flemish region. In Belgium there is no norms linked with OC residue levels in eels, therefore the study was based on tolerance levels used in the USA, Canada, and in The Netherlands. Results tend to indicate that lindane residue level exceeded the norm in 4,2% of all samples. The highest concentration reached 790 ng/g fat. Dieldrin residues were found in a concentration above the norm in 1,5% of the total number of samples. These samples with exceeding were not located in the same place, which show a certain heterogeneity in the geographical location of the environmental contamination.

3.2.3.5.43.2.3.5.43.2.3.5.43.2.3.5.4 BBBBIOMARKER OF PESTICIDIOMARKER OF PESTICIDIOMARKER OF PESTICIDIOMARKER OF PESTICIDE CONTE CONTE CONTE CONTAMINATIONAMINATIONAMINATIONAMINATION

3.2.3.5.4.13.2.3.5.4.13.2.3.5.4.13.2.3.5.4.1 Umbilical cordsUmbilical cordsUmbilical cordsUmbilical cords

The Centre for Environment and Health released in 2005 the results of a 4-year monitoring program of chemical contaminants in the Flemish part of Belgium. Concerning pesticides, ppDDE concentrations were measured in cells of woman umbilical cords in different part of


northern Belgium. The table 2-27 shows the results obtained during the study, numbers in bold being significantly higher or lower of the mean value for the overall study. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----27: Average concentrations of ppDDE27: Average concentrations of ppDDE27: Average concentrations of ppDDE27: Average concentrations of ppDDE given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005) given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005) given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005) given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005)

Area ppDDE concentration (ng/g fat)

Antwerpen city 112 Gent city 71 Orchards region 76 Rural area 175 Harbours 105 Albertkanaal zone 140 Incinerator area 181

Surprisingly, ppDDE residue concentrations were significantly lower than the mean value in orchards area. In rural areas, ppDDE residue concentrations were found higher than the mean value. In industrial areas, sampling uptakes did not allow to confirm statistically the results obtained but ppDDE residue concentrations were found above the mean concentration in the area of the Albertkanaal, and in an incinerator area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005).

3.2.3.5.53.2.3.5.53.2.3.5.53.2.3.5.5 CCCCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS Organochlorines and their metabolites can be considered as environmental contaminants (EFSA, 2005). Living organisms at the top of the food chain generally reflects overall contaminants level in the environment. Indeed, by biomagnification , organochlorines concentrations of living organisms at the top of the food chain reflect contaminant levels in both the surrounding environment and in organisms below them in the food chain. Soil, water sediments, and living organisms are therefore uncontrolled sources of contamination. It has been noticed that the presence of organochlorines is not homogeneous within the countries and that concentration levels are decreasing (EFSA, 2005). Consumer of such foodstuffs, mostly animal products, are therefore encountering some risks if their intake is important. In addition, organochlorines are not the only environmental contaminants, as they are often found along with other chemical contaminants such as dioxins, PCBs or heavy metals. Cocktail’s effects are not yet sufficiently investigated to assess that no risks are to be expected. It would be interesting to study the various sources of contamination. Indeed it is probable that industrial uses of OC lasted longer after OC were banned. 3.2.3.63.2.3.63.2.3.63.2.3.6 IIIIDENTIFICATION OF THEDENTIFICATION OF THEDENTIFICATION OF THEDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST RELEVANT POINT MOST RELEVANT POINT MOST RELEVANT POINT MOST RELEVANT POINTS WITH REGARDS TO FOS WITH REGARDS TO FOS WITH REGARDS TO FOS WITH REGARDS TO FOOD SAFETYOD SAFETYOD SAFETYOD SAFETY

3.2.3.6.13.2.3.6.13.2.3.6.13.2.3.6.1 BBBBELGIUM WITHIN ELGIUM WITHIN ELGIUM WITHIN ELGIUM WITHIN EEEEUROPEUROPEUROPEUROPE

In the overall situation, Belgium results from food controls are close the average obtained for Europe. For the follow-up enforcement concerning the 8 commodities, 3.9% of MRLs exceeding were observed in Belgium whereas the European average is 3.2%. This figure is lower than the previous years average in Europe (EU, 2003). For the national surveillance programs, the percentage of samples exceeding MRLs for fruits, vegetables, and cereals have increased from 3% in 1996 to 5.5% in 2003. This can be linked to the increasing of pesticides sought for. Belgium’s samples percentage (4,3%) of fresh fruit and vegetables above the MRLs is below EU average (5,6%). Belgium did take around 11 samples per 100.000 habitants, which is close to Europe average 10.3 %.


Resulting from follow up enforcement and national surveillance program, the percentage of samples tested containing more than one residue reached 12.1% in Belgium, the European average standing at 20.5%.

3.2.3.6.23.2.3.6.23.2.3.6.23.2.3.6.2 SSSSITUATION IN ITUATION IN ITUATION IN ITUATION IN BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

3.2.3.6.2.13.2.3.6.2.13.2.3.6.2.13.2.3.6.2.1 Pesticides foundPesticides foundPesticides foundPesticides found

The most often found active substances reported by FASFC in the national surveillance programme in 2002, 2003 and 2004 are for fruits and vegetables samples : chlorpropham, bromide ion, chlormequat, imazalil, orthophenyl-phenol and dithiocarbamates. For cereals samples, pirimiphos-methyl, malathion, pirimiphos-ethyl dichlorvos (in 2002), bromide ion (in 2003), and lindane (2004) were the main pesticides found between 2002 and 2004.

3.2.3.6.2.23.2.3.6.2.23.2.3.6.2.23.2.3.6.2.2 Pesticides found Pesticides found Pesticides found Pesticides found ---- MRLs exceedings MRLs exceedings MRLs exceedings MRLs exceedings

Between 2001 and 2004, the number of MRLs exceedings varied for dithiocarbamates (30), bromide ion (18), chlormequat (17), propamocarb (14), carbendazim (13), toclophos-methyl (13), ipridione (8), chlorpyrifos (7), methomyl (7), dimethoate (6, all in 2003), and imalazil (5 whose 4 in 2002). However, after further analysis of these MRLs exceedings, risks of acute poisoning were not encountered.

3.2.3.6.2.33.2.3.6.2.33.2.3.6.2.33.2.3.6.2.3 Commodities Commodities Commodities Commodities

In 2004, group of commodities with high percentage of detected residues in the samples were citrus fruits (90%), mushrooms (89%), leaf vegetables (66%), potatoes (62%), berries (55%), stone fruits (53%), seed fruits (46%), and stem vegetables (40%). Table X shows the percentage of MRL exceedings of every commodity groups for 2003 and 2004 (FASFC). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 2222003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)

Commodity groups Number

of samples 2003

% of MRL exceedings

2003

Number of samples 2004

% of MRL exceedings

2004 stem vegetables 68 10 92 11 berries and small fruits 109 11 130 5 leafy vegetables 278 5 318 9 root vegetables 41 7 57 4 citrus fruits 43 5 69 3 stone fruits 38 5 51 2 Brassica vegetables 58 0 99 6 fruiting vegetables 184 2 236 4 seed fruits 97 2 205 2 potatoes 141 1 151 3 mushrooms 10 0 9 0

The higher percentage of MRLs exceedings concerned stem vegetables, followed by berries and small fruits, leafy vegetables, and root vegetables. These results show that the percentage of detected residues in the samples cannot be associated to a high percentage of MRLs exceedings, as for mushrooms none of the samples was exceeding MRLs whereas pesticides residues were detected in 90% of the samples tested.


As shown by the results obtained by the European follow-up enforcement, grapes and peppers had the highest percentages of MRLs exceedings, grapes having also the highest percentage of samples with detected residue. Active substances like procymidone and those from the maneb group were detected in respectively 11 % and 10 % of the samples. Contamination in grapes were also highlighted by Test Achats : 9 of the 28 samples tested were exceeding MRLs.

3.2.3.6.2.43.2.3.6.2.43.2.3.6.2.43.2.3.6.2.4 MRLs exceeding MRLs exceeding MRLs exceeding MRLs exceeding

These lasts years, the FASFC came across two main problems in the Belgian food chain and by precaution several products from plants origin had to be phased out from the food chain. In 1999, a problem concerning chlormequat residues in pears triggered temporarily the interdiction of chlormequat use. Residue concentrations were measured above national MRL. Fresh pears, processed pears as well as pears in babyfood were contaminated. Belgian authorities explained these exceedances by the unexpected effect made by the two applications that happened before the interruption of chlormequat uses. EU countries were notified through the RASFF (EU, 1991). A second problem occurred with chlorpyriphos in October 2005. Pre-harvest controls of residue concentration in carrot fields in the West Flanders and Limburg pointed out a potential risk for the consumer. The FASFC doubted that these abnormally high concentrations could decrease below the MRL once harvested. Controls were motivated by apparent problems linked to crop growth. Detailed tests issued that around 400 ha spread in more or less 80 exploitations were affected by the contamination. The pesticide involved is admitted for use in Belgium since the 80’s. Precaution measures taken by the FASFC, before obtaining results form further analysis, led to the interdiction for farmers to sell the contaminated carrots. Some carrots already harvested and sold in markets were not called back because public health was not threatened by any danger of acute poisoning (FASFC, 2005a ; FASFC, 2005b).

3.3 Pesticide exposure at farm level in Belgium 3.3.13.3.13.3.13.3.1 Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide

useuseuseuse This part is mainly based on a survey, financed by the Belgian Science Policy performed in 2002-2003 by the University of Ghent (UGent), the University of Louvain-la-Neuve (UCL) and the Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), about knowledges and practices concerning ppp manipulation and application in Belgian fruits, vegetables and “fields” crops in the frame of the scientific support plan for a sustainable development policy. For fruits, 100 growers from Flanders were asked. For vegetables, 114 growers from Flanders were asked. For field crops, a hundred farmers belonging to the category ‘field crops’ or ‘mixed farming’ from the Walloon Brabant Province were interrogated. These farming types account for more than 80% of the pesticides applied in the Belgian agriculture. The results of this survey are presented and discussed in two reports (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).


3.3.1.13.3.1.13.3.1.13.3.1.1 FFFFARMERSARMERSARMERSARMERS’’’’ TRAINING AND FORMAT TRAINING AND FORMAT TRAINING AND FORMAT TRAINING AND FORMATIONIONIONION

The level of study and choice of additional training may have a favourable influence on the farmer’s decisions and actions. Indeed, the best trained farmers are often more opened to progress and more able to benefit of the advance in knowledges and techniques. The training they received may also affect the farmers’ decision-making process (economical considerations, crop selection,…). About 25% of the farmers do not have an official certificate of upper secondary education (figure 3-1). About 50% of them have agricultural training. In addition, 59% of the surveyed farmers have received additional agricultural training (e.g. through evening classes). Of these, 64% are qualified as specially accredited users of plant protection products (i.e. able to use annex 10 products). It is important to note that training level is not significantly linked to the farmer’s age. ‘Young’ farmers are not necessarily better trained than ‘older’ farmers.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----33: 33: 33: 33: Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main subject agricultural subject agricultural subject agricultural subject agricultural sciencesciencesciencesciences; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college s; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college s; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college s; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college with as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marotwith as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marotwith as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marotwith as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003200320032003))))

As can be seen in figure 2-33, regardless of the speculation, most of the farmers have an agricultural superior secondary school diploma (Marot et al., 2003). However, according to INS statistics (table 2-29), which represent the national average, in 2003, most of the farmers (58,1%) had only a practical agricultural formation. Still to INS, only 20,8% of the farmers had a complete agricultural formation. Thus, their knowledge and their know-how are above all drawn from their practical experiment and the knowledge transmitted by their predecessors (generally, parents) (INS, 2003). The difference between the INS statistics and the survey can be explained by survey samples not completely representative of the Belgian agriculture for different reasons.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PE L SE U SE (A) U SE (NA) UC UC (A) UN

%

f ruit grow ing

vegetable grow ing

f ield crops


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----29: 29: 29: 29: Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)

Results of the survey show also that 37,8% of the crops fields farmers, 43% of the fruits growers and 49% of the vegetables growers have a diploma of “specially accredited users of plant protection products” (i.e. able to use the annex 10 products). This qualification includes among others courses of botany, pests reconnaissance, fight against weeds and pests, toxicology, legislation concerning pesticides, etc (Marot et al., 2003). Thus, concerning use of ppp, these farmers are supposed to be well informed of the good practices and aware of the different dangers.

It is also important to note that, contrary to expectations, training level is not significantly linked to the farmer’s age. "Young" farmers are not necessarily better trained than "older" farmers (Maraite et al., 2004). 3.3.1.23.3.1.23.3.1.23.3.1.2 FFFFARMERSARMERSARMERSARMERS’’’’ KNOWLEDGES CONCERNI KNOWLEDGES CONCERNI KNOWLEDGES CONCERNI KNOWLEDGES CONCERNING PPPNG PPPNG PPPNG PPP

During the cultivation season, farmers have to make choices regarding production methods (cultivation method, crop varieties, crop protection products, fertilising) that determine farm management and yield. In addition, farm management also depends on external factors such as climatic conditions, economic context, etc. However, farmers do not stand alone when making these decisions. They are influenced by other people who have an impact on their decisions regarding pesticide management. The hypothesis is that the extent to which farmers display an environmentally friendly approach depends upon their social situation, their farming system, their choice of crop variety and their agricultural area.

3.3.1.2.13.3.1.2.13.3.1.2.13.3.1.2.1 DDDDANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOWLEDGE LEVELWLEDGE LEVELWLEDGE LEVELWLEDGE LEVEL The knowledge of pictogram by vegetables and fruits growers is quite high (respectively 77% and 64%). On the other hand, the knowledge of field crops farmers is slight (only 13%). This poor knowledge is quite surprising in the light of the formation level of most of these farmers. Thus, the fields crops farmers, despite reading (82% of the farmers regularly read the pesticide notices) and a good understanding of the indications on the labels (88% say that the security indications on the labels are well written and easy to understand), do not have a good knowledge of the pictograms. They take only the information from the labels that they require for spraying (rate, mixture, etc). Finally, the statistical analysis showed that knowledge of the pictograms does not have any significant influence on the farmers’ practices regarding crop protection products (); (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.2.23.3.1.2.23.3.1.2.23.3.1.2.2 AAAAWARENESS OF THE DANGWARENESS OF THE DANGWARENESS OF THE DANGWARENESS OF THE DANGERS FOR HEALTH AND EERS FOR HEALTH AND EERS FOR HEALTH AND EERS FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENT To get an idea to which extent farmers consider pesticide use as a risk to human and environmental health, farmers were asked to assess the risk of pesticide use for 15 different environmental and human health categories. The risk level was graded from -- to


++, with -- being a very low risk and ++ being a very high risk. The results are represented in table 3-1.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----30: 30: 30: 30: Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to human health and environmental human health and environmental human health and environmental human health and environmental risk (risk (risk (risk (--------: very low risk; : very low risk; : very low risk; : very low risk; ----: low risk; 0: low risk; 0: low risk; 0: low risk; 0: moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: : moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: : moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: : moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: very high risk) (Marotvery high risk) (Marotvery high risk) (Marotvery high risk) (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

Risk assessmentRisk assessmentRisk assessmentRisk assessment CategoryCategoryCategoryCategory Fruit growerFruit growerFruit growerFruit grower Vegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable grower Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

Human health: consumer -- + -- operator ++ ++ + farm worker 0 + + bystander - -- -- Environment: soil 0 - 0 surface water 0 0 0 groundwater - - 0 air - 0 0 water organisms 0 0 0 birds - - 0 earthworms 0 + 0 mammals - - 0 bees 0 0 0 beneficial arthropods 0 -- 0

3.3.1.2.33.3.1.2.33.3.1.2.33.3.1.2.3 HHHHEALTHEALTHEALTHEALTH

As we can see in table 2-30, for what concerns health, the farmers make a distinction between their personnel (operators and farm workers) and other people (consumers and bystanders). The farmers are aware that the operators and the farm workers are exposed during spraying to a higher risk than the consumers and bystanders. Many farmers rely on their own experience: 27% of the fields crops farmers, around 25% of the fruits growers and 44% of the vegetables growers reported that they felt unwell after a crop treatment (stomach problems, headaches, eyes and nose irritations). Nevertheless, 80% of the fields crops farmers say that they also stop the treatment when, for example, a group of cyclist passes (Marot et al., 2003).

3.3.1.2.43.3.1.2.43.3.1.2.43.3.1.2.4 EEEENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENT For what concerns environment (table 2-30), the farmers do not seem to accord a great importance to the risk of ppp use. Moreover, the fields crops farmers do not make significant distinctions between pesticide toxicity on the different categories. Usually, they place the categories in the moderate risk class. Independence test conducted on these different environmental categories show that there is a significant link between the risks accorded to different environmental categories by fields crops farmers. All the categories related to water quality (soil, surface water, groundwater, water organisms) have a risk assessment grade that evolves in a same manner. For example, if the farmer accords a high grade to one of these categories, he will give a same grade to all other related categories. The same occurs with the categories related to fauna (birds, earthworms, mammals, bees, beneficial arthropods). Awareness-rising campaigns, carried out the past few years, targeting farmers about water quality have seemed to bear fruit.


Table 2-31 summarizes the environmental concerns of the surveyed farmers. It shows that river pollution by pesticides is one of the most important concerns, followed by nitrate pollution. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----31:31:31:31: Farmers’ environmental Farmers’ environmental Farmers’ environmental Farmers’ environmental concern (Marotconcern (Marotconcern (Marotconcern (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

Concern (% farmers)Concern (% farmers)Concern (% farmers)Concern (% farmers) Fruit and vegetable Fruit and vegetable Fruit and vegetable Fruit and vegetable

growinggrowinggrowinggrowing Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops Aspect under consideAspect under consideAspect under consideAspect under considerationrationrationration

lowlowlowlow averageaverageaverageaverage highhighhighhigh lowlowlowlow averageaverageaverageaverage highhighhighhigh Nitrate pollution 30 36 25 22 57 21 Loss in quality of the landscape 31 36 34 32 40 28 Damage to animals and plant species

30 26 44 37 26 37

Surface water pollution by pesticides

16 29 54 11 19 70

It is also interesting to note that the majority of the farmers are aware that their actions may pose a threat to the environment (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). However, they are not willing to accept income loss because of the need for environment protection. Many of them are convinced that there are other sources of pollution that have a more considerable impact on the environment. They estimate that the population must trust them. For more efforts, the society must pay to compensate for their gain loss (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----32:32:32:32: Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables growers (Marotgrowers (Marotgrowers (Marotgrowers (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003200320032003))))

QuestionsQuestionsQuestionsQuestions Fruit cultureFruit cultureFruit cultureFruit culture Vegetable Vegetable Vegetable Vegetable cultureculturecultureculture

In your practices as a producer Your practices involve risks for the environment Yes Yes The authorities bother you with environmental problems, but there are bigger problems concerning the environment elsewhere

Yes Yes

There are inconveniences, but you have to be profitable

No Yes

To reduce the possible risks in agriculture The people can thrust the farmers Yes Yes ‘More soft systems’ exist, but there is a lack of technical background

Neutral Neutral

There are solutions available, but they have to be financed by the community

Yes Neutral

You would accept a loss of income for the protection of the environment

No No

You use pesticides because You are conscious of the economical necessity of treating the plants with pesticides

Yes Yes

You don’t want to take risks Yes Totally yes You are encouraged to apply pesticides Neutral neutral To protect the crops You often apply on a systematic basis Neutral Neutral You apply when a threshold of use is reached Totally yes Yes You use broad-spectrum products no Yes


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----33: 33: 33: 33: EnvEnvEnvEnvironmental attitudes of the fields crops ironmental attitudes of the fields crops ironmental attitudes of the fields crops ironmental attitudes of the fields crops farmers (Marotfarmers (Marotfarmers (Marotfarmers (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

You areYou areYou areYou are totally totally totally totally disagreedisagreedisagreedisagree

disagreedisagreedisagreedisagree are are are are neutralneutralneutralneutral

agreeagreeagreeagree totally totally totally totally agreeagreeagreeagree

In your practices as a producer Your practices involve risks for the environment

15 12 10 47 16

The authorities bother you with environmental problems, but there are bigger problems concerning the environment elsewhere

0 1 5 31 63

There are inconveniences, but you have to be profitable

1 4 7 28 60

To reduce the possible risks in agriculture The people can thrust the farmers 0 14 21 42 23 ‘More soft systems’ exist, but there is a lack of technical background

3 16 23 43 15

There are solutions available, but they have to be financed by the community

5 9 8 30 48

You would accept a loss of income for the protection of the environment

55 20 14 10 1

You use pesticides because You are conscious of the economical necessity of treating the plants with pesticides

0 2 1 23 74

You don’t want to take risks 3 9 14 41 33 You are encouraged to apply pesticides 53 28 8 9 2 To protect the crops You often apply on a systematic basis 22 22 10 32 14 You use broad-spectrum products 4 18 12 38 28

3.3.1.33.3.1.33.3.1.33.3.1.3 FFFFARMERSARMERSARMERSARMERS’’’’ ATTITUDES AND PRACT ATTITUDES AND PRACT ATTITUDES AND PRACT ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES CONCERNING PPP ICES CONCERNING PPP ICES CONCERNING PPP ICES CONCERNING PPP UTILISATION UTILISATION UTILISATION UTILISATION

3.3.1.3.13.3.1.3.13.3.1.3.13.3.1.3.1 FFFFACTORS CONSIDERED ONACTORS CONSIDERED ONACTORS CONSIDERED ONACTORS CONSIDERED ON DECIDING TO APPLY P DECIDING TO APPLY P DECIDING TO APPLY P DECIDING TO APPLY PESTICIDES ESTICIDES ESTICIDES ESTICIDES

The main element considered when farmers decide to spray their crops is the price of the crop protection products (table 2-34). Other product characteristics considered as being important are: mixture guidelines, the spectrum of activity and the effectiveness of the product. It is interesting to note that when farmers choose crop protection products, they do not consider user toxicity, environmental impact, pre-harvest interval or the control of resistance occurrence as being decisive. So farmers tend to consider economic factors as being more important than environmental and health effects when applying pesticides.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides

% farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers Determinant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factor Fruit growerFruit growerFruit growerFruit grower Vegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable grower Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

Price 17 18 28 User toxicity 7 4 5 Mixture guidelines 15 11 12 Phytotoxicity 5 4 6 Environmental impact 6 2 4 Spectrum of activity 9 8 14 Effectiveness 12 20 12 Pre-harvest interval 6 12 3 Control of resistance occurrence 4 1 3 Duration of action 2 3 10 Other 0 0 3 No response 16 18 2

3.3.1.3.23.3.1.3.23.3.1.3.23.3.1.3.2 CCCCHOICE OF CROP VARIETHOICE OF CROP VARIETHOICE OF CROP VARIETHOICE OF CROP VARIETYYYY For example, choosing a wheat variety with good resistance to fungal diseases will require, depending on the climate, less fungicide treatment. For 65% of the farmers, the choice of variety depends primarily on potential yield. Only 14% of the farmers give priority to varieties that resist diseases. The majority of the farmers still decide upon their production techniques according to yield (prestige of a high yield) rather than financial results. The choice of a resistant variety is a part of ”philosophy” of income optimization and input reduction (Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.33.3.1.3.33.3.1.3.33.3.1.3.3 AAAALTERNATIVE METHODS TLTERNATIVE METHODS TLTERNATIVE METHODS TLTERNATIVE METHODS TO PPP USEO PPP USEO PPP USEO PPP USE The alternative methods (fake sowing, mechanical weeding, thermal weeding…) allow reduced pesticide use. However, only 20% of the fruits and vegetables growers and 18% of the fields crops farmers have used once at least these alternative methods. 31% of the fields crops farmers think that there is a lack of information on these practices. Among the fields crops farmers who have used these methods, about 60% are satisfied (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.43.3.1.3.43.3.1.3.43.3.1.3.4 SSSSPRAYING DECISION PRAYING DECISION PRAYING DECISION PRAYING DECISION (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004; INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005) In selecting a plant protection product and type of treatment, the farmer will be influenced by the product characteristics (see below) as well as by advertisements, sales representatives, official organs, etc. The economic aspect and the fear of bad harvest are the main motives that lead the farmers to make treatments on their crops. The farmer’s crop treatment decision is rarely taken alone. The farmers are influenced by other people who have an impact on their decisions regarding pesticide management. The hypothesis is that the extent to which farmers display an environmentally friendly approach depends upon their social situation, their farming system, their choice of crop variety and their agricultural area. 75% of the fields crops farmers make this decision with the help of an outsider, such as a company representative or neighbour. Under some potatoes cultivation contracts, the representative (pesticide manufacturer’s sales representative or processor’s representative) even makes alone the decision on treatment.


The survey shows that, regardless of the crops, the farmers regularly consult two principal sources: the company sales representative and the decision support system. The company sales representative is the most important information source. However, the company representatives’ recommendations are driven by commercial considerations and therefore cannot be seen as objective. Farmers regularly consult the crop-specific decision support systems published in newspapers or available by fax or on the Internet (depending on the crop). However, they do not follow their recommendations strictly. The company representatives’ advice is seen as more important. For example, only 33% of the farmers planting potatoes and 57% of the farmers planting sugar beet follow the recommendations of decision support system on when and how to spray their fields. These services are viewed as a source of information rather than a tool for deciding on treatment specifications. The use of decision support systems for winter wheat and sugar beet is related to the type of training a farmer has had (agricultural/not agricultural). If the farmers have had agricultural training they are more likely to use the decision support systems. It is important to note that the official services are not a primary information source: 15% of the farmers call on them for potato and sugar beet crops. In most cases, when the farmers call on these services, it is for specific problems. However, the indirect impact that these services have on the farmers via articles in agricultural newspapers and through company representatives should not be underestimated. In fact, the company representatives regularly call on the official services (or their publications) to help them solve crop problems. The official services are also involved in the implementation of the decision support system. A statistical analysis reveals that, when farmers use an information source for one crop, they use this source for all the crops on their farms. Finally, it is important to note that there is no relation between the decision-making method (farmer alone or with outside help) and the use of plant protection products (number of fungicide treatments, type of products).

3.3.1.3.53.3.1.3.53.3.1.3.53.3.1.3.5 CCCCHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCT The main element considered when farmers decide to spray their crops is the price of the crop protection products (Table 2-35). Other product characteristics considered as being important are: mixture guidelines, the spectrum of activity and the effectiveness of the product. It is interesting to note that when farmers choose crop protection products, they do not consider user toxicity, environmental impact, pre-harvest interval or the control of resistance occurrence as being decisive. So farmers tend to consider economic factors as being more important than environmental and health effects when applying pesticides (Marot et al., 2003). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----35:35:35:35: Determinant factors when choosing Determinant factors when choosing Determinant factors when choosing Determinant factors when choosing pesticides (Marotpesticides (Marotpesticides (Marotpesticides (Marot et al. et al. et al. et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

% farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers Determinant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factor Fruit growerFruit growerFruit growerFruit grower Vegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable grower Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

Price 17 18 28 User toxicity 7 4 5 Mixture guidelines 15 11 12 Phytotoxicity 5 4 6 Environmental impact 6 2 4


Spectrum of activity 9 8 14 Effectiveness 12 20 12 Pre-harvest interval 6 12 3 Control of resistance occurrence 4 1 3 Duration of action 2 3 10 Other 0 0 3 No response 16 18 2

3.3.1.3.63.3.1.3.63.3.1.3.63.3.1.3.6 PPPPROTECTION EQUIPMENT ROTECTION EQUIPMENT ROTECTION EQUIPMENT ROTECTION EQUIPMENT AND ACCAND ACCAND ACCAND ACCESSORIESESSORIESESSORIESESSORIES

Individual protective equipment reduces the risk of intoxication orally and via the skin. Wearing gloves, overalls and boots, may reduce skin penetration while masks reduce oral penetration. As showed in table 2-36, although they are aware that there are risks for the health of the applicators and farm workers and although 27% of them reported that they felt unwell after spraying, half of the fields crops farmers do not wear any protective accessories when they handle pesticides. Those farmers who do take protective measures, all wear gloves as a minimum means of protection. By comparison, only 13% of the fruits growers and 11% of the vegetables growers do not wear any protective accessories while respectively a quarter and half of these reported that they felt unwell after spraying. Of those farmers who do use individual protective devices, the most wear gloves as the minimum and some also wear other protection (mask or overalls). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----36: 36: 36: 36: The The The The use of personal protective equipment during mixing, use of personal protective equipment during mixing, use of personal protective equipment during mixing, use of personal protective equipment during mixing, loading and application loading and application loading and application loading and application activities (Marotactivities (Marotactivities (Marotactivities (Marot et al. et al. et al. et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

% farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers PPEPPEPPEPPE Fruit growingFruit growingFruit growingFruit growing Vegetable growingVegetable growingVegetable growingVegetable growing Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

none 13 11 50 boots 36 77 6 coverall 22 37 17 gloves 75 68 49 mask 57 37 20 goggles 14 4 10 Of those who use gloves, only 12% replace them regularly (five utilizations maximum). After pesticide application, 13% of the farmers do not wash their hands and about 80% do not wash their bodies. Although most of the farmers read the label before using a new ppp, they do not really follow the security advices of this label. The most common excuses mentioned for not wearing protective clothes are: there is no risk when applying pesticides, it is a habit, while others attribute it to a lack of time or the discomfort experienced when wearing protective equipment (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.73.3.1.3.73.3.1.3.73.3.1.3.7 SSSSPRAYING EQUIPMENTPRAYING EQUIPMENTPRAYING EQUIPMENTPRAYING EQUIPMENT The state of the spraying equipment is very important not only for the treatment efficiency but also for the environmental impacts. The equipment must be sufficient and in good state in order to allow a homogenous distribution of the mixture, an accurate control of the released amount and to prevent leaks in the environment.


In Belgium, a law (23 August 2001) imposes that the technical condition of each agricultural sprayer must be controlled every 3 years. This could explain the relative good state of the Belgians sprayers. The spraying equipment of the surveyed fields crops farmers is good, with 70% having a wash can, an annex tank and a hopper (accessories strongly recommended but not compulsory) (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.83.3.1.3.83.3.1.3.83.3.1.3.8 TTTTREATMENT OF THE TANKREATMENT OF THE TANKREATMENT OF THE TANKREATMENT OF THE TANK BOTTOM RESIDUE BOTTOM RESIDUE BOTTOM RESIDUE BOTTOM RESIDUE Inappropriate treatment of the tank bottom residue after spraying is the most important source of point pollution. Good crop protection practice involves diluting the residue and redistributing it on the treated field. This practice, which is beneficial for the environment requires the farmers to have an annex tank on their sprayers or or to return to the farm to dilute the remaining spray. If 16% of the farmers admit to dropping the residue that accumulates at the bottom of the tank onto a dirt road or at the filling site, 80% of the farmers say that they dilute the tank bottom residue, and redistribute it on the treated crop. This last percentage seems abnormally high in the light of the percentage of sprayers having an annex tank (70%) (table 2-37). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----37: 37: 37: 37: Treatment of tank bottom residues Treatment of tank bottom residues Treatment of tank bottom residues Treatment of tank bottom residues (Marot(Marot(Marot(Marot et al. et al. et al. et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

Treatment of tank bottom residuesTreatment of tank bottom residuesTreatment of tank bottom residuesTreatment of tank bottom residues % farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers Dilute and redistribute residue on the field 80 Empty elsewhere 1 Empty on a dirt road 9 Empty at the filling site 7 Storage in tank 1 Phytobac 2

Indeed, statistical analysis shows a significant link between the spraying equipment and the treatment of the tank bottom residue. So, of the farmers who have an annex tank on their sprayer, 91% dilute and redistribute the residue on the field. This conclusion is of a primary importance for future sensitization policies (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004). 3.3.1.43.3.1.43.3.1.43.3.1.4 RRRREASONS OF THE GAP BEEASONS OF THE GAP BEEASONS OF THE GAP BEEASONS OF THE GAP BETWEEN KNOWLETWEEN KNOWLETWEEN KNOWLETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICEDGE AND PRACTICEDGE AND PRACTICEDGE AND PRACTICE

3.3.1.4.13.3.1.4.13.3.1.4.13.3.1.4.1 DDDDIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES UITS AND VEGETABLES UITS AND VEGETABLES UITS AND VEGETABLES GROWERS AND FIELDS CGROWERS AND FIELDS CGROWERS AND FIELDS CGROWERS AND FIELDS CROPS ROPS ROPS ROPS

FARMERSFARMERSFARMERSFARMERS From the survey, it can be concluded that fruits and vegetables growers are quite well informed about the use of pesticides and the possible impacts on the environment and the health. Still, the impact on the environment is less important in the decision taking concerning pesticide use. When treating the crops, their own health and economical advantages are the main concerns of the growers. On the other hand, the fields crops farmers are generally less aware of the impacts of ppp use on the health and the environment (Maraite et al., 2004). We can also conclude that a gap definitively exists between the farmers’ awareness of potential health and environmental hazards from the use of pesticides and their management practices.


3.3.1.4.23.3.1.4.23.3.1.4.23.3.1.4.2 "O"O"O"OVERUSEVERUSEVERUSEVERUSE"""" OF THE PESTICIDES A OF THE PESTICIDES A OF THE PESTICIDES A OF THE PESTICIDES AND POOR RECOURSE TO ND POOR RECOURSE TO ND POOR RECOURSE TO ND POOR RECOURSE TO PESTICIDES SPARING PESTICIDES SPARING PESTICIDES SPARING PESTICIDES SPARING

PRACTICES PRACTICES PRACTICES PRACTICES A variation is often noted between the dose of pesticides recommended by an expert in crop protection and that observed among the farmers, who frequently resort to systematic treatments. Such "an overuse" (higher than "the optimal one"), which would thus represent a "waste", is not in conformity with the postulate of rationality of the agents. The economists thus sought to understand the reasons of the poor use of the more pesticides sparing practices in the countries which tried to promote these practices. This research highlighted the role of certain characteristics of the pesticides sparing practices (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005):

- they generate indirect costs: increased working time, purchase of specific services (analyses, advices,...);

- they require more knowledge (formation and experiment) than the conventional cultivation methods, which are generally based on well established routines;

- they are (or at least are regarded as) riskier.

3.3.1.4.2.13.3.1.4.2.13.3.1.4.2.13.3.1.4.2.1 Economic reasonsEconomic reasonsEconomic reasonsEconomic reasons

� Aversion to the riskAversion to the riskAversion to the riskAversion to the risk The question of the risk is taken into account via the definition of a "aversion to the risk", which leads the farmer to not choose in order to maximize its hope of income, but to insure himself against a risk of fall of its income or its production below a critical point. This behaviour can concern individual preferences, but it is often related to particular constraints (refunding of loans, need for ensuring the feeding of the herd,...). The farmers with an aversion to the risk have thus tendency to use the pesticides beyond the level which would make it possible to obtain the maximum average margin in order to insure themselves against the risk. They are all the more inclined with this additional use since the price of the product to be protected is high (market gardening, arboriculture, vine growing...) (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005). The pesticides sparing practices can generate "objective" risks, such as those related, for example, to the errors of diagnosis. On the other hand, the increase in productive risks, which would be related to an increase in the yields variability, is much debated. Indeed, the effect appears to depend on the situations: crop type, adoption of farming systems which reduce the phytosanitary risks... The subjective dimension of the risk must also be taken into account: they are the risks perceived by the farmer, who can over-estimate the phytosanitary risks and thus those related to a less use of pesticides. In practice, it is difficult to separate what concern a possible aversion to the risk (not modifiable individual preference) and a too pessimistic or too dubious appreciation of the possible benefit of the new technique (that can be corrected by an adequate information) (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005). 97% of the surveyed fields crops farmers are convinced that crop treatment is an economic necessity (Maraite et al., 2004).

� Direct and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practicDirect and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practicDirect and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practicDirect and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practiceseseses These costs correspond in particular to:

- the purchase of data or elaborate advices, specific material (material of trapping,...), analyses services (of sheets or ground,...);

- the time devoted to the formation, the acquisition of generic information, the observation of the fields and the processing of these data, but also to the technical interventions (a mechanical weeding takes more time than an herbicide spraying)


while the opportunity cost of work can be high, in particular in exploitations comprising breeding or pluri-activity (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).

Indeed, the surveyed fruits and vegetables growers who had not changed their practices for more pesticides sparing practices (such as those imposed by the EUREPGAP label) say that those practices are too costly in money, time and labour (Marot et al., 2003).

� Low relative price of the pesticidesLow relative price of the pesticidesLow relative price of the pesticidesLow relative price of the pesticides The refinement of the micro-economic models makes it possible to better account for the factors determining the decisions of use of the pesticides, among which the low relative price of the pesticides remains dominating (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).

� External factorsExternal factorsExternal factorsExternal factors The dependence to the pesticides can also be increased by factors external to the sector of agricultural production (Marot et al., 2003; INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005):

- the requirements of the consumers and/or the distribution sector for what concerns aspect and conservation of fresh vegetables or fruits, for example, tend to induce the use of pesticides. Indeed, some of the surveyed fruits and vegetables growers who had not changed their practices for more pesticides sparing practices (such as those imposed by the EUREPGAP label) say that they fear for the external quality of their products;

- the preponderance of a sector of crop protection advices depending on the pesticides sales tends to support the use of pesticides. The loss of interest of the authorities for the individual follow-up of the producers leads to a strengthened role of the pesticide sales sector in the crop protection advices;

- the fact that the distribution of seeds, pesticides and fertilizers, and the collection of the harvests are often provided by the same companies strengthens the preceding point. The reservation of these companies to distribute rustic or resistant varieties is often cited as a brake on the diffusion of the pesticides sparing practices.

Some recent studies analyze the role of the association “phytosanitary advice / sale of pesticides” on the use of these inputs: they confirm the effect of increase in use. But there also has to be mentioned that, although there is a direct link between advice and increased use, the industry also provides for a good distribution of the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and encourages the farmers to follow the GAP (Phytofar, 2006). More studies seek to evaluate the assent of the consumers to pay for products guaranteed without residues of pesticides. However these potentially important roles of the agro-supply, the agricultural products transformers and the consumers on the use of pesticides remain still little studied in the economic literature (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).

3.3.1.4.2.23.3.1.4.2.23.3.1.4.2.23.3.1.4.2.2 Non economic reasonsNon economic reasonsNon economic reasonsNon economic reasons

� « Philosophy » and values« Philosophy » and values« Philosophy » and values« Philosophy » and values

It was shown that some farmers adopt more respectful techniques of the environment although they are less profitable. These particular choices are linked to those of the consumers who buy "ecological" products, more expensive than the standard products. However, very few farmers are ready to sacrifice a part of their income to adopt practices in conformity with their values or their sensitivity (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).


� Sociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factors Sociocultural factors can also explain the difficulties in adoption of alternative production systems (OECD, 2003; Maraite et al., 2004; INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005):

- difficulty in accepting a certain redefinition of the farmer job (gardener of the nature) and, thus, in accepting a new professional identity resting on the acquisition of new competences;

- tradition: farmers’ reluctance to change from “tried and true” chemicals and practices;

- fidelity to the individual values and to a liberal conception of the farmer job which involves a rejection of the attempts at organization, controls, regulation of their activity by third persons;

- worship of the "clean field" (without weeds nor diseases) and of the yield in order to impress the other farmers and to give proof of serious and competences;

- isolation, which is a brake on conversion to practices where the mutualisation of information, even of the risk taking, is an important factor;

- rejection of the ideology which sometimes accompanies promotion of new practices or new systems ("ecologist" or "environmentalist" ideas, considered as illegitimate in the socio-technique world of the farmer).

� Lack of information concerning these alternative methodsLack of information concerning these alternative methodsLack of information concerning these alternative methodsLack of information concerning these alternative methods

From the survey, it can be concluded that there is a lack of information about some of these alternative methods (Marot et al., 2003).

3.3.1.4.33.3.1.4.33.3.1.4.33.3.1.4.3 NNNNONONONON----COMPLYING AND WRONG COMPLYING AND WRONG COMPLYING AND WRONG COMPLYING AND WRONG PRACTICESPRACTICESPRACTICESPRACTICES

1.4.4.3.1.1.4.4.3.1.1.4.4.3.1.1.4.4.3.1. EEEECONOMIC REASONSCONOMIC REASONSCONOMIC REASONSCONOMIC REASONS

Economic priorities are often the cause of non-compliance, leading farmers to (OECD, 2003):

- use pesticides in ways or on crops for which they are not authorized if they cost less than pesticides that are authorized for the crops or if farmers in neighbouring countries are allowed to use them;

- use unauthorized products or too many applications of authorized products if there seems to be no other way to save the crop or secure the yield;

- try to avoid the expense of protective equipment, proper cleaning and evacuation of pesticide residues in spray equipment, and proper storage of pesticide products.

Indeed, the surveyed farmers recognized that they not always follow the rules principally because of economic reasons (Marot et al., 2003).

1.4.4.3.2.1.4.4.3.2.1.4.4.3.2.1.4.4.3.2. NNNNON ECONOMIC REASONSON ECONOMIC REASONSON ECONOMIC REASONSON ECONOMIC REASONS

� Sociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factors The farmers tend to have reluctance to change from “tried and true” chemicals and practices. Moreover, as familiarity breeds contempt, the long-time experience with farm chemicals can leads to ignoring hazard warnings (OECD, 2003). Indeed, most (34%) of the surveyed fields crops farmers who do not use any protective accessories say it is a habit (Maraite et al., 2004).

� LabelsLabelsLabelsLabels The increasing complexity of risk assessment leads to a corresponding increase in the quantity of information put on pesticide labels, including both hazard/risk warnings and


complex use restrictions that may be unclear to users. Now, some labels seem to be written for enforcement purposes or to record all results of complex risk assessments, rather than for helping the user. However, most of the surveyed farmers said that they read the pesticide notices (82%) and that the security indications on the labels are well written and easy to understand (88%). But some farmers said that they have difficulty reading the information anyway. For some farmers thus, there could be a “label fatigue”, especially when seeing a new and different (and sometimes overly complicated) label on an old and familiar chemical (OECD, 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

� Lack of timeLack of timeLack of timeLack of time Lack of time is often cited by the farmers as a reason of non-application of the good phytosanitairy practices such as good cleaning and evacuation of the tank bottom residue, wearing of protective equipment... Indeed, for instance, 17% of the farmers who do not use any protective accessories say it is due to a lack of time (Maraite et al., 2004). Concerning the decision support systems, according to some farmers, the usefulness of these systems is restricted because the time to carry out the treatment is too short (Maraite et al., 2004).

� DiscomfortDiscomfortDiscomfortDiscomfort Some of the farmers who do not use any protective accessories say it is due to the discomfort of this equipment and to the practical difficulty of changing clothes before and after the treatment (Marot et al., 2003; OECD, 2003).

� Failing in the enforcement systemFailing in the enforcement systemFailing in the enforcement systemFailing in the enforcement system Weak enforcement can contribute importantly to non-compliance. However, controlling the use of pesticides is a difficult and resource-demanding task. There is a general failure to create a clear, strong, universally accepted motivation to comply (OECD, 2003).

� Failing in comFailing in comFailing in comFailing in communication, education and trainingmunication, education and trainingmunication, education and trainingmunication, education and training Insufficient communication, education and training contribute importantly to non-compliance, as some farmers do not receive (OECD, 2003; Maraite et al., 2004):

- the information, education and on-going training they need to appreciate the hazards of pesticides (for example, it is important to note that 12% of the surveyed fields crops farmers say it is not necessary to use protective accessories), to understand the laws, and to keep abreast of changes in pesticide authorisations and restrictions, in agricultural practice, and in pesticide application technology;

- sufficient advance notice of upcoming changes; - sufficient explanation for the conflicting risk evaluations and pesticide approvals

made by different countries. Different surveys have been conducted among field crop, fruit and vegetable producers. The purpose of these surveys was to gain insight into the knowledge, the attitudes and the practices of Belgian farmers with respect to pesticide use. In the following section, some important results of the survey into the field crop farmers’, fruit growers’ and vegetable growers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide use, made within the framework of the project ‘Development of awareness tools for the sustainable use of pesticides’ and conducted by the University of Ghent (UGent), the


University of Louvain-la-Neuve (UCL) and the Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), are briefly discussed (Maraite et al., 2004; Claeys et al., 2004). The field crop survey results are based on the study of a hundred farmers belonging to the category ‘field crops’ or ‘mixed farming’. These farming types account for more than 80% of the pesticides applied in the Belgian agriculture. The survey showed that, regardless of the crops grown, the farmers regularly consult two main information sources: the company sales representative (90% of the farmers consult him more than once a season) and the decision support system (considered as an information source and not as a tool for reducing pesticide applications). The farmers differentiate between their personal and personnel’s health (operator and farm worker) and the other people’s health (consumers and bystanders). The farmers are aware that the operators and farm workers are exposed to a higher risk than bystanders and consumers are. The same survey was also carried out among fruit and vegetable growers. It was decided to conduct the survey based on the percentage of the total surface for fruit or vegetable culture in each province. Between January and December 2003, surveys were passed around on several meetings of the growers. This resulted in 100 surveys for fruit culture and 114 surveys for the vegetable culture. It can be concluded that fruit and vegetable growers are quite well informed about the use of pesticides and their possible environmental impacts. However, the environmental impact is not the most important factor in the decision process regarding pesticide use. The economical advantages and their personal health are the farmers’ main concerns. Further information, on environmental and human impacts related to pesticide use, is still necessary. Therefore, the growers’ main information suppliers (e.g. auctions, personal advisers) must be involved in this informing process.

3.4 Biocides exposure at the Belgian level 3.4.13.4.13.4.13.4.1 Selection of relevant active substancesSelection of relevant active substancesSelection of relevant active substancesSelection of relevant active substances To adequately assess the risks which are represented by the use of PT18 biocides, complete and reliable data are needed on the use of the PT18 products and the effects of these products. The Federal Services for the Environment (FSE) manage the authorization of biocides in Belgium. The FSE evaluates the request for commercialisation of a biocidal product. After consultation of the Higher Health Council, the Federal Minister for the Environment decides whether or not the product can be commercialized. A list of authorized biocides, which is actualised bimonthly, can be retrieved from the website of the FSE (https://portal.health.fgov.be/portal/page?_pageid=56,512605&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&_menu=menu_5_2). Once a year, the permit holders report sales data of their products to the FSE, expressed as volume of active substance sold. These data are indicative for the use of PT18 products. Furthermore, the effects of PT18 products are provoked by the active substances and the additives (e.g. solvents) of the product. It can thus be concluded that the determination of special problems and uncertainties within the Belgian context of biocide use will initially focus on active substances rather than products.


From the list of authorized biocides valid from the period 22/11/2005 until 16/01/2006, 39 different active substances were identified for PT18 biocides (see Annex 2.8). However, within the given timeframe it is not possible to assess all of these PT18 active substances with regard to special problems and uncertainties. A pragmatic selection of active substances, which are most relevant for Belgium, is needed. It was decided to rely on the expert judgement of the Steering Committee to identify the active substances that are most relevant for Belgium. The Steering Committee was asked to indicate 5 to 10 active substances from the list, given in annex 2.8. This resulted in a selection of 11 active substances, which are presented in table 2-38. Consequently, for the partim biocides this report will focus solely on these active substances.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----38: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT1838: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT1838: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT1838: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT18

2(1-methylethoxyphynyl)N-methylcarbamate or Propoxur Deltamethrin Allethrin Dichlorvos

Methyl bromide Permethrin

Chlorpyrifos Piperonyl butoxide

Cypermethrin Pyrethrins

Tetrachlorvinphos

A brief description of each of the active substances, listed in table 2-38, is given hereafter. Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000) Allethrin is a nonsystemic insecticide that is used almost exclusively in homes and gardens for control of flies and mosquitoes, and in combination with other pesticides to control flying or crawling insects. Another structural form, the d-trans-isomer of allethrin, is more toxic to insects and is used to control crawling insects in homes and restaurants. It is often used to control parasites living within animal systems. It is available as mosquito coils, mats, oil formulations, and as an aerosol spray. Allethrin is a pyrethroid, a synthetic compound that duplicates the activity of the pyrethrin plant. It has stomach and respiratory action and paralyses insects before killing them. Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000)Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000)Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000)Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000) Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide. It is effective in controlling cockroaches, grubs, flea beetles, flies, termites, fire ants, and lice. It is used as an insecticide on lawns and ornamental plants. It is also used directly on sheep and turkeys, for horse site treatment, dog kennels, domestic dwellings, farm buildings, storage bins, and commercial establishments. Chlorpyrifos acts on pests primarily as a contact poison, with some action as a stomach poison. It is available as granules, wettable powder, dustable powder, and emulsifiable concentrate. Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000) Cypermethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide used for crack, crevice, and spot treatment to control insect pests in stores, warehouses, industrial buildings, houses, apartment buildings, greenhouses, laboratories, and on ships, railcars, buses, trucks, and aircraft. It may also be used in non-food areas in schools, nursing homes, hospitals,


restaurants, and hotels, in food processing plants, and as a barrier treatment insect repellent for horses. Technical cypermethrin is a mixture of eight different isomers, each of which may have its own chemical and biological properties. It is available as an emulsifiable concentrate or wettable powder. DeltamethrinDeltamethrinDeltamethrinDeltamethrin Deltamethrin is a pyrethoid compound used against indoor crawling and flying insects and pests of stored grain and timber. It acts as a non-systemic insecticide with contact and stomach action. Fast-acting (Tomlin, 1994). Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000)Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000)Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000)Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000) Dichlorvos is an organophosphate compound used to control household, public health, and stored product insects. Dichlorvos is used to treat a variety of parasitic worm infections in dogs, and humans. It acts against insects as both a contact and a stomach poison. It is used as a fumigant and has been used to make pet collars and pest strips. It is available as an aerosol and soluble concentrate. Methyl bromideMethyl bromideMethyl bromideMethyl bromide Methyl bromide is a soil and space fumigant. As a space fumigant it is listed in Annex III of Regulation (EC) N° 2032/2003, which contains active substances that were not notified nor indicated by the Member States. The placing on the Member States’ market of these active substances – and thus methyl bromide - is prohibited from 01/09/2006 onwards. Methyl bromide is included in the third stage of the review programme of Directive 91/414/EEC and is currently under evaluation. It is foreseen that the conclusions of the peer review will be available from EFSA by the end of 2006. On that basis, the Commission will have to propose a decision on the substance in 6 months time (Pitton, pers. comm.). Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000) Permethrin is a broad-spectrum synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, used in greenhouses, home gardens, and for termite control. It also controls ectoparasites, biting flies, and cockroaches. It may cause a mite build-up by reducing mite predator populations. Permethrin is the active substance which is most used in insecticides and products to control other arthopods, including products used to treated domestic animals. Permethrin is available in dusts, emulsifiable concentrates, smokes, ultra-low volume (ULV), and wettable powder formulations. Piperonyl butoxidePiperonyl butoxidePiperonyl butoxidePiperonyl butoxide Piperonylbutoxide is used as a synergist for pyrethrins and related insecticides in storehouses of agricultural products (Tomlin, 1994; Verschueren, 1983). Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000)Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000)Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000)Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000) Propoxur is a nonsystemic insecticide. It is used on a variety of pests such as chewing and sucking insects, ants, cockroaches, crickets, flies and mosquitoes in private or public facilities and grounds. It has contact and stomach action that is long-acting when it is in direct contact with the target pest.


Propoxur is available in several types of formulations and products, including emulsifiable concentrates, wettable powders, baits, aerosols, fumigants, granules, and oilsprays. Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994)Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994)Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994)Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994) The term pyrethrins is used collectively for the six insecticidal constituents present in extracts of the flowers Pyrethrum cinerariaefolium and other species. They comprise esters of the natural stereoisomers of chrysanthemic acid (pyrethrin I, cinerin I, and jasmolin I), and the corresponding esters of pyrethric acid (pyrethrin II, cinerin II and jasmolin II). The ratio of pyrethrin:cinerin:jasmolin is generally 71:21:7; most commercial extracts contain 20-25% pyrethrins. Pyrethrins are used to control a wide range of insects and mites in public health and on domestic animals. Control of chewing and sucking insects and spider mites on house plants. It acts as a non-systemic insecticide with contact action and has some acaricidal activity. Normally combined with synergists, e.g. piperonyl butoxide, which inhibits detoxification. TetrachlorvinphosTetrachlorvinphosTetrachlorvinphosTetrachlorvinphos Tetrachlorvinphos is a non-systemic insecticide and acaricide with contact and stomach action. It acts as a cholinesterase inhibitor (Tomlin, 1994). Tetrachlorvinphos is listed in Annex III of Regulation (EC) N° 2032/2003, which contains active substances that were not notified nor indicated by the Member States. The placing on the Member States’ market of these active substances – and thus tetrachlorvinphos - is prohibited from 01/09/2006 onwards.

3.4.23.4.23.4.23.4.2 Assessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect dataAssessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect dataAssessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect dataAssessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect data The Technical Guidance Document in support of the Directive 98/8/EC concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market - Guidance on Data Requirements for Active Substances and Biocidal Products (Anonymous, 2000) makes a distinction between environmental effect data and human health effect data. With regard to environmental effect data, the following exposure routes are being considered: • aquatic environment; • sewage treatment plants; • sediment; • terrestrial environment; • air; • marine environment; • secondary poisoning. As stated in the technical guidance document, the environmental risk characterisation involves the comparison of predicted environmental concentration (PEC) and predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) values for the relevant environmental compartments as well as for non-target organisms (European Commission, 2003). For each of the products involved in this study, the relevant environmental compartments were identified in Annex 2.9, based on the instructions for use of the product. This revealed that products containing allethrin, methyl bromide, propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos are solely used indoors. Consequently, terrestrial effects of these active substances are deemed less relevant in the context of this report. Furthermore, Annex 2.9 shows that products containing the active substances methyl bromide and tetrachlorvinfos solely end up in indoor air when used indoors.


Consequently, the aquatic environment - including STP, marine and sediment – are deemed less relevant in the context of this report. The authorisation of a biocidal product by the FSE requires a thorough dossier on toxicological and ecotoxicological data. An analogous procedure is in place for the placing of plant protection products (PPP) on the Belgian market. All active substances listed in Table are ingredients of PT18 biocides as well as PPP that are currently authorized in Belgium, except for allethrin, methyl bromide, permethrin and tetrachlorvinphos. As such, it can be assumed that the availability of toxicological and ecotoxicological data is sufficient for impact evaluation for those substances that are also authorized as plant protection products. For the active substances allethrin, methyl bromide, permethrin and tetrachlorvinphos a consultation of the most relevant literature databases showed that several data are still lacking.

3.4.33.4.33.4.33.4.3 Uncertainties to identify anUncertainties to identify anUncertainties to identify anUncertainties to identify and quantify exposure routes for biocidesd quantify exposure routes for biocidesd quantify exposure routes for biocidesd quantify exposure routes for biocides The exposure routes largely influence the magnitude of the environmental and health impact of biocidal products. These routes furthermore determine the priority parameters to carry out a risk assessment (e.g. inhalation, dermal, … see further task 3). The determination of the ‘most likely’ exposure routes depends on several criteria. A first step is to determine whether the product is used indoors or outdoors. Subsequently, the formulation type of the product will determine its most likely exposure route(s). The active substances, listed in Table 3-1, occur in 104 products of PT18. An overview of these 104 products is given in annex 2.9. The formulation type, application device and treatment type of each product listed in annex 2.9, were determined from : • the instructions for use, which are available from the minutes of the advice of the

Higher Health Council in the framework of the authorisation procedure. Available electronic formats of these minutes were provided to Ecolas by the FSE (Nijs, pers. comm.; Degloire, pers. comm.);

• and/or from the product label, which was provided by the permit holder or retrieved from the internet.

Several bottlenecks exist to retrieve this information from the FSE and the permit holder: • Data from the FSE : specific information on exposure has to be provided in the

authorisation dossier to allow for a human exposure assessment (Annex 2.10). Information on how to use the product allows for an identification of the application device. However, consultation the of authorisation dossiers is not evident since the dossiers are not available in an electronic format. The applicant submits 3 hard copies of the dossier, an electronical format is not requested and is almost never submitted by the applicant;

• Data from the permit holder : sometimes the application device to be used can be derived from the instructions for use on the label ; some permit holders provide a picture of the product in their (on line) catalogue, which allows for an identification of the application device (e.g. electrical evaporation device). However, this is not always the case.

For several products no information from the authorisation dossier nor a product label was available. For shampoos and products to be poured (on) it was assumed that they are


marketed in synthetic bottles. For powders it was assumed that they are marketed in a canister. The different combinations of formulation types, application device and treatment type of the products listed in Annex 2.9 are listed in table 2-39. ‘Professional use only’ is indicated in bold. bold. bold. bold. The product ‘Tectonik Pour on (4505B)’ is not covered by the formulation types, mentioned in table 2-39, since it occurs in several formulation types which could not be identified.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----33339: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products9: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products9: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products9: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type

aerosol aerosol sprayer Flying insects, in and around the residence

aerosol aerosol sprayer Ectoparasites on domestic animals

aerosol aerosol sprayer Crawling insects, local application in cracks and crevices

aerosol "one shot" aerosol sprayer Flying and crawling insects, no animals or persons present during application

aerosol trigger

bait bait box Cockroaches

cardboard platelet electrical evaporator Mosquitos

collar collar Ectoparasites on cats and dogs

concentrated suspension trigger

concentrated suspension in micro-capsules

spraying device producing coarse droplets

gel spraygun Cockroaches and crickets

pastepastepastepaste spraygunspraygunspraygunspraygun Cockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and crickets

liquid trigger Crawling insects

liquid electrical evaporator mosquitos

liquid to be dilutedliquid to be dilutedliquid to be dilutedliquid to be diluted pulverisation or thermopulverisation or thermopulverisation or thermopulverisation or thermo----nebulation nebulation nebulation nebulation devicedevicedevicedevice Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry unitsunitsunitsunits

liquified gas liquified gas liquified gas liquified gas (1)(1)(1)(1) fumigation device fumigation device fumigation device fumigation device (1)(1)(1)(1) Crawling insects Crawling insects Crawling insects Crawling insects (1)(1)(1)(1)


FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type

plastic platelet plastic platelet Ants in and around the residence

powder sprinkler can Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Ants in and around the residence

powder powder distributor Wasp nests

product for hot or cold product for hot or cold product for hot or cold product for hot or cold evaporationevaporationevaporationevaporation suitable nebulisation devicesuitable nebulisation devicesuitable nebulisation devicesuitable nebulisation device Flying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insects

ready to use solution synthetic bottle

Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Ants in and around the residence Flying and crawling insects

ready to use solution low pressure spraying device producing coarse droplets

Flying an crawling insects, local application in cracks and crevices

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution brush brush brush brush Lacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insects

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution sprayersprayersprayersprayer Lacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insects

ready tready tready tready to use solutiono use solutiono use solutiono use solution triggertriggertriggertrigger Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on walls and objectswalls and objectswalls and objectswalls and objects

ready to use solution trigger Ectoparasites at sleep and resting places of animals ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution misting or surface sprayingmisting or surface sprayingmisting or surface sprayingmisting or surface spraying Flying and crawling Flying and crawling Flying and crawling Flying and crawling insectsinsectsinsectsinsects

ready to use stick stick Ants in and around the residence

tablet electrical evaporator mosquitos (1) solely products containing methyl bromide


A consideration of the formulation types listed in Figure 3-2 resulted in a stepwise procedure to identify the most likely exposure routes of the relevant PT18 products. This procedure is depicted in figure 2-34.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes

Sprays, gases and formulations where the active substances are released through evaporation will result in the presence of active substances in the air, from which men and non-target animals can be exposed through inhalation and/or dermal contact. All other formulations also enable oral exposure of man and non-target animals if they are not sealed from the environment. When used indoors, the active substances can end up in domestic wastewater either through cleaning activities or through rinsing of pets after application of e.g. insecticidal shampoos. As such, the active substances end up in the sewage system which either directly or indirectly enters the surface water. Formulations which are used outdoors and which do not end up in the air may be sealed from their environment, as is the case for bait boxes. For those formulations, no exposure to man or non-target animals is to be expected. If such protective casing is not present, the active substances can be dispersed in the soil and can leach to the groundwater. Such formulations additionaly enable oral exposure of man and non-target animals.

HealthHealthHealthHealth and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEB and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEB and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEB and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)I)I)I) 230

The indoor/outdoor use and the most likely exposure routes of each product listed in Annex 2.9, were determined from: • the instructions for use, which are available from the minutes of the advice of the

Higher Health Council in the framework of the authorisation procedure. Available electronic formats of these minutes were provided to Ecolas by the FSE (Nijs, pers. comm.; Degloire, pers. comm.);

• and/or from the product label, which was provided by the permit holder or retrieved from the internet.

However, for several products no information from the authorisation dossier nor a product label was available. For these products, the most likely exposure routes were determined by expert judgement. The most likely exposure routes for each product listed in Annex 2.9 are also given in that annex. From Annex 2.9 it is clear that for the products Chlorpyrifos gel, Empire 2000 and Insectivor vrac, ‘professional use only’ was suggested by the permit holder. However, these products were not classified as such by the FSE. Once a year, the permit holders report sales data of their products to the FSE, expressed as volume of active substance(s) sold. From Figure it is clear that these data do not allow for an identification of exposure routes. Data are needed on a product level, specifying the formulation type. It can be concluded that there is a need for a review of the reporting format with regard to sales figures of biocides in general. The following issues should be borne in mind: • data reporting on a product level is needed. However, this brings about the issue of

confidentiality. A product-level reporting system is already in place for plant protection products (PPP). Experiences with/lessons learned from this reporting system should be exchanged between the competent authorities;

• the data format for the reporting of sales figures should include information on the formulation type and volume of the (active) substances. This information is needed to quantify the impact of the product (see further task 3).

Furthermore, knowledge of ‘volumes of active substances sold’ does not allow for an identification of the products that are on the market. Inquiries with the permit holders revealed that several products from the list of authorized biocides used in this study, are no longer on the market (see Annex 2.9). It concerns Agrichem Deltamethrin SC (4399B), Chlorpyrifos paste (1700B), Mafu electrical evaporation device against mosquitos (4399B), Pedigree Care flea collar (3605B), Scalibor shampoo (1400B) and Whiskas Care flea collar (3705B). It can be concluded that reporting on a product level is essential to get an up to date insight on the human exposure potential. Once the exposure routes are identified, quantification of each of these routes is needed in order to enable a risk assessment of the product (see also futher Task 3). The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) has launched an initiative to establish environmental emission scenario documents for biocides (EUBEES), which are to be used as a basis for risk assessment. The available documents can be found on the ECB website (http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/). The documents related to PT18 biocides are discussed hereafter.


van der Poel and Bakker (2001) developed environmental emission scenarios for all 23 product types of the Biocidal Products Directive (EU Directive 98/8/EC). With regard to PT18 biocides, they proposed a scenario for insecticides used in empty spaces and spaces with stocks. They assume that fumigation will be applied. When fugimantia/aerosols are used outdoors, the objects to be treated will be covered. As such, the application can be regarded in the same way as fumigants/aerosols used indoors. According to the authors, this on its turn can be regarded in the same way as fumigants/aerosols used within fumigation installations. The proposed emission scenario is the one that is used in USES 3.0 (RIVM, VROM, VWS, 1999 cited by van der Poel and Bakker, 2001) and which is described by Luttik et al. (1995):

Elocal = emission

disinret*subst

T

)F(1*)F(1Q −−

Where: • Elocal: local emission to air during episode of fogging of buildings, silos, etc. (kg.d-1) • Qsubst: amount used (kg) • Fret: fraction of retention in goods, being 0,02 (expert estimation) • Fdisin: fraction of disintegration, being 0,001 (expert estimation) • Temission: number of emission days for fogging, being 1 day (default value) Although fumigation of stocks and spaces is an indoor application, it is relevant for the environment since the fumigant can enter the air after degassing the space. The bulk of the fumigations of stocks and spaces are carried out using methyl bromide. However, Regulation (EC)N°2037/2000 severely restricts the use of methyl bromide for fumigation, since it is an ozone depleting substance. Furthermore, Regulation (EC)N°2032/2003 prohibits the marketing of methyl bromide for biocidal applications from 01/09/2006 onwards. The FSE launched several initiatives to anticipate this situation. A study on alternatives to methyl bromide used in mills and quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) was carried out (Callebaut & Vanhaecke, 2005) and a stakeholder workshop was organised to identify further policy options. Regional and federal government authorities attended a demonstration of a heat treatment technique in a Dutch mill and an Eco2QPS Treatment® at the Port of Rotterdam. Research is ongoing towards a low-emission fumigation method for QPS applications (RAZEM® ), where methyl bromide can be recaptured and properly eliminated (Ruelle, pers. comm.). Baumann et al. (2000) gathered and reviewed environmental emission scenarios for biocides, in the framework of the EUBEES project. For the PT18 biocides they also refer to Luttik et al. (1995). It can be concluded that although environmental emission scenario documents exist for several biocidal product types, the available information for PT18 biocides is rather scarce. However, from the use pattern of PT18 substances it is clear that these products are merely used indoors. Consequently it can be concluded that the need for a further elaboration of environmental emission scenarios for PT18 biocides is less relevant than the need for an elaboration of accurate human exposure scenarios. Furthermore, it should be noticed that the development of environmental emission scenarios is on the European agenda. In April 2005, the European Chemicals Bureau (Joint Research Center – Ispra) launched a call for proposals on the ‘Development of environmental emission scenarios for active substances used in biocidal products’. However, the project was not assigned to anyone. In January


2006, the European Commission (DG ENV) assigned a related study to AEA – Technology (U.K.). The scope of this study is three-fold: • to establish an overview document of available emission scenarios prepared by

Member States and industry for the following product types: - PT2: industrial areas, air-conditioning, chemical toilets, and hospital waste ; - PT3: veterinary hygiene biocidal products ; - PT4: food and feed area ;

• to prepare draft ESDs for the products and uses concerned; • to provide a framework for discussion and agreement on new emission scenarios

developed by Member States and industry. Callebaut et al. (2004) reviewed existing indicators which evaluate exposure, effect or both aspects and this in the framework of selecting an indicator which evaluates the risk of biocides for the environment and for human health. A feasibility analysis put forward the Swedish Risk Indicator for the Environment and for Human Health as an impact indicator for biocides. The environmental as well as human health exposure is quantified by means of the quantity of the product sold, expressed as tonnes/year. Since this Swedish indicator was originally developed for PPP, it is not fully apt to calculate the impact of biocidal products. Subsequently a working group ‘Indicators’, chaired by professor Goeyens, was set up in the framework of the PRP in order to gather all existing information on indicators and to establish an impact indicator for biocides. The impact indicator proposed by Callebaut et al. (2004) was modified, taking into account specific biocidal characteristics such as indoor/outdoor use, formulation type, …. However, this work is still ongoing (Nijs, pers. comm.). The European Chemicals Bureau issued Technical Notes for Guidance (TnG) on human exposure to biocides (http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/). This report was funded by the European Commission, DG-Environment. It builds upon the concepts developed in the 1998 report of the Biocides Steering Group on human exposure assessment. The section on PT18 biocides is discussed hereafter. The types of treatment that are distinguished by the TnG are given in 2-40.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)

Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type ProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionals NonNonNonNon----professionalsprofessionalsprofessionalsprofessionals

Space treatment – to knock down flying insects X X

Nest and harbourage (crack and crevice) treatments

X X

Broadcast treatment – to cover a horizontal surface

X

Blanket treatment – to cover a horizontal and/or vertical surface

X

Band treatment – to cover insect access routes along floor-wall junctions etc.

X X(1)


Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type ProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionals NonNonNonNon----professionalsprofessionalsprofessionalsprofessionals

Injection – to treat sub-soil to protect foundations from termites

X

Fumigation – to treat stacked commodities or feight containers

X

(1) spot and band treatment The frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals per treatment method are given in table 2-41. Daily use is anticipated.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)

Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type Frequency, duration and/or quantityFrequency, duration and/or quantityFrequency, duration and/or quantityFrequency, duration and/or quantity

Unspecific task 40 minutes duration, range 3 to 150 minutes Blanket spraying (biting insects) 32 minutes duration, range 3 to 105 minutes

Band spraying and dusting (crawling insects)

48 minutes duration, range 10 to 120 minutes

Wasp nest eradication 3 minutes Aerosol space spraying 6 second discharge per location, 1 g per second

emitted Stack fumigation and pyrotechnic treatments

2 hours (user remote from point of use)

Termite treatments (surface spray, sub-soil injection at 6 bar)

4 hours, range 1 to 11.5 hours

Waste-tip treatment 40 minutes Controlled droplet applicators (CDA) and fogging

40 minutes

Lacquer application 20 minutes Bait caulking 10 minutes, in place for 2 weeks Soil injection 4 hours, range 1 to 11.5 hours Professional operators wear disposable and non-disposable protective gloves, as well as a work uniform and coveralls. Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) is nearly always available if needed. Washing facilities are often found on pest controllers’ vans (Anonymous, 2002). Secondary exposure from professional application of PT18 biocides may occur: • adults, children: inhalation, skin contact immediate after application (acute); • adults, infants: inhalation, ingestion post application (chronic); • fumigation: bystanders. The frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non-professionals per treatment method are given in table 2-42. Different information sources are mentioned.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non----professionals (Anonymous, 2002)professionals (Anonymous, 2002)professionals (Anonymous, 2002)professionals (Anonymous, 2002)

Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type FFFFrequency, duration and/or quantityrequency, duration and/or quantityrequency, duration and/or quantityrequency, duration and/or quantity

HSL (1997HSL (1997HSL (1997HSL (1997----2001)2001)2001)2001)

Air-space aerosol spray indoors 4 uses daily, 6 sec discharge, 90 sec exposure per event

Air-space trigger spray indoors 4 uses daily, 6 sec discharge, 90 sec exposure per event

Pumped sprayer indoors 4 uses daily, 6 sec discharge, 90 sec exposure per event

Surface aerosol spray indoors 1 use per week, 7 min

Surface trigger spray indoors 1 use per week, 7 min

Surface dusting crack and crevice 1 use per week, 7 min

Surface dusting broadcast 1 per month, 7 min; 11 min vacuuming up

Plug-in vaporisers and smoke coils 1 per day, 2 to 8 hours

Vapour strips, mats, mothballs Continuous

ECETOCECETOCECETOCECETOC

Spot treatment Total exposure 5 min, released at 100 cm height(1) Air space treatment Total exposure 1 min, released at 180 cm height(1) Crack and crevice treatment Total exposure 10 min, released at 25 cm height(1)

General band/blanket treatment Total exposure 10 min, released at 75 cm height(1) CONSEXPO

Aerosol sprays 1 min discharge Trigger sprays 5 min discharge for spot uses, 10 min discharge for

blanket uses, 10 min discharge for surface dusting cracks and crevices

INDUSTRY DATAINDUSTRY DATAINDUSTRY DATAINDUSTRY DATA

Aerosol can applications 2 min continuous spraying Vaporising devices Evaporation rate 2 to 6 mg/hour (1) treatment persisting for 2 weeks Users may wear gloves, though this should not be assumed (Anonymous, 2002). Secondary exposure from non-professional application of PT18 biocides may occur: • adults and children: exposure during and immediate post application – inhalation

(acute); • adults, children and infants: inhaling vapour from vaporisers – inhalation (acute); • adults, children and infants: contact with treated bed-nets – dermal (chronic) ; • infants: skin contact and ingestion of residues – dermal, ingested (chronic). Next to the Technical Notes for Guidance (TnG) on human exposure to biocides (http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides), several documents on this issue are in preparation (Steurbaut, pers. comm.) It can be concluded that guidance with regard to the quantification of human exposure to biocides is not straightforward. Specific bottlenecks will be revealed in task 3, where the quantification of the biocidal impact will be elaborated.


4444 RRRREFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCES

APVMA (2005). Operating principles and proposed registration requirements in relation to spray drift risk, Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority

ARS (2006). Research Project: development of pesticide application technologies for spray-drift management and targeted spraying, Agricultural Research Service, United States Departement of Agriculture.

BALARAJAN, R. & ACHESON, E.D. (1984). Soft tissue sarcomas in agriculture and forestry workers. Journal of Epidemiology and Municipality Health, 38: 113-116.

Balsari, P. and P. Marucco (2004). Sprayer Adjustment and Vine Canopy Parameters Affecting Spray Drift: The Italian Experience. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, DEIAFA – University of Turin,.

Banasiak, U. (2005). Processing factors for pesticide residues in food and feed. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Berlin, Germany. Paper presented at the 4th Fresenius Conference « Food Safety and Dietary Risk Assessment. December 2005, Mainz (Germany).

Barriuso, E., R. Calvet, et al. (1996). Les pesticides et les polluants organiques des sols: transformations et dissipation. Forum "Le sol, un patrimoine menacé?" Paris.

BARTHEL, E. (1981). Increased risk of lung cancer in pesticide-exposed male agricultural workers. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 8: 1027-1040.

Bedos, C., P. Cellier, et al. (2002a). "Occurrence of pesticides in the atmosphere in France." Agronomie 22: 35-49.

Bedos, C., P. Cellier, et al. (2002b). "Mass transfer of pesticides into the atmosphere by volatilization from soils and plants: overview." Agronomie 22: 21-33.

Belgaqua and Phytofar (2002). Livre Vert, Belgaqua - Phytofar: 38.

Benoît, M., B. Bonicelli, et al. (2005). Expertise scientifique collective "Pesticides, agriculture et environnement": Chapitre 2: Connaissance de l'utilisation des pesticides, INRA and CEMAGREF.

BES (2002). Pesticide Spray Drift, Bullseye Environmental Services.

BLATTER, B.M., ROELEVELD, N., ZIETHUIS, G.A., MULLAART, R.A., GABREELS, F.J. (1996). Spina bifida and parental occupation. Epidemiology, 7: 188-193.

BONDE, J.P., COMHAIRE, F., OMBELET, W. (1998). Environmental influences on speramtogenesis and sperm quality. In Andrology in the nineties, Middle East Fertility Society Journal 3, Suppl. 1.

BROWN, A.S. & SUSSER, E.S. (1997). Sex differences in rpevalence of congenital neural defects after periconceptional famine exposure. Epidemiology, 8: 55-58.

BROWNSON, R.C., ALAVANJA, M.C., CHANG, J.C. (1993). Occupational risk for lung cancer among smoking women: a case-control study in Missouri (United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 4: 138-151.

Calabrese E.J. (2004). Hormesis: a revolution in toxicology, risk assessment and medicine. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 5 (Special issue), 37-40


Callebaut, K., Nysten, K. and Vanheacke, P. (2004). Study on the impact of biocides. Final report of a study assigned by the Directorate-General Environment. 03/08018/PV.

CANTOR, K.P. & SILBERMAN, W. (1999). Mortality among aerial applicators and flight instructors: follow-up from 1965-1988. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36: 239-247.

Carter (2000). "Herbicide movement in soils: principles, pathways and processes." Weed Research 40(1): 113-122.

CLAEYS, S., STEURBAUT, W., MAROT, J., GODFRIAUX, J., MARAITE, H. (2004). Land- en tuinbouwers versus bestrijdingsmiddelen : kennis, houding en gedrag. Resultaten van een enquête in fruit-, groente- en akkerteelt (2002-2003). 67p.

Claeys, S., W. Steurbaut, et al. (2005). MIRA : Milieu- en natuurrapport Vlaanderen, Achtergronddocument 2005, Verspreiding van bestrijdingsmiddelen, Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij.

Colignon, P., E. Haubruge, et al. (2003). "Effets de la réduction de doses de formulations d'insecticides et de fongicides sur l'insecte auxiliaire non ciblé Episyrphus balteatus (Diptera: Syrphidae)." Phytoprotection 84: 141-148.

Colignon, P., P. Hastir, et al. (2001). "Effects of insecticide treatmenst on insect density and diversity in vegetable open fields." Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent 66(2a): 403-411.


CSIRO (2002). Primary industries standing commitee spray drift management - Principles, strategies and supporting information - PIS (SCARM) Report 82, CSIRO PUBLISHING.

Debongnie, P., S. Beernaerts, et al. (2003). "Groundwaters contaminations by pesticides in the Walloon Region."

Degloire (pers. comm.). Mieke Degloire - Expert ecotoxicology. FOD Volksgezondheid, veiligheid van de voedselketen en leefmilieu, Directoraat generaal Leefmilieu - dienst Risicobeheersing. tel.: +32(0)2/524.95.81; [email protected].

DEJONCKHEERE, W. & STEURBAUT, W. (1996). Pesticiden: Gebruik en milieurisico’s. Monografie Stichting Leefmilieu, Uitgeverij Pelckmans, Kapellen.

Delloye, F. (2005). Présentation : Les pesticides dans les eaux souterraines. Le point des observations en Wallonie, DGRNE.

Delloye, F. (2005a). "L'atrazine dans les eaux potabilisables." Etats des nappes d'eau souterrainne de la Wallonie, from http://environnement.wallonie.be/de/eso/atlas/#3.2a.

Delloye, F. (2005b). "Les pesticides dans les eaux potabilisables." Etat des nappes d'eau souterraine de la Wallonie, from http://environnement.wallonie.be/de/eso/atlas/#3.2b.

Delloye, F. (2005c). Communication personnelle.

Dembélé, K., E. Haubruge, et al. (2000). "Concentration effects of selected insecticides on brain acetylcholinesterase in the common carp (Cyprinus caprio L.)." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 45: 49-54.

DGRNE. (2005). "Tableau de bord de l'environnement walllon 2005." from http://mrw.wallonie.be/dgrne/eew/download.asp.


DGRNE-Division-eau (2005). Question importante: les pollutions par les phytopharmaceutiques - Constat de l'état des lieux.

DOLK, H., VRIJHEID, M., ARMSTRONG, B., ABRAMSKY, L., BIANCHI, F., GARNE, E., NELEN, V., ROBERT, E., SCOTT, J.E.S., STONE, D., TENCONI, R. (1998). Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet, 352352352352: 423-427.

Duyzer, J. (2003). "Pesticide concentrations in air and precipitation in the Netherlands " J. Environ. Monit. Aug;5(4): 77-80.

el Fantroussi, S., L. Verschuere, et al. (1999). "Effect of Phenylurea Herbicides on Soil Microbial Communities Estimated by Analysis of 16S rRNA Gene Fingerprints and Community-Level Physiological Profiles." Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65(3): 982-988.

EPA (1999). Spray Drift of Pesticides, Environmental Protection Agency, USA Government.

EU (2003). Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Commission staff working document. Commission of the European Communities. 75p.

EU (2004). Commission européenne. Rapport général sur les résultats d’une série de missions effectuées dans l’ensemble des Etats membres de 1998 à 2003 dans le domaine des systèmes de contrôle de la mise sur le marché des produits phytopharmaceutiques et des résidus présents dans les denrées alimentaires d’origine végétale. Direction générale santé et protection des consommateurs. DG(SANCO)/9507/2003. 28 p.

FASFC. (2003). Pesticide residue monitoring in Fruits, Vegetables and Cereals in Belgium. Report concerning Directives 90/642/EEC, 86/362/EEC and commission recommendation 2002/663/EG. Federal Agency for the Security of the Food Chain.

FASFC. (2004). Pesticide residue monitoring in food of plant origin. Report of monitoring results concerning Directives 90/642/EEC, 76/895/EEC and commission recommendation 2004/74/EC. Federal Agency for the Security of the Food Chain.

FASFC. (2005a). Plusieurs parcelles de carottes présentent des teneurs trop élevées en un pesticide. Communiqué de presse du: 14-10-2005

FASFC. (2005b). L'Agence alimentaire poursuit son enquête sur les carottes traitées. Communiqué de presse du: 20-10-2005

FAUSTINI, A., FORASTIERE, F., DI BETTA, L., MAGLIOLA, E.M., PERCUCCI, C.A. (1993). A cohort study of mortality among farmers and agricultural workers. Med. Lav., 84: 31-41.

Felsot, A. S. (2005). Evaluation and mitigation of spray drift. Proc. International Workshop on Crop Protection Chemistry in Latin America; Harmonized Approaches for Environmental Assessment and Regulation, San Jose, Costa Rica.

FIGATALAMANCA, I., MEARELLI, I., VALENTE, P., BASCHERINI, S. (1993). Cancer mortality in a cohort of rural licensed pesticide users in the province of Rome. International Journal of Epidemiology, 22: 579-583.

FLEMING, L., BEAN, J.A., RUDOLPH, M., HAMILTON, K. (1999). Cancer incidence in a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators in Florida. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 41: 279-288.

Ganzelmeier, H., D. Rautmann, et al. (1995). "Studies on the spray drift of plant protection products. Results of a test programme carried out through the Federal Republic of


Germany." Mitteilungen aus de Biologischen Bundesansalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Berlin-Dahlem 305.

GENOOTSCHAP PLANTENPRODUCTIE EN ECOSFEER WERKGROEP PLANTENBESCHERMING (1999). Neveneffecten van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen op mens en milieu in perspectief geplaatst. Coda, Tervuren.

Goemans, G. and C. Belpaire (2004). The eel pollutant monitoring network in Flanders, Belgium. Results of 10 years monitoring. Organohalogen compounds - Biotic: levels, trends,effects, Institute for Forestry and Game Management, Hoeilaart. 66.

Goemans, G., Belpaire, C., Raemaeckers, M., Guns, M. (2003). Het Vlaamse palingpolluentenmeetnet, 1994-2001 : gehalten aan polychloorbifenylen, organochloorpesticiden en zware metalen in paling. Wetenschappelijke Instelling van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Ontwerprapport. IBW.Wb.V.R.2003.99. 56p. + bijlagen

GREENWALD, P., KOVASZNAY, B., COLLINS, D.N. (1984). Sarcomas of soft tissue after military service. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73: 1107-1109.

Guillaume, P. (2005). Problématique 'Pesticides' - Espaces publics. Contamination des eaux par les pesticides : état de la situation. Eau secours, Aquawal.

Hamilton, D., Ambrus, A., Dieterle, R., Felsot, A., Harris, C., Petersen, B., Racke, K., Wong, S.-S., Gonzalez, R., Tanaka, K., Earl, M., Roberts, G., Bhula, R. (2004). Pesticide residues in food—acute dietary exposure. Pest Manag Sci 60:311–339

HARDELL, L. & SANDSTROM, A. (1979). Case-control study – soft-tissue sarcomas and exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and chlorophenols. British Journal of Cancer; 39: 711-717.

Harris C.A., Mascall J.R., Warren S.F.P., Crossley S.J. (2000). Summary report of the international conference on pesticide residues variability and acute dietary ris assessment. Food Addit. Contam. 17:481-486

Haubruge, E., J. Thomé, et al. (2004). "Projet de subvention: Evaluation des facteurs de risque liés au dépérissement des abeilles en Wallonie et leur implication sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles."

HAYES, H.M., TARONE, R.M., CASEY, H.W., HUXSOLL, D.L. (1990). Excess of seminomas observed in Vietnam service U.S. military working dogs. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 82: 1042-1046.

HOAR, S.K., BLAIR, A., HOLMES, F.F., BOYSEN, C.D., HOOVER, R., HOOVER, R., FRAUMENI, J.F. (1986). Agricultural herbicide use and risk of lymphoma and soft-tissue sarcoma. JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association, 256: 1141-1147.

Holvoet, K., K. Hamonts, et al. (2004). Poster : Partitioning and Dynamics of Pesticides in Surface Waters, Biomath - VIT.

INRA and CEMAGREF (2005). Pesticides, agriculture et environnement: Réduire l'utilisation des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnementaux - Expertise scientifique collective, Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche, Ministère de l'écologie et du développement durable.

INS (2003). "Recensement agricole belge."

ITV, ARVALIS, et al. (2005). "Amélioration de l'application des produits phytopharmaceutiques au niveau environnement: étude des facteurs permettant de limiter la dérive." Appel à projet ADAR.


Jaeken, P., F. Vercruysse, et al. "Target detection technology in orchard spraying: drift and overall pesticide reduction potential." Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent 64/3b: 803-812.

Jansen, J., N. Viatour, et al. "Listes de sélectivité des produits de protection des plantes à l’égard des arthropodes utiles en culture de pommes de terre."

Jansen, J.-P. (2005). "Plant Protection Products that are safe for useful arthropods." CRA-W News 6: 4.

JANSSENS, J., VAN HECKE, E., BRUCKERS, L. (2002). Crop protection products, birth defects & (childhood) cancer. A research project of the Province of Limburg and the Limburgs Universitair Centrum. Diepenbeek, Belgium, 127p.

Johnsen, K., C. Jacobsen, et al. (2001). "Pesticide effects on bacterial diversity in agricultural soils - a review." Biology and Fertility of Soils 33(6): 443-453.

JOHNSON, F.E., KUGLER, M.A., BROWN, S.M. (1981). Soft tissue sarcomas and chlorinated phenols (letter). Lancet, 2: 40.

Kamrin, M.A. (2000). Pesticide Profiles. Toxicity, Environmental Impact, and Fate. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton – New York. ISBN 0-8493-2179-4.

KANG, H.K., WEATHERBEE, L., BRESLIN, P.P., LEE, Y., SHEPARD, B.M. (1986). Soft tissue sarcomas and military service in Vietnam: a case comparison group analysis of hospital patients. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 28: 1215-1218.

KOGEVINAS, M., KAUPPINEN, T., WINKELMANN, T., BECHER, H., BERTAZZI, P.H., BEUNO-DE-MESQUITA, H.B., COGGON, D., GREEN, L., JOHNSON, E., LITTORIN, M., LYNGE, E., MARLOW, D.A., MATHEWS, J.D., NEUBURGER, M., BENN, Y-T., PANNETT, B., PEARCE, N., SARACCI, R. (1995). Soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in workers exposed to phenoxy herbicides, chlorophenols and dioxins: two nested case-control studies. Epidemiology, 6: 396-402.

Kuhnlein H.V., Chan H.M. (2000). Environment and contaminants in traditional food systems of Northern Indigenous peoples. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 20, 596-626.

Landers, A. and M. Farooq (2004). Reducing Drift and Improving Deposition in Vineyards. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, USA.

LEEFMILIEU EN KANKER (1997). Vereniging voor Kankerbestrijding, Brussel.

Lefebvre, M. and E. Bruneau (2005). État des lieux du phénomène de dépérissement des ruchers en Région wallonne, Convention entre la Région wallonne (DGRNE) et le CARI.

LYNGE, E., STORM, H.H., JENSEN, O.M. (1987). The evaluation of trends in soft tissue sarcoma according to diagnostic criteria and consumption of phenoxy herbicides. Cancer, 60: 1896-1901.

MABUCHI, K., LILIENFELD, A.M., SNELL, L.M. (1979). Lung cancer among pesticide workers exposed to inorganic arsenicals. Archives of Environmental Health, 34: 312-318.

MARAITE, H., STEURBAUT, W., DEBOGNIE, P. (2004). Development of awareness tools for a substainable use of pesticides. Final report Scientific Support Plan for a Sustainable Development Policy (SPSD II) - Part 1 Sustainable production and consumption patterns, Belgian Science Policy, Brussels, Belgium, 105p.

Maraite, H., W. Steurbaut, et al. (2004). FINAL REPORT: DEVELOPMENT OF AWARENESS TOOLS FOR A SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDES, Belgian Science Policy, Universiteit Gent, UCL, CERVA-CODA.


Marot, J., J. Godfriaux, et al. (2003). Agriculteurs et pesticides: connaissances, attitudes et pratiques: Résultats d'une enquête menée en fruiticulture, maraîchage et grandes cultures (2002-2003), SPP-Politique Scientifique, Universiteit Gent, UCL, CERVA-CODA.

Mars T.C. (2000). The health significance of pesticide variability in individual commodity items. Food Addit. Contam. 17: 487-490

Matthews, G. A. (1995). Application Technology. Pesticides - developments, impacts, and controls. Cambridge, The Royal Society of Chemistry: 180.

MCDUFFLE, H.H., KLAASEN, D.J., DOSMAN, J.A. (1990). Is pesticide use related to risk of primary lung cancer in Saskatchewan? Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32: 996-1002.

Meli, S. M., A. Renda, et al. (2003). "Studies on pesticide spray drift in a Mediterranean citrus area." Agronomie 23 ( 667-672 ).

MIRA (2003). Report on the environment and nature in Flanders in pocket-size: MIRA-T 2003 themes. Pocket Edition. Mechelen, Belgium, Flemish Environment Agency (VMM): 83.

NAGAO, M. & SUGIMURA, T. (1993). Carcinogenic factors in food with relevance to colon-cancer development. Mutation Research, 290: 43-51.

Nasredrinne L. and Parent-Massin D. (2002). Food contamination by metals and pesticides in the European Union. Should we worry ? Toxicology letters 127:29-41

Nguyen Bach, K., J. Widart, et al. (2005). "Abeilles wallonnes en danger: doit-on incriminer uniquement les pesticides?"

Nijs (pers. comm.). [email protected].

Nuyttens, D., B. Sonck, et al. (2004). Literatuustudie: Het belang van drift en haar reducerende maatregelen ter bescherming van het milieu in Vlaanderen, Departement voor Mechanisatie - Arbeid - Gebouwen - Dierenwelzijn en Milieubeveiliging Centrum voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek Merelbeke, Departement voor Gewasbescherming Universiteit Gent, Departement voor Agrotechniek en -Economie Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

OECD (2003). Report of the OECD Pesticide Risk Reduction Steering Group Seminar on Compliance and Risk Reduction, Paris.

Panneton, B. (2001). Impacts des techniques de pulvérisation en agroenvironnement. Colloque en Agroenvironnement « L’agriculture et l'environnement en harmonie ».

Phytoweb (2005).

Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, et al. (1993). Assessment of environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. The pesticide question: environment, economics and ethics. D. P. H. Lehman. New-York, Chapman and Hall: 47-84.

Pissard, A., V. Van Bol, et al. (2005). Calcul d'indicateurs de risques liés à l'utilisation de produits phytosanitaires. Etude préliminaire: détermination du niveau d'utilisation de pesticides en Région Wallonne, CERVA/CODA/VAR.

Pitton (pers. comm). Patrizia Pitton - DG SANCO Unit E3 - Plant Protection Products Sector. Rue Froissart 101, B - 1040 Brussels. Office F101- 4/82. tel. +32 2 2987622; fax. +32 2 2965963; e-mail: [email protected].

Pussemier, L., P. Debongnie, et al. (2001). Réduction des emissions de produits phytosanitaires vers les eaux superficielles par concertation avec les agriculteurs - Projet pilote pour le bassin du Nil (Walhain-St-Paul) : Rapport final, Ministère des Classes


Moyennes et de l'Agriculture - Centre d'Etude et de Recherches Vétérinaires et Agrochimiques: 62.

Renwick( A.G. (2002). Pesticide residue analysis an dits relation to hazard characterization (ADI/ARfD) and intake estimations (NEDI/NESTI). Pest Manag Sci 58 :1073-1082

REUBER, M.D. (1980). Carcinogenicity and toxicity of methoxychlor. Environmental Health Perspectives, 36: 205-219.

ROSANO, A., BOTTO, L.D., BOTTING, B., MASTROIACOVO, P. (2000). Infant mortality and congenital anomalies from 1950 to 1994: an international perspective. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54: 660-666.

Rouchaud, J., P. Roucourt, et al. (1996). Détection et suivi des pesticides et de leurs métabolites dans le sol et la plante. Bilan et gestion des effets secondaires de la lutte phytosanitaire. A. Copin, J.-P. Honnay, H. Maraite, R. Deleu and J. Rouchaud. Bruxelles, Institut pour l'encouragement de la Recherche Scientifique dans l'Industrie et l'Agriculture.

Rung, J., B. Schiffers, et al. (2005). Rapport intermédiaire n°2 : Evaluation de l'impact de certains pesticides d'origine non agricole sur les eaux superficielles et identification des pesticides et produits de dégradation considérés comme pertinents dans la problématique des substances dangereuses, Aquapôle - DGRNE - FUSAGx.

SARMA, R. & JACOBS, J. (1982). Thoracic soft tissue sarcoma in Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange. New England Journal of Medicine, 306: 1109.

SATHIAKUMAR, N. & DELZELL, E. (1997). A review of epidemiological studies of triazine herbicides and cancer. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 27: 599-612.

Seghers, D., K. Verthe, et al. (2003). "Effect of long-term herbicide applications on the bacterial community structure and function in an agricultural soil." FEMS Microbiology Ecology 46(2): 139-146.

SEVER, L.E. (1995). Looking for causes of neural-tube defects – where does the environment fit in. Environmental Health Perspectives, 103: 165-171 Suppl.

Skinner, J., K. Lewis, et al. (1997). "An overview of the environmental impact of agriculture in the UK." Journal of Environmental Management 50: 111-128.

SMITH, A.H., PEARCE, N.E., FISHER, D.O., GILES, H.J., TEAGUE, C.A., HOWARD, J.K. (1984). Soft tissue sarcoma and exposure to phenoxyherbicides and chlorophenols in New Zeeland. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73: 1111-1117.

SOLIMAN, A.S., SMITH, M.A., COOPER, S.P., ISMAIL, K., KHALED, K., ISMAIL, S., MCPHERSON, R.S., SEIFELDIN, I.A., BONDY, M.L. (1997). Serum organochlorine pesticide levels in patients with colorectal cancer in Egypt. Archives of Environmental Health, 52: 409-415.

SPF, S. P. (2005). Mesures de réduction de la contamination des eaux superficielles par les produits phytopharmaceutiques, Direction générale Animaux, Végétaux et Alimentation, Service Pesticides et Engrais.

SPGE. Site internet, Société Publique de la Gestion de l'Eau.

Stover E. , Scotto D. , et al. (2002). Spray Applications to Citrus: Overview of Factors Influencing Spraying Efficacy and Off-target Deposition. Institute of food and agricultural sciences, University of Florida.

Taylor, W. A., A. R. Womac, et al. (2004). An Attempt to Relate Drop Size to Drift Risk. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii.


Tests achats. (2002). Des résidus très assidus. Le magazine des consommateurs, 452:40-43

Thistle, H. W. (2004). Meteorological Concepts in the Drift of Pesticide. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Washington State University.

Tomlin, C. (1994). The Pesticide Manual – 10th Edition. The British Crop Protection Council and The Royal Society of Chemistry. ISBN 0-948404-79-5.

Travis, K.Z., Hamilton, D., Davies, L., O’Mullane, M. and Mueller, U. (2004). Acute intake. In Pesticide residues in food and drinking water : Human exposure and risks. Ed. David Hamilton and Stephen Crossley. 167-212

Van Bol (pers. comm.). tel. + 32 (0)2 524 72 75; fax + 32 (0)2 524 72 99; e-mail : [email protected].

van de Zande, J. C., H. Stallinga, et al. (2004). Effect of Sprayer Speed on Spray Drift. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii.

van de Zande, J. C., J. M. G. P. Michielsen, et al. (2004). Hedgerow Filtration and Barrier Vegetation. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii.

van der Poel, P., and Bakker, J. (2001). Emission Scenario Documents for Biocides. Emission scenarios for all 23 product types of the Biocidal Products Directive (EU Directive 98/8/EC). RIVM Report 601450009.

Van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Hanot, V., De Temmerman, L., Hoenig, M. and Goeyens, L. (2005). Chemical contamination in eggs of free-range hens in Belgium. Food contaminants (submitted).

Vancoillie, P. (2002). Travailler en sécurité avec les produits dangereux en agriculture et horticulture belges, PREVENTAGRI Formation.

VanDyk, J. (1998). Factors influencing drift potential. Weed Management. Iowa state University.

Vercruysse, F., W. Steurbaut, et al. (1999). "Off target ground deposits from spraying a semi-dwarf orchard." Crop Protection 18(9): 565-570.

VERENIGING VOOR KANKERBESTRIJDING (1996). Vlaamse Studiedag ‘Gewasbeschermings-middelen en gezondheid’, Houthalen.

Verschueren, K. (1983). Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals – 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold – New York. ISBN 0-442-28802-6.

Vieira, E.R., Torres, J., Malm, O. (2001). DDT environmental persistence from its use in a vector control program: a case study. Environmental Research Section A 86:174-182

VINEIS, P., FAGGIANO, F., TEDESCHI, M., CICCONE, G. (1991). Incidence rates of lymphomas and soft-tissue sarcomas and environmental measurements of phenoxy herbicides. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 83: 362-363.

VMM (2002). Bestrijdingsmiddelen in het regenwater in Vlaanderen. Luchtkwaliteit in het Vlaamse Gewest Jaarverslag VLAAMSE MILIEUMAATSCHAPPIJ, Afdeling Meetnetten en Onderzoek: 163-166.

VMM (2004). Bestrijdingsmiddelen in het regenwater in Vlaanderen. Luchtkwaliteit in het Vlaamse Gewest Jaarverslag immissiemeetnetten Kalenderjaar 2004 en meteorologisch


jaar 2004-2005, VLAAMSE MILIEUMAATSCHAPPIJ, Afdeling Meetnetten en Onderzoek: 72-74.

WANG, X.Q., GAO, P.Y., LIN, Y.Z., CHEN, C.M. (1988). Studies on hexachlorocyclohexane and DDT contents in human cerumen and their relationships to cancer mortality. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 1: 138-151.

WATKINS, M.L., SCANLON, K.S., MULINARE, J., KHOURY, M.J. (1996). Is maternal obesity a risk factor for anencephaly and spina bifida? Epidemiology, 8: 507-512.

WESSELING, C. ANTICH, D., HOGSTEDT, C., RODRIGUEZ, A.C., AHLBOM, A. (1999). Geographical differences of cancer incidence in Costa Rica in relation to environmental and occupational pesticide exposure. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28: 365-374.

WHO (2006). On line information (http://www.who.int/en/).

WHO. (2005). WHO GEMS/Food Consumption Cluster Diets. Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Foodborne Diseases. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. Paper presented at the 4Th Fresenius Conference « Food Safety and Dietary Risk Assessment. December 2005, Mainz (Germany) WIKLUND, K. & HOLM, L. (1986). Soft tissue sarcoma risk in Swedish agricultural and forestry workers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 76: 229-234.

Winter, C.K. (1992). Pesticide tolerances and their relevance as safety standards. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15, 137.


Wolf, T. M. (2004). Nozzle Selection Guidelines for Optimum Efficacy and Least Drift. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii


TASK 3: TASK 3: TASK 3: TASK 3: RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRAINTSCONSTRAINTSCONSTRAINTSCONSTRAINTS

1111 IIIIMPACT OF THE BEHAVIOMPACT OF THE BEHAVIOMPACT OF THE BEHAVIOMPACT OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF FARMERS AND NOUR OF FARMERS AND NOUR OF FARMERS AND NOUR OF FARMERS AND NONNNN----AGRICULTURAL USERS IAGRICULTURAL USERS IAGRICULTURAL USERS IAGRICULTURAL USERS IN N N N

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND HEALTH HINATION AND HEALTH HINATION AND HEALTH HINATION AND HEALTH HAZARDSAZARDSAZARDSAZARDS

1.1 Constraints in the adaptation of good pesticide use practices The following table 3-1 presents the stages in the approach of good pesticide use practices and the associated constraints (+: increase the impact, -: diminish the impact or no impact). The evaluation of the constraints is mainly based on experts' judgements and on a critical analysis of the following publications: (PHYTOFAR; Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003; OECD 2003; CRP 2004; Hovan 2004; Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004; Marot 2004; OECD 2004; INRA and CEMAGREF 2005). For each measure, it is also indicated on which compartment (s) (Compt) greater impacts are expected: * Environmental compartments EC: - groundwater GW; - water organisms W; - soil S; - earthworms E; - birds BI; - bees BE; - beneficial arthropods BA; - air A. * Human compartments HC: - bystanders BY; - consumers C; - farm workers F; - applicator A. * Global (all the above cited compartments) G.


Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----1: different stages in the approach of good pesticide use practices and the associated constraints1: different stages in the approach of good pesticide use practices and the associated constraints1: different stages in the approach of good pesticide use practices and the associated constraints1: different stages in the approach of good pesticide use practices and the associated constraints

Constraints Stages Economic Non-economic

Before application Direct cost Risk of yield

��

Risk of harvest

quality �� Need of

equipment Time / Work Need of training

Need of information Discomfort

Need of institutions Others Compt

Prophylactic measures climate, outlets

Rotation + - - + G

Elimination of infection sources + - - + G

Healthy plant material + - - supplying G Resistant or tolerant varieties + +/- +/- + (on varieties) + (varieties'

assessment) supplying G

Sowing densities, manuring… +/- +/- + + (crop needs) G Alternative methods

Integrated pest management + + +/- + + + + + G

Organic pest management + + +/- + + + + + G Products

Storage legal norms + + + (obligations) A, F, W

Storage recommendations + + + A, F, W

Choice - toxicity +/- +/- +/- + + (on product) + (products' assessment)

HC

Choice - ecotoxicity +/- +/- +/- + + (on product) + (products' assessment)

EC

Choice - adapted to crop phenology, pest resistances, weather…

+/- - + + (phenology,

weather forecast…)

+ (products' assessment) G

Diagnostic / Decision making

Pest reconnaissance + (observations) + + (on pests) + G

Field knowledge + (observations)

+ + (on plots) G

Intervention thresholds - (� application frequency)

+ (observations)

+

+ (economic, counting, weather

forecast…)

+

G

Weather + (observations)

+ + (weather forecast)

+ G

Preparation

Label reading and respect - + + G

246

Doses (calculation, respect) - + + (calculation) + (label) G Individual protection + + + + A Mixtures (possibilities and order) + + (label,

compatibilities) A

Tank filling (place, volume, surveillance)

- (� spillage) + (place) + (surveillance) + (volume calculation)

A, F, W, S

Application

Good equipment + good state + (purchase, maintenance)

- (losses and drift �)

+ (maintenance)

+ (maintenance)

+ (on sprayer specifications)

+ (sprayers' control)

G

Constraints Stages Economic Non-economic

Application Direct cost

Risk of yield ��

Risk of harvest

quality �� Need of

equipment Time / Work Need of training

Need of information Discomfort

Need of institutions Others Compt

Individual protection + + + + A

Weather +/- + + (weather forecast)

+ G

Non-treated zones (water...) - +/- + +/- + W

After application

Good tank bottom management + +/- + + + W, S Good sprayer rinsing and cleaning

+ +/- + + A, W, S

Good container management + + + A, W, S

Individual protection cleaning + + A

Individual washing + A

247

1.2 Analysis of the impact of decision-supporting elements for responsible pesticide use

1.2.11.2.11.2.11.2.1 Aims of the decision supporting systemsAims of the decision supporting systemsAims of the decision supporting systemsAims of the decision supporting systems For several years, tools have been developed to help the farmers to reason their treatments decisions. These tools take various forms, but have generally as main goal to better reason the pesticides use. They are, for the majority, based on the coupling of biological models forecasting the diseases' or pests populations' evolution in function of the climatic conditions, and rules of treatment triggering in function of noxiousness thresholds. In other words, the warning networks make it possible to foresee the probability of pests attacks, to advise the farmers in their control strategies, to optimize the interventions and reason the protection. The most adapted treatments are thus positioned at the most convenient moments. Some negative effects such as the resistances appearance must also be taken into account in the treatment strategies. To preserve the efficiency of the active substances families, some general directives (alternation with other families) or specific directives (for instance, limited number of treatments) must be implemented. These precaution measures are reminded by the decision support systems services in order to avoid or delay the appearance of these phenomena (CRP 2004); (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005). In practice, the preventive or curative treatments should not be systematic, but result from observations and reasoning carried out for each field. The observed pressure of pests, diseases or weeds must be confronted with the treatment threshold indicated by the decision support services. The treatments must also be adapted to the climatic conditions. The models forecasting the diseases and pests' evolution in function of the climatic conditions are increasingly close to reality and help the farmers to better position their treatments (if they are proved to be necessary). Concerning the herbicides, they must be applied by taking account of the field characteristics (flora, soil, resistances prevention...), the climatic conditions and the phenology stages (CRP 2004). For the farmers, the interests of the decision support systems are multiple (CRP 2004); (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005): - Reduction of ppp application (by reduction of application frequency or application targeting) � Costs reduction; � Reduction of the environmental impact. - Application of the most adapted ppp at the most convenient times � Maximum efficiency; � Best performance. However, it is important to note that according to the situation, the pest pressure, the climate, ect , following the advices released by these decision supporting elements will or not reduce the ppp applications. Indeed, in some worst cases, following the warnings will not lead to a ppp use reduction compared to systematic treatments. 1.2.21.2.21.2.21.2.2 Use of the decision support systems by the Belgian farmersUse of the decision support systems by the Belgian farmersUse of the decision support systems by the Belgian farmersUse of the decision support systems by the Belgian farmers As mentioned in Task 2, a survey showed that, for spraying decision, the Belgian farmers regularly consult two principal sources: the company sales representative and the decision

248

support system but the company sales representative stays the most important information source. Indeed, if farmers consult regularly the crop-specific decision support systems published in newspapers or available by fax or on the Internet (depending on the crop), they do not follow their recommendations strictly. The company representatives’ advice is seen as more important. For example, only 33% of the farmers planting potatoes and 57% of the farmers planting sugar beet follow the recommendations of decision support system on when and how to spray their fields. These services are viewed as a source of information rather than a tool for deciding on treatment specifications. According to some farmers, the usefulness of these systems is restricted because the time to carry out the treatment is too short. It was also noticed that the use of decision support systems for winter wheat and sugar beet is related to the type of training a farmer had (agricultural / not agricultural). If the farmers had agricultural training they are more likely to use the decision support systems (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004); (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003). Table 3-2 shows the evolution of the number of cereal growers which have subscribed to the CADCO warnings (see below) by fax or e-mail (CADCO). In 2005, respectively 30 and 70% of the subscribers received the warnings by e-mail and fax (Bertel, personal commentary).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----2: 2: 2: 2: Evolution of the number of cereal growers that have subscribed to the CADCO warnings by Evolution of the number of cereal growers that have subscribed to the CADCO warnings by Evolution of the number of cereal growers that have subscribed to the CADCO warnings by Evolution of the number of cereal growers that have subscribed to the CADCO warnings by fax or efax or efax or efax or e----mail (figures from CADCO and INS)mail (figures from CADCO and INS)mail (figures from CADCO and INS)mail (figures from CADCO and INS)

1999199919991999 2000200020002000 2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004 2005200520052005

462 514 827 1200 1450 1604 (16% of the Walloon cereal growers)

1815 (17% of the Walloon cereal growers)

1.2.31.2.31.2.31.2.3 Impact of the main decision support systems used in field crops on a Impact of the main decision support systems used in field crops on a Impact of the main decision support systems used in field crops on a Impact of the main decision support systems used in field crops on a

responsible pesticide useresponsible pesticide useresponsible pesticide useresponsible pesticide use In field crops, the integrated pest management remains an extremely theoretical concept. Even when the bases of reasoning exist, few farmers really seek to measure the risks related to the pests to define a technical itinerary for the protection of their cultures. For instance, the reasoning of the insecticide interventions is often extremely elementary and the treatments are still too often guided by the fear rather than by the reason. However, if well exploited, the current knowledges on pests and pesticides allow a crop protection which combines efficiency, low costs and respect of the environment (CRA-W a). To receive the warnings from these decision support systems, the farmers must generally pay an annual subscription which gives right to other personalized services. 1.2.3.11.2.3.11.2.3.11.2.3.1 CCCCEREALSEREALSEREALSEREALS

The decision support system used for cereals is coordinated by the CADCO for Wallonia (1815 members in 2005) and the LCG for Flanders (420 members in 2005). These warnings consist in official statements regularly updated by scientists on basis of observations collected in fields distributed on the whole territory. They are broadcasted by fax, e-mail, agricultural press and Internet (CADCO); (LCG); (Bertel, pers. comm.); (Wittouck, pers. comm.). Concerning the fight against Septoria, the CADCO recommend to do only one fungicide treatment positioned with the help of the PROCULTURE mechanistic interactive disease forecasting system. The Phytopathology Unity of UCL develops this software, accessible on

249

the Net. With the aim of costs minimization and environment safeguarding, the software, which integrates meteorological data from PAMESEB (CRA-W) and field specific data such as sowing date, precise growth stage and one disease observation at a critical moment indicated by the system, permit to adjust the treatment strategy in function of the parasitic context of the year and the field. Experimentations performed by the Phytopathology Unity of UCL, since 2000-2001, have demonstrated the economic interest of an only well positioned fungicide treatment compared to the usual pattern with two treatments. On average, following these warnings allows to achieve a reduction of 0,6 fungicide treatment (as other diseases than Septoria must be taken into account) (CADCO); (PROCULTURE). However, it is important to note that in some worst cases, following the warnings will not lead to a ppp use reduction compared to systematic treatments. The LCG uses another stochastic disease forecasting system called EPIPRE. This model also integrates several field observations, field characteristics and meteorological data. The gain losses due to possible damages are compared with the costs of treatment. An advice of treatment is given or not in function of the application profitability (LCG). In experimentations performed in 2001 and 2002 by the POVLT, for both years, the EPIPRE system had recommended two fungicide treatments during the crop growth (Wittouck, Boone et al. 2001); (Wittouck, Boone et al. 2002). Concerning insect pests (aphids, maggots…), population counts and virological analyses are made in reference fields distributed on the whole territory. This permit to deduce the epidemic level reached in each field and to evaluate the appropriateness of a treatment. During the last thirty years, different models estimating the aphids population evolution were built but. However, despite in depth research, none proves to be really reliable. Indeed, the interactions between the factors of the aphids' proliferation are very complex. So the observations carried out in a network of reference fields aim to describe the situation in real time and to give short-term forecasts on the probable evolution (CRA-W a). In case of occasional slugs or rodents' proliferation, the warnings can also integrate advices concerning the fight against these pests in function of observations made in the fields (CRA-W a). 1.2.3.21.2.3.21.2.3.21.2.3.2 PPPPOTATOESOTATOESOTATOESOTATOES

Several organizations such as CRA-W, CARAH and PCA emit warnings for potato growers. These warnings are broadcasted by e-mail, fax, automatic telephone answering machine or in a weekly letter. In 2005, more than 1000 potato growers had subscribed to the PCA warnings, 618 potato growers to the CARAH potatoes warnings and about 250 potato growers to the CRA-W potatoes warnings (CRA-W b); (Ducatillon 2003); (PCA); (Ducatillon, personal commentary); (Dupuis, personal commentary). From the survey performed in Walloon Brabant in 2003, it was inferred that only about 33% of the potato growers follow the recommendation of decision support system (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004). All the decision support systems for potato late blight use the Guntz-Divoux climatic model that was adapted in the 60's by the CRA-W. Thanks to climatic data of PAMESEB (CRA-W), this model allows to determine the optimal date for treatment that is to say one day before the outbreak of spots, in order to protect the healthy foliage from new potential contaminations while reducing the risk of product leaching or loss of product activity if it had been applied too early. Other factors will modulate the delivered warnings: spraying conditions, foliar growth, disease pressure, resistance level of the cultivated varieties and the evolution of sources of infection. Compared to a strategy of systematic weekly treatments, the warnings make it possible to carry out an effective protection of the crops while avoiding useless treatments. The farmers receive precise information concerning the epidemic situation in their region and thus can, if necessary, accelerate the spraying rhythm during periods of active growth accompanied by high pluviometry and in presence of

250

sources of infection in the close environment (Michelante, Haine et al. 2002). For the period 1999-2002, the CRA-W carried out experimentations to compare the efficiency obtained by following of the warnings with the usual weekly systematic spraying pattern. This showed that it was possible to reduce the number of fungicide application to 80% while getting better results (Figure 3-1) (Michelante cited by CRP 2004).

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----1111: Efficiency of the warnings system compared to the w: Efficiency of the warnings system compared to the w: Efficiency of the warnings system compared to the w: Efficiency of the warnings system compared to the weekly systematic spraying system in eekly systematic spraying system in eekly systematic spraying system in eekly systematic spraying system in the fight against potato late blight (Michelante cited by (CRP 2004)the fight against potato late blight (Michelante cited by (CRP 2004)the fight against potato late blight (Michelante cited by (CRP 2004)the fight against potato late blight (Michelante cited by (CRP 2004)

In another study concerning organic potatoes production, the CRA-W highlighted that the application of the cupric fungicide following CRA-w warnings allows a reduction in the treatment's frequency (8 treatments for strategy following warnings to 10 for strategy of systematic weekly treatments) and a reduction in the total applied amounts (5,4 kg for strategy following warnings to 6 kg for strategy of systematic weekly treatments) while achieving a more efficient protection (Michelante, Codron et al. 2004). However, it is important to note that in some worst cases, following the warnings will not lead to a ppp use reduction compared to systematic treatments. Concerning the aphids, sources of viral infections, the services do not diffuse an advice of treatment. The given information only consists in informing the producer of a high risk or not for viral transmissions. This is based on the intensity of aphid flights measured thanks to traps, on aphids types and on crop phenology (CRA-W b). 1.2.3.31.2.3.31.2.3.31.2.3.3 SSSSUGAR BEETS AND INULIUGAR BEETS AND INULIUGAR BEETS AND INULIUGAR BEETS AND INULINE CHICORIESNE CHICORIESNE CHICORIESNE CHICORIES

The decision support system used for sugar beets and inuline chicories is coordinated by the IRBAB/KBIVB. Reference fields for observations are distributed on the whole area of beet and chicory crops of the country. On the basis of weekly observations carried out in these fields, it is possible to conclude about the suitability of carrying out (or not as it is often the case) a treatment against the observed weeds, pests or diseases. If treatment is proved to be justified, an advice of treatment is diffused to the attention of the growers, by the sugar refineries, e-mail, fax, automatic telephone answering machine, agricultural press and Internet (IRBAB/KBIVB). From the survey performed in Walloon Brabant in 2003, it was inferred that about 57% of the farmers planting sugar beet follow the recommendation of decision support system (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004).

251

Since 2000, sugar beets areas treated once with a fungicide vary between 60 and 80%, 3 to 4% of the areas being treated twice (Figure 3-2). This treatment can be very profitable in case of important and early contaminations by foliar diseases. However, it is very often systematically applied while not always necessary. For efficiency, profitability and respect of the environment, the fungicide treatment must be well positioned thanks to IRBAB/KBIVB warnings and personal observations in the fields (Hermann 2005); (Hermann 2003).

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----2222: Fungicide treatments in Belgian sugar beet crops for the period 2000: Fungicide treatments in Belgian sugar beet crops for the period 2000: Fungicide treatments in Belgian sugar beet crops for the period 2000: Fungicide treatments in Belgian sugar beet crops for the period 2000----2003 (Hermann, 2003 (Hermann, 2003 (Hermann, 2003 (Hermann, 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Information concerning insecticide treatments during the crop growth is very difficult to obtain. However, it is estimated that less than 10% of the areas are treated once and less than 1% of the areas are treated twice. These treatments are sometimes justified in case of absence of adequate insecticide protection at sowing time. However, in most cases, that is to say with an adequate insecticide protection at sowing time (about 80% of the sowings), insecticide treatments, which are often applied during the crop growth, are totally unnecessary (Hermann 2005). Concerning herbicide application, most of the fields (about 80%) are treated before and after emergence. In post-emergence, most of the fields (40-60%) are treated tree times. The number of treatments has increased but the total applied doses have decreased since the ever more widespread use of the FAR system. This system determines specific treatment and specific product in function of the present flora (Hermann 2005). In this frame, the on-line FAR-CONSULT software gives to the farmers advices concerning date and products for treatment in function of the flora characteristics of each field (IRBAB/KBIVB). 1.2.41.2.41.2.41.2.4 Impact of the main decision support systems used in fruit and vegetable Impact of the main decision support systems used in fruit and vegetable Impact of the main decision support systems used in fruit and vegetable Impact of the main decision support systems used in fruit and vegetable

crops on a responsible pesticides usecrops on a responsible pesticides usecrops on a responsible pesticides usecrops on a responsible pesticides use

The various decision support systems for vegetable and fruit crops are generally used in the frame of integrated pest management (see below). Several organizations linked to specific crops diffuse warnings based on diseases observations and pest countings made in

252

growers' fields. We can cite among others PCFRUIT for fruit crops, GAWI for orchards, LAVA for some fruit and vegetable crops, PCG, CIM, CMH for some vegetable crops. In this case too, to receive the warnings from these decision support systems, the farmers must generally pay an annual subscription which gives right to other personalized services. The warnings are diffused by mail, e-mail or fax.

1.3 Decision support software systems In Belgium, different decision support software systems do already exist. These are available on CD's or on Internet. They can take various forms:

- Models of prediction of the disease or pest population evolution such as PROCULTURE. These models are used for the release of general warnings but can also be used in a personalized way by each farmer (for more details on PROCULTURE, see higher "Impact of the main decision support systems – cereals").

- Personalized models that integrate among others economic data and release advice of treatment or not in function of its economic profitability (i.e. ECO-Beta developed by the IRBAB/KBIVB).

- Systems which aim to help the farmer in the identification of the weeds, pests or diseases (i.e. Beta-Sana and FAR-Consult developed by the IRBAB/KBIVB).

The impacts of these decision support software systems on ppp's impact reduction are difficult to assess since the advices released can widely vary according to the situation and the input data.

1.4 Products labeling 1.4.11.4.11.4.11.4.1 Integrated production (Belgian examples)Integrated production (Belgian examples)Integrated production (Belgian examples)Integrated production (Belgian examples) Integrated crop management (ICM) can be thought of as a concept defining ideals and goals which then have to be ‘translated’ into strategies which can be implemented by producers. At a basic level, the concept is simply to integrate the management tools of individual crops in order to benefit from the interactions between them. In many respects, integrating crop production strategies to provide benefits such as pest control, maintain soil fertility, etc. is an ancient technique. However, ICM also takes advantage of modern technology to improve on the system (Agra-CEAS-Consulting 2002). In other words, integrated crop management offers a way of reducing the need for pesticides. It aims to reduce costs and improve the quality of the product and of the production methods, while maintaining soil fertility and the quality of the environment. Prevention of diseases and pests has high priority. If diseases or pests are present, non-chemical control methods are preferred and chemical control is based on economic criteria and the monitoring of the soil and crops (van Loon 1992). Although ICM is a relatively new concept in Belgium, it is considered by many within the Belgian industry to be preferable to organic production as a way forward for farming. ICM in Belgium is essentially limited to fruit and glasshouse production and could probably be more accurately described as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a result, not least because pest control by minimization of pesticide use is one of the main objectives (Agra-CEAS-Consulting 2002).

253

Currently, a report concerning the impacts of different Belgian greenlabels is under way at Ugent, ULG and CODA/CERVA (financed by the Belgian Science Policy). The main objective is to have an overview of existing labels with respect to pesticide reduction in Belgium. Originally, it was postulated to assess the sustainability of greenlabels by developing algebraic equations such as the POCER-indicator. An attempt was made, but because of the lack of data representative for the labelled/certified farming systems, it was impossible to use this methodology. Therefore a semi-quantitative method was developed to evaluate ecologic sustainability of the different labels. This method is based on a detailed assessment of the impact on sustainability of each particular rule written in the different certification books (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)). The selection procedure of the rules related to environmental sustainability consisted of three phases. In the first phase the rules that are obligatory according to the law were put aside. Thus only rules that give a surplus to legislation were included in the further analysis. Secondly all the rules with no significant impact on any sustainability impact item were not considered by the researchers of this study. In the third phase each of the rules was submitted to experts. They selected only those criteria that had a positive impact on a specific environmental sustainability item. For each item a maximum score was calculated. Therefore a mandatory level of 100% was attributed to all the criteria. The label scores were calculated by multiplying the mandatory level coefficient with the weight attributed to each criterion by the experts in the different disciplines. By adding the scores of the individual criteria a total score for each sustainability item was obtained The graphs shown in the following paragraphs reflect these scores (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)). This score represent thus the precision level in the specifications definition. This is not a quality judgement. 1.4.1.11.4.1.11.4.1.11.4.1.1 EUREPGAPEUREPGAPEUREPGAPEUREPGAP LABEL LABEL LABEL LABEL

One of the most widespread applications of an ICM-type scheme is controlled by the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP), which is made up of several European food retailers with suppliers and associate members drawn from four continents. Whilst the schemes run under the auspices of this organization are not necessarily pure ICM systems (usually these schemes are considered to be less comprehensive, although some schemes may in fact be more comprehensive than ICM in some ways by including such elements as worker welfare), their development and application is relatively widespread, and as such are important. The EUREP objective has primarily been to raise standards for the production of fresh fruit and vegetables. A first draft protocol for Good Agricultural Practice (named EUREP-GAP) was discussed with growers, producer marketing organizations, verification bodies, agrochemical companies, farmer organizations and scientific institutes in 1999 and the official GAP Version 2000 subsequently released (Agra-CEAS-Consulting 2002). Concerning ecologic sustainability, the scores obtained by EUREPGAP are comparable to those of FLANDRIAGAP for most of the items. But for Noise Quantity Reduction, Climate and Rare Resource Spillage FLANDRIAGAP does score much higher. For the item Worker Safety EUREPGAP scores slightly better compared to FLANDRIAGAP. As showed in Figure 1-3, different specifications concerning pesticides have an impact on the ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)):

- Regarding Water quality, EUREPGAP scored average. Relevant criteria for this aspect of ecologic sustainability are among others following the correct handling and filling procedures when mixing crop protection products, keeping the application equipment in good condition and testing it yearly.

254

- With respect to Waste reduction and management a rather low score was obtained. Relevant measures taken up in the certification book are the identification and secure storage of obsolete crop protection products and the disposal of them by authorized or approved channels.

- EUREPGAP does not demand a reduction in quantity of the applied amounts of pesticides, but registration is obligatory.

For each item of sustainability a maximum score was calculated based on the weights of the criteria taken up in the ideal checklist. In this respect a mandatory level of 100% was attributed to all of the rules. The label scores were calculated by multiplying the mandatory level coefficient with the weight attributed to each criterion by the experts in the different disciplines. By adding the scores of the individual criteria a total score for each sustainability item was obtained. In using the sum it is assumed that among the different technical actions compensation exists (Girardin, 2002). While calculating the label sustainability scores, several corrections had to be made. First of all a label, for example Organic farming can comply with criteria that are not explicitly mentioned in its certification book, but are taken up in one or several of the other standards. Thus Organic farming should receive an appropriate quotation for these criteria, although they cannot be found in the standard. Secondly criteria can contain only one or several elements. In the different standards the same elements can be mentioned in a single rule or in several rules. This had to be taken into account while calculating the label scores. The graphs shown in the following paragraphs reflect the scores of the different certification standards for the various sustainability items in terms of percentage. These percentages were then multiplied with a weight factor to give a visual representation of the impact of each sustainability item with respect to overall ecologic sustainability. Table 3-3 gives an overview of the weights attributed by the experts to the various sustainability items.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----3: Attributed weights for the selected items of ecologic sustainability3: Attributed weights for the selected items of ecologic sustainability3: Attributed weights for the selected items of ecologic sustainability3: Attributed weights for the selected items of ecologic sustainability

Sustainability itemSustainability itemSustainability itemSustainability item Attributed WeightAttributed WeightAttributed WeightAttributed Weight

Noise Quantity Reduction 2,54 Food Safety 8,88 Water Quality 14,04

Pest Pressure Reduction 6,24 Air Quality 13,81 Climate 11,82

Biodiversity 8,95 Landscape 8,95 Soil Fertility 9,48 Worker Safety 6,24

Waste Reduction and Management 7,87 Rare Resource Spillage 10,13

The weight factors that were attributed to the selected items were determined by applying the revised Simos’ procedure. Thereto a ranking of the environmental sustainability items had to be made. This was achieved by expert judgment. These weights can be questioned. Subjectivity plays an important role in determining these weights.

255

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400Noise Quantity reduction

Pest Pressure Reduction

Food Safety

Landscape

Rare resource Spillage

Air Quality

Water Quality

Climate

Soil Fertility

Biodiversity

Waste Reduction and Management

Worker Safety

EurepGap

Maximum score

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----3333: Performance of EUREPGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, : Performance of EUREPGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, : Performance of EUREPGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, : Performance of EUREPGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))

1.4.1.21.4.1.21.4.1.21.4.1.2 FLANDRIA/FLANDRIAGAPFLANDRIA/FLANDRIAGAPFLANDRIA/FLANDRIAGAPFLANDRIA/FLANDRIAGAP LABEL LABEL LABEL LABEL

Since 1995, the "FLANDRIA Family", part of EUREP-GAP is a Belgian quality concept for vegetables with consumer labelling and is the result of co-operation between producers, auctioneers, retailers and exporters, scientists and research stations and the Agricultural Marketing Board in Flanders. Producer organizations co-ordinate the scheme through LAVA, a group of 7 auction houses. More than 30 crops are now covered by this label with the most important being tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, leek, cauliflower, eggplants, courgettes, fruit, lettuce and Belgian endives. The objective is to produce crops to ICM standards as far as possible in other words to use as few chemical ppp as possible so as to minimize the impact of residues on man and the environment. The scheme specifications contain thus restrictions on use of plant protection products and strict record keeping requirements (Agra-CEAS-Consulting 2002); (INTEGRA); (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)). The specifications also include requirements for ppp application and manipulation. In order to meet the trade and legal requirements, the auctions "Mechelse Veilingen" and "Veiling Hoogstraten" decided to extend the content of the quality label FLANDRIA by adding the FLANDRIAGAP Specifications. As a result of these specifications, the strict standards applying to FLANDRIA for hygiene, planet-friendly planting and sustainable horticulture are now set even higher. Extra attention was paid to food safety, care for the environment and the labour. The auctions "Mechelse Veilingen" and "Veiling Hoogstraten" switched over completely to the FLANDRIAGAP Specifications in 2004 (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)).

256

Concerning ecologic sustainability of FLANDRIA and FLANDRIAGAP, it is clear that FLANDRIA does not perform well and that the new specifications added in the FLANDRIAGAP certification book were necessary. For FLANDRIA, none of the eleven sustainability items reaches a score higher than fifty percent of the maximum attainable score. As showed in figure 3-4, through the introduction of FLANDRIAGAP, most progress was made on the aspects of Worker Safety, Waste Reduction and Management and Pest Pressure Reduction. More stringent specifications for hygiene, environmentally-friendly production methods and sustainable horticulture were set. Extra attention was paid to food safety and traceability, but also to the care for the environment and the workforce. Different specifications concerning pesticides have an impact on the ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)):

- In the field of Pest Pressure, FLANDRIAGAP scored well. Specific to these standards is the use of the DRC cards. It is advised to only use the crop protection products mentioned on these cards. These products are considered safe for use by the POCER indicator. This indicator takes into account human, environmental and toxicity aspects. The standards also advise the use of biological pesticides in the first instance before switching to chemical alternatives. FLANDRIAGAP stimulate the farmers to use less pesticides.

- In FLANDRIAGAP the progress in the field Waste reduction and management is noticeable. Waste streams have to be located at a secure distance from water catchment areas and vegetable raw materials, below the product shelves collecting tanks have to be installed, and empty crop protection products have to be adequately stored, labelled and handled.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200



Food Safety

Landscape


Air Quality

Water Quality

Climate

Soil Fertility

Biodiversity


Worker Safety

Flandria

FlandriaGap

Maximum score

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----4444: Performance of FLANDRIA and FLANDRIAGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van : Performance of FLANDRIA and FLANDRIAGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van : Performance of FLANDRIA and FLANDRIAGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van : Performance of FLANDRIA and FLANDRIAGAP concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))

257

1.4.1.31.4.1.31.4.1.31.4.1.3 PERFECTPERFECTPERFECTPERFECT CCCCHARTERHARTERHARTERHARTER

The PERFECT Charter (trade mark of the CMH) integrates all the requirements of the EUREP-GAP reference frame and the lawful regulations defined in the Royal Decree relating to the self-checking, the traceability and the obligatory notification. Its objective is to reach total quality in order to guarantee the safety of the product, the health of the consumer and the safeguard of the environment. Indeed, the PERFECT Charter is based on the "Integrated Crop Management System" concept which aims to increase the guarantees for the environment protection. For the season 2004, the PERFECT Charter certification concerned a hundred farms. The principal crops concerned with certification are carrots, beans, spinaches, Brussels sprouts, peas and potatoes. For each crop, a cultural form clearly defines the authorized ppp. The choice of these products is based on their ecotoxicological profile and the restrictions imposed by the customer (CMH). Concerning ecologic sustainability, on five of the eleven considered items, namely Climate Conservation, Air Quality, Food Safety, Water Quality and Rare Resource Spillage, PERFECT Charter obtained the highest score of all the certification standards under study. These high scores can partly be explained by the high degree of detail of the PERFECT Charter standard. As showed in figure 3-5, different specifications concerning pesticides have an impact on the ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)):

- It is specified that pesticide applicators must take off and clean their clothes on returning to the farm, workers have to attend an annual collective instruction session about hygiene and the emergency facilities have to be accessible and close by, so PERFECT Charter pays reasonable attention to the aspect of Worker Safety.

- Rules relating to the appropriate storage of pesticides and fertilisers, the correct calculation of the application rates, taking into account label instructions, application speed and application pressure, and rules concerning the registration of crop protection products are considered to have a major positive impact on the item Water Quality. Registration of the amounts of pesticides used is considered important, because through registration farmers are stimulated to develop methods aiming at reducing the applied amounts.

- For Pest Pressure Reduction item, an average score was obtained. The pest management plan promotes the principle of alternation of products. The adoption of crop rotations is also considered important for the reduction of pest pressure.

258

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Noise Quantity reduction


Food Safety

Landscape


Air Quality

Water Quality

Climate

Soil Fertility

Biodiversity


Worker Safety

Charte Perfect

Maximum score

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----5555: Performance of the PERFECT Charter standard concerning ecologic sustainability (Van : Performance of the PERFECT Charter standard concerning ecologic sustainability (Van : Performance of the PERFECT Charter standard concerning ecologic sustainability (Van : Performance of the PERFECT Charter standard concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))

1.4.1.41.4.1.41.4.1.41.4.1.4 LLLLEGAL SYSTEM FOR INTEEGAL SYSTEM FOR INTEEGAL SYSTEM FOR INTEEGAL SYSTEM FOR INTEGRATED PRODUCTION OFGRATED PRODUCTION OFGRATED PRODUCTION OFGRATED PRODUCTION OF APPLES AND PEARS APPLES AND PEARS APPLES AND PEARS APPLES AND PEARS

In 1996, a legal basis was established for integrated pipfruit production in Belgium. The specifications, containing all standards to be met by integrated production fruit farmers, were recorded in the Royal Decree of 22 January 1996 (INTEGRA). The IOBC defines the integrated fruit production as a high quality economic fruit production giving the priority to the ecologically surer methods, minimizing the undesirable side effects and the use of the agrochemical products, in order to improve the environmental and human health protection (Royal Decree of 22 January 1996). The specifications concerning pesticides mention that ppp can only be used as a last resort. The authorized ppp are classified in three lists in function of their toxicity for the environment and the health. The green list contains ppp that can be used when their use is justified. The yellow list contains ppp that can be used when none ppp of the green list are proved to be satisfactory for a justified and efficient use. The orange list contains ppp that can be used only after demonstration of their necessity and authorization of the certification organism. The ppp that are not included in one of these three lists can not be used. The specifications also include requirements for ppp application and manipulation (Royal Decree of 22 January 1996). Table 3-4 shows the evolution of the integrated pipfruit production in Belgium since 1998. We can see that a great majority (about 3/4) of the Belgian apples and pears are now produced under an integrated production scheme.

259

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----4444: Importance (in %) of integrated pipfruit production compared to total pipfruit production in : Importance (in %) of integrated pipfruit production compared to total pipfruit production in : Importance (in %) of integrated pipfruit production compared to total pipfruit production in : Importance (in %) of integrated pipfruit production compared to total pipfruit production in Belgium for the period 1998Belgium for the period 1998Belgium for the period 1998Belgium for the period 1998----2004 (figures from MRW2004 (figures from MRW2004 (figures from MRW2004 (figures from MRW----DGA and INS)DGA and INS)DGA and INS)DGA and INS)

YearYearYearYear Integrated apple Integrated apple Integrated apple Integrated apple crops areas crops areas crops areas crops areas

Integrated pear crops Integrated pear crops Integrated pear crops Integrated pear crops areasareasareasareas

1998 22% 31% 1999 29% 35% 2000 40% 45% 2001 65% 73% 2002 74% 75% 2003 77% 77% 2004 75% 76%

1.4.1.51.4.1.51.4.1.51.4.1.5 FRUITNETFRUITNETFRUITNETFRUITNET LABEL LABEL LABEL LABEL

FRUITNET is a private organization which had already established specifications for integrated apple and pear production as early as 1991. The content of these specifications corresponds largely to the standards set in the legal system, but at various points these specifications go even further. Framers working in accordance with FRUITNET specifications therefore comply automatically with the legal system's standards (INTEGRA). Concerning pesticide application, the FRUITNET specifications also mention that ppp can only be used as a last resort. The classification of the products is based on the same principle as the legal system: the authorized ppp are classified in three lists in function of their toxicity for the environment and the health. However, the list of FRUITNET is more restrictive than the legal system (GAWI); (Marc, personal commentary):

- in the classification: green, yellow or orange; - in the exclusion of some active substances (the FRUITNET specifications avoid the

most toxic pesticides for the environment); - in the number of applications per annum and per hectare; - in the times of application; - within the times before harvest.

Concerning ecologic sustainability, FRUITNET certainly imposes more stringent specifications than the legal system standard (as said above). As showed in figure 3-6, different specifications concerning pesticides have an impact on the ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)):

- For the item Pest Pressure Reduction, results of FRUITNET and legal system are comparable. The comparable scores for this item can easily be explained since the main goal of integrated farming is to reduce the quantities of pesticides applied. Integrated farmers make use of the regulating force of nature, only intervening when really necessary. Observation systems in the orchard are used to detect the presence of pests, especially to determine the extent of their population.

- Regarding the item Air quality, FRUITNET performs relatively well, legal system slightly less. Especially the use of integrated production techniques (use of plates to catch insects, use of pheromone traps, mechanical weed treatments), the requirement of competence of the fertiliser and pesticide applicator and the reliance on an epidemiological forecast service contribute to the improvement of air quality.

- FRUITNET was ranked at first place for the item Water quality. Important to mention is that all the rules relating to this topic have a mandatory level of 100 percent. This is also the case for the legal system certification scheme. Rules considered important by the experts are the correct calculation of the pesticide dose, the

260

application of pesticides in suitable weather conditions (reducing drift to watercourses), the planting of hedges along waterways to capture drift and the treatment of rinsing water after use on the farm.

- Next to PERFECT Charter, FRUITNET scored the best on the aspect of Waste reduction and management. Rules specific to FRUITNET are the establishment of an inventory of all waste products and sources of pollution, the drawing up and implementation of an action plan in order to reduce waste production and the promoting of recycling. Also required is the use of spraying systems, supplied with a system for rinsing the packages of pesticides. In comparison to FRUITNET, the legal system performed less well. Only rules related to the reduction of pesticide mixture excesses are mentioned.

The high score of FRUITNET for the items Food Safety and Worker Safety opposed to the scores of the legal system can be explained by the fact that EUREPGAP approval is a mandatory obligation required of each fruit grower wishing to market his fruit under the “FRUITNET” trademark. Technical advisers give aid by means of group sessions, individual visits and warning bulletins. FRUITNET employs the most appropriate techniques for the preservation of the environment, prohibiting the most toxic pesticides to the environment and nature and classifying products in a green, yellow and orange list in function of their degree of toxicity with respect to the environment, humans and beneficial fauna. In case of a risk of major economic damage (treatment threshold was exceeded) the grower must choose a control method. Naturally, priority must be given to natural enemies of the pest in question, but when these are insufficient the grower will have to opt for a more appropriate biological or chemical treatment. The most selective, least toxic, least persistent product, which is as safe as possible to humans and the environment, must be selected.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200



Food Safety

Landscape


Air Quality

Water Quality

Climate

Soil Fertility

Biodiversity


Worker Safety

Geïntegreerd Pitfruit

Fruitnet

Maximum score

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----3333: Performance of legal system for integrated pipfruit production and FRUITNET concerni: Performance of legal system for integrated pipfruit production and FRUITNET concerni: Performance of legal system for integrated pipfruit production and FRUITNET concerni: Performance of legal system for integrated pipfruit production and FRUITNET concerning ng ng ng ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press))

261

1.4.1.61.4.1.61.4.1.61.4.1.6 TERRATERRATERRATERRA NOSTRANOSTRANOSTRANOSTRA LABEL LABEL LABEL LABEL

In 1998, the first TERRA NOSTRA potatoes were put on the market. Terra Nostra is a generic quality label being increasingly used by Walloon potato growers. The label aims to give consumers guarantees concerning quality, traceability and respect for the environment. In order to be sold under the TERRA NOSTRA brand, potatoes must be grown in Wallonia and the grower must respect the particular specifications based on good agricultural practice (integrated pest control, ppp use restricted to a positive list…) , traceability and respect for the environment. This cultivation technique enables a reduction by 30 % to 40% in the quantity of fertilisers and pesticides used (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)); (APAQ-W 2006). As showed in figure 3-7, various specifications concerning pesticides have an impact on the ecologic sustainability. However, the overall performance of TERRA NOSTRA on the different items of sustainability is not very good. For the item Pest Pressure Reduction, TERRA NOSTRA obtained an average score. Pest pressure reduction is achieved by using certified seed, subscribing in an epidemiologic forecast service and respecting the minimum intercrop period of three years, among other things (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Noise Quantity reduction


Food Safety

Landscape


Air Quality

Water Quality

Climate

Soil Fertility

Biodiversity


Worker Safety

Terra Nostra

Maximum score

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----4444: Performance of TERRA NOSTRA concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, : Performance of TERRA NOSTRA concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, : Performance of TERRA NOSTRA concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, : Performance of TERRA NOSTRA concerning ecologic sustainability (Van Huylenbroeck, Mondelaers et al.Mondelaers et al.Mondelaers et al.Mondelaers et al. 2006 (in press)) 2006 (in press)) 2006 (in press)) 2006 (in press))

1.5 Conclusion The "reasoned use of pesticides" (following warnings, models and personal observations…) makes it possible to avoid systematic applications, and especially, to reduce the applied amounts and the potential impacts, by choice of the more adapted product and moment and respect of the conditions which ensure the best efficiency.

262

The interest of these techniques depends on the cultivation methods. For the European field crops, the interest lies in the economy of useless treatments. However, in the case of the most intensive cultivation methods, the frequency of potentially detrimental infestations can be relatively high and the farmer will be little incited to use decision support systems which will give him in fact little occasions to save treatments. Moreover, the agronomic durability of such a system in absence of any measure aiming at reducing the plant health risks seems to be limited. Indeed, for instance, the maintenance of pest populations right below the thresholds of noxiousness for the crops does not prevent the constitution of residual populations (weeds seeds, pathogenic fungal spores...) detrimental for the following crops. This may quickly lead to a requirement of more important treatments. Therefore, the well-build thresholds of noxiousness must take this point into account. So, the possibilities of reduction appear limited as long as one remains in farming systems that generate important plant health risks. In addition, the costs of these practices are relatively high: frequent fields' monitoring requires preliminary training in which all the farmers are not ready to invest and an important qualified working time. Such a follow-up is perhaps not very compatible with an implementation on large surfaces. This can also lead to important risks of losses in the event of diagnosis error. Indeed, the survey (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004); (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003) showed that farmers who had not changed their practices for more pesticides sparing practices say that those practices are too costly in money, time and labour and that they fear for the external quality of their products (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005). Concerning the models used for decision support systems, they generally do not include parameters related to the farming practices. The thresholds of noxiousness or intervention are generally given under and for "intensive" farming conditions. Currently, an effort is carried out to adapt these thresholds to the agronomic situations' diversity, in particular by integrating risk factors related to farming practices and field's history. Nevertheless, most of these tools remain based on the realization of a technical optimum and thus lead to consumption behaviours. Moreover, they generally consider only the couple "one culture – one pest" and thus neglect the interactions between the various pests. Lastly, they very seldom take into account the environmental impacts of the treatments (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005) In the duration, it seems probably more effective to initially seek to reduce the plant health risks in a prophylactic way, and then, in a second time, to reason the chemical fight. In this frame, "integrated production" is a necessary step. This consists in an "alternative strategy" for crop protection, which rests on personalized implementation of some principles among which figures prevention of the plant health risks. The "integrated production" reinstates, on renewed scientific and technical bases, the management of the pests in the context of the crop systems. This management is then rather viewed as the "health of the farming systems" than as a "fight against the crops' pests". Unlike other approaches, it takes into account the diversity of the situations of production and the interactions between the different techniques (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005).

263

2222 PPPPESTICIDE RISK EVALUAESTICIDE RISK EVALUAESTICIDE RISK EVALUAESTICIDE RISK EVALUATION OF THE TION OF THE TION OF THE TION OF THE BBBBELGIAN SITUATION ELGIAN SITUATION ELGIAN SITUATION ELGIAN SITUATION

2.1 Different types of indicators for measuring the impact of pesticides

Three different kinds of indicators can be distinguished: “use”-indicators, “single-impact”-indicators and “multi-impact”-indicators. In the following paragraphs, one example of each type of indicator is explained. The PRIBEL-indicator, which will be worked out in the following chapter and will be used to calculate the impact in Belgium, is an example of a multi-impact indicator. 2.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.1 “Use”“Use”“Use”“Use”----indicator (e.g. Use)indicator (e.g. Use)indicator (e.g. Use)indicator (e.g. Use) The Use is the amount of active substance applied per hectare on a yearly basis. The underlying thought is simple: the greater the amount of pesticide applied, the greater the risk. The Use-indicator was adopted in the Dutch ‘Meerjarenplan Gewasbescherming’ (Long-range Plan Crop Protection) which postulated a reduction of 56% of the amount of pesticides applied by the year 2000 by comparison with the average amount of pesticides used in the period 1984-1988 (http://www.gewasbescherming.nl). The Use-indicator is user-friendly, but rather simplistic. It only indicates, based on the applied dose, whether or not there is a great environmental risk. However, it is not because a certain active substance is applied to a lesser extent than another active substance, that the first substance is less harmful for the environment. This substance can for instance be twice as toxic as the other one, so there is no clear interrelationship. The Use-indicator does not enable the assessor to estimate the exact potential impacts resulting from the pesticides applied. It only gives a first impression of the possible effects, and may consequently not be used as a sole instrument to assess the risk due to pesticide usage. 2.1.22.1.22.1.22.1.2 SingleSingleSingleSingle----impactimpactimpactimpact---- indicator (e.g. Seq) indicator (e.g. Seq) indicator (e.g. Seq) indicator (e.g. Seq)

The Seq-indicator is used in Belgium to visualize the evolution of the environmental impact due to pesticide use. The Seq-value, expressed in terms of distribution equivalents, is based on an exposure-effect ratio. The Seq-value describes the detrimental impact pesticides have on water organisms. Three parameters are needed to calculate the Seq-value:

- the annual amount of pesticides sold; - the degradation rate; - the maximum tolerated environmental concentration.

These three parameters are expressed in a formula used to calculate the Seq-value:

MTC

DTuseSeq 50*=

with: use = annual applied amount of pesticide (this is derived from the annual sales figures by means of distribution code) (kg/yr) DT50 = half-life of the pesticide under consideration (yr) MTC = maximum tolerable concentration

264

The Seq-indicator only takes the persistence of the pesticides in soil (by means of the DT50-value) and the risk to water life, namely algae, Crustacea and fish, into consideration. By determining the annual applied amount of pesticides (input) and the amount of that degrades (output), the amount of pesticide present in the environment is obtained. This is the concentration exposing water organisms. The Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC), the concentration that causes no adverse effect to the environment, is reflected by the MTC. The MTC is derived from the toxicity figures NOEC and L(E)C50 by taking extrapolation factors into account. The Seq-value indicates how many environmental-unities, expressed as a million litres, can be polluted annually up to MTC-level. Aggregation is possible by summing the different

obtained Seq-values. The Seq∑ reflects the annual distribution equivalents for a certain

pesticide. The Seq-indicator is quite easy to use, yet has some major drawbacks. The indicator takes ecotoxicological effects into account and is used to examine the global impact pesticides exert on the environment even though only the effect on water organisms is investigated. This implies that insecticides, which generally act on the nervous system, will mostly end up with an unfavourable Seq-score, because as they act on the nervous system of insects it is not inconceivable that they will exert a similar effect on water organisms (Crustacea). It should also be noted that the Seq-score is strongly depending on the size of the toxicity database. The fewer number of toxicity figures available, the higher the extrapolation factors are chosen, which results in a bigger safety margin. This, in turn, can result in wrongly considering a less toxic substance as being more toxic. As the Seq-indicator does not represent all known risks due to pesticide use (e.g. risk for human health, birds, bees, …), there was a growing need to develop a multi-impact indicator which comprises more risks as a result of pesticide use. Such approach better reflects the real situation and allows to better assess the potential risks. However, this requires much larger datasets than those needed to calculate a single-impact or Seq-indicator. 2.1.32.1.32.1.32.1.3 MultiMultiMultiMulti----impact indicator (e.g. the Dutch Environmental Indicator)impact indicator (e.g. the Dutch Environmental Indicator)impact indicator (e.g. the Dutch Environmental Indicator)impact indicator (e.g. the Dutch Environmental Indicator)

The Dutch Environmental Indicator is developed by the CLM (Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu) in Utrecht (http://www.milieumeetlat.nl). The environmental indicator is a grading system, based on the exposure-effect ratio, which gives an idea of how damaging/harmful a product is for the environment. It is a multi-impact indicator which estimates the environmental impacts, expressed as environmental impact points, for three different impact categories: risk for water life, risk for terrestrial life and risk for ground water. The environmental indicator pursues a threefold aim:

- develop an indicator which clearly reflects the environmental load related to a certain pesticide;

- encourage farmers to take into account the environmental profile of the active substance on deciding on which product to apply;

- evaluation of the current reduction policy regarding the use of crop protection products and the achieved progress.

The environmental indicator does not assess the risk for other related impact categories (e.g. birds, beneficial arthropods, bees, …) or human health risk.

265

The general formula used to calculate the environmental score is:

Environmental impact points = standard

100*PEC

So the environmental indicator calculates the ratio of the expected environmental concentration (PEC) and the prevailing standard multiplied by 100. Environmental impact points can be calculated for every application and every impact category. Different environmental impact scores within a certain impact category can be summed. For example, by summing the scores for every insecticide applied, the total impact exerted by insecticides on water organisms can be obtained. 2.1.42.1.42.1.42.1.4 Risk indicators for consumers Risk indicators for consumers Risk indicators for consumers Risk indicators for consumers Pesticide risk indicator can help to detect active substances and/or crops that are harmful for the health of consumers. The aim of risk indicator is to give the most precise and scientifically based information. Both qualitative and quantitative aspects of pesticide use and toxicological data are taken into account to calculate a risk. Using pesticide risk indicators allow to produce comparable information and therefore orientate a comparison. One has to see clearly here the difference between hazard and risk. Hazard is an intrinsic property that can cause adverse effects whereas the concept of risk combine the magnitude of adverse effects with the probability that such effects occur. 2.1.4.12.1.4.12.1.4.12.1.4.1 HAPERITIFHAPERITIFHAPERITIFHAPERITIF

The EU financed Harmonized environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk (HAIR) project was launched in order to provide a harmonised European approach for risk indicators. Another goal of the programme was to help governments to track temporal risk trends resulting from agricultural pesticide use at different scale (regional or national levels) and to monitor the progress in meeting their pesticide risk reduction goals. One of the indicators created in HAIR is the Harmonized Pesticide Risk Trend Indicator for Food (HAPERITIF). For the moment this indicator does not consider other sources of potential risk than those coming from the consumption of primary agricultural products such as vegetable and fruits. HAPERITIF combines and aggregates in a unique result the sum of the consumer risk values obtained for all active ingredient residues present in a particular typology of consumer diet. HAPERITIF consists in a stepwise approach (Trevisan et al., 2004):

� Quantification of pesticide residues on crops. If existing, monitoring data on primary crops are used as it is the most realistic scenario, otherwise prediction models or MRL can be used to calculate crop residues.

� Prediction of pesticide residues on foods. This second step for the calculation of the indicator will be applied only on crops that are further transformed after the harvesting. To avoid overestimation of exposure, it is necessary to include a factor accounting for the effects of crop processing techniques like hydrolysis due to pasteurization, baking, brewing, boiling etc. If such information are lacking, the indicator adopt a worst case approach, considering that no losses of pesticide occur during the transformation processes.

� Determination of consumer exposure. Chronic and acute intakes are determined on the basis of the guidelines and diets lists of the World Health Organisation. The indicator for consumer can be computed as :

266

WeightBody

nConsumptio FoodDaily x ionConcentrat Chemical FoodExposureDietary =

where Food Chemical Concentration is either same as MRL or weighted average of monitoring results ; Daily Food Consumption is the individual or averaged ingested amount of food (g/day), regional or national estimate ; Body Weight is standard/estimate (e.g. adults 60 kg, children 15 kg). Two different approaches lead to the Estimated Short Term Intake (ESTI, acute exposure) ant to the Estimated Daily Intake (EDI, chronic exposure).

Calculation of the indicator HAPERITIF based on the ratio between the exposure and the toxicological endpoint. Chronic exposure is compared to ADI, whereas acute exposure is compared to the ARfD. The indicator HAPERITIF is the ratio between EDI and ADI, or ESTI and ARfD. If the indicator has to be given for several residues in several commodities, the risk is the 95thpercentile of the sum of the ratios Exposure/Toxicity for each residues present in each commodity. 2.1.4.22.1.4.22.1.4.22.1.4.2 HERPHERPHERPHERP

The ranking scale developed by Ames et al. (1987) does not suit for calculating a risk, but it does serve to point out carcinogenic compounds that may be of greater concern than others. The Human Exposure Rodent Potency (HERP) ratio is based on human exposure to pesticide and carcinogenic data. As most of the data available is for rodent carcinogens, the ratio does not include human carcinogenic data. The greater the human exposure to the rodent carcinogen or the greater the potency of the carcinogen in rodents, the higher the Human Exposure/Rodent Potency ratio. This ranking suggests that carcinogenic hazards from current levels of pesticide residues or water pollution are likely to be of minimal concern relative to the background levels of natural substances, though one cannot say whether these natural exposures are likely to be of major or minor importance. The HERP index, indicates what percentage of the rodent carcinogenic dose (TD50 in mg/kg/day) a human receives from a given average daily exposure for a life time (mg/kg/day) (Gold et al., 2001). As an example, for coffee, the HERP index equals to 0,1.

� Average daily exposure : 13,3g � Human dose of rodent carcinogen : Caffeic acid – 23,9mg � Potency TD50 (mg/kg/day) for rats : 297

2.1.4.32.1.4.32.1.4.32.1.4.3 QSTARQSTARQSTARQSTAR

For carcinogenic pesticides US Environmental Protection Agency determines a quantitative estimate of a pesticide's carcinogenic potency, called a "Q*" (or Q star). To calculate a "Q*," EPA uses evidence of cancer incidence in lifetime chronic animal feeding studies (US EPA, 2004). EPA also assumes:

� that human health effects would correspond to health effects observed in animals; � that there is a linear dose-response (no threshold model) relationship at low doses,

so that the mathematical models used to extrapolate from high dose to low dose correctly predict the odds that the chemical will cause cancer in humans.

This means that any dose above zero engenders some level of risk. To cope with uncertainties, the odds are expressed with a 95 percent confidence level. This means that

267

from animal data, usually based on three dose levels, the maximum dose-effect relationship is calculated. Then another slope, called the Q*, is calculated. This Q* is generally the upper 95 percent confidence interval, which is interpreted to mean that the probability is 0.95 that the actual value is not greater than this estimate. The Q* is then used to determine the concentrations of the chemical in the diet that are associated with theoretical upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risks of 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000, and 1 in 1,000,000 (10-4, 10-5, 10-6 respectively) individuals over a lifetime of exposure. In the list of "Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential", some pesticides have a Q* value when the pesticide is suspected to be carcinogenic. These products were evaluated and classified by either the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) or OPP Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC). 2.1.4.42.1.4.42.1.4.42.1.4.4 MOEMOEMOEMOE

In its opinion, the Scientific Committee (SC) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommends a harmonized concept using the “Margin Of Exposure” (MOE), a methodology that does enable the comparison of the risks posed by different genotoxic and carcinogenic substances (EFSA, 2005b). The margin of exposure (MOE) is the ratio between a defined point on the dose-response curve for the adverse effect and the human intake, and therefore it makes no implicit assumptions about a “safe” intake. This approach allow the determination of possible impact on human health. The MOE approach uses a reference point, often taken from an animal study and corresponding to a dose that causes a low but measurable response in animals. This reference point is then compared with various dietary intake estimates in humans, taking into account differences in consumption patterns. Therefore the following steps need to be taken to calculate MOE :

� selection of an appropriate reference point from the dose-response curve for comparison with human intake

� estimation of human dietary exposure � calculation of an MOE

MOEs are calculated by dividing the reference point, e.g. BMDL10 or T25, by the estimated human intakes. The Scientific Committee recommends the use of the benchmark dose (BMD) to obtain the MOE (lower 95% confidence interval on dose giving a 10% response). The benchmark dose is a standardised reference point derived from the animal data by mathematical modelling within the observed range of experimental data. In general, the Scientific committee consider that an MOE of 10,000 or higher, if it is based on the BMDL10 from an animal study, would be of low concern from a public health point of view and might be considered as a low priority for risk management actions. 2.1.4.52.1.4.52.1.4.52.1.4.5 %%%% OF OF OF OF ADIADIADIADI

This simple parameter compares Theoretical Maximum Residue Contributions (TMRCs) with the ADI (mg/kg b.w./day). This can be done for some selected pesticides, calculating the percentage of the ADI reached by the TMRC. This parameter was used by Winter (2001) to conduct the assessment of the dietary risks from pesticide residues.

268

2.1.52.1.52.1.52.1.5 HArmonised environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk: HAIR (Luttik, HArmonised environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk: HAIR (Luttik, HArmonised environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk: HAIR (Luttik, HArmonised environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk: HAIR (Luttik, 2004)2004)2004)2004)

Harmonised environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk (HAIR) is an EU funded specific targeted research project for the development of harmonised indicators for the risk of pesticides. This project will support Community policies for sustainable agriculture by providing a harmonised European approach for indicators of the overall risk of pesticides. It will integrate European scientific expertise on the use, emissions and environmental fate of pesticides and their impact on agro-ecosystems and human health, in order to learn and understand the limitations of existing approaches and develop improved indicators. The main deliverable of the project is a set of harmonised environmental and human health risk indicators, implemented in an easy to use software package. The proposed tool will include methods to predict environmental fate and exposure, and the resulting acute and chronic risks for aquatic and terrestrial organisms, for groundwater, for public health (including pregnant women) and for pesticide applicators. Consistent database structures will be developed for soil, climate, land use, agricultural practice, pesticide use and ecotoxicological data, to enable the harmonised use of the indicators at the distinguished scales. State-of-the-art methods will be used to extrapolate from test animals to humans and wildlife, and the indicators will include chronic risks based on sub-lethal effects as well as acute risks. The project will use existing data sets to systematically evaluate the validation status of the indicators, including information gathered by regional and national organisations. The indicator outputs will be available on different scales, providing high resolution results at the catchment/regional level, taking account of local conditions of soil, climate etc., and also aggregated and integrated results at the national and European level. The indicators will provide new and powerful assessment tools for monitoring and managing the overall risks of pesticides. This will contribute directly to Agenda 2000 aims for sustainable agriculture, and to the 6th Environment Action Programme’s Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products.

2.2 Evaluation of the Belgian situation for applicators and consumers with PRIBEL

For the two compartments applicator and consumer, the formulas of the POCER (Pesticide Occupational and Environmental Risk Indicator) are used (Vercruysse, 2002). The POCER-indicator is based on the acceptance criteria formulated in Annex VI of the European Council Directive 91/414/EC. In Annex VI, the Uniform Principles for the evaluation and acceptance of plant protection products are set. When no data are available, default values will be used. Generation of specific higher tier scenarios can only be performed when data from product specific exposure studies and dermal penetration studies are available. 2.2.12.2.12.2.12.2.1 Risk calculationsRisk calculationsRisk calculationsRisk calculations Within the framework of HEEPEBI, we decided to apply the PRIBEL-indicator for the Belgian context. The year 2001 is used as reference year, to comply with the Federal Reduction Programme for Pesticides. From all indicators presented previously, PRIBEL-indicator is the one for which we have a complete access to databases and tools required to use the

269

indicator. Since the indicator uses Belgian data (eg. pesticide sales, type of pesticide applications), its outputs can be useful to give an idea of what may be the risky pesticide applications for Belgian applicators and consumers. Special attention will be given to the riskiest pesticide/commodity combination as well as the contribution of each crop group to the total risk in Belgium. Basically the PRIBEL is given by:

PRIBEL value = RI * FPRIBEL value = RI * FPRIBEL value = RI * FPRIBEL value = RI * F With the PRIBEL value being the total risk for Belgium, calculated by multiplying the pure risk index RI with the frequency F. The RI values come from calculations of the software PRIBEL using the formulas for calculating the risk for applicators and consumers considering the physico-chemical and ecotoxicological data, whereas the frequency is derived from national Belgian sales data coupled with the used amount of pesticide per crop (Vergucht et al, 2006). First some preliminary results are given, followed by the results per pesticide group and per crop group. 2.2.22.2.22.2.22.2.2 Data sourcesData sourcesData sourcesData sources To calculate the results with PRIBEL a lot of inputdata were required. They are collected in a database owned by UGent and are obtained from the following sources:

� Kg of active substance yearly applied in Belgium: Studies Van Lierde � Sales of active substances per year in Belgium: FOD VVVL, pers. comm. � Ecological and toxicological values: these data are collected in the database of

UGent, and obtained from the following sources (in order of importance): 1. European Union 2. CTB – The Netherlands (http://www.ctb-wageningen.nl/) 3. Pandora’s Box (Linders et al., 1994) 4. The Pesticide Manual (Tomlin, 2004) 5. Extoxnet (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/) 6. Toxnet (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/) 7. Other sources

2.2.32.2.32.2.32.2.3 Five pesticide groupsFive pesticide groupsFive pesticide groupsFive pesticide groups Five pesticide groups can be distinguished: insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, soil disinfectants and non plant protection products. The last category has been made up but the results were not satisfying due to a lack of correct and complete data. Therefore the authors of this report ask the risk managers of the federal authorities to drop the results of the non plant protection products until more ecotoxicological information about these substances is available. In table 3-5 the composition of the different pesticide groups is listed.

270

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----5: Composition of the differ5: Composition of the differ5: Composition of the differ5: Composition of the different pesticide groupsent pesticide groupsent pesticide groupsent pesticide groups

Pesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide group CompostionCompostionCompostionCompostion Insecticides Acaricides, insecticides, rodenticides,

molluscicides, moleicides Fungicides Fungicides, bactericides Herbicides Herbicides, defoliants, antimosses, growth

regulators, germ inhibitors Soil desinfectants Soil desinfectants, nematicides,

desinfectants Non plant protection products Additives, repellents, bandages, emulsions,

curing agents 2.2.42.2.42.2.42.2.4 Nine crop groupsNine crop groupsNine crop groupsNine crop groups A distinction has been made between nine crop groups, according to the available data and the importance of the culture for the Belgian situation. The exact composition of the different groups is mentioned in the table below (table 3-6).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----6: Composition of the different crop groups6: Composition of the different crop groups6: Composition of the different crop groups6: Composition of the different crop groups

Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group CompositionCompositionCompositionComposition Potato Potato Orchard Apple, pear, nursery Cereal Barley, wheat Sugarbeet Sugarbeet Maize Maize, corn Fodder Temporary grassland, permanent grassland Vegetables Chicory, leek, bean, spinach, carrot,

cabbage, pea Industrial Flax, colza Greenhouse Tomato, lettuce 2.2.52.2.52.2.52.2.5 PRIBEL rePRIBEL rePRIBEL rePRIBEL results for the applicator on the Belgian levelsults for the applicator on the Belgian levelsults for the applicator on the Belgian levelsults for the applicator on the Belgian level The POCER-indicator contains formulas for the pesticide operator, the farm worker and the bystander. The PRIBEL-indicator only calculates the risk for the pesticide operator. The three compartments are discussed below to give a complete overview, but the calculations and graphs created further on in this study consider only the risk for the pesticide operator, as the calculations are executed with PRIBEL. 2.2.5.12.2.5.12.2.5.12.2.5.1 FFFFORMULASORMULASORMULASORMULAS

2.2.5.1.12.2.5.1.12.2.5.1.12.2.5.1.1 PPPPESTICIDE OPERATORESTICIDE OPERATORESTICIDE OPERATORESTICIDE OPERATOR

Pesticide operators are persons who mix, load and apply the pesticides. The risk index for pesticide operators (RIoperator) is calculated as the quotient of the internal exposure (IEoperator) and the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL), both expressed in mg/kg body weight/workday). The internal exposure (IEoperator) is calculated using the EUROPOEM model.

271

AOEL

IERI operator

operator =

The internal exposure (IEoperator) is calculated using the approach described below.

napplicatioloadingmixingoperator IEIEIE += /

• [ ])**()(/ DhandhandIIIloadmix AbPPELAbPPELIE +∗∗=

• [ ])()**()( DbodybodyDhandhandIIInapplicatio AbPPELAbPPELAbPPELIE ∗∗++∗∗=

( ), / ( )op acute mix load application treated

ARRI IE IE Area

BW AOEL= + ∗ ∗

∗

With:

� LI, Lhand, Lbody (mg a.s./kg a.s.): data on exposure

1. If field data on exposure are available for the different routes of exposure, these values should be used to calculate the internal exposure. These field data should be expressed as mg a.s./kg a.s. These data should be used to calculate the indicator for the real situations for particular locations.

2. If field data on exposure are not available for a given crop and a given active substance, surrogate exposure values from the EUROPOEM database are used. The appropriate surrogate exposure values for mixing/loading and application dependent on application equipment and formulation type are selected.

Annex 3.1 gives an overview of the surrogate exposure values used in the EUROPOEM model.

� PPEI, PPEhand, PPEbody: personal protective equipment coefficients

If there are no specific data available regarding the reducing effect of Personal Protective Equipment, the default factors used in EUROPOEM should be applied. These factors are given in Annex 3.1.

� AbI, AbD: respectively inhalation and dermal absorption factors

If there are data available regarding the dermal absorption of a specific active substance, these data should be used. For a great deal of active substances European endpoints are available regarding dermal absorption. If not, the default value of 10% should be used. For the inhalation absorption factor a default value of 100% is assumed.

� AR: application rate (kg/ha)

272

� Area treated (ha/d)

� BW: body weight (kg)

� AOEL: Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (mg a.s./(kg b.w. d)) Seed treatment, application of granules, dipping into pesticide solution or pouring pesticide solution onto plants are other ways of pesticide application for which operator exposure is normally not assessed by the human exposure models. In these cases some assumptions have to be made.

• When treated seed is used no exposure of the operator is expected, since seeding is mostly done mechanically.

• Operator exposure during application of granules is only expected during mixing and loading, it will be estimated by assuming exposure during mixing and loading of a water dispersible granule (WG) formulation.

• Operator exposure during the use of a pesticide solution for dipping or pouring is estimated by assuming exposure during mixing and loading of a certain formulation (WG, WP or liquid).

2.2.5.1.22.2.5.1.22.2.5.1.22.2.5.1.2 FFFFARM WORKERARM WORKERARM WORKERARM WORKER Workers who come into contact with the crop will be contaminated by contact with pesticides that are still available on the crop after application. Exposure during re-entry tasks, such as harvesting, bending and tying up of the crop is likely in the case of ornamentals, vegetables and fruits. Inhalation exposure is very low compared to the dermal exposure, therefore only the dermal exposure of the worker is estimated. DE = 0.01 * (AR/LAI) * TF * T * P

� DE : dermal exposure (mg/day) � 0.01: conversion factor for the units � AR : application rate (kg a.s./ha) � LAI: leaf area index (m²/m²) � TF: transfer factor (cm²/person/h) � T: duration of re-entry (h) � P: factor for PPE (no PPE: 1; with PPE: 0.1)

The internal exposure is calculated as the dermal exposure (DE) multiplied by the dermal absorption factor (AbDE) and must be divided by the body weight (BW, default: 70 kg) of the worker.

BW

AbDEIE DE

wor

*ker =

For risk assessment the internal exposure is compared with the AOEL.

AOEL

IERI wor

worker

ker =

273

2.2.5.1.32.2.5.1.32.2.5.1.32.2.5.1.3 BBBBYSTANDERYSTANDERYSTANDERYSTANDER Exposure of bystanders can only occur during application via drift. Bystanders, walking alongside a field which is being treated, are exposed only for a few seconds when the sprayer moves along the person. Repeated exposure is unlikely, since the sprayer is considered to only pass along the edge of a field for each spraying swathe. It is assumed that only ordinary clothing is worn; the total uncovered area amounts to 0.4225 m². Bystanders are assumed to be located at 8m distance downwind from the treated field. The default drift values are taken from the Ganzelmeier tables (Ganzelmeier et al, 1995). The exposure will occur by dermal and inhalatory route. It can be postulated that the dermal exposure is directly correlated to the amount of active substance applied per area, the area of the uncovered body surface contaminated and the drift distance. DE = AR * drift * EA

� DE = dermal exposure (mg/person/day) � AR = application rate (mg a.s./m²) � Drift = downwind pesticide ground deposits at 8m distance from the field

(Ganzelmeier tables) � EA =exposed area (m²/person/day) (default: 0.4225)

The inhalation exposure is calculated as for the operator (using the EUROPOEM model but only considering inhalation exposure) but the exposure time is only 1 minute instead of the total exposure time of the applicator. I = Ia * WR * AR / (WR * ST)

� I = bystander inhalation exposure (mg/person/day) � Ia = applicator inhalation exposure (mg/kg a.s.) � WR = work rate (ha/day) � AR = application rate (kg a.s./ha) � ST = spraying time (min/ha)

For risk assessment of bystanders, the internal exposure of the bystander has to be compared with the AOEL. The risk index for bystanders is calculated with the following formula

AOELBW

AbIAbDERI IDE

derbys *

**tan

+=

� DE = dermal exposure (mg/person/day) � AbDE = dermal absorption factor (%/100) (default : 10) � I = bystander inhalation exposure (mg/person/day) � AbI = inhalation absorption factor (%/100) (default : 100) � BW = body weight (kg) (default : 70)

Bystander exposure when spraying greenhouse crops and when applications are performed with treated seed, granules, dipping a plant in a pesticide solution or pouring a pesticide solution to a plant is considered negligible. In these cases the RIbystander is equal to zero.

274

2.2.5.22.2.5.22.2.5.22.2.5.2 PPPPRELIMINARY RESULTSRELIMINARY RESULTSRELIMINARY RESULTSRELIMINARY RESULTS

The data for estimating the risk for the applicators in Belgium are calculated for the year 2001, which is the reference year established in the Federal Pesticide Reduction Programme. Out of the 1016 different application cases included in PRIBEL (pesticide-crop combinations):

• 926 have a PRIBEL quantified value for the applicator compartment • None have a NR value, which would mean that the application case is not relevant

for the applicator. • 90 have a “/” as PRIBEL value, which means that some ecotoxicological data were

missing for these application cases. It concerns mostly non plant protection products (nppp), such as oils and acids.

2.2.5.32.2.5.32.2.5.32.2.5.3 OOOOVERALL RESULTSVERALL RESULTSVERALL RESULTSVERALL RESULTS

2.2.5.3.12.2.5.3.12.2.5.3.12.2.5.3.1 PPPPESTICIDE GROUP AGGREESTICIDE GROUP AGGREESTICIDE GROUP AGGREESTICIDE GROUP AGGREGATIONGATIONGATIONGATION

In the table below (table 3-7) an overview is given of the total risk (RI*F) of the 5 different pesticide groups (fungicides “FUNG”, herbicides “HERB”, insecticides “INSE”, non plant protection products “NPPP” and soil disinfectants “SODE”). Concerning the total risk per group (without taking the frequency into consideration), the soil disinfectants seem to be the riskiest group for the applicator, moreover because the number of application cases is very low (only 9). Hence, (one or some of) the active substances within the SODE group must have very high risk indices. This will be clear when discussing the individual pesticide groups. The total PRIBEL sum (RI*F) is the highest for the fungicides, while the total risk RI is stuck on the third place after SODE and INSE. Hence the high PRIBEL sum for the FUNG is due to the high frequency of use of those products. The values of the third column “PRIBEL sum” are converted into percentages in the fourth column “% of total risk”. The last column provides the number of application cases, which is the highest for the herbicides. Figure 3-8 shows the percentages of each pesticide group to the total risk in a pie chart (equal to column 4).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----7: Overview of the results obtained per pesticide group7: Overview of the results obtained per pesticide group7: Overview of the results obtained per pesticide group7: Overview of the results obtained per pesticide group

Total riTotal riTotal riTotal risk RIsk RIsk RIsk RI PRIBEL (sum)PRIBEL (sum)PRIBEL (sum)PRIBEL (sum) % of total risk% of total risk% of total risk% of total risk n° of application n° of application n° of application n° of application casescasescasescases

FUNG 3.87E+03 7.09 E+077.09 E+077.09 E+077.09 E+07 39.5939.5939.5939.59 288 HERB 1.96E+03 3.11 E +07 17.38 397397397397 INSE 2.01E+04 6.88 E+07 38.43 274 NPPP 1.87E+01 1.72 E+06 0.96 48 SODE 4.57E+044.57E+044.57E+044.57E+04 6.52 E+06 3.64 9 total 7.17E+04 1.79 E+08 100 1016

275

Contribution of the pesticide groups to the total r isk on applicator in Belgium in 2001

insecticides (38.43%)

fungicides (39.59%)

herbicides (17.38%)

soil desinfectants (3.64%)

nppp (0.96%)

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----8: Contributions of the different pesticide groups to the total risk for applicator in Belgium, 8: Contributions of the different pesticide groups to the total risk for applicator in Belgium, 8: Contributions of the different pesticide groups to the total risk for applicator in Belgium, 8: Contributions of the different pesticide groups to the total risk for applicator in Belgium, 2001200120012001

Another interesting way to analyze the situation in Belgium for the risk for applicators is to observe the bubble chart (Figure 3-9). This figure consists of 3 important parameters: on the X-axis the frequency of the pesticide groups, on the Y-axis the median risk linked with each group, and the size of the bubbles gives the PRIBEL sum (risk index * frequency). Because of a too low number of applications the median risk could not be calculated for the soil disinfectants. There is no bubble for the NPPP as well, because of a too small number of valid risk values (a lot of “/” appear in the case of NPPP due to missing data). The HERB bubble lies on the right side of the X-axis, which corresponds with a high frequency. The size of the blue (INSE) and the red (FUNG) bubbles is more or less the same and much bigger then the yellow one (HERB), which complies with a higher total risk for fungicides and insecticides. The median risk of the three pesticide groups is situated in the same range (E+00).

276

-1.00E+00

1.00E+00

3.00E+00

5.00E+00

7.00E+00

9.00E+00

0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000

Frequency

Ri m

edia

n

insecticides fungicides herbicides

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----9: Median risk (Y9: Median risk (Y9: Median risk (Y9: Median risk (Y----axis) and sum of frequencies (Xaxis) and sum of frequencies (Xaxis) and sum of frequencies (Xaxis) and sum of frequencies (X----axis) of each pesticide group and axis) of each pesticide group and axis) of each pesticide group and axis) of each pesticide group and contribution of each group to the total risk (sicontribution of each group to the total risk (sicontribution of each group to the total risk (sicontribution of each group to the total risk (size of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, ze of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, ze of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, ze of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, 2001200120012001

2.2.5.3.22.2.5.3.22.2.5.3.22.2.5.3.2 CCCCROP GROUP AGGREGATIOROP GROUP AGGREGATIOROP GROUP AGGREGATIOROP GROUP AGGREGATIONNNN In terms of crop groups pesticide applications in greenhouse crops show the highest total risk (without frequency taken into consideration). The PRIBEL value (RI*F) is the highest for potato, followed by sugarbeet, maize and cereal. The highest number of application cases can be perceived in orchards. The high value of the total risk for greenhouse crops is due to the fact that the soil disinfectant methyl bromide is used in greenhouse crops. This is explained further on in this part. The reason why greenhouse crops do not manifest a high PRIBEL value is their low frequency. Whereas potatoes have the highest PRIBEL sum, due to a relatively high total risk RI combined with a high frequency. These conclusions can be found in table 3-8. Figure 3-10 gives the contribution of the crop groups to the total risk on applicator in Belgium in the year 2001.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----8: Overview of the results obtained per crop group8: Overview of the results obtained per crop group8: Overview of the results obtained per crop group8: Overview of the results obtained per crop group

Total risk RITotal risk RITotal risk RITotal risk RI PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL (sum)(sum)(sum)(sum) % of total risk% of total risk% of total risk% of total risk n° of application n° of application n° of application n° of application casescasescasescases

Potato 5.54E+03 7.45E+077.45E+077.45E+077.45E+07 41.6341.6341.6341.63 95 Orchard 8.61E+02 1.00E+06 0.56 229229229229 Cereal 5.67E+03 1.97E+07 10.99 188 Sugarbeet 4.82E+03 3.70E+07 20.69 118 Maize 3.18E+03 2.90E+07 16.19 85 Fodder 8.53E+02 5.45E+06 3.04 57 Vegetables 4.61E+03 5.45E+06 3.04 127

277

Industrial crops 9.56E+01 3.64E+05 0.20 20 Greenhouse crops 4.60E+044.60E+044.60E+044.60E+04 6.55E+06 3.66

97

total 5.54E+03 1.79E+08 100.00 1016

Contribution of the crop groups to the total risk o n applicator in Belgium in 2001

Potato (41.63%)

Orchard (0.56%)

Cereal (10.99%)

Sugar (20.69%)

Maize (16.19%)

Fodder (3.04%)

Vegetables (3.04%)

Industrial (0.20%)

Greenhouse (3.66%)

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----10: Contributions of the different crop groups to the total risk in Belgium10: Contributions of the different crop groups to the total risk in Belgium10: Contributions of the different crop groups to the total risk in Belgium10: Contributions of the different crop groups to the total risk in Belgium, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001

Figure 3-11 shows the frequency of use of the pesticides in the different crop groups (X-axis), the median risk (Y-axis) and the PRIBEL (RI*F) value (bubble size). Cereals show the highest frequency of pesticide use, followed by potatoes and fodder. This is mainly due to the high number of hectares of cereals, potatoes and fodder in Belgium. Maize, potato and greenhouse have the highest median risk. The highest bubble size is observed for potato, sugarbeet, maize and cereals, meaning that the highest total risk for Belgium (frequency included) is caused by the use of pesticides in those specific crop groups. This could also be noticed in the fourth column of table X and in the pie chart above.

278

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000

Frequency

RI m

edia

n

potato orchard cereal sugarbeet maizefodder vegetables industrial greenhouse

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----11: Median risk (Y11: Median risk (Y11: Median risk (Y11: Median risk (Y----axis) and sum of frequencaxis) and sum of frequencaxis) and sum of frequencaxis) and sum of frequencies (Xies (Xies (Xies (X----axis) of each crop group and contribution axis) of each crop group and contribution axis) of each crop group and contribution axis) of each crop group and contribution of each group to the total risk (size of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, 2001of each group to the total risk (size of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, 2001of each group to the total risk (size of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, 2001of each group to the total risk (size of bubble, sum (RI*F)) for applicator in Belgium, 2001

2.2.5.42.2.5.42.2.5.42.2.5.4 RRRRISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION CASESCASESCASESCASES

When ranked with regard to the risk index RI, methylbromide seems to be the active substance that causes the highest risk to the applicator. Lindane is mentioned 5 times in the list of the 10 riskiest application cases (above the 95th percentile of the total risk), applied in cereals (winterbarley), sugarbeet, potatoes, maize (corn) and chicory. All the active substances listed in table 3-9 belong to the insecticides and soil disinfectants. The PRIBEL value for methylbromide used in greenhouse crops is not the highest due to a low frequency. The highest PRIBEL sum for the 10 riskiest application cases is occupied by lindane in sugarbeet, because of a high RI for the applicators combined with a high frequency. That application case covers 17.42% of the total risk based on total PRIBEL values (RI*F).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----9: The 10 riskiest application cas9: The 10 riskiest application cas9: The 10 riskiest application cas9: The 10 riskiest application cases (above the 95es (above the 95es (above the 95es (above the 95thththth percentile of the total risk) percentile of the total risk) percentile of the total risk) percentile of the total risk)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide groupgroupgroupgroup

RI RI RI RI applicatorsapplicatorsapplicatorsapplicators

PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum % of % of % of % of total total total total PRIBELPRIBELPRIBELPRIBEL

methylbromide Greenhouse crop Greenhouse SODE >40 000 3 815 453.60 2.13

lindane Winterbarley Cereal INSE >1 000 811 889.05 0.45 1.3-dichloropropene

Greenhouse crop Greenhouse SODE

>1 000 2 518 964.95 1.41

lindane Sugarbeet Sugarbeet INSE >1 000 31 731 333,00 17.72 lindane Potato Potato INSE >1 000 909 539.34 0.51 lindane Corn Maize INSE >1 000 3 846 581.66 2.15

279

sulfotep Greenhouse crop Greenhouse SODE

>1 000 32 755.27 0.02

omethoate Leek Vegetables INSE >1 000 654 095.96 0.37 ethoprop Potato Potato INSE >1 000 3 754 823.31 2.10 lindane chicory Sugarbeet INSE >1 000 317 296.05 2.13

2.2.5.4.12.2.5.4.12.2.5.4.12.2.5.4.1 RRRRESULTS PER PESTICIDEESULTS PER PESTICIDEESULTS PER PESTICIDEESULTS PER PESTICIDE GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP The riskiest application cases (RI above the 95th percentile) are given for each of the five pesticide groups. These active substances are classified by their risk index, without taking the frequency into account. FungicidesFungicidesFungicidesFungicides The riskiest application cases (above the 95th percentile) in the fungicides group are fentinhydroxide (in sugarbeet and potato) and fenpropimorph (in potato). This is mainly due to relatively small AOEL-values of those active substances. Fentinhydroxide in potato has a much higher PRIBEL sum than fentinhydroxide in sugarbeet, meaning that the frequency of the first application case is higher. This is due to the fact that there are a lot more hectares where potato is cultivated in Belgium than where sugarbeet grows, and also to the fact that there are more applications per hectare in one year in potato than there are in sugarbeet.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----10: Riskiest application cases for fungicides (above the 95th percentile)10: Riskiest application cases for fungicides (above the 95th percentile)10: Riskiest application cases for fungicides (above the 95th percentile)10: Riskiest application cases for fungicides (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum fentin hydroxyde SugarBeet Sugar >100 277 739.42 fenpropimorph Potato Potato >100 8 833.90 fentin hydroxyde Potato Potato >100 44 521 212.50 HerbicidesHerbicidesHerbicidesHerbicides Twelve application cases have a risk index above the 95th percentile for herbicides. The use of propachlor on cabbage and corn stands on top of the list. The main reason is a relatively high application dose. Isoproturon, mcpa, metoxuron, dimethenamide, paraquat and monalide make the list complete.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----11: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (above the 95th percen11: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (above the 95th percen11: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (above the 95th percen11: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (above the 95th percentile)tile)tile)tile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum propachlor Cabbage Vegetables >50 266 770.68 propachlor Corn Maize >50 162.64 isoproturon Winterbarley Cereal >10 716 809.46 isoproturon Winterwheat Cereal >10 4 963 110.95 mcpa Winterbarley Cereal >10 181 365.04 metoxuron Carrot Vegetables >10 122 693.69 mcpa Potato Potato >10 239 073.19 dimethenamid Leek Vegetables >10 1 957.04 propachlor Leek Vegetables >10 25 283.61 paraquat Chicory Sugar >10 39 692.63 monalide Carrot Vegetables >10 215.43 paraquat Winterbarley Cereal >10 754.26

280

InsecticidesInsecticidesInsecticidesInsecticides It is not surprising that lindane is on top of the list with application cases that have a risk above the 95th percentile for insecticides. The combination of a small AOEL and a very high dermal absorption results in a high risk index for the applicator. The use of lindane in winterbarley is responsible for a risk that is much higher than for the other application cases. The reason is the application dose, which is 1.5 kg/ha for lindane in winterbarley, whereas it is 0.9 kg/ha, 0.9 kg/ha and 0.7 kg/ha for lindane in respectively sugarbeet, potato and corn.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----12: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (above the 95th percentile)12: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (above the 95th percentile)12: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (above the 95th percentile)12: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum lindane Winterbarley Cereal >3 000 811 889.06 lindane Sugarbeet Sugar >1 000 31 731 332.96 lindane Potato Potato >1 000 909 539.34 lindane Corn Maize >1 000 3 846 581.66 omethoate Leek Vegetables >1 000 654 096.00 ethoprop Potato Potato >1 000 3 754 823.31 Soil disinfectantsSoil disinfectantsSoil disinfectantsSoil disinfectants Concerning the soil disinfectants, it is clear that methylbromide causes the highest risk and is responsible for a huge part of the total risk of the soil disinfectants. It must also be noticed that all the soil disinfectants are applied in greenhouses, which causes a higher risk for the applicator because of the fact that it is an “indoor” situation. The high risk value for methylbromide is due to a small AOEL in combination with an extremely high application dose, namely 441 kg/ha.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----13: Riskiest application cases for soil desinfectants (above the 95th percentile)13: Riskiest application cases for soil desinfectants (above the 95th percentile)13: Riskiest application cases for soil desinfectants (above the 95th percentile)13: Riskiest application cases for soil desinfectants (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI RI RI RI applicatorsapplicatorsapplicatorsapplicators

PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum

methylbromide Greenhouse crops Greenhouse >40 000 3 815 453.60 1.3-dichloropropene Greenhouse crops Greenhouse >1 000 2 518 964.95 sulfotep Greenhouse crops Greenhouse >1 000 32 755.27 Non plant protection productsNon plant protection productsNon plant protection productsNon plant protection products The riskiest application cases for non plant protection products are the use of chlorpropham in potatoes, anthraquinon in winterwheat and streptomycin in pear.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----14: Riskiest application cases for non plant protection products (above the 95th percentile)14: Riskiest application cases for non plant protection products (above the 95th percentile)14: Riskiest application cases for non plant protection products (above the 95th percentile)14: Riskiest application cases for non plant protection products (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum chlorpropham Potato Potato >10 951 192.18 anthraquinone Winterwheat Cereal >1 773 267.49 streptomycin pear Orchard >1 6.77

281

2.2.5.4.22.2.5.4.22.2.5.4.22.2.5.4.2 RRRRESULTS PER CROP GROUESULTS PER CROP GROUESULTS PER CROP GROUESULTS PER CROP GROUPPPP In the same way as for the pesticide groups, the riskiest application cases (RI above the 95th percentile) are given for each of the nine crop groups. These active substances are classified by their risk index, without taking the frequency into account. PotatoPotatoPotatoPotato The four riskiest application cases in potato involve three insecticides (lindane, ethoprop and omethoate) and one fungicide (fenpropimorph). Those four active substances are also mentioned in the lists with the riskiest application cases of insecticides and fungicides respectively.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----15: Riskiest application cases used in potatoes (above the 95th percentile)15: Riskiest application cases used in potatoes (above the 95th percentile)15: Riskiest application cases used in potatoes (above the 95th percentile)15: Riskiest application cases used in potatoes (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum lindane Potato INSE >1 000 909 539.34 ethoprop Potato INSE >1 000 3 754 823.31 omethoate Potato INSE >100 288 229.04 fenpropimorph Potato FUNG >100 8 833.90 OrchardOrchardOrchardOrchard Concerning orchard, there are 11 application cases that have a risk index above the 95th percentile. Table 3-16 encompasses seven insecticides, two fungicides and two herbicides. Omethoate used in pear is on top of the list, mainly because of a very small AOEL. Omethoate was, according to the inquiries of Van Lierde, not used in apple.

TaTaTaTable 3ble 3ble 3ble 3----16: Riskiest application cases used in orchard (above the 95th percentile)16: Riskiest application cases used in orchard (above the 95th percentile)16: Riskiest application cases used in orchard (above the 95th percentile)16: Riskiest application cases used in orchard (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum omethoate pear INSE >500 24 933.55 methidathion apple INSE >10 20 870.84 diuron apple HERB >10 82 628.94 diuron pear HERB >10 10 246.26 parathion apple INSE >10 59 420.58 sulphur apple FUNG >10 60 616.93 amitraz pear INSE >10 43 689.76 sulphur pear FUNG >1 7 135.80 dimethoate apple INSE >1 48 328.10 endosulfan pear INSE >1 12 710.94 methidathion pear INSE >1 2 353.39 CerealCerealCerealCereal The crop group cereal consists of winterbarley and winterwheat, and most of the active substances mentioned in Table X that have a high risk for one crop (barley/wheat) also manifest a high risk for the other crop (wheat/barley). For instance lindane, sulphur, parathion and isoproturon have a mention for both the crop groups barley and wheat. Nevertheless there can be a difference in the risk index for the applicators depending on the crop group. This is due to a different application rate, e.g. the dose for lindane in winterbarley is 1.5 kg/ha, whereas it is 0.5 kg/ha in winterwheat (Van Lierde).

282

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----17: Riskiest application cases used in cereal (above the 95th percentile)17: Riskiest application cases used in cereal (above the 95th percentile)17: Riskiest application cases used in cereal (above the 95th percentile)17: Riskiest application cases used in cereal (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum lindane Winterbarley INSE >3 000 811 889.06 lindane Winterwheat INSE >1 000 2 499 316.58 sulphur Winterbarley FUNG >100 20 015.29 sulphur Winterwheat FUNG >100 440 376.94 parathion Winterbarley INSE >10 21 782.60 dimethoate Winterwarley INSE >10 201 994.61 parathion Winterwheat INSE >10 144 026.72 isoproturon Winterwheat HERB >10 716 809.46 isoproturon Winterbarley HERB >10 4 963 110.95 SugarbeetSugarbeetSugarbeetSugarbeet The list of the riskiest application cases in sugarbeet consists of 13 active substances among which 6 fungicides and 6 insecticides. The risk value for lindane is strongly higher than the value for the other active substances. The combination of a small AOEL and a very high dermal absorption of lindane results in such a high risk index for the applicator.

TaTaTaTable 3ble 3ble 3ble 3----18: Riskiest application cases used in sugarbeet (above the 95th percentile)18: Riskiest application cases used in sugarbeet (above the 95th percentile)18: Riskiest application cases used in sugarbeet (above the 95th percentile)18: Riskiest application cases used in sugarbeet (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum lindane Sugarbeet INSE >1 000 31 731 332.96 lindane chicory INSE >1 000 317 296.04 fentin hydroxyde Sugarbeet FUNG >100 277 739.41 sulphur Sugarbeet FUNG >100 86 333.94 parathion Sugarbeet INSE >50 593 518.01 fenpropimorph Sugarbeet FUNG >50 76 470.34 parathion chicory INSE >50 6 526.22 ziram chicory FUNG >50 9 032.14 spiroxamine Sugarbeet FUNG >10 9 647.99 dimethoate chicory INSE >10 307 986.47 paraquat chicory HERB >10 39 692.63 mancozeb Sugarbeet FUNG >10 104 635.42 diazinon Sugarbeet INSE >10 450 176.21 MaizeMaizeMaizeMaize Also in the list with the riskiest application cases that appear in maize, lindane is on top with a much higher risk than the other 3 active substances which also have a risk index above the 95th percentile (parathion, mancozeb (2x) and propachlor).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----19: Riskiest application cases used in maize (above the 95th percentile)19: Riskiest application cases used in maize (above the 95th percentile)19: Riskiest application cases used in maize (above the 95th percentile)19: Riskiest application cases used in maize (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop PPPPesticide groupesticide groupesticide groupesticide group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum lindane Corn INSE >1 000 3 846 581.65 lindane Maize INSE >1 000 14 636 069.49 parathion Maize INSE >50 190 269.28 mancozeb Corn FUNG >50 8 609.35 propachlor Corn HERB >50 162.64 mancozeb Maize FUNG >10 31 590.68

283

FodderFodderFodderFodder Three insecticides and two herbicides are involved in the list of the riskiest application cases used in fodder. Lindane is on top, just as it is in maize, sugarbeet, cereal and potato.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----20: Riskiest application cases used in fodder (a20: Riskiest application cases used in fodder (a20: Riskiest application cases used in fodder (a20: Riskiest application cases used in fodder (above the 95th percentile)bove the 95th percentile)bove the 95th percentile)bove the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide groupgroupgroupgroup

RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum

lindane PermanentGrassland INSE >500 2 249 556.69 parathion PermanentGrassland INSE >100 590 897.14 diazinon PermanentGrassland INSE >10 51 931.94 isoproturon PermanentGrassland HERB >10 9 320.29 mcpa Ley HERB >10 121 658.34 VegetablesVegetablesVegetablesVegetables Besides 7 insecticides there is also a soil disinfectant and a fungicide mentioned in the list with the riskiest applications in vegetables. Omethoate on leek has a high risk for the applicator caused by a small AOEL. Omethoate was on top in the list from orchard as well.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----21: Riskiest application cases used in vegetables (above the 95th percentile)21: Riskiest application cases used in vegetables (above the 95th percentile)21: Riskiest application cases used in vegetables (above the 95th percentile)21: Riskiest application cases used in vegetables (above the 95th percentile)


RI RI RI RI applicatorsapplicatorsapplicatorsapplicators

PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum

omethoate Leek INSE >1 000 654 095.95 parathion Leek INSE >300 969 067.23 methidathion Leek INSE >300 15 295.36 dazomet Leek SODE >100 67 774.57 acephate Leek INSE >100 38 570.81 dimethoate Leek INSE >100 59 482.14 chlorfenvinphos Leek INSE >100 123 696.14 sulphur Carrot FUNG >100 665 256.28 heptenophos Carrot INSE >100 490 713.00 Industrial cropsIndustrial cropsIndustrial cropsIndustrial crops Only two active substances (bifenthrin and mcpa) are mentioned in table 3-22 as riskiest applications in industrial crops.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----22: Riskiest application cases used in i22: Riskiest application cases used in i22: Riskiest application cases used in i22: Riskiest application cases used in industrial crops (above the 95th percentile)ndustrial crops (above the 95th percentile)ndustrial crops (above the 95th percentile)ndustrial crops (above the 95th percentile)

A.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. nameA.S. name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide groupPesticide group RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum bifenthrin Flax INSE >10 18 578.96 mcpa Flax HERB <1 114 077.77 Greenhouse cropsGreenhouse cropsGreenhouse cropsGreenhouse crops The 4 active substances which are on top in the list with application cases that have a risk index above the 95th percentile are the soil disinfectants methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene, sulfotep and oxamyl. This is due to the combination of a small AOEL and a huge application dose.

284

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----23: Riskiest application cases23: Riskiest application cases23: Riskiest application cases23: Riskiest application cases used in greenhouse crops (above the 95th percentile) used in greenhouse crops (above the 95th percentile) used in greenhouse crops (above the 95th percentile) used in greenhouse crops (above the 95th percentile)


RI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicatorsRI applicators PRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sumPRIBEL sum

methyl bromide Greenhouse crop SODE >40 000 3 815 453.6 1.3-dichloropropene Greenhouse crop SODE >1 000 2 518 964.94 sulfotep Greenhouse crop SODE >1 000 32 755.26 oxamyl Greenhouse crop SODE >100 36 546.57 chlorfenvinphos Greenhouse crop INSE >100 935.60 omethoate Greenhouse crop INSE >10 2 408.74 2.2.62.2.62.2.62.2.6 PRIBEL results for the consumer on the Belgian levelPRIBEL results for the consumer on the Belgian levelPRIBEL results for the consumer on the Belgian levelPRIBEL results for the consumer on the Belgian level 2.2.6.12.2.6.12.2.6.12.2.6.1 FFFFORMULA AND ORMULA AND ORMULA AND ORMULA AND IIIIMPROVEMENT OF THE INMPROVEMENT OF THE INMPROVEMENT OF THE INMPROVEMENT OF THE INDICATDICATDICATDICATOROROROR

The indicator was calculated for the year 2001, considered as a reference year. Data obtained trough the initial configuration of the PRIBEL software led to the underestimation of the risks. Indeed, some application cases (297 out of 1016) lacked a RIconsumers value. Besides, application cases within crop groups “vegetables” and “greenhouse vegetables” were scarce. This problem was solved by adding in the software all the MRL default values for commodities for which the pesticides are not authorized. In addition, for the sake of simplicity and of pragmatism, the formula for the calculation of RIconsumers was slightly modified as follows: Where MRL (Maximum Residue Limit; mg as/kg food); EDI (Estimated Daily Intake; kg food/kg bw/day); ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake; mg as/kg bw/day). After modifications, no significant changes were noticed in the riskiest applications within each crop group, but far less applications did lack a RI value (3 out of 1016). These changes allowed crop groups like vegetables, greenhouse vegetables or maize to be better assessed since the number of application cases with a RIconsumers quantified value noticeably increased within these groups. 2.2.6.22.2.6.22.2.6.22.2.6.2 LLLLIMITS OF THE IMITS OF THE IMITS OF THE IMITS OF THE PRIBELPRIBELPRIBELPRIBEL---- INDICATOR INDICATOR INDICATOR INDICATOR

It is important to specify the limits of the indicator before going further into results analysis. Indeed, several points need to be explained to avoid misinterpretations. The PRIBEL-indicator is giving a risk at a national level. Thus, as the indicator is influenced by the frequency of use in Belgium, it reflects the risk associated to a certain amount of food produced. In other words, if the risk associated to a crop group is high, this may be due to the fact that the mean Rlconsumers is high and/or that the amount of foodstuffs produced is high. This implies that the risk is calculated for the whole amount of food units produced in Belgium and not for an individual consumer. In this later case, indeed, the risk is distributed over many foodstuffs that are not necessarily consumed in the same proportions than they are produced in Belgium. In addition, the PRIBEL-indicator is using in its database application of pesticides on crops, but does not consider the application of post-harvest pesticides. Another point is the fact that commodities entering the Belgian market are not taken into account since they are not produced on the Belgian territory. Indeed, these commodities

×=ADI

EDIMRLRIconsumers

285

can contain pesticides that are not registered in Belgium and therefore not integrated in the Belgian scenario of pesticide applications used by PRIBEL. The total risk produced for Belgium is not only concerning the Belgian consumers. In reality, the amount of risk can be spread on other countries since we are exporting foodstuffs in other countries. 2.2.6.32.2.6.32.2.6.32.2.6.3 PPPPRELIMINARY RESULTS RELIMINARY RESULTS RELIMINARY RESULTS RELIMINARY RESULTS

Data were calculated for the year 2001. Out of the 1016 applications cases included in the PRIBEL : • 630 have a PRIBEL quantified value for the consumer compartment • 383 have a NR value, which means the application case is Not Relevant for the

calculation of the Rlconsumers • 3 have a ”/” as PRIBEL value, which means that some data were lacking for these

application cases 2.2.6.42.2.6.42.2.6.42.2.6.4 OOOOVERALL RESULTSVERALL RESULTSVERALL RESULTSVERALL RESULTS

2.2.6.4.12.2.6.4.12.2.6.4.12.2.6.4.1 PPPPESTICIDE GROUP AGGREESTICIDE GROUP AGGREESTICIDE GROUP AGGREESTICIDE GROUP AGGREGATIONGATIONGATIONGATION

In terms of pesticide groups, fungicides (FUNG) appear to be the riskiest group for consumers (58% of the total risk), followed by herbicides (HERB) (31%) and insecticides (INSE) (10%) (table 3-24). Non plant protection products (NPPP) and soil disinfectant (SODE) represent a far more lower risk (less than 1% of the total risk).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----24: Overview of the res24: Overview of the res24: Overview of the res24: Overview of the results obtained per pesticide groupults obtained per pesticide groupults obtained per pesticide groupults obtained per pesticide group

Pesticide group Pesticide group Pesticide group Pesticide group

RIconsumersRIconsumersRIconsumersRIconsumers (mean)(mean)(mean)(mean)

PRIBELPRIBELPRIBELPRIBEL (sum)(sum)(sum)(sum)

% of total risk% of total risk% of total risk% of total risk # of # of # of # of

application application application application casescasescasescases

FUNGFUNGFUNGFUNG 0,059 72525 58 205

HERBHERBHERBHERB 0,012 39871 31 207

INSEINSEINSEINSE 0,027 12438 10 208

NPPPNPPPNPPPNPPP 0,001 103 0,1 2

SODESODESODESODE 0,017 9 0,01 8

TOTALTOTALTOTALTOTAL - 124945 100 630

286

Contributions of pesticide groups to the total riskContributions of pesticide groups to the total riskContributions of pesticide groups to the total riskContributions of pesticide groups to the total risk

58%32%

10%0%

0%FUNG

HERB

INSE

NPPP

SODE

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----12: Contributions of pesticide groups to the total risk in Belgium, 200112: Contributions of pesticide groups to the total risk in Belgium, 200112: Contributions of pesticide groups to the total risk in Belgium, 200112: Contributions of pesticide groups to the total risk in Belgium, 2001

Another way to analyse the situation in Belgium is to observe the bubble chart (figure 3-12). The size of the each bubble, linked to a pesticide group, gives the importance of the PRIBEL value. Its position on the X-axis is giving the importance of the sum of the frequency of use whereas its position on the Y-Axis is related to the median of the RIconsumers values for the pesticide groups. As it is seen in figure 3-13, fungicides group is accounting for a high proportion to the total PRIBEL for Belgium, both because its frequency and the RIconsumers value are high. Whereas for herbicide, its importance is mainly due to the frequency of use. For insecticide pesticide group, the RIconsumers is the highest value of all pesticide groups, but the frequency is relatively low compared to fungicides and herbicides.

FUNG

HERB

INSE

NPPP

0,000

0,001

0,002

0,003

0,004

0,005

0,006

0,0E+00 5,0E+05 1,0E+06 1,5E+06 2,0E+06 2,5E+06 3,0E+06

Frequency

RIc

onsu

mer

s (m

edia

n) FUNG

HERB

INSE

NPPP

SODE

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----13: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each pesticide group and Contribution of 13: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each pesticide group and Contribution of 13: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each pesticide group and Contribution of 13: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each pesticide group and Contribution of eaceaceaceach group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001h group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001h group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001h group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001

287

2.2.6.4.22.2.6.4.22.2.6.4.22.2.6.4.2 CCCCROP GROUP AGGREGATIOROP GROUP AGGREGATIOROP GROUP AGGREGATIOROP GROUP AGGREGATIONNNN In terms of crop groups, pesticide applications in cereal and orchard (fruits) groups show the higher risks of all groups (Table 2-14). Potato group accounts for 11% of the total risk whereas greenhouse vegetables, vegetables, and maize do not exceed 1 % of the total risk.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----11114: Overview of the results obtained per crop group4: Overview of the results obtained per crop group4: Overview of the results obtained per crop group4: Overview of the results obtained per crop group

Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group

RIcRIcRIcRIconsumersonsumersonsumersonsumers (mean)(mean)(mean)(mean)

PRIBELPRIBELPRIBELPRIBEL (sum)(sum)(sum)(sum)

% of total % of total % of total % of total riskriskriskrisk

# of # of # of # of application application application application casescasescasescases

CerealCerealCerealCereal 0,038 54256 43,4 92

OrchardOrchardOrchardOrchard 0,067 52936 42,4 186

PotatoPotatoPotatoPotato 0,022 14454 11,6 80

Greenhouse veg.Greenhouse veg.Greenhouse veg.Greenhouse veg. 0,031 1263 1,0 85

VegetablesVegetablesVegetablesVegetables 0,004 1048 0,8 108

MaizeMaizeMaizeMaize 0,001 989 0,8 43

TOTALTOTALTOTALTOTAL - 124945 100 630

Contributions of crop groups to the total riskContributions of crop groups to the total riskContributions of crop groups to the total riskContributions of crop groups to the total risk

43%

42%

12%

1%

1%

1%

Cereal

Orchard

Potato

Greenhouse veg.

Vegetables

Maize

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----14: Contributions of crop groups to the total risk in Belgium, 200114: Contributions of crop groups to the total risk in Belgium, 200114: Contributions of crop groups to the total risk in Belgium, 200114: Contributions of crop groups to the total risk in Belgium, 2001

The figure 3-15 gives a clear look on the importance of frequency of use for cereal and potato crop groups. Orchard and cereal crop group both have a high Riconsumers median value. Concerning greenhouse vegetables, one can notice that the frequency of used is relatively low but the Riconsumers is high, for a bubble of approximately the same size as maize, whose contribution to total PRIBEL is mainly due to the Frequency of use.

288

CerealOrchard

PotatoGreenhouse veg.

VegetablesMaize

0,000

0,002

0,004

0,006

0,008

0,010

0,E+00 5,E+05 1,E+06 2,E+06 2,E+06

Frequency

RIc

onsu

mer

s (m

edia

n) Cereal

Orchard

Potato

Greenhouse veg.

Vegetables

Maize

Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3Figure 3----15: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each crop group and Contribution of 15: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each crop group and Contribution of 15: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each crop group and Contribution of 15: Median Risk (Y) and Sum of Frequencies (X) of each crop group and Contribution of each group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001each group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001each group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001each group to the Total Risk (size of bubble, sum(RIxF)) on Consumers, Belgium, 2001

2.2.6.52.2.6.52.2.6.52.2.6.5 RRRRISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION CASESCASESCASESCASES

If ranked with regards to the risk indicator and no matter the pesticides or crop groups, applications of sulphur on apples stand for 19% of the total risk (Table). Mainly apples in orchard and winter wheat in cereal account for a high proportion of the total risk. The 8 application cases with the highest PRIBEL value, belonging either to cereal crop group or orchard crop group, reach 60% of the total risk.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----25: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 9925: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 9925: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 9925: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 99thththth of total risk) of total risk) of total risk) of total risk)

A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop CCCCroproproprop GroupGroupGroupGroup

Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide GroupGroupGroupGroup

RIRIRIRI consumersconsumersconsumersconsumers

PRIBELPRIBELPRIBELPRIBEL % of Total% of Total% of Total% of Total

Sulphur apple Orchard FUNG 1 – 10 *24062 19

Chlormequat W Wheat Cereal HERB 0,1 – 1 *19317 15

fenpropimorph W Wheat Cereal FUNG 0,1 – 1 *8257 7

Thiram apple Orchard FUNG 0,1 – 1 *7268 6

Deltamethrin W Wheat Cereal INSE 0,1 – 1 *4979 4

epoxyconazole W Wheat Cereal FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 *4633 4 copper hydroxide

apple Orchard FUNG 0,1 – 1 *3468 3

Mcpa W Wheat Cereal HERB 0,01 – 0,1 3315 3

289

2.2.6.5.12.2.6.5.12.2.6.5.12.2.6.5.1 RRRRESULTS PER PESTICIDEESULTS PER PESTICIDEESULTS PER PESTICIDEESULTS PER PESTICIDE GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP FungicidesFungicidesFungicidesFungicides Riskiest applications cases in fungicide pesticide group are for a major part concerning apples in orchards (table 3-26). Winter wheat is also among the riskiest crop within fungicide group. Sulphur and copper compounds are both above the percentile 99th value in apple applications. Epoxyconazole and fenpropimorph are used at a relatively high frequency and therefore have a high PRIBEL value. Despite its low RIconsumers value, mancozeb is also listed below as its frequency of use appear to be really high.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----26: Risk26: Risk26: Risk26: Riskiest application cases for fungicides (*=above the percentile 99th)iest application cases for fungicides (*=above the percentile 99th)iest application cases for fungicides (*=above the percentile 99th)iest application cases for fungicides (*=above the percentile 99th)

A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI consumersRI consumersRI consumersRI consumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

sulphur apple Orchard 1 - 10 *24062

fenpropimorph WinterWheat Cereal 0,01 – 0,1 *8257

thiram apple Orchard 0,1 - 1 *7268

epoxyconazole WinterWheat Cereal 0,01 – 0,1 *4634

copper hydroxyde apple Orchard 0,1 - 1 *3468

captan apple Orchard 0,01 – 0,1 2375

dodine apple Orchard 0,01 – 0,1 2207

mancozeb Potato (storage) Potato 0,001 – 0,01 1770

flusilazole WinterWheat Cereal 0,1 - 1 1544

HerbicidesHerbicidesHerbicidesHerbicides As it is seen in table 3-27, application on winter wheat are quite risky when considered the high PRIBEL values associated. Diquat is contained in two different commercial pesticides for potato storage (one herbicide and one defoliant) and, therefore, these two types of usages have been taken into account (Harcz, 2006).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----27: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (*=above the percentile 99th)27: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (*=above the percentile 99th)27: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (*=above the percentile 99th)27: Riskiest application cases for herbicides (*=above the percentile 99th)

A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI RI RI RI

consumersconsumersconsumersconsumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

chlormequat WinterWheat Cereal 0,1 - 1 *19318

mcpa WinterWheat Cereal 0,01 – 0,1 3315

diquat Potato (storage) Potato 0,01 – 0,1 2355

glyphosate WinterWheat Cereal 0,01 – 0,1 1970

isoproturon WinterWheat Cereal 0,01 – 0,1 1092

linuron Potato (storage) Potato 0,01 – 0,1 1024

290

InsecticiInsecticiInsecticiInsecticidesdesdesdes Deltamethrin has a significantly high PRIBEL value for its application on winter wheat. But the second highest PRIBEL value for insecticide is also concerning deltamethrin, this time on potato (table 3-28). Other risky applications are linked to the orchard crop group, more specifically to apple.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----28: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (*=above the percentile 99th)28: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (*=above the percentile 99th)28: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (*=above the percentile 99th)28: Riskiest application cases for insecticides (*=above the percentile 99th)

A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI consumersRI consumersRI consumersRI consumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

deltamethrin WinterWheat Cereal 0,1 - 1 *4980

deltamethrin Potato (storage) Potato 0,01 – 0,1 734

carbaryl apple Orchard 0,1 - 1 650

metasystox thiol apple Orchard 1 - 10 523

azocyclotin apple Orchard 0,1 - 1 372

lambda-cyhalothrin WinterWheat Cereal 0,01 – 0,1 349

thiometon PeaWithPod Vegetables 0,01 – 0,1 336

ethoprop Potato (storage) Potato 0,01 – 0,1 252

Non Plant Protection ProductsNon Plant Protection ProductsNon Plant Protection ProductsNon Plant Protection Products This pesticide group do not contribute to a significant part of the total risk, and the two application cases risky for the consumers are presented in the table 3-29. Chlorpropham on potato is the only application which can really be considered as risky for the consumer.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----29: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 99th)29: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 99th)29: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 99th)29: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 99th)

A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop Crop Crop Crop Crop groupgroupgroupgroup

RI consumersRI consumersRI consumersRI consumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

chlorpropham Potato (storage) Potato 0,001 – 0,01 103 streptomycin pear Orchard 0,00001 0

Soil disinfectantsSoil disinfectantsSoil disinfectantsSoil disinfectants The remark made for NPPP is also valid for the group of soil disinfectant pesticides, as the PRIBEL values that concern the different application cases are very low and stand in total for less than one percent of the total risk.


A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop Crop groupCrop groupCrop groupCrop group RI RI RI RI

ConsumersConsumersConsumersConsumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

sulfotep Greenhouse Vegetable

Greenhouse 0,1 - 1 3

oxamyl Potato (storage) Potato < 0,001 2

291

methyl bromide Greenhouse Vegetable

Greenhouse 0,001 – 0,01 1

1,3-dichloropropene

Greenhouse Vegetable

Greenhouse < 0,001 1

1,3-dichloropropene

Leek Vegetables < 0,001 1

oxamyl Greenhouse Vegetable

Greenhouse < 0,001 1

2.2.6.5.22.2.6.5.22.2.6.5.22.2.6.5.2 RRRRESULTS PER CROP GROUESULTS PER CROP GROUESULTS PER CROP GROUESULTS PER CROP GROUPPPP CeCeCeCerealrealrealreal For cereal crop group, crops for which the program PRIBEL contains data are winter wheat and winter cereal. For winter barley, the importance factor of the crop for the consumers has been judged not relevant. Therefore winter wheat crop encompass the totality of the risk linked with cereal crop group (table 3-31). The four riskiest application cases are above the percentile 99th and involve chlormequat, fenpropimorph, deltamethrin and epoxyconazole.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----31: Riskiest application cases (*=above the 31: Riskiest application cases (*=above the 31: Riskiest application cases (*=above the 31: Riskiest application cases (*=above the percentile 99th)percentile 99th)percentile 99th)percentile 99th)

A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide groupgroupgroupgroup

RI RI RI RI consumersconsumersconsumersconsumers

PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

chlormequat WinterWheat HERB 0,1 - 1 *19318

fenpropimorph WinterWheat FUNG 0,1 - 1 *8257

deltamethrin WinterWheat INSE 0,1 - 1 *4980

epoxyconazole WinterWheat FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 *4634

mcpa WinterWheat HERB 0,01 – 0,1 3315

glyphosate WinterWheat HERB 0,01 – 0,1 1970

flusilazole WinterWheat FUNG 0,1 - 1 1544

isoproturon WinterWheat HERB 0,01 – 0,1 1092

mancozeb WinterWheat FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 979

prochloraz WinterWheat FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 850

azoxystrobine-isomer

WinterWheat FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 696

OrchardOrchardOrchardOrchard In orchard crop group, first three riskiest application cases are concerning active substances with a high RIconsumers value, especially for sulphur (table 3-32). In this crop group, most application cases are involving fungicides. Elements like sulphur and copper hydroxide are used in orchard have a high PRIBEL value, especially for sulphur due to its high RIconsumers value. Dithiocarbamates thiram and ziram are also contributing to the total risk for the crop group.

292





sulphur apple FUNG 1 - 10 *24062

thiram apple FUNG 0,1 - 1 *7268

copper hydroxyde apple FUNG 0,1 - 1 *3468

captan apple FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 2375

dodine apple FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 2207

thiram pear FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 1269

ziram apple FUNG 0,1 - 1 906

dithianon apple FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 797

carbendazim apple FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 741

carbaryl apple INSE 0,1 - 1 650

difenoconazole apple FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 602

PotatoPotatoPotatoPotato Linuron as well as dithiocarbamates mancozeb and fluazinam have a high PRIBEL value that can be explained more by the high frequency of the applications than by a high RIconsumers value (table 3-33). This can be better explained by their widespread use (high frequency of application) than by their value of RIconsumers (0,003 and 0,005 respectively).


A. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. NameA. S. Name CropCropCropCrop Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide Pesticide GroupGroupGroupGroup



diquat Potato (storage) HERB 0,01 – 0,1 2355

mancozeb Potato (storage) FUNG 0,001 – 0,01 1770

linuron Potato (storage) HERB 0,01 – 0,1 1024

fluazinam Potato (storage) FUNG 0,001 – 0,01 923

deltamethrin Potato (storage) INSE 0,01 – 0,1 734

glufosinate ammonium salt (1:1)

Potato (storage) HERB 0,01 – 0,1 665

metribuzin Potato (storage) HERB 0,01 – 0,1 655

Greenhouse vegetablesGreenhouse vegetablesGreenhouse vegetablesGreenhouse vegetables The widely used seed-applied fungicide thiram is the riskiest application for the crop group greenhouse vegetables (table 3-34). Indeed the risk associated to this application stands for 85% of the total risk for the crop group. It is noteworthy to remind that the RI value for consumers reflects a potential exposure rather than an actual exposure. It seems thus evident that in the case of seed dressing with thiram the amount of residues left in the crop

293

at harvest will be very small and the question can be raised about the relevance to calculate RI values for non systemic fungicides applied as seed treatments. Although not frequently applied on greenhouse vegetables, sulphur is also part of the riskiest application for the crop group.



RI consumersRI consumersRI consumersRI consumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL susususummmm

thiram Greenhouse Veg. FUNG 0,1 - 1 1077

sulphur Greenhouse Veg. FUNG 1 - 10 57

ethephon Greenhouse Veg. HERB 0,01 – 0,1 15

diquat Greenhouse Veg. HERB 0,1 - 1 15

bitertanol Greenhouse Veg. FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 11

mancozeb Greenhouse Veg. FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 10

ziram Greenhouse Veg. FUNG 0,1 - 1 8

vinclozolin Greenhouse Veg. FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 7

iprodione Greenhouse Veg. FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 6

VegetablesVegetablesVegetablesVegetables Mainly fungicides and insecticides account for a major part to the risk in vegetables crop group (table 3-35). The riskiest application of the crop group is concerning thiometon on pea, followed by mancozeb on leek and on pea.



RI consumersRI consumersRI consumersRI consumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

thiometon PeaWithPod INSE 0,01 – 0,1 336

mancozeb Leek FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 103

mancozeb PeaWithPod FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 93

chlorothalonil PeaWithPod FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 91

lambda-cyhalothrin PeaWithPod INSE 0,01 – 0,1 86

simazine PeaWithPod HERB 0,001 – 0,01 57

copper hydroxyde Leek FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 34

iprodione PeaWithPod FUNG 0,001 – 0,01 26

fenpropimorph Leek FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 23

chlorothalonil Leek FUNG 0,01 – 0,1 19

294

MaizeMaizeMaizeMaize Mainly herbicide application cases account for a large proportion to the risk (table 3-36). It has to be noted that atrazine has been banned for use since 2001 when it is present as single active ingredient in the commercial preparation.



RI consRI consRI consRI consumersumersumersumers PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL PRIBEL sumsumsumsum

atrazine Maize HERB 0,001 – 0,01 499

sulcotrione Maize HERB 0,001 – 0,01 213

bromoxynil Maize HERB 0,01 – 0,1 161

carbofuran Maize INSE 0,01 – 0,1 52

lindane Maize INSE 0,001 – 0,01 17

flufenacet Maize HERB 0,001 – 0,01 10

diquat Maize HERB 0,01 – 0,1 9

2.2.6.62.2.6.62.2.6.62.2.6.6 DDDDISCUSSIONISCUSSIONISCUSSIONISCUSSION

2.2.6.6.12.2.6.6.12.2.6.6.12.2.6.6.1 GGGGENERAL REMARKSENERAL REMARKSENERAL REMARKSENERAL REMARKS

The PRIBEL risk indicator is calculated on the basis of a worst-case approach. Indeed, consumer exposure is evaluated by the MRL and the EDI, no matter if residue concentrations are lower than the MRL value and if the food consumption is less important than the one used in the model. Risk is therefore calculated taking account of a potential exposure. For reasons cited above, real exposure can be considered lower than the one calculated by PRIBEL. Also not taken into account in the calculation, processing factors (eg. washing, peeling, heating,…) which tend to decrease pesticide residue concentrations in commodities (Timme et al., 2004).

2.2.6.6.22.2.6.6.22.2.6.6.22.2.6.6.2 CCCCROP GROUPSROP GROUPSROP GROUPSROP GROUPS One can notice that pesticide applications of cereal and orchard crop groups account for 80 % of the total risk for consumers in Belgium. Regarding to this situation, it is interesting to note that results tends to show two types of profiles. First, most of risky pesticide applications in orchard carry a high RIconsumers value, which means in other words that active substance used to fight pest in orchards have a high potential toxic effects on consumers and that this effect can be magnified if these pesticides are frequently used. Indeed, the mean value for RIconsumers for orchard is the highest of all crop group (Table 2-1). For cereal crop group, the situation is different in a way that risk comes mostly from the widespread use of pesticides with a relatively low RI value. In the potato crop group, the frequency of use seems to be the most important factor that contribute to the high PRIBEL value of the riskiest application cases. If crop groups vegetables and greenhouse vegetables are added together, these crop groups are responsible for only 2% of the total risk. Indeed, if considered frequency of use and RIconsumers value, both groups tend to be low compare to orchard and cereal. Especially for vegetables crop group, for which the RIconsumers mean value of the different application cases is very low.

295

2.2.6.6.32.2.6.6.32.2.6.6.32.2.6.6.3 RRRRISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION ISKIEST APPLICATION CASESCASESCASESCASES High PRIBEL values from the riskiest application cases can be explained differently in accordance with their frequency of use or their RIconsumers values. For the application of sulphur on apples, the riskiest one, it is clearly the high value of RIconsumers (4,36) that contribute mostly to the high PRIBEL value for consumers during the year 2001. Indeed, the exposure is calculated taking account of the MRL which reaches 50 mg/kg. Whereas for chlormequat on winter wheat, the frequency of use seems to contribute largely to the high PRIBEL value. 2.2.6.72.2.6.72.2.6.72.2.6.7 CCCCOMPARISON WITH RESULOMPARISON WITH RESULOMPARISON WITH RESULOMPARISON WITH RESULTS OBTAINED WITH NATTS OBTAINED WITH NATTS OBTAINED WITH NATTS OBTAINED WITH NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE PIONAL SURVEILLANCE PIONAL SURVEILLANCE PIONAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMROGRAMROGRAMROGRAM

Some active substances were identified as risky by the PRIBBEL indicator. It is interesting to see if these results match with data obtained through the national surveillance program. Comparison of risky active substances and pesticide residues has been done on the basis of the pesticides detected by the FASFC for the year 2001 which is the year chosen for the calculations with the PRIBEL indicator. In fruits and vegetables, one can notice that active substances were pointed out by the PRIBEL indicator and found into the national surveillance program by the FASFC (table 3-37). Those pesticide can be considered risky for the consumers as they occur to be found in samples of foodstuffs in concentration exceeding the reported level.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----37: Summary of active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from 37: Summary of active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from 37: Summary of active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from 37: Summary of active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from FASFC for fruits and vegetablesFASFC for fruits and vegetablesFASFC for fruits and vegetablesFASFC for fruits and vegetables (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value ≥ 700, **=most ≥ 700, **=most ≥ 700, **=most ≥ 700, **=most often found active substances, as reported by FASFC, 2001)often found active substances, as reported by FASFC, 2001)often found active substances, as reported by FASFC, 2001)often found active substances, as reported by FASFC, 2001)

Fruit and vegetablesFruit and vegetablesFruit and vegetablesFruit and vegetables

PRIBEL*PRIBEL*PRIBEL*PRIBEL* FASFC**FASFC**FASFC**FASFC** PRIBEL/FASFCPRIBEL/FASFCPRIBEL/FASFCPRIBEL/FASFC

Sulphur Chlormequat Dithiocarbamates

Deltamethrine Propamocarb Carbendazim

Fenpropimorph Bromide ion Prochloraz

Epoxyconazole Imazalil

Copper hydroxyde Chlorpropham

Captan Ipridione Dodine Thiabendazole

Linuron

Fluazinam Dithiocarbamates such as ziram, thiram, mancozeb, and maneb have been pointed out both by PRIBEL indicator and national surveillance programmed by the FASFC. The same situation has to be noticed for fungicides carbendazim and prochloraz. Deltamethrin has been evaluated risky by the PRIBEL indicator, but its presence in the food chain appear to be very limited since on the 530 samples tested, only 2 (0,4%) were containing residues above the reporting level (FASFC, 2001). On the 606 commodity samples tested for fenpropimorph, none was containing residues above the reporting level. For epoxyconazole too, no samples contained residues in concentration above the reporting level on the 418 samples tested. Captan was found in concentrations above reporting level in 8 samples out of 737 (1,1%). Fluazinam was sought for in 606 samples but was never detected. Linuron was not sought for in the national surveillance program.

296

Taking account of these figures, the situation seem to be positive in terms of health safety. What may raise some concerns is the absence of samples tested for dodine, that has been proved to be toxic at chronic doses and affecting the mechanism of the thyroid. In cereals, data obtained by the PRIBEL indicator and the national surveillance program differ significantly since none of the riskiest pesticide pointed out by the PRIBEL indicator were sought for by the FASFC (table 3-38). However, active substances (e.g. chlorpyriphos) detected in the national program were not considered risky. This could be explained by the fact that the substances detected within the official surveillance programmes are, in many cases, pesticides that can be used for post-harvest pest control. Such post harvest applications are not considered within the PRIBEL system (data on such pesticide applications are not available in the database).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----38: Summary of 38: Summary of 38: Summary of 38: Summary of active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from for active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from for active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from for active substances pointed out by PRIBEL and by monitoring data from for cereals (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value cereals (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value cereals (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value cereals (*=riskiest active substances ranked by Pribel value ≥ 1000 , **=most often found active ≥ 1000 , **=most often found active ≥ 1000 , **=most often found active ≥ 1000 , **=most often found active substances, as reported by FASFC)substances, as reported by FASFC)substances, as reported by FASFC)substances, as reported by FASFC)

CerealsCerealsCerealsCereals

PRIBEL*PRIBEL*PRIBEL*PRIBEL* FASFC**FASFC**FASFC**FASFC** PRIBEL/FASFCPRIBEL/FASFCPRIBEL/FASFCPRIBEL/FASFC

Chlormequat Bromide ion /

Fenpropimorph Dichlorvos

Deltamethrine Malathion

Epoxyconazole Pirimiphos-methyl

Mcpa Chlorpyriphos-methyl

Glyphosate

Flusilazole

Isoproturon We therefore would recommend to FASFC to consider the possibility of monitoring chlormequat in cereals. On the other hand, it appears quite relevant to consider post harvest treatments within the PRIBEL system since this kind of treatment is much more prone to left residues in commodities compared to seed coating or field spraying at an early stage of development of the crop. 2.2.6.82.2.6.82.2.6.82.2.6.8 CCCCONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSIONONCLUSION

In these risk calculations, it is striking to note the presence of sulphur and copper hydroxide in the riskiest application cases, mostly in orchards. Used as fungicides, the amount of expected residues is in fact high, as confirmed by the high MRL value. Both active substances are commonly used in organic farming too. For this reason, it seems important to have a closer look in the real toxicity of such compounds in order to make sure that the current relative high MRLs set for these compounds are still warranting the highest level of safety for the consumers. A thorough assessment of the toxicity of sulphur and copper derivatives should be done in parallel with surveys on their real uses and on the presence of residues left in foodstuffs. Another striking point is the fact that pesticides used in orchards are characterized by a high potential exposure of the consumers when considering both the relatively high levels of residues tolerated in harvest products and their toxicological properties (high RIconsumers values for many pesticides). Indeed, orchard crop group accounts for 43% of the total risk in Belgium, and its RIconsumers mean value is the highest of all groups.

297

On the other hand, it is surprising to note that vegetables do not account for more than 2 % of the total risk. This could be due to the fact that special attention is given when setting MRLs for pesticides in vegetables because such foodstuffs can be consumed raw and without processing. But, then, it seems difficult to explain the apparently contrasting situation that has been depicted above for the fruit production. Fortunately, both vegetables and fruits are frequently tested in the various monitoring programmes in order to check if no MRL exceedings are to be noticed. According to the results obtained, some pesticides assessed risky by the PRIBEL indicator are well monitored and results from FASFC tend to show that risks are low since the tested samples were most of the time containing residue concentrations below the reporting level. 2.2.72.2.72.2.72.2.7 Evaluation of the impact on consumers from alternative scenarios Evaluation of the impact on consumers from alternative scenarios Evaluation of the impact on consumers from alternative scenarios Evaluation of the impact on consumers from alternative scenarios 2.2.7.12.2.7.12.2.7.12.2.7.1 GGGGENERAL REMARKENERAL REMARKENERAL REMARKENERAL REMARK

Within the framework of HEEPEBI, it is relatively out of scope to tackle separately all risky application cases in order to provide an alternative to reduce the impact of pesticides on consumers. Besides, it is not suitable to propose drastic measures about pesticides uses and their frequency. However, major trends of Integrated Crop Management (ICP), Integrated Pest management (IPM), and organic farming can be analysed and discussed in this part of the report. Also the alternatives suggested by working groups implemented within the framework of the Pesticide use reduction national programme can be presented to estimate impacts of these alternatives. The way alternative proposals should be seen is the promotion, when possible, of treatments and application schemes that minimize the impact of pesticide. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that these proposals may some years not be applied, as pest development conditions can be variable over the years. 2.2.7.22.2.7.22.2.7.22.2.7.2 TTTTREATMENT SCHEMES PROREATMENT SCHEMES PROREATMENT SCHEMES PROREATMENT SCHEMES PROPOSED BY WORKING GROPOSED BY WORKING GROPOSED BY WORKING GROPOSED BY WORKING GROUPSUPSUPSUPS

2.2.7.2.12.2.7.2.12.2.7.2.12.2.7.2.1 WWWWORKING GROUP EXPERTIORKING GROUP EXPERTIORKING GROUP EXPERTIORKING GROUP EXPERTISESESESE

Within the framework of the development of PRIBEL indicator, the expertise provided by the different working groups1 for the main crops in Belgium has to be considered as an asset in the risk management. Indeed, these groups of professionals can bring a strong input by establishing various pesticide application treatments in order to test them. This was done for the potato working group. Different treatment schemes were proposed by the group to calculate their respective impacts on the different compartments, whom consumers, encompassed by PRIBEL.

2.2.7.2.22.2.7.2.22.2.7.2.22.2.7.2.2 RRRRESULTS OBTAINEDESULTS OBTAINEDESULTS OBTAINEDESULTS OBTAINED Four main types of treatment schemes for potato were suggested, with different level of intensity of pesticide use in order to compare their impacts. All these treatments are suggested to cover a entire season of potato culture, from planting to harvesting. Another factor taken into account is the pesticide formulation, as pesticide products can be formulated in several ways. The first treatment scheme was done for a sensitive variety of storage potato where : • conso1 = Treatment scheme on sensitive variety (12 treatments against blight)-Low

pressure

1 Fourteen working groups were installed in Belgium in the framework of the Federal Programme for Reduction of Pesticides and Biocides

298

• conso2 = Treatment scheme on sensitive variety (13 treatments against blight)-moderated pressure

• conso3 = Treatment scheme on sensitive variety (14 treatments against blight)-average pressure

• conso4 = Treatment scheme on sensitive variety (16 treatments against blight)-High pressure

• conso5 = Treatment scheme on sensitive variety (17 treatments against blight)-High pressure

The second treatment scheme dealing with the crop of seed potatoes where : • plant1 = Treatment scheme-High pressure • plant2 = Treatment scheme-Intermediate pressure • plant3 = Treatment scheme-Low pressure The third treatment scheme was dedicated to organic farming system, where : • bioplein1 = Treatment with copper hydroxide-Wettable powder • bioplein2 = Treatment with copper hydroxide-Granule • bioplein3 = Treatment with copper sulphate-Wettable powder • bioplein4 = Treatment with copper oxychloride-Granule • bioplein5 = Treatment with copper oxychloride-Wettable powder Each treatment scheme contains various pesticide applications with a proper Riconsumers value. For each treatment scheme, the sum of Riconsumers from each application has been summed and results obtained for each treatment are given in table 3-39.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----39: Sum of RIconsumers for each treatment scheme in Potato 39: Sum of RIconsumers for each treatment scheme in Potato 39: Sum of RIconsumers for each treatment scheme in Potato 39: Sum of RIconsumers for each treatment scheme in Potato

TreTreTreTreatment schemeatment schemeatment schemeatment scheme conso1conso1conso1conso1 conso2conso2conso2conso2 conso3conso3conso3conso3 conso4conso4conso4conso4 conso5conso5conso5conso5

RiconsumersRiconsumersRiconsumersRiconsumers 0,055 0,042 0,138 0,141 0,247

Treatment schemeTreatment schemeTreatment schemeTreatment scheme plant1plant1plant1plant1 plant2plant2plant2plant2 plant3plant3plant3plant3

RiconsumersRiconsumersRiconsumersRiconsumers 0,161 4,527 0,204

Treatment schemeTreatment schemeTreatment schemeTreatment scheme bioplein1bioplein1bioplein1bioplein1 bioplein2bioplein2bioplein2bioplein2 bioplein3bioplein3bioplein3bioplein3 bioplein4bioplein4bioplein4bioplein4 bioplein5bioplein5bioplein5bioplein5

RiconsumersRiconsumersRiconsumersRiconsumers 0,960 0,960 0,960 0,144 0,144 It is interesting to see that for the treatments “conso”, the sum of each RIconsumers related to each application is increasing with the number of applications during crop growth. Indeed the RIconsumers for conso5, the treatment with the highest number of applications, is more than 4 times higher than the treatment conso1. Between these two extreme values, the sum of RIconsumers increases except for the conso2 which has a lower value than conso1. This is due to the fact that some of the active substances used differ in the two treatments. For the treatments “plant”, the highest value is obtained for the treatment scheme plant2, mainly because of the presence of lambda-cyhalothrin and esfenvalerate in various applications, both active substances do have a high RIconsumers value For organic treatments “bioplein”, the three first treatments have a relatively high RIconsumers values compared to the other treatments suggested. This is due to the higher toxicity of copper hydroxide and copper sulphate. The two other treatments involved copper

299

oxychloride. It is to be noted that the different formulations tested did not alter the RIconsumers value because the kind of formulation is not taken into account in the RIconsumers calculations. Therefore, on the basis of these calculations, it is recommended to focus on the risk assessment of chemicals allowed in organic agriculture. As the cereal crop group accounts for 43% of the total risk in Belgium, the same kind of exercise could be made in order to find adapted treatment schemes, responding both to harvest yield and consumers safety. In addition, it should be very important to assess the real relevance of chlormequat treatments by assessing the level of residues in harvested grains.

2.2.82.2.82.2.82.2.8 Organic farOrganic farOrganic farOrganic farming and Integrated Pest Management (Greenlabels)ming and Integrated Pest Management (Greenlabels)ming and Integrated Pest Management (Greenlabels)ming and Integrated Pest Management (Greenlabels)

2.2.8.12.2.8.12.2.8.12.2.8.1 IIIINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION

On the overall Belgian situation, an alternative would be to promote organic farming. Indeed, in organic farming no chemicals of synthetic origin are used during pre- and post- harvest. The consequence of this switch would decrease the frequency of use of chemical pesticides and further on diminish risks for consumers. Taken into account the meta-analysis in the literature related to organic farming, it is clear that pesticide residues will be found in lower quantity and lower frequency in foodstuffs commodities (Baker et al., 2002 ; Pussemier et al., 2006). But as it has been seen before, copper and sulphur compounds encompass high risks for the consumers according to the PRIBEL system. This issue should require additional attention. For the orchard crop group, accounting for 42% of the total risk in Belgium, alternatives to reduce the amount of pesticide residues in crop can be found. Indeed, the Danish Research Centre for organic farming has tried other fungicides than sulphur to reduce apple scab development (Lindhard et al., 2004). Products tested are extracts of grape fruit seeds, extract of the plant Quilllaja saponaria, and another synthetic product. In terms of efficiency, sulphur remains more efficient as the yield obtained after its application is higher than those obtained after application of the other tested products, but apple scab diseases were clearly reduced with the products tested. Organically grown food is perceived as healthier and safer. Relevant scientific evidence, however, is scarce. There is still an absence of adequate comparative data of food products of conventional and organic food. Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives: yet, the significance of this difference is questionable, as much as actual levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized statements. Also, results for mycotoxin contamination in cereal crops are variable and inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks and to pronounce upon the question whether conventional or organic farming is better concerning food safety (Magkos, F., 2006). Enforcements of principles from Integrated Pest Management (IPM) would also contribute to the reduction of pesticide residues. IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment

300

A methodology was applied by Steurbaut and Garreyn (2006, in Press) to rank the different labels in Belgium. Three major steps of the method can be identified. The first phase consists in selecting different aspects of sustainability. Furthermore, a listing of the rules included in the certification book which are having an impact on these aspects of sustainability has been made. For the consumers, the item food safety is the more relevant. In the second phase, weights were attributed by experts to rules and aspects regarding to their impact on sustainability. Finally, the third phase consisted in scoring each label by multiplying weights of different rules with a factor that reflects the mandatory level of the rule. A total score for each aspect was achieved by adding individual criterion scores. The following part describes the different organic and IPM label, and further on their relevancy in terms of food safety. Their was also dealt with this topic in paragraph 1.4.

2.2.8.22.2.8.22.2.8.22.2.8.2 LLLLABELSABELSABELSABELS

2.2.8.2.12.2.8.2.12.2.8.2.12.2.8.2.1 BBBBIOGARANTIE IOGARANTIE IOGARANTIE IOGARANTIE ((((ORGANIC FARMINGORGANIC FARMINGORGANIC FARMINGORGANIC FARMING))))

The Biogarantie label was developed in Belgium for the inspection and auditing of organic products at different levels. Farmers, processors and distributors have to follow the specifications. Organic farming as it exists today is a cultivation method with strong agro-ecological foundations, exercised in a highly professional manner and refusing all pesticides and nutrients obtained by chemical synthesis. The European Commission has developed specific regulations for this environmentally friendly form of agriculture and stock-rearing (Council Regulation (EEC) no. 2092/91 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs). The Biogarantie quality label is only awarded after a positive control by an independent control body (Steurbaut and Garreyn, 2006, in press).

2.2.8.2.22.2.8.2.22.2.8.2.22.2.8.2.2 EEEEUREP UREP UREP UREP GGGGAPAPAPAP By adhering to good agricultural practices, Eurep GAP strives since 1997 to reduce risks in agricultural production. EurepGAP provides the tools to objectively verify best practice in a systematic and consistent way. This goal is achieved through the protocol and compliance criteria. Eurep GAP's scope is concerned with practices on the farm, once the product leaves the farm they come under the control of other Codes of Conduct and certification schemes relevant to food packing and processing. That way the whole chain is assured right through to the final consumer. The technical and standards committees, consisting of producer and retail members, has a formal agenda to review emerging issues and carry-out risk assessments. This is a rigorous process, following the principles of HACCP, and involves experts in their field leading to revised versions of the protocol.

2.2.8.2.32.2.8.2.32.2.8.2.32.2.8.2.3 FFFFRUITNETRUITNETRUITNETRUITNET In Belgium, Fruitnet is a label that guarantee for consumers apples and pears safety and quality since 1991. To attain this goal, Fruitnet follows guidelines of integrated agriculture, and controls rigorously the production in orchards, in stocking places and in the packaging of the fruits. Traceability in ensured by the label, allowing to respond rapidly to any problems. Guidelines are inspired from those used by the OILB (Organisation Internationale de Lutte Biologique et Intégrée contre les animaux et les plantes nuisibles). Indeed, guidelines for the production of fruit under Fruitnet encompass adoption of environmental measures, use of natural pesticides rather than chemical ones, and the control of the quality and the origin of fruits. Pesticide applications are kept to a minimum by adapting cultivation methods and fighting pests with natural enemies and traps to fight harmful insects.

301

2.2.8.2.42.2.8.2.42.2.8.2.42.2.8.2.4 FFFFLANDRIALANDRIALANDRIALANDRIA/F/F/F/FLANDRIAGLANDRIAGLANDRIAGLANDRIAGAP AP AP AP Flandria and FlandriaGap are integrated agriculture systems, both from the point of view of quality and food safety. Its main principles imply cultivation technology, sustainable horticulture, hygiene and traceability. FlandriaGap is an ameliorated version of Flandria, adopted in 2004, that draws special attention to food safety, environmental sustainability and to workers health. The document containing the guidelines for production is composed of 148 points divided in three main categories. The first category, called “major musts”, is containing important points concerning food safety. Producers have to comply to 100% of these points. The second category, called “minor musts”, is composed by guidelines that has to be respected at 80%. The last category, “shoulds”, are recommendations for the future and have to be considered in the present as advices.

2.2.8.2.52.2.8.2.52.2.8.2.52.2.8.2.5 TTTTERRA ERRA ERRA ERRA NNNNOSTRAOSTRAOSTRAOSTRA The label Terra Nostra was created in Belgium by the ORPAH (Office Régional de la Promotion de l’Agriculture et l’Horticulture). Potato is the only commodity targeted by the label. Products issued from Terra Nostra are high quality potato produced in Walloon region and under integrated agriculture principles. Guidelines focus on soil analysis to reduce fertilizers and on the affiliation to an alert system focusing on mildew and aphids in order to diminish the use of pesticides. Products are controlled by an independent body and the cultivation technique allows a reduction by 30% to 40% in the quantity of fertilizers and pesticides used (Steurbaut and Garreyn, 2006).

2.2.8.32.2.8.32.2.8.32.2.8.3 AAAANALYSIS AND RESULTS NALYSIS AND RESULTS NALYSIS AND RESULTS NALYSIS AND RESULTS OBTAINEDOBTAINEDOBTAINEDOBTAINED

For each aspect of the study of Steurbaut and Garreyn (2006, in press), a maximum score corresponding to the best situation was calculated. For the consumers, it is possible to compare the performance in terms of food safety by comparing the “Food Safety” score obtained for each label and expressed in percent of the maximum score (Table ). At this level, it is important to understand that the results obtained for the different labels are reflecting the amount and the quality of the standards written in the guidelines of the labels. It cannot be assessed yet that foodstuffs from a label scoring high in this study are automatically safe food containing a low residue level. As for the consumers, the amount of pesticide residues and their concentration should be as low as possible, further tests need to be implemented to assess the real safety of the foodstuffs produced according to a given label. However, the fact that a label is scoring high in terms of food safety standards implies that many conditions are gathered to meet the ideal situation for food safety. In other words, the chance is higher to notice low pesticide residue concentrations.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----40: Food safet40: Food safet40: Food safet40: Food safety standards scores obtained for the different labels (% of the ideal situation) y standards scores obtained for the different labels (% of the ideal situation) y standards scores obtained for the different labels (% of the ideal situation) y standards scores obtained for the different labels (% of the ideal situation) (according to Steurbaut and Garreyn, 2006)(according to Steurbaut and Garreyn, 2006)(according to Steurbaut and Garreyn, 2006)(according to Steurbaut and Garreyn, 2006)

Charte Perfect

Terra Nostra

EurepGAP Flandria Flandria GAP

Fruitnet Organic Farming

71,03 40,58 52,6 42,53 55,53 54,13 42,69

With regard to the obtained results obtained, the label Charte Perfect appears to have the highest score concerning food safety. This can be linked to the fact that Charte Perfect is complementary with the HACCP. Indeed the Charte Perfect describes the risks, the critical control points, the hitherto corresponding limits and the means of surveillance in order to identify the most suited corrective actions in case a problem should occur (Steurbaut and

302

Garreyn, 2006). In terms of food safety, the label Terra Nostra did score average. However, the guidelines followed by producers are strictly confined to potato crops and therefore contain less criteria than other labels. The fact that Eurep Gap promote HACCP can explain why the score obtained is quite good. One can see the increase of the score between Flandria and FlandriaGap (12%). Regarding hygiene the FlandriaGAP specifications are stricter and more numerous. Moreover a strong point of FlandriaGAP is that the emphasis is on verifying whether the inspection points are effective in order to comply with the directives, whereas the emphasis of EurepGAP tends to be on registration. FlandriaGAP also puts a strong emphasis on the content of the specifications, which other certification schemes, such as Organic Farming and integrated Farming sometimes overlook. Given the fact that the auctions Mechelse Veilingen and Veiling Hoogstraten are certified for various systems (ISO, HACCP, BRC...), the standards are set quite high as far as the raw materials coming into the auctions are concerned. The grower, therefore, has to act as an extension of the quality label. That is why the ideology of the ISO and HACCP systems are incorporated into the FlandriaGAP system. FlandriaGAP's real asset is its residue monitoring programme. Every year, some 14,000 mostly carefully directed samples are taken at the LAVA auctions, and this at the most critical points. In the case of most other specifications, this sampling is not carefully directed. The high score obtained by Fruitnet for Food Safety can be explained by the fact that EurepGAP approval is a mandatory obligation required of each fruit grower wishing to market his fruit under the “Fruitnet” trademark. Fruitnet employs the most appropriate techniques for the preservation of the environment, prohibiting the most toxic pesticides to the environment and nature and classifying products in a green, yellow and orange list in function of their degree of toxicity with respect to the environment, humans and beneficial fauna. In case of a risk of major economic damage (treatment threshold was exceeded) the grower must choose a control method. Naturally, priority must be given to natural enemies of the pest in question, but when these are insufficient the grower will have to opt for a more appropriate biological or chemical treatment. The most selective, least toxic, least persistent product, which is as safe as possible to humans and the environment, must be selected. One can still raise the question of the safety of those pesticides included in the green and orange lists towards the consumers. It might be useful to check if the proposed pesticides are offering a better choice not only for the environment and the applicator but also in terms of residues left in the crop.

2.2.8.42.2.8.42.2.8.42.2.8.4 CCCCONCLUSION CONCERNINGONCLUSION CONCERNINGONCLUSION CONCERNINGONCLUSION CONCERNING THE THE THE THE USEFULLNESS OF GREE USEFULLNESS OF GREE USEFULLNESS OF GREE USEFULLNESS OF GREENLABELSNLABELSNLABELSNLABELS

In the frame of the national pesticide reduction program, it is of utmost importance to find alternatives to reduce pesticide impacts on consumers. The study of Steurbaut and Garreyn (2006, in press) provides relevant information about performance of Belgian Greenlabels. Assessed mainly by evaluating the sustainability of the rules contained in certification books, greenlabels can represent a solution to reduce pesticide residues in foodstuffs as various precautions are taken to minimize uses of pesticides. The way pesticides are used, respecting doses and time of application is surely contributing to avoid contamination of foodstuffs. However, it is difficult to quantify the impacts of greenlabels on pesticide residue levels due to a lack of field results (pesticide monitoring data). But rules that have to be respected by certified farmers should help to decrease pesticide residues.

303

3333 BBBBIOCIDE RISK EVALUATIIOCIDE RISK EVALUATIIOCIDE RISK EVALUATIIOCIDE RISK EVALUATION OF THE ON OF THE ON OF THE ON OF THE BBBBELGIAN SITUATIONELGIAN SITUATIONELGIAN SITUATIONELGIAN SITUATION

3.1 Selection of the risk indicator Worldwide, discussion is still ongoing on the ‘ideal’ indicator to quantify the impact of biocides on human health and the environment. In general, the indicator should comply with the following criteria: • the indicator should represent a risk, combining exposure and effect; • the indicator should not be too complex, since an annual recalculation might be

required to follow impact trends; • the indicator should represent the risk for the environment and for human health; • the indicator should be composed of obvious parameters, reducing uncertainty due to

lack of data. Next to these criteria, some characteristics related to biocides should be taken into account: • a great variety of formulation types implies the need for various emission scenarios; • importance of human health aspect, seen from the variety of users

(professionals/general public); • effect data of active substances which are not authorized in PPP are often scarce; • it is difficult to get an insight of the amount of biocidal products that are used. As mentioned earlier, the impact of PT18 biocides is most relevant for human health since these biocides are mainly used indoors. Taking into account the given timeframe of the HEEPEBI study, a pragmatic approach of the risk assessment is needed. Therefore it was decided to focus on human health when selecting the indicator to quantify the impact of PT18 biocides. A risk indicator should assess exposure and effect. Taking into account the use pattern of PT18 biocides, a specific exposure assessment of the applicator and the secondary exposed persons (e.g. playing children) is needed. The technical notes for guidance on human exposure to biocidal products (European Commission, 2002) and other European documents which are to be published (Steurbaut, pers. comm.) set database models for several formulation types (cf. task 2). These models allow for a calculation of the exposure of the applicator and the secondary exposed persons. In analogy with the European registration dossiers for plant protection products, the effect of a PT18 biocide on the applicator and the secondary exposed persons can be quantified by means of the Acceptable Operator Exposure Level. A detailed description of the different aspects of the indicator is given hereafter.

3.2 Description of the indicator

3.2.13.2.13.2.13.2.1 ApplicatApplicatApplicatApplicator exposure assessmentor exposure assessmentor exposure assessmentor exposure assessment It is assumed that dermal and inhalatory exposure can occur during application of PT18 products. Chronic exposure is calculated from acute exposure as follows:

304

Chronic exposure (year averaged exposure) = yearNcont,

Nyear*tionEXPapplica

Where: EXPapplication = exposure during one event (mg/kg body weight/day) Nyear = number of events per year Ncont,year = number of contact days per year EXPapplication represents the acute exposure, which is calculated as follows: EXPapplication = (EXPderm * PFderm) + (EXPinhal * PFinhal)

Where: EXPapplication = exposure during one event (mg/kg body weight/day) • EXPderm = dermal exposure during application (mg/kg body weight/day) • PFderm = penetration factor through skin • EXPinhal = inhalatory exposure during application (mg/kg body weight/day) • PFinhal = penetration factor through lungs by inhalation EXPderm = EXPderm/body + EXPderm/hand + EXPderm/feet • EXPderm/body = dermal exposure on the body during application (mg/kg body

weight/day) • EXPderm/hand = dermal exposure on the hands during application (mg/kg

body weight/day) • EXPderm/feet = dermal exposure on the feet during application (mg/kg body

weight/day) EXPderm/body = ((Xbody * Texp * RPcloth / 100) * Conc) / BW • EXPderm/body = dermal exposure on the body during application (mg/kg body

weight/day) • Xbody = product on clothing rate (mg/min) • Texp = duration (min) • RPcloth = relative penetration of clothing (%) • Conc = concentration of active substance (g/kg) • BW = body weight human (60 kg) EXPderm/hand = ((Xhand * Texp * RPgloves / 100) * Conc) / BW • EXPderm/hand = dermal exposure on the hands during application (mg/kg body

weight/day) • Xhand = product on hands rate (mg/min) • Texp = duration (min) • RPgloves = relative penetration of gloves (%) • Conc = concentration of active substance (g/kg) • BW = body weight human (60 kg)

305

EXPderm/feet = ((Xshoes * Texp * RPshoes / 100) * Conc) / BW • EXPderm/feet = dermal exposure on the feet during application (mg/kg body

weight/day) • Xfeet = product on feet rate (mg/min) • Texp = duration (min) • RPshoes = relative penetration of shoes (%) • Conc = concentration of active substance (g/kg) • BW = body weight human (60 kg) EXPinhal = [(Xinhal * RR * Texp * RPinhal / 100) * Conc] / BW • EXPinhal = inhalarory exposure during application (mg/kg body

weight/day) • Xinhal = product concentration in air (mg/m³) • RR = respiratory rate (m³ / min) • Texp = duration (min) • RPinhal = relative penetration of protective equipment (%) • Conc = concentration of active substance (g/kg) • BW = body weight human (60 kg) The values of some exposure parameters depend on the application scenario, which is in turn depended of the type of the applicator (whether or not professional), the formulation type (ready to use liquid, powder, …), the application device (aerosol can, trigger, …) and the treatment type (flying insects, crawling insects, ectoparasites, …). These parameters were distinguished in task 2 (cf. Annex 9 of Task 2) for each product that is considered in this report. Subsequently, each of these products has been linked to a corresponding exposure scenario, using the following information sources in order of priority: • European exposure scenarios from documents which are to be published (Steurbaut,

pers. comm.); • European exposure scenarios as described in the TnG (European Commission, 2002),

completed by means of expert judgement. Due to lack of information on the specific use of the product, the some assumptions had to be made. In general: • Aerosol sprayer against flying insects and no label information: assumed to correspond

with ‘consumer spraying and dusting model 1’; • Aerosol sprayer against crawling insects and no label information: assumed to

correspond with ‘consumer spraying and dusting model 2’; • Powder against crawling insects and no label information: assumed to correspond with

‘consumer spraying and dusting model 2’; • some products have various applications which correspond with different exposure

scenarios (e.g. Ti-Tox Total: flying and crawling insects: consumer spraying and dusting model 1 and 2). For such products all exposure scenarios were calculated.

More specifically: • Air Control (3497B): assumed to be air sprayed; • Bayer Antiparasitical Powder (304B): pet treatment assumed; • Bayer Antiparasitical Spray (104B): pet treatment assumed;

306

• Baygon Powder against crawling insects (4479B): surface treatment assumed; • Bolfo Powder (3079B pet treatment assumed; • Canitex Powder (1582B): pet treatment assumed; • Dalf Spray (1396B): pet treatment assumed; • Defencare Spray (494B): pet treatment assumed; • Detrans CIK (500B): air space treatment assumed; • Detrans OB FIK (3004B): air space treatment assumed; • Detrans WB FIK (2105B): air space treatment assumed; • Insecticide Kaporex all crawling insects (1200B): surface treatment assumed; • Insectivore vrac (4778B): surface treatment assumed; • Insectstop (8887B): air space treatment assumed; • Itec (1099B): air space treatment assumed; • K.O. Spray against crawling insects (1501B): surface treatment assumed; • Kapo flying insects with natural vegetable pyrethrins (3296B): air space treatment

assumed; • Kapo insecticide all flying insects (8687B): air space treatment assumed; • Kaporex insecticide crawling insects spraying liquid (3396B): surface treatment

assumed; • Max insecticide powder (1698B): pet treatment assumed; • Pybuthrin 33 (4486B): surface treatment assumed; • Smash Killer CE10 (5305B): assumed that product is sprayed at low pressure (1 to 3

bar); • Vitakraft Insecticide Spray (4701B): pet treatment assumed. An overview of the ‘formulation – application device – treatment’ combinations and their corresponding European scenarios (European Commission, 2002; Steurbaut, pers. comm.) are given in table 3-41. ‘Professionals-only’ scenarios (class A products) are indicated in boldboldboldbold. A short description of each European scenario involved, is given hereafter: • Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1: air space spraying with pre-

pressurised aerosol cans, trigger sprays and pumped sprays; non-professionals; • Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2: surface spraying (soft furnishings,

skirting boards, shelves) with pre-pressurised aerosol cans, trigger sprays and dust applicator packs; also vacuum cleaning dust deposits; non-professionals;

• Electrical evaporator for amateur use: p.m.; • Spraying model 1: mixing and loading liquids and powders in compression sprayers or

dusting applicators, and applying at 1 to 3 bar pressure as a coarse or medium spray, indoors and outdoors, overhead and downwards; low-pressure insecticide application; professionals principally;

• Spraying model 7: disinfection by spraying surfaces at up to 14 bar or with hand-held compression sprayer (up to 3 bar) – carpets, walls, ceiling voids. Duration 17 to 141 min (median at 47 min). No mixing or loading; professionals;

• Misting model 1: misting at low level using controlled droplet application (CDA) wand (CDA low level sprayer); no mixing or loading; professionals;

• Fogging model 3: fogging at mid level using fogging machine; no mixing or loading; professionals.

307

The default parameter values to be used in the scenarios ‘Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1 (aerosol/trigger)’, ‘Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 (trigger)’, ‘Electrical evaporator for amateur use’ and ‘Spraying model 1 - wasps’ are listed in table 3-42. These parameters are described in various European documents which are to be published. The degree of uncertainty of the Xbody, Xhand, Xshoes and Xinhal values are indicated by means of a letter (M: moderate, H: high) (Steurbaut, pers. comm.). The exposure from applying an electrical evaporator device was considered to be negligible, when the apparatus is properly installed. However, the secondary exposure through inhalation is calculated in analogy with the applicator inhalation exposure of the other scenarios. therefore, the secondary inhalatory exposure from electrical evaporators is given in table 3-42.

308

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----41: Relevant formulation types and corresponding European human exposure scenarios41: Relevant formulation types and corresponding European human exposure scenarios41: Relevant formulation types and corresponding European human exposure scenarios41: Relevant formulation types and corresponding European human exposure scenarios

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device TreatmentTreatmentTreatmentTreatment European scenarioEuropean scenarioEuropean scenarioEuropean scenario

Aerosol Aerosol sprayer Flying insects, in and around the residence Consumer spraying and dusting model 1

Aerosol Aerosol sprayer Ectoparasites on domestic animals Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2

Aerosol Aerosol sprayer Crawling insects, in and around the residence

Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2

Aerosol "One shot" aerosol sprayer

Flying and crawling insects, no animals or persons present during application No corresponding scenario available

Bait Bait box Cockroaches No corresponding scenario available

Cardboard platelet Electrical evaporator Mosquitos Electrical evaporator for amateur use

Collar Collar Ectoparasites on cats and dogs No corresponding scenario available

Concentrated suspension

Spraying device for local application Crawling insects, local application Spraying model 1

Concentrated suspension in micro-capsules

Spraying device producing coarse droplets Crawling insects, local application


Gel Spraygun Cockroaches and crickets No corresponding scenario available

PastePastePastePaste SpraygunSpraygunSpraygunSpraygun Cockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and crickets No corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario available

Liquid Trigger Crawling insects Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2

Liquid Electrical evaporator Mosquitos Electrical evaporator for amateur use

309

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device TreatmentTreatmentTreatmentTreatment European scenarioEuropean scenarioEuropean scenarioEuropean scenario

Liquid to be dilutedLiquid to be dilutedLiquid to be dilutedLiquid to be diluted Pulverisation or thermoPulverisation or thermoPulverisation or thermoPulverisation or thermo----nebulation devicenebulation devicenebulation devicenebulation device

Flying and crawling insects, especially Flying and crawling insects, especially Flying and crawling insects, especially Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry unitsin poultry unitsin poultry unitsin poultry units Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1

Liquified gasLiquified gasLiquified gasLiquified gas Fumigation deviceFumigation deviceFumigation deviceFumigation device Crawling insectsCrawling insectsCrawling insectsCrawling insects No corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario available

Plastic platelet Plastic platelet Ants in and around the residence No corresponding scenario available

Powder Canister

Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Crawling insects in and around the residence


PowderPowderPowderPowder Powder distributorPowder distributorPowder distributorPowder distributor Wasp nestsWasp nestsWasp nestsWasp nests SpSpSpSpraying model 1raying model 1raying model 1raying model 1

Product for hot or Product for hot or Product for hot or Product for hot or cold evaporationcold evaporationcold evaporationcold evaporation

Suitable nebulisation Suitable nebulisation Suitable nebulisation Suitable nebulisation devicedevicedevicedevice Flying (mainly) and crawling insectsFlying (mainly) and crawling insectsFlying (mainly) and crawling insectsFlying (mainly) and crawling insects Fogging model 3Fogging model 3Fogging model 3Fogging model 3

Ready to use solution Synthetic bottle

Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Flying and crawling insects in and around the residence No corresponding scenario available

Ready to use solution

Low pressure spraying device producing coarse droplets

Flying an crawling insects, local application in cracks and crevices


Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use solutionsolutionsolutionsolution Brush Brush Brush Brush Lacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insects No corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario available Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use solutionsolutionsolutionsolution SprayerSprayerSprayerSprayer Lacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insects Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1

Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use solutionsolutionsolutionsolution TriggerTriggerTriggerTrigger

Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on walls anapplication directly on walls anapplication directly on walls anapplication directly on walls and d d d objectsobjectsobjectsobjects No corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario availableNo corresponding scenario available

Ready to use solution Trigger

Ectoparasites at sleep and resting places of animals Flying and crawling insects (local


310

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device TreatmentTreatmentTreatmentTreatment European scenarioEuropean scenarioEuropean scenarioEuropean scenario application)

Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use Ready to use solutionsolutionsolutionsolution

Misting oMisting oMisting oMisting or surface sprayingr surface sprayingr surface sprayingr surface spraying Flying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insects

Misting model 1Misting model 1Misting model 1Misting model 1 Spraying model 7Spraying model 7Spraying model 7Spraying model 7

Ready to use stick Stick Ants in and around the residence No corresponding scenario available

Tablet electrical evaporator Mosquitos Electrical evaporator for amateur use

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----42: Overview of default parameter values for each European scenario (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)42: Overview of default parameter values for each European scenario (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)42: Overview of default parameter values for each European scenario (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)42: Overview of default parameter values for each European scenario (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)

EU scenarioEU scenarioEU scenarioEU scenario Consumer product spraying and Consumer product spraying and Consumer product spraying and Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1dusting model 1dusting model 1dusting model 1

Consumer product spraying and dusting Consumer product spraying and dusting Consumer product spraying and dusting Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2model 2model 2model 2

Electrical Electrical Electrical Electrical evaporators evaporators evaporators evaporators (secondary (secondary (secondary (secondary exposure)exposure)exposure)exposure)

SprayiSprayiSprayiSpraying model 1ng model 1ng model 1ng model 1

Application aerosol trigger aerosol trigger hand-held dust

applicator

wasps professional

wasps amateur

Xbody (mg/min) 113/M 42.4/M 45.20 9.7/M 2.74 NR 92/M 92/M

Xhand (mg/min) 156/M 136/M 64.70 36.1/M 2.73 NR 10.7/M 181/H

Xshoes (mg/min) 0/M 0/M 0 0/M 0 NR 0/M 0/M

Xinhal (mg/m³) 234/M 90.2/M 35.90 10.5/M 2.47 * 104/M 104/M

Texp (min) 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.5 0.33 0.1 2 5

RR (m³/min) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

RPcloth (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 50

RPgloves (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

311

EU scenarioEU scenarioEU scenarioEU scenario Consumer product spraying and Consumer product spraying and Consumer product spraying and Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1dusting model 1dusting model 1dusting model 1

Consumer product spraying and dusting Consumer product spraying and dusting Consumer product spraying and dusting Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2model 2model 2model 2

Electrical Electrical Electrical Electrical evaporators evaporators evaporators evaporators (secondary (secondary (secondary (secondary exposure)exposure)exposure)exposure)

SprayiSprayiSprayiSpraying model 1ng model 1ng model 1ng model 1

Application aerosol trigger aerosol trigger hand-held dust

applicator

wasps professional

wasps amateur

RPshoes (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

RPinhal (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 10 100

PFinhal (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

PFderm (%) 10 10 10 10 10 1 10 10

Nday (number) 1 1 1 1 1 150 3 1

Nyear (number) 90(1) 90(1) 90(1) 9 90(1) 90(1) 5

*Xinhal = emission rate (mg/hour)*concentration a.s. (%) / volume room (m³) (1): it is assumed that insects are a nuisance during the summer months (3 months/year = 90 days) M: moderate degree of uncertainty H: high degree of uncertainty

312

For some other applications, solely scenarios described in the TnG (European Commission, 2002) are available. It concerns: ‘Spraying model 1 (general professionals)’, ‘Spraying model 7’, ‘Misting model 1’ and ‘Fogging model 3’. TnG parameter values are given in Table 3-43. However, the information given in the TnG (European Commission, 2002) does not allow for a complete exposure assessment by means of the choosen indicator. The parameters indicated in italics in Table 3-24 were determined by means of expert judgement. The degree of uncertainty of the Xbody, Xhand, Xshoes and Xinhal values are indicated by means of a letter (M: moderate, H: high) (Steurbaut, pers. comm.).

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----43: Overview of default parameters 43: Overview of default parameters 43: Overview of default parameters 43: Overview of default parameters for each European scenario (European Commission, for each European scenario (European Commission, for each European scenario (European Commission, for each European scenario (European Commission, 2002)2002)2002)2002)

Fogging model 3 Fogging model 3 Fogging model 3 Fogging model 3 (professionals)(professionals)(professionals)(professionals)

Misting model 1 Misting model 1 Misting model 1 Misting model 1 (professionals)(professionals)(professionals)(professionals)

Spraying model 1 Spraying model 1 Spraying model 1 Spraying model 1 (professionals)(professionals)(professionals)(professionals)

Spraying Spraying Spraying Spraying model 7 model 7 model 7 model 7 (professionals)(professionals)(professionals)(professionals)

Xbody (mg/min) 1.13/H 13.8/H 92/M 100

Xhand (mg/min) 0.33/H 0.12/M 10.7/M 0

Xshoes (mg/min) 0/H 0.26/H 0/M 0

Xinhal (mg/m³) 0/H 24/H 104/M 0

Texp (min) 40 40 *(1) 47

RR (m³/min) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

RPcloth (%) 10 10 10 10

RPgloves (%) 100 100 100 100

RPshoes (%) 100 100 100 100

RPinhal (%) 10 10 10 10

PFinhal (%) 100 100 100 100

PFderm (%) 10 10 10 10

Nday (number) 1 1 1 1

Nyear (number) 150 150 150 150

(1): dependent of treatment type Scenarios for the treatment of pets were not encountered in the available literature. Scenarios were established by expert judgement, based on the scenarios that are provided by Steurbaut (pers. comm.) and the TnG (European Commission, 2002). The default parameters for these scenarios are given in table 3-44.

313

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----44: Overview of default parameters for pet treatment44: Overview of default parameters for pet treatment44: Overview of default parameters for pet treatment44: Overview of default parameters for pet treatment scenarios (expert judgement) scenarios (expert judgement) scenarios (expert judgement) scenarios (expert judgement)

Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 2 model 2 model 2 model 2 –––– aerosol aerosol aerosol aerosol (pets)(pets)(pets)(pets)

Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 2 model 2 model 2 model 2 –––– trigger trigger trigger trigger (pets)(pets)(pets)(pets)

Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 2 model 2 model 2 model 2 –––– hand hand hand hand----held held held held dusting applicator dusting applicator dusting applicator dusting applicator (pets)(pets)(pets)(pets)

Xbody (mg/min) 45.2 9.7 2.74

Xhand (mg/min) 64.7 36.10 2.73

Xshoes (mg/min) 0 0 0

Xinhal (mg/m³) 35.9 10.50 2.47

Texp (min) 0.33 1.5 0.33

RR (m³/min) 0.02 0.02 0.02

RPcloth (%) 50 50 50

RPgloves (%) 100 100 100

RPshoes (%) 100 100 100

RPinhal (%) 100 100 100

PFinhal (%) 100 100 100

PFderm (%) 10 10 10

Nday (number) 1 1 1

Nyear (number) (1) 24 24 24

(1): it is assumed that pets are treated the whole year round (worst case scenario) and that a treatment lasts for 2 weeks

3.2.23.2.23.2.23.2.2 Secondary exposure assessmentSecondary exposure assessmentSecondary exposure assessmentSecondary exposure assessment After the application of the product, people might be exposed through various pathways: • Inhalation (e.g. aerosols, electrical evaporation devices, …); • Dermal (e.g. cat/dog collars, contact with treated surfaces, …); • Oral (e.g. ant powder, contact with treated surfaces, …). The proposed exposure models, which are discussed hereafter, are based on the principles of the EU Directive 98/8/EC (Steurbaut, pers. comm.). It can be assumed that dermal and oral secondary exposure is only relevant for children, except for products used on animals (pets and lifestock). Dermal exposure EXPdermal = Tappl * R * Conc * Dep * Disl * TC * Texp / Opp

314

Where:

Tappl = duration of the application (min) R = amount of product released per time unit (kg/min)

Conc = concentration of a.s. in product (g/kg) Dep = amount of sprayed volume that is deposited on the floor (%)

Disl = amount of product that is dislodgeable (%) TC = transfer contact surface (m2/day)

Texp = exposure time (default 7 days: it is assumed that the surface is cleaned after 1 week)

Opp = exposed surface (m2) Oral exposure EXPoral = EXPderm * 10% Inhalatory exposure EXPinhalation = Cs * I / bw, with Cs =: p * MW * f / (R * T) Where:

Cs = saturated air concentration of the active substance I = respiration rate (adult 20 m3/day; child 4 m3/day) bw = body weight (adult 60kg; child 10 kg) p = vapour pressure of the active substance (Pa)3 MW = molecular weight of the active substance (g/mol) f = conversion factor from g to µg (106) R = gas constant (8.314 J/mol.K) T = temperature (293 K) Some parameter values are specific for each application scenario. Default values, given in tables 3-45 and 3-46, are set by expert judgement in analogy with European scenarios (Steurbaut, pers. comm.).

3 Conversion factors: 100 Pa = 1 mbar and 1 mbar = 0.750 mm Hg; 1 Torr = 1 mm Hg

315

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----45: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)45: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)45: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)45: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure (Steurbaut, pers. comm.)

ParameterParameterParameterParameter Air sprays/triggers and Air sprays/triggers and Air sprays/triggers and Air sprays/triggers and electrical evaporatorselectrical evaporatorselectrical evaporatorselectrical evaporators (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 1, Electrical model 1, Electrical model 1, Electrical model 1, Electrical evaporator for evaporator for evaporator for evaporator for amateur use)amateur use)amateur use)amateur use)

SurSurSurSurface sprays face sprays face sprays face sprays (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 2 model 2 model 2 model 2 aerosol/trigger)aerosol/trigger)aerosol/trigger)aerosol/trigger)

Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1

Rcrack and crevice

0.33 g formulation/sec

0.33 g/sec

Rgeneral surface 0.65 g formulation/sec

0.65 g/sec

Rair space application

0.35 g formulation/sec

Relectrical evaporator

50 mg/h

Dep 15% 80% 15% (air space), 80% (surface spraying)

Disl 30% 30% 30% TC 2.3 m2/day 2.3 m²/day or 0.23

m²/day(1) 0.23 m2/day

Opp 20 m2 5 m² 2 m2 (1) For local applications such as cracks and crevices

It is assumed that inhalatory exposure is negligible for powders used for dusting of wasps.

316

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----46: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure, determined by expert judgement46: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure, determined by expert judgement46: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure, determined by expert judgement46: Overview of default parameter values for secondary exposure, determined by expert judgement

ParameterParameterParameterParameter Sprays/triggers for pet Sprays/triggers for pet Sprays/triggers for pet Sprays/triggers for pet treatment (Consumer treatment (Consumer treatment (Consumer treatment (Consumer product spraying and product spraying and product spraying and product spraying and dustingdustingdustingdusting model 2 model 2 model 2 model 2 –––– pets) pets) pets) pets)

Powder for control of Powder for control of Powder for control of Powder for control of crawling insects crawling insects crawling insects crawling insects (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 2 dust pack model 2 dust pack model 2 dust pack model 2 dust pack applicators)applicators)applicators)applicators)

Powder for control of Powder for control of Powder for control of Powder for control of ectoparasites ectoparasites ectoparasites ectoparasites (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product (Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 2 dust pack model 2 dust pack model 2 dust pack model 2 dust pack applicators)applicators)applicators)applicators)

Fogging Fogging Fogging Fogging model 3 & model 3 & model 3 & model 3 & mistinmistinmistinmisting g g g model 1model 1model 1model 1

Spraying Spraying Spraying Spraying model 7model 7model 7model 7

Rtargeted spot Rcrack and crevice 10 g/min Rgeneral surface 0.65 g /sec 10 g/min 0.65 g/sec Rair space application 0.35 g/sec Relectrical evaporator Dep 80% 80% 80% 15% 80% Disl 30% 30% 3% 30% 30% TC 0.23 m²/day 0.23 m2/day 0.23 m²/day 2.3 m²/day 2.3 m²/day Opp 2 m² 5.26 m2 2 m² (1) 20 m² 20m²

(1) For lifestock: 5m²

317

The following assumptions were made when determining the parameters in Table: • sprays/triggers for pet treatment: the exposure rate of the applicator, experimentally

determined for surface spraying with pre-pressurised aerosol cans (TnG Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2), was used;

• powder for control of ectoparasites: the exposure rate of the applicator, experimentally determined for hand-held dust applicator packs for cracks and crevices (TnG Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2) was used. Parameters to calculate secondary exposure were assumed to be the same as those used for pre-pressurised aerosol cans, except for “release of product per unit of time”. The latter was taken from TnG Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 - hand-held dust applicator packs for cracks and crevices.

3.2.33.2.33.2.33.2.3 Effect assessmentEffect assessmentEffect assessmentEffect assessment

The indicator uses the Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL) to assess the effect of the active substance(s). An AOEL is a health-based exposure limit and is established on the basis of the toxicological properties of an active substance. The AOEL represents the internal (absorbed) dose available for systemic distribution from any route of absorption and is expressed as mg/kg bw/d. It is set on the basis of oral studies provided that no major route-specific differences are anticipated (Commission of the European Communities – DG SANCO, 2001). If the AOEL value is not available for an active substance, the Allowable Daily Intake (ADI) is used instead. An overview of the AOEL- and ADI-values used is given in table 3-47.

318

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----47: Overview of AOEL and ADI values 47: Overview of AOEL and ADI values 47: Overview of AOEL and ADI values 47: Overview of AOEL and ADI values for the relevant active substancesfor the relevant active substancesfor the relevant active substancesfor the relevant active substances

Active substanceActive substanceActive substanceActive substance AOELAOELAOELAOEL ADIADIADIADI

(mg/kg bw/d)(mg/kg bw/d)(mg/kg bw/d)(mg/kg bw/d) (mg/kg bw/d)(mg/kg bw/d)(mg/kg bw/d)(mg/kg bw/d)

allethrin NR 0,02

bioresmethrin NR 0,03

chlorpyrifos NR 0,01

cyfluthrin 0,02

cypermethrin NR 0,05

deltamethrin 0,0075

diazinon NR 0,002 esdepallethrin (= S-bioallethrin) NR 0,02

fenoxycarb NR 0,055

methylbromide NR 1

permethrin NR 0,05

phenothrin (d-) NR 0,07

piperonyl butoxide NR 0,2

propuxur 0,03

pyrethrins NR 0,04

resmethrin NR 0,125

tetrachlorvinphos NR 0,05

tetramethrin NR 0,02

transfluthrin NR 0,2 Source: European dossiers for the evaluation of the inclusion of the active substance in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC

3.2.43.2.43.2.43.2.4 Risk assessmentRisk assessmentRisk assessmentRisk assessment The indicator allows for an exposure assessment of the applicator, an assessment for secondary exposure and an assessment of the effect of the product. Distinction is made between various formulation types. The risk assessment is calculated as:

risk = effect

exposure

A risk quotient > 1 implies that the target group is at risk. Three target groups can be distinguished: • risk for the professional applicator; • risk for the non-professional applicator (application + secondary exposure): if the

applicator is the same person as the secondary exposed person (e.g. as is usually the case for ‘Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1’), both risk quotients can be summed;

• risk from secondary exposure (e.g. children)

319

The risk quotient was calculated for each of the products, listed in Annex 9 of Task 2. The results are presented in Table 3-48 grouped by exposure scenario. The ID number of professionally applied products (class A products) are indicated in boldboldboldbold. A risk quotient > 1 is indicated in red. Within each exposure scenario group, the products are listed in descending order of risk for the secondary exposed child. This was an arbirtrary choice. The detailed calculation sheets are available on a CD-rom, delivered together with this report. The following assumptions were made when applying the indicator: • a nominal density of 1 g/ml is taken into account (cf. EU models); • molecular weight pyrethrins: 316 – 374 g/mol, the arithmatic average of 345 g/mol

was taken into account; • Zerox P: product used to control fleas in lifestock. It was assumed that no secondary

exposure of children occurs. The treated surface taken into account is larger than that for pets;

• Bieva Spray: no mixing/loading assumed. It is assumed that the product is applied by means of a trigger;

• Kadox Spray: product to control ectoparasites at places where pets rest and sleep: product release rate for general surfaces is taken into account;

• Perma Sid, Total Insecticide: products to control crawling insects (craks and crevices) but also used to control ectoparasites at places where pets rest and sleep. According to the precautionary principle, the product release rate for general surfaces is taken into account (worst case) instead of the product release rate for cracks and crevices;

• Aerosol cans to control crawling insects: it was assumed that all applications are local (cracks and crevices);

• Exposure to electrical evaporators whilst installing the apparatus was considered not to be relevant when the apparatus is properly installed. Therefore, no risk quotient was calculated for the applicator for the scenario ‘Electrical evaporator amateur’. Consequently, no ‘risk quotient applicator = secondary exposed person’ was calculated either;

• It was assumed that for professional applications, the applicator does not remain in the room after the application. Consequently, no ‘risk quotient applicator = secondary exposed person’ was calculated for professional applications;

• A default emission rate of 50 mg/h was used for electrical evaporators.

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----48: Risk quotient of selected products for the different target groups48: Risk quotient of selected products for the different target groups48: Risk quotient of selected products for the different target groups48: Risk quotient of selected products for the different target groups

ProductProductProductProduct IDIDIDID RQ RQ RQ RQ applicatorapplicatorapplicatorapplicator

RQ RQ RQ RQ secondary secondary secondary secondary exposed exposed exposed exposed childchildchildchild

RQ secondary RQ secondary RQ secondary RQ secondary exposed exposed exposed exposed adultadultadultadult

RQ applicator RQ applicator RQ applicator RQ applicator = secondary = secondary = secondary = secondary exposed adultexposed adultexposed adultexposed adult

Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 ---- aerosol aerosol aerosol aerosol

Bolfo Direct 5998B 0,004 0,42 0,33 0,34 Ti Tox Total with bioallethrin 4601B 0,002 0,1 0,01 0,01 Kaporex all crawling insects 1200B 0,002 0,01 0,003 0,01

Ti Tox Total 1187B 0,001 0,01 0,004 0,01

Topscore Spray 896B 0,003 0,01 0,003 0,006

320





Vapona Spray crawling insects 885B 0,001 0,01 0,0002 0,002

KO Spray crawling insects 1501B 0,0003 0,002 0,00003 0,0004

Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 ---- trigger pets trigger pets trigger pets trigger pets

Dalf Spray 1396B 0,0003 0,3 0,18 0,3

Pinto 9387B 0,0003 0,08 0,0006 0,08

Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 ---- trigger trigger trigger trigger

Bieva Spray 793B 0,0003 0,89 0,71 0,89

Topscore Pal 2890B 0,0003 0,89 0,71 0,89

Kaporex all crawling insects liquid 3396B 0,0003 0,2 0,0004 0,2

Perma Sid 2401B 0,0001 0,18 0,0001 0,18

Total Insecticide 2301B 0,0001 0,18 0,0001 0,18

Kadox Spray 398B 0,0003 0,16 0,0003 0,16

ConsumConsumConsumConsumer product spraying and dusting model 1 er product spraying and dusting model 1 er product spraying and dusting model 1 er product spraying and dusting model 1 ---- aerosol aerosol aerosol aerosol

Detrans OB FIK 3004B 0,002 26,94 22,45 22,46

Detrans WB FIK 2105B 0,002 26,94 22,45 22,46

Air Control 3497B 0,004 0,42 0,33 0,34

Vapona Anti Wasp 6989B 0,004 0,11 0,09 0,09 Ti Tox Total with Bioallethrin 4601B 0,01 0,09 0,08 0,09

Fly-Kill 401B 0,01 0,01 0,003 0,01

HGX Spray 1201B 0,01 0,01 0,003 0,01

Insect Stop 8887B 0,002 0,01 0,001 0,003

Itec 1099B 0,01 0,01 0,003 0,01 Kapo flying insects with natural vegetable pyrethrins 3296B 0,01 0,01 0,002 0,01

Kapo all flying insects 8687B 0,01 0,01 0,002 0,01

Ti Tox Total 1187B 0,004 0,01 0,004 0,01

Topscore Spray 896B 0,01 0,01 0,003 0,01

Zerox 3999B 0,01 0,01 0,003 0,01

Zerox PA 3579B 0,003 0,01 0,002 0,01

Diagnos Spray 1300B 0,01 0,007 0,001 0,008

Detrans CIK 500B 0,001 0,001 0,00002 0,001 Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product Consumer product spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting spraying and dusting model 1 model 1 model 1 model 1 ---- trigger trigger trigger trigger

Insectivor vrac 4778B 0,003 0,1 0,08 0,09

Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 ---- aerosol pets aerosol pets aerosol pets aerosol pets Bayer Antiparasitical Spray 104B 0,0003 0,21 0,16 0,16

Bolfo Spray 3279B 0,0003 0,1 0,08 0,08

Vermikill Insecticide Spray 3399B 0,001 0,02 0,0002 0,001

321





Vitakraft Insecticide Spray 4701B 0,001 0,02 0,0002 0,001

Defencare Spray 494B 0,001 0,01 0,0002 0,001

Consumer product spraying aConsumer product spraying aConsumer product spraying aConsumer product spraying and dusting model 2 nd dusting model 2 nd dusting model 2 nd dusting model 2 ---- dust canister pets dust canister pets dust canister pets dust canister pets

Bolfo Powder 3079B 0,0001 0,87 0,51 0,51

Permas D 2683B 0,00002 0,12 0,001 0,001 Bayer Antiparasitical Powder 304B 0,00001 0,1 0,08 0,08

Canitex Powder 1582B 0,00004 0,03 0,0002 0,0002

Max Insecticide Powder 1698B 0,00003 0,02 0,0002 0,0002

Antilouse Powder 5384B 0,000003 0,003 0,0002 0,0002

Zerox P 4383B 0,00002 NR 0,003 0,003

Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 Consumer product spraying and dusting model 2 ---- dust canister dust canister dust canister dust canister Baygon Powder crawling insects 4479B 0,0002 0,38 0,31 0,31

Almetex 877B 0,0001 0,01 0,001 0,001

Vespa 402B 0,0001 0,005 0,00005 0,0002

Baygon Ant Powder 3805B 0,00004 0,002 0,00003 0,0001

K-Othrine insect powder 599B 0,00004 0,002 0,00003 0,0001

Mirazyl D 501B 0,00004 0,002 0,00003 0,0001

Pokon Ant Stop 799B 0,00004 0,002 0,00003 0,0001

Vapona Ant Powder 599B 0,00004 0,002 0,00002 0,0001

Electrical evaporator amateurElectrical evaporator amateurElectrical evaporator amateurElectrical evaporator amateur Vapona electrical evaporator 6797B NR 0,87 0,95 NR

Vapona Tablet 1680B NR 0,45 0,48 NR Vlido electrical antimosquito 2095B NR 0,45 0,48 NR

Mafu electrical evaporator 4399B NR 0,43 0,46 NR Baygon electrical evaporator 1181B NR 0,43 0,46 NR

Pynamin Forte Mat 40 290B NR 0,38 0,41 NR

Fogging model 3 (professionals)Fogging model 3 (professionals)Fogging model 3 (professionals)Fogging model 3 (professionals)

Pyretrex Fogger 1296B1296B1296B1296B 0,002 1,165 0,003 NR

Misting model 1 (profesMisting model 1 (profesMisting model 1 (profesMisting model 1 (professionals)sionals)sionals)sionals)

Pybuthrin 33 4486B4486B4486B4486B 0,2 3,37 0,002 NR

Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1Spraying model 1

Empire 200 2597B 0,59 15,78 0,18 0,77

K-Othrine Flow 25 2584B 0,09 2,5 0,000002 0,09

K-Othrine Flow 7,5 3785B 0,03 0,54 0,000003 0,03

Smash Killer CE10 5305B5305B5305B5305B 0,33 0,53 0,00003 NR

Foxide 5782B5782B5782B5782B 0,01 0,001 0,0001 NR

Spraying model 7 (professionals)Spraying model 7 (professionals)Spraying model 7 (professionals)Spraying model 7 (professionals)

Integral Blat 1598B1598B1598B1598B 1,74 1603,93 102,68 NR

Pybuthrin 33 4486B4486B4486B4486B 0,07 62,4 0,02 NR

322





Integral Tox 4200B4200B4200B4200B 0,02 21,08 0,01 NR

From Table 3-48 it is clear that for most of the products, none of the target groups are at risk (risk quotient < 1). The products which, according to the indicator, pose a risk to one or more target groups are listed hereafter (risk quotients indicated in red in Table 3-29). The probable reason for the high risk quotients is also given: • Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1 – aerosol: Detrans OB FIK and

Detrans WB FIK: high risk quotients for secondary exposure due to the relatively high vapour pressure (44 mPa) of esdepallethrin;

• Fogging model 3 (professionals): Pyretrex Fogger: high risk quotients for secondary exposed child due to long duration of the treatment (40 minutes) which leads to a high deposited concentration and thus a high potential dermal contact risk for playing children;

• Misting model 1 (professionals): Pybuthrin 33: high risk quotients for secondary exposed child due to long duration of the treatment (40 minutes) which leads to a high deposited concentration and thus a high potential dermal contact risk for playing children;

• Spraying model 1: o Empire 200: the high risk quotient for secondary exposed child is due to a

relatively long duration of the treatment (5 minutes) and to a lesser extend to a deposition rate of 80%;

o K-Othrine Flow 25: the high risk quotient for secondary exposed child is due to a relatively long duration of the treatment (5 minutes) and to a deposition rate of 80%;

• Spraying model 7 (professionals): o Integral Blat: the high risk quotient for the applicator is due long duration of

the treatment (47 minutes), combined with a rather low AOEL-value (2 µg/kg BW.d) for diazinon. The high risk quotient for the secondary exposed persons is mainly due to the rather high vapour pressure of diazinon (12 mPa), which results in a rather high saturated air concentration and thus a high potential for inhalation exposure. A high potential for dermal exposure due to a treatment duration of 47 minutes and a deposition rate of 80% adds to the high risk quotient for the secondary exposed child;

o Pybuthrin 33: the high risk quotient for the secondary exposed child is due to the rather long duration of the treatment (47 minutes), combined with a deposition rate of 80%, which leads to a high dermal exposure potential of the playing child;

o Integral Tox: cf. Pybuthrin 33. No data for hand exposure were available for ‘Spraying model 7’ (professionals). Consequently, the risk quotients for that scenario are underestimated. The risk quotients, given in Table 3-48, represent the impact of the biocidal products on human health, in particular on the health of the applicator and the secondary exposed

323

persons. The relevance of each impact for Belgium in a certain year can be calculated by multiplying the risk quotient by the amount of the product sold in that year. The risk quotients can be used to identify hazardous products, which should be subject to reduction measures. However, several assumptions were made in the calculation of these risk quotients. To adequately interprete these figures, these uncertainties should be addressed. This is discussed hereafter.

3.3 Uncertainties in the application of risk assessment indicator

3.3.13.3.13.3.13.3.1 Exposure assessmentExposure assessmentExposure assessmentExposure assessment The choice of an adequate exposure scenario is essential to accurately assess exposure. This requires a good insight of the treatment type and the application device. This may be hampered by: • inaccessible information on use characteristics of the product; • the specificity of the product use. As mentioned in task 2, it is not evident to reveal the application device for a product. Easy access to the authorisation dossiers, from which this kind of information can be retrieved (assuming that a product is not authorized if the information, needed to carry out a human exposure assessment, is not adequately provided), should be provided. This will resolve the inaccessibility of information on use characteristics of the product. The specificity of the product use can limit the availability of an adequate exposure scenario. From table 3-42 it is clear that adequate exposure scenarios are lacking for several of the identified formulation/application device combinations. For the following products, it can be assumed that no exposure scenario is needed for the applicator if properly used: • Cat/dog collar • Bait in bait box • Gel/paste applied with spraygun • Ready to use stick • Plastic platelet Except for ‘bait in bait box’ and ‘gel/paste applied with spraygun’, secondary exposure might be significant for these products. The combination ‘liquified gas/fumigation device’ refers to the fumigation of spaces with methyl bromide. Exposure scenarios are probably available from the applicators. A thorough literature search is needed to identify the available data on the exposure scenarios which are indicated in Table 3-49. ‘Professional only’ combinations are indicated in boldboldboldbold. The available data should be completed to establish accurate exposure scenarios.

324

Table 3Table 3Table 3Table 3----49: Exposure scenarios to be developed49: Exposure scenarios to be developed49: Exposure scenarios to be developed49: Exposure scenarios to be developed

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application dApplication dApplication dApplication deviceeviceeviceevice TreatmentTreatmentTreatmentTreatment ApplicatorApplicatorApplicatorApplicator Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary exposureexposureexposureexposure

aerosol "one shot" aerosol sprayer

Flying and crawling insects, no animals or persons present during application X X

collar collar Ectoparasites on cats and dogs - X

liquified gasliquified gasliquified gasliquified gas fumigation devicefumigation devicefumigation devicefumigation device Crawling Crawling Crawling Crawling insectsinsectsinsectsinsects XXXX XXXX

plastic platelet plastic platelet Ants in and around the residence - X


Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Ants in and around the residence Flying and crawling insects X X

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution brush brush brush brush LacqueLacqueLacqueLacquer against crawling insectsr against crawling insectsr against crawling insectsr against crawling insects XXXX XXXX

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution triggertriggertriggertrigger

Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on walls and application directly on walls and application directly on walls and application directly on walls and objectsobjectsobjectsobjects XXXX XXXX

ready to use stick stick Ants in and around the residence - X


It should be born in mind that some of the scenarios proposed in the Technical notes for Guidance and referred to in Table 3-41, have limitations: • Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1: the conditions of the simulation

exercises may not be a true representation of the way a product is meant to be used. The selection of application period, followed by dwell period is the key determinant of predicted deposition and dose through inhalation;

• Spraying model 7: no data for hand exposure, values based on small database, possible mismatch between techniques and geometry of the buildings in the USA and Europe;

• Misting model 1: data collected from a survey of application of amenity herbicides by controlled droplet application. The data are specific to this type of activity.

These restrictions question the accuracy of the scenarios. Furthermore, the calculation of dermal secondary exposure is based on 1 application and an exposure time of 7 days. However, in some scenarios, more than 1 application/week is taken into account (e.g. ‘Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1’: 90 days/year). The accumulation of the product that occurs in those scenarios is not taken into account when calculating dermal secondary exposure. The secondary exposure through inhalation is calculated from the saturated air concentration of the active substance. This parameter is calculated from intrinsic characteristics such as vapour pressure of the active substance, molecular wieght of the active substance, the gas constant and the temperature. As such, the saturated air concentration is independent of the applied amount of product or the room volume. This makes the exposure scenario less accurate.

3.3.23.3.23.3.23.3.2 Effect assessmentEffect assessmentEffect assessmentEffect assessment The AOEL values used in this study, originate from European dossiers for the evaluation of the inclusion of the active substance in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC. In that framework, the AOEL ensures that the presence of an active substance in a PPP, used in a manner consistent with the label instructions and good plant protection practice, has no harmful effects on the health of operators (users of the PPP, i.e. mixer/loader or applicator), workers (persons re-entering treated crops, etc.) or bystanders (other persons in vicinity of a pesticide application) (Commission of the European Communities – DG SANCO, 2001). The test conditions to determine the AOEL value thus represent an occupational exposure situation (8 hours exposure). However, such conditions are not always representative for secondary exposure. Consequently, the use of these conservative AOEL values to assess the risk for secondary exposed persons will overestimate the risk. This should be born in mind when proposing reduction measures, based on the risk quotients. The AOEL might not be established for every active substance. In that case the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is considered. From Table it is clear that this was the case for a lot of the active substances. The AOEL takes into account the oral, dermal and inhalatory exposure route, whilst the ADI solely takes into account the oral exposure route. This implies that the ADI might underestimate the effect of active substances contained in products for which the dermal and/or inhalatory exposure is also significant. Furthermore, an unwanted effect of a biocidal product might also be provoked by an additive. For example methylene chloride in Ti-tox Total with Bioallethrin is responsible for


the labelling of the product with R40 (‘irreversible effects are not excluded’). AOEL values for additive substances are rather scarce, which hampers the introduction of additives in the indicator. Not taking into account such additives misrepresents the actual risk of the product. Various PT18 biocides contain more than one active substance. In this report, the exposure/effect ratio for each of these active substances is calculated and the risk of the product is represented by the sum of these ratios. This implies that the active substances do not influence one another with regard to effects. It can be assumed that this is not always the case and that another aggregation of the AOEL values is required.


4444 RRRREFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCES

AG. (2004). "Pesticides with drift retardant less a flight risk." from http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/aganswers/story.asp?storyID=3702.

Agra-CEAS-Consulting (2002). Integrated crop management systems in the EU, European Commission DG Environment.

ALT (2005). Code van goede landbouwpraktijken: Bestrijdingsmiddelen, Administratie Land- en Tuinbouw - Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

APAQ-W. (2006). "Avantages de la production de pommes de terre Terra Nostra." from http://apaqw.horus.be/code/Pages.asp?Page=2279&CMS_Template_ID.

Arnich, N., P. Cervantés, et al. ( 2005). Evaluation des risques pour la santé humaine liés à une exposition au fipronil, AFSSA and AFSSE.

Baker, B.P., Benbrook, C.M., Groth E., Benbrook, C.M. (2002). Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. food additives and contaminants, 19:427-446.

BIPRO (2004). Assessing economic impacts of the specific measures to be part of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, European Commission, Brussels.

CADCO. "Centre Agricole pour le développement des Céréales et des Oléoprotéagineux ", from http://www.cadcoasbl.be/.

CMH. " La Charte PERFECT." from http://www.prov-liege.be/charteperfect/. Commission of the European Communities – DG SANCO (2001). Guidance for the setting of acceptable operator exposure levels (AOELs): draft guidance document. 7531/VI/95 rev.6.

CORPEP Cellule d'Orientation Régionale pour la Protection des Eaux contre les Pesticides: Référentiel des chartes phytosanitaires agricoles, Comité technique de l'eau, Préfecture de la Région Bretagne.

CRA-W. (a). "Service d’aide à la décision sur les ravageurs en céréales ", from http://cra.wallonie.be/listefiches.php?fiche=65.

CRA-W. (b). "Avis "Pomme de terre"." from http://www.cra.wallonie.be/services/pdt/index.php.


CSIRO (2002). Primary industries standing commitee spray drift management - Principles, strategies and supporting information - PIS (SCARM) Report 82, CSIRO PUBLISHING.


Debongnie, P., S. Beernaerst, et al. (2003). "Groundwaters contaminations by pesticides in the Walloon Region."

Devleeschouwer, C. and F. Cors (2006). "Développement de biofiltres destinés à traiter les eaux de lavage des pulvérisateurs." CRA-W infos 10.

Ducatillon, C. (2003). "Utilisation de la résistance variétale pour la lutte contre le mildiou de la pomme de terre." Sillon Belge. European Commission (2002). Technical notes for guidance: human exposure to biocidal products – guidance on exposure estimation. Report prepared under contract B4-3040/2000/291079/MAR/E2 for the European Commission, DG Environment.

Fishel, F. (2006). "Personal Protective Equipment for Working With Pesticides." from http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/agengin/g01917.htm.

GAWI. "La production fruitière intégrée." from http://www.asblgawi.com/.

Gril, J.-J. (2004). "La pollution phytosanitaire: Le rôle des zones tampons et des fossés." from http://www.cemagref.fr/Informations/Ex-rechr/systemes-aqua/gril/gril-exemple.htm.

Harcz, P. (2005). Belgian pesticide uses and risk indicators methodology. CODA-CERVA 23 p.

Hermann, O. (2003). "Protection raisonnée contre les maladies foliaires crytogamiques en betterave sucrière." Le Betteravier 10-14.

Hermann, O. (2005). "Pratiques actuelles de protection phytosanitaire en culture betteravière belge." Le Betteravier 8-10.

Hovan, M. (2004). Etude des pratiques phytosanitaires des agriculteurs bourguignons dans la perspective de la mise en place d'un nouveau procédé de traitement des rejets phytosanitaires. Dijon, ENESAD and INRA. Mémoire de fin d'étude en vue de l'obtention du grade d'ingénieur de l'ENESAD: 107.


INTEGRA. "Certification and inspection body for agriculture and food processing." from http://www.integra-bvba.be/index.html.

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, Bedford, UK.

IRBAB/KBIVB. "Institut Royal Belge pour l'Amélioration de la Betterave / Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut tot Verbetering van de Biet." from http://www.irbab.be/.


ITV, ARVALIS, et al. (2005). "Amélioration de l'application des produits phytopharmaceutiques au niveau environnement: étude des facteurs permettant de limiter la dérive." Appel à projet ADAR.

Jadin, E., J. Marot, et al. (2004). "Phytos et santé de l'applicateur." Plein Champ 20: 6-7.


Ken Giles, D. (2004). Precision Agriculture and Drift Management. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering, University of California.

Lacas, J.-G. (2005). Processus de dissipation des produits phytosanitaires dans les zones tampons enherbées. Etude expérimentale et modélisation en vue de limiter la contamination des eaux de surface, Université de Montpellier II.

Lamastus-Stanford, F. E. and D. R. Shaw (2004). "Evaluation of Site-Specific Weed Management Implementing the Herbicide Application Decision Support System (HADSS)." Precision Agriculture 5(4): 411-426.

LCG. "LandbouwCentrum Granen, eiwitrijke gewassen, oliehoudende zaden en kleine industrieteelten Vlaanderen." from http://www.west-vlaanderen.be/upload/lcg/.

Lindhard, H., Paaske, K., Bengtsson, V., Hockenhull, J. (2004). Orchard testing of new, alternative fungicides against apple scab. Newsletter for the Danish Research Center for Organic Farming.

Maraite, H., W. Steurbaut, et al. (2004). Final report: development of awareness tools for a sustainable use of pesticides, Belgian Science Policy, Universiteit Gent, UCL, CERVA-CODA.


Marquart, J., D. H. Brouwer, et al. (2003). "Determinants of Dermal Exposure Relevant for Exposure Modelling in Regulatory Risk Assessment." Ann Occup Hyg 47(8): 599-607.

Mc Lean, J. (2001). Pesticide Drift Management, Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Alberta Government, Canada.

Michelante, D., D. Haine, et al. (2002). Quelles perspectives pour la lutte contre le mildiou en 2002 ?, CRAGx-SSA Libramont.

Michelante, D., N. Codron, et al. (2004). "Essais de stratégies de lutte contre le mildiou de la pomme de terre en agriculture biologique: alternative aux fongicides cupriques - avertissements, résistance variétale, pré-germination. ." CRA-W Rapport d'expérimentation.


Nuyttens, D., B. Sonck, et al. (2004). "Project presentation: Protecting the Flemish environment against drift - the importance of drift-reducing techniques." Aspects of Applied Biology 71: 191-196.

OECD (2003). Report of the OECD Pesticide Risk Reduction Steering Group Seminar on Compliance and Risk Reduction, Paris.

OECD (2004). Seminar on pesticide risk reduction through good container management, Bonn, Germany.

PCA. "Interprovinciaal proefcentrum voor de aardappelteelt." from http://www.pcainfo.be.

PHYTOFAR, CRP, et al. (2006). "Lors des travaux de pulvérisation: penser à sa propre protection." Sillon Belge 3222: 4-5.

PHYTOFAR. "Bonnes pratiques pour l'agriculteur." From http://www.phytofar.be/fr/sec_bon.htm.

PHYTOFAR. (2006). from http://www.phytofar.be/.

PHYTOMIEUX. "Axe 1: Améliorer les performances et l'efficacité des pulvérisateurs - Fiche 1b : Promouvoir l'aspect environnemental des équipements (matériel et aménagement)." from http://www.trame.org/phytomieux/base_challenge/fiche1b/Fiche1b.htm.

PROCULTURE. "Pour une lutte optimale contre la septoriose du froment." from http://procultureweb.fymy.ucl.ac.be:8080/Welcome.do.

Pussemier, L., C. De Vleeschouwer, et al. (2004). "Self-made biofilters for on-farm clean-up of pesticides wastes." Outlooks on Pest Management DOI: 10.1564/15apl106: 60-63.


Pussemier, L., P. Debongnie, et al. (2001). Réduction des emissions de produits phytosanitaires vers les eaux superficielles par concertation avec les agriculteurs - Projet pilote pour le bassin du Nil (Walhain-St-Paul) : Rapport final, Ministère des Classes Moyennes et de l'Agriculture - Centre d'Etude et de Recherches Vétérinaires et Agrochimiques: 62.

Réal, B. (2002). "Pollutions diffuses par les produits phytosanitaires: propositions de solutions et méthodes." Perspectives agricoles 282: 18-21.

Spanoghe, P., W. Steurbaut, et al. (2002). "The effect of adjuvants on atomisation of pesticides." Meded Rijksuniv Gent Fak Landbouwkd Toegep Biol Wet. 67(2): 129-132.



Steurbaut (pers. comm.). University of Ghent, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Crop Protection. Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent. Phone 09 264 60 10; Fax 09 264 41 82.

Steurbaut, W., Garreyn, F. (2006, in press). Do Belgian Greenlabels attribute to environmental sustainability ? in Sustainability of certified production systems : the case of labels in the food sector.

Timme, G., Walz-Tylla, B. (2004). Effects of food preparation and processing on pesticide residues in commodities of plant origin. In Pesticide residues in food and drinking water : Human exposure and risks (p.121-148). Edited by Denis Hamilton and Stephen Crossley.

Tomerlin, J.R., Petersen, B.J. (2004). Diets and dietary modelling for dietary exposure assessment. In Pesticide residues in food and drinking water : Human exposure and risks (p. 167-211). Edited by Denis Hamilton and Stephen Crossley.

Ucar, T. and F. Hall (2001). "Windbreaks as a pesticide drift mitigation strategy: a review."

University-Nebraska-Lincoln (2005). "Recognize pesticide hazards."


Van Huylenbroeck, G., K. Mondelaers, et al. (2006 (in press)). Draft Chapter 3 (version 08/03/06): Do Belgian Greenlabels attribute to environmental sustainability? Sustainability of certified production systems: the case of labels in the food sector, UGent, CODA/CERVA and ULG.

van Loon, C. D. (1992). "Integrated crop management, the basis for environment friendly crop protection of potatoes." European Journal of Plant Pathology 98(0): 231-240.

Vercruysse, F. (2000). Occupational exposure and risk assessment during and after application of pesticides. Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologisghe Wetttenschappen, Universiteit Gent. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor in Applied Biological Sciences: 201.

Vercruysse, F., W. Steurbaut, et al. (1999). Exposure to pesticides in apple and pear orchards. Proc. XI Symposium Pesticide Chemistry, Cremona, Pavese, Italy: La Goliardica.

Walklate, P. (2004). Modelling Canopy Interactions for Drift Mitigation

West, J. S., C. Bravo, et al. (2003). "The potential of optical canopy measurement for targeted control of field crop diseases." Annual Review of Phytopathology 41: 593-614.

Wittouck, D., K. Boone, et al. (2001). Graangewassen: overzicht van het onderzoek 2001 - Wetenschappelijk verslag, POVLT, Provincie West-Vlaanderen.

Wittouck, D., K. Boone, et al. (2002). Graangewassen: overzicht van het onderzoek 2002 - Wetenschappelijk verslag, POVLT, Provincie West-Vlaanderen.


Wolf, R. E. (2004). Ground Field Sprayers for Drift Management. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Woods, N. (2004). Australian Developments in Spray Drift Management. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Centre for Pesticide Application & Safety, University of Queensland, Australia.


TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE TASK 4: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE IMPACTAND BIOCIDE IMPACTAND BIOCIDE IMPACTAND BIOCIDE IMPACT It is very difficult to classify the actions to be implemented for reduction of pesticides since for most of them, quantitative data concerning their impacts are not available. Here are thus presented the basic preconditions required for impact reduction before all other punctual actions having an influence on particular compartments. They include the popularisation of the good phytosanitary practices, the use of decision supporting elements… and more generally, the implementation of the integrated crop management. After the implementation of these, punctual actions can be set up to go further in the impact reduction.

1111 AGRONOMICAGRONOMICAGRONOMICAGRONOMIC ASPECTSASPECTSASPECTSASPECTS

1.1 Extension of good phytosanitary practices 1.1.11.1.11.1.11.1.1 Usefulness Usefulness Usefulness Usefulness andandandand objectives objectives objectives objectives The current tendency is to propose guides, charters and reference frames of "good practices" to make evolve the phytosanitary practices. Nevertheless, this type of tools seems to only be an awareness making to avoidance of the practices with major risk. These charters and reference frames are necessarily defined for very broad territories, which can not take into account the diversity of the agricultural situations. They are generally presented as lists of elementary practices, which little integrate the interactions between techniques. However, these interactions are of prime importance in a integrated approach aiming at reducing the dependence of farming systems to the pesticides. They also often determine the environmental impacts of the systems. Going towards a logic of integrated protection, even of integrated production, is basically different from a sequential implementation of a list of elementary good practices. The interactions between technical choices and necessary adaptations according to the diversity of the situations should thus be integrated in the drawing up of phytosanitary guides (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005). For an effective adoption by the farmers, the objectives are thus to release "good practices" adapted to their specific situation and individual follow-up taking the whole farm into account. The measures should also be easy and providing concrete advantages to the farmers. Otherwise, the proactive farmers would have to search how they can adapt these practices to their situation and on the other hand, the "negative" farmers will not be reached by these measures. 1.1.21.1.21.1.21.1.2 MMMMethods of extension of good phytosanitary practicesethods of extension of good phytosanitary practicesethods of extension of good phytosanitary practicesethods of extension of good phytosanitary practices As already said above, successful adoption of good phytosanitary practices depends upon a number of factors, notably farmers' perception of ‘relative advantage’ and the way the approach is communicated and learned by them through practical application. In terms of change management theory, the current emphasis on collaborative partnerships and learning offers an effective means of managing change in complex environments (Elsey and Sirichoti 2001). All studies about this subject indicate that increased knowledge from farmer participatory environmental education is linked to better pest management behaviours (Price 2001).


Indeed, the participatory approach to environmental protection has been widely advocated by farmers themselves. In fact, the farmers have for a long time supported the idea that participatory methods, cooperation, involvement and voluntary approaches would achieve better results in the long run. The authorities have to recognise the importance of public participation and bottom-up involvement. With this approach, legislation becomes the last option, if all other methods fail. As a good example of this approach, an informal agreement can be made between the farmers’ organisations and the authorities. The motive for this voluntarily work is to use a bottom-up approach to improve environment quality and to have a proactive means that would be ahead of the authorities. An important part of the work is to increase knowledge and awareness on cropping methods that are important with regards to the respect of the environment. It is possible to engage farmers in environmental work with voluntary and participatory methods, particularly if it is a mutually advantageous situation for both the farmers and the government. The success of the project on pesticide management will strengthen the farmers' reputation as professionals. It will give more political and social credits to the farmers as a group than direct economical profit to individual farmers. The outcome of getting the farmers involved through training and participation is perhaps not the quickest way of gaining environmental improvements but in the long run it's the only way to sustainable development (Weppner, Elgethun et al. 2005). An important factor for success of this type of project has proven to be the great number of organisations involved (Weppner, Elgethun et al. 2005). Experience has demonstrated that ones could make evolve the farmers' practices if all the partners/organisations get involved and diffuse the same message. Indeed, the message's repetition leads the farmers to question themselves. They thus progressively integrate the message as a standard. Therefore, the message delivered by the different actors should be coherent. The argumentation has to be well prepared (PHYTOMIEUX 2005). Other studies report also that younger, more-educated, and less-experienced farmers form a group that expresses friendlier attitudes toward the environment. It is suggested that policy makers should primarily focus their attempt on this particular group for more sustainable practices to be more quickly and easily expanded (Papadaki-klavdianou, Giasemi et al. 2000). 1.1.31.1.31.1.31.1.3 Means and actions to be implementedMeans and actions to be implementedMeans and actions to be implementedMeans and actions to be implemented For what concerns the protective equipment use, one-time educational intervention has be proven to lead to a successful increase. However, more-intensive programs are needed to achieve greater reductions in personal pesticide exposure (Perry and Layde 2003). That's also the case for all other good practices. Concerning the adoption of the good practices, the farmers can be classified in three categories: the "leaders", the "followers" and the "negatives". The sensitising of the leaders is on the good way and the followers begin to implement the good practices. Nevertheless, further input is still needed for going on with the followers and the negatives. For this, the argumentation should be worked with attention. Moreover, attention should also be paid to the messages, avoiding messages creating mental block among the farmers. The farmers need technico-economic arguments from first experimentations to make the decision of changing their practices (PHYTOMIEUX 2005). Therefore, to increase knowledge and awareness on cropping methods that are important with regards to the respect of the environment, evening courses are needed as well as study trips to other farmers, or on-field experiments (Weppner, Elgethun et al. 2005).


However, the technical data from the applied research is not always sufficient to impose changes in the practices. Other elements of decision must be taken into account. For the farmers, the implementation of the good practices requires investments in time, in equipment, information… Within a difficult economic context, the farmers have reluctances to accept this additional cost facing the world-wide competition which is not subject to the same social and environmental pressure. We should thus create the tools which will help them to find the most economically acceptable solution (PHYTOMIEUX 2005). Most of the proposed solutions have been largely studied and the technical and environmental arguments seem to be sufficient. However, difficulties to adopt these are still often noticed. These farmers' blocks are still only partially explained. A further work with sociologists is perhaps necessary to try to explain the reasons of these blocks and find the way to unblock (PHYTOMIEUX 2005).

1.2 Evaluation of the impact of decision supporting systems on farmers' practices

This point has analysed in Tasks 2 and 3. As already mentioned, for the farmers, the interests of the decision support systems are multiple (CRP 2004); (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005):

• Reduction of ppp application (by reduction of application frequency or application targeting)

� Costs reduction; � Reduction of the environmental impact. • Application of the most adapted ppp at the most convenient times � Maximum efficiency; � Best performance.

However, it is important to note that according to the situation e.g. the pest pressure, the climate,… following the advices released by these decision supporting systems will or not reduce the ppp applications. Indeed, in some worst cases, following the warnings will not lead to a ppp use reduction compared to systematic treatments.

The use of the decision supporting systems is still limited. Indeed, if the Belgian farmers regularly consult two principal sources: the company sales representative and the decision support system, the company sales representative stays the most important information source. For example, only 33% of the farmers planting potatoes and 57% of the farmers planting sugar beet follow the recommendations of decision support system on when and how to spray their fields. These services are still viewed as a source of information rather than a tool for deciding on treatment specifications. According to some farmers, the usefulness of these systems is restricted because the time to carry out the treatment is too short. Therefore, in field crops, the integrated pest management remains an extremely theoretical concept even if the bases of reasoning exist. On the other hand, the various decision support systems for vegetable and fruit crops are more often used and generally in the frame of integrated pest management. It was also noticed that the use of decision support systems is related to the type of training a farmer had (agricultural / not agricultural). Farmers with agricultural training are


more likely to use the decision support systems (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004); (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003). For an efficient use of these systems, a solid formation should be planned. In this way, the farmers will have the basis to efficiently adapt the forecastings to their own situations. Indeed, the farmers have reluctance to rely on these general forecastings released for a broad territory. Therefore, they rely more on the personalised advices of the company sales representative that they find more adapted to their fields. However, the company representatives’ recommendations are driven by commercial considerations and therefore cannot be seen as without bias. In Belgium, several decision supporting software systems do already exist. These are available on CD's or on Internet. Nevertheless, in this case too, their uses are limited. Reasons of this poor use are multiple. The first may be that 71% of the Belgian farmers still have no computer and 76% don't have access to Internet (INS 2003). The second reason seems to be that the farmers are reluctant to rely on the advices released by these systems. Indeed, these are not always totally reliable, sometimes there are bugs and an error can have serious consequences. Moreover, the farmer has to input the good data into the software and this supposes, in this case too, good formation as well as good observations. "Integrated production" labeling is often associated with a better use of the decision support system. Indeed, the farmers which are sensitive to this type of production have integrated the basis needed for an efficient use of the decision support system. Besides, the use of these systems are often mandatory in the label specifications. Actually, to efficiently follow the advices released by the decision supporting elements, the farmers must have adopted the concept of the integrated crop management. Therefore, a sensitizing and a formation in the general frame of the integrated crop management will give the better results in term of use of these systems.

1.3 Reduction of drift and impact on water The "drift topic" has been analyzed in depth in Task 2. Here, specific actions for drift reduction are prioritized. To avoid spray drift, before implementation of specific measures, some elementary preconditions have to be fulfilled. These preconditions are the respect of good phytosanitary practices and particularly:

- Avoid spraying on windy days and check the wind speed and direction; - Check humidity and temperature; - Choose low drift-prone formulations; - Adapt the height and direction of release; - Adapt sprayer speed; - Adapt fan speed; - Adapt spraying pressure; - Adapt nozzle type; - Check the stage of crop development.

After the implementation of the preconditions and in order to go further in the drift reduction, specific measures can be set up. These basic anti-drift measures are presented here in order of their efficiency. For more efficiency, several of these can be associated.


In field crops / boom spraying:

- The most efficient way of drift reduction will be a vegetation barrier (higher than the crop) associated with boom air assistance. Indeed, this will allow a drift reduction up to 95-99% (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004). It is important to note that there are some restrictions to the use of air assistance (described in Task 2).

- Specific sprayers such as band sprayers, which can be used for weed control in sugar beets or maize, allows drift reduction ranging from 75% to 90%, depending on the authors (Rautmann); (SPF 2005).

- Then, a vegetation barrier alone also allows reductions from 55% for the same height than the crop up to 75% for barrier 0.5 m higher than the crop and 90% for barrier 1 m higher than the crop (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004).

- Using air induction nozzles is another simple and efficient mean for drift mitigation. Indeed, dependent on the nozzle size and the spray pressure, a drift reduction of 50% up to 90% is possible (Rautmann); (SPF 2005).

- Another specific sprayer equipment that is to say air assistance (used alone) will also allow to reduce drift (pay attention to the use conditions!). Sprayers with air assistance achieve drift reduction of 50% in crops with a minimum height of 0.3 m and 75% in crops with a minimum height of 0.5 m (Rautmann); (SPF 2005).

In orchards:

- Specific sprayers such as tunnel sprayers can achieve a reduction in spray drift of 85-90% and even up to 99%. However, this cannot been widely adopted in Belgium because orchards are not adapted (Nuyttens, Sonck et al. 2004); (SPF 2005); (Rautmann).

- Vegetation barrier acting as windbreak can also allow drift reduction ranging from 50% (without leaves) to 90% and more (full leaf stage). Results depend on the leaf density and on the wind speed (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004); (SPF 2005).

- Other specific sprayer, that is to say cross-flow fan sprayer with reflection shields, allows drift reduction of 55% (Nuyttens, Sonck et al. 2004).

- Targeting technologies are other means for drift reduction. Depending on the used technology and the planting system, reductions can vary largely. With systems of canopy detection, reduction achieved is at least 50% and up to 90% (SPF 2005); (Jaeken, Vercruysse et al.; Rautmann). Other more sophisticated allow further reductions. However, these systems generally remain expensive (Wolf 2004).

- In air blast sprayers for orchards, air induction nozzles lead to drift reduction, too. The reduction is about 50% (SPF 2005); (Rautmann). Therefore, according to Rautmann, further steps are necessary.

Nevertheless, according to PRIBEL calculations applied on the various treatment scenarios for ware potatoes (Task 3), the global impact of these measures on water organisms (and thus on surface water) is relatively low. Indeed, actually, PRIBEL risk index calculations for water organisms take all the ppp arrivals in water into account and drift represents only a little part of these. Therefore, in case of 99% drift reduction (thanks to vegetation barrier associated with air assistance, for instance), the risk index for water organisms (per ha of treated surface) decreases of only about 0,02% for the best cases. The reduction of the risk index thanks to the other measures is even weaker than the last.


1.4 Evaluation of alternative methods for crop protection The concept of "alternative technique", which suggests the existence of solutions simply substituting for pesticides, with all the efficiency advantages without the disadvantages of environment disturbance and low durability, appears little adapted. The crop protection cannot be only founded on specific technological projections, and passes by the implementation of a broad range of technical, biological, and economic knowledges. This integration of the control methods is not as easy as using only chemical protection. Nevertheless, this integration result in two major advantages:

- it almost always results in decreasing environmental harmful effects as the limitation of the damage does not rest exclusively on chemical protection;

- the diversification of the selection pressures exerted by these methods can make those more durable than certain individual control methods applied on a large scale during several years, such as the application of a pesticide or the use of a variety with total specific resistance. The low recourse to the pesticides also contributes to preserve their efficiency by delaying the appearance of pest resistance.

For the various vegetable productions, we should not tend towards "alternative solutions" to the use of the pesticides, but towards another way of thinking protection, and in a more general way, the production. This aims to make the production less vulnerable and the protection more efficient (technically, economically, environmentally, socially and in the plan of the long-term performances of the systems). The concept of "integrated crop management" recovers this strategy (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005). The following paragraphs present different examples of alternative methods that can be used in the frame of this integrated crop management. It is important to note that all these methods are not applicable for all situations. Indeed, these are generally adapted only to specific cases. 1.4.11.4.11.4.11.4.1 BiopesticidesBiopesticidesBiopesticidesBiopesticides

1.4.1.11.4.1.11.4.1.11.4.1.1 BBBBOTANICALS AND PLANT OTANICALS AND PLANT OTANICALS AND PLANT OTANICALS AND PLANT ALLELOCHEMICALS ALLELOCHEMICALS ALLELOCHEMICALS ALLELOCHEMICALS

Botanicals were used a long time in an empirical way against the pests. The best knowledges of their activities offer new prospects for the crop protection, because of their many ecological advantages. Indeed, according to Regnault-Roger (2006) compared to chemical pesticides, the biopesticides:

- are often more selective and specific although this point is questionable, for instance concerning nicotine and pyrethrum;

- are biodegradable via enzymes, and generally with short half-lives; - can act as synergist in association and thus decrease the required doses; - belong to different chemical families and thus prevent resistances' appearances.

Two approaches are currently distinguished: the use of specific plant health formulations (biopesticides of vegetable origin) or mixed (association with organic pesticides of synthesis), and the stimulation of the plant defense reaction (elicitors). These two ways open possibilities of commercial development of the natural substances of vegetable origin. They can be use in organic farming as well as in conventional farming (Regnault-Roger 2006). However, it is important to stay critical of the impacts that these biopesticides can have. Indeed, for example, substances as rotenone and pyrethrum is often cited as very toxic for water organisms (CDC 2006).


The great theoretical potential of these substances still requires the proof of its practical relevance. Indeed, currently, only four compounds of plant origin are commonly used as biopesticides: pyrethrum, rotenone, neem and essential oils. Since the use of non-synthetic pesticides on a larger scale would offer, according to some authors, a range of striking advantages for farmers, consumers, the industry that produces alternative products, it is amazing that to date their potential has only been used to a very limited extent (Regnault-Roger 2006); (Foerster, Varela et al. 2001). Reasons of this poor use are developed in the section "Brakes to biopesticides development" below.

1.4.1.21.4.1.21.4.1.21.4.1.2 MMMMICROBIAL BIOPESTICIDICROBIAL BIOPESTICIDICROBIAL BIOPESTICIDICROBIAL BIOPESTICIDES AGAINST DISEASESES AGAINST DISEASESES AGAINST DISEASESES AGAINST DISEASES

The biological control of certain plant diseases involving the use of microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, yeasts and viruses has been the topic of numerous research programs. However, there are very few current applications of this research. Indeed, if the results obtained in controlled conditions were promising, few microorganisms confirmed their benefic effects in field conditions (Raaijmakers 2006). Therefore, although the number of microbial biocontrol products is increasing, these products still represent only about 1% of world-wide agricultural chemical sales. This can lead to think that there is few potential for this type of biopesticide (Fravel 2005). Reasons of this poor use are developed in the section "Brakes to biopesticides development" below. Nevertheless, this type of biological control are still considered to offer excellent potential, despite current apprehensions (Raaijmakers 2006). Their contributions could be important because biocontrol agents offer disease management alternatives with different mechanisms of action than chemical pesticides (Fravel 2005). Moreover, they also offer possibilities to control diseases for which any other control means does exist (Raaijmakers 2006). Trends in research must include the increased use of biorational screening processes to identify microorganisms with potential for biocontrol, increased testing under semi-commercial and commercial production conditions, increased emphasis on combining biocontrol strains with each other and with other control methods, integrating biocontrol into an overall system (Fravel 2005).

1.4.1.31.4.1.31.4.1.31.4.1.3 BBBBRAKES TO BIOPESTICIDRAKES TO BIOPESTICIDRAKES TO BIOPESTICIDRAKES TO BIOPESTICIDES DEVELOPMENTES DEVELOPMENTES DEVELOPMENTES DEVELOPMENT

Successful and sustainable use of non-synthetic pesticides requires the involvement of the agro-industry. This industry cannot be considered homogenous and often we find an oligarchic structure, where only a few, often multinational, firms are dominating and give the impression of sharing among themselves the agricultural supply market. The marketing of technically successful alternative products is the responsibility of sales divisions, which tend to be profit-oriented, preferring the more profitable pesticides. A small-scale industry could exist nevertheless with a low annual return on investment. They are more flexible and can respond more specifically to local market requirements. However, other factors, such as direct and indirect subsidies which reflect the lobbying power of interested parties, can also have a considerable impact (Foerster, Varela et al. 2001). A further aspect that is of great importance for the manufacturing of non-synthetic pesticides is the quality of the pesticides. For example, alternative pesticides of plant are often composed of a mixture of active ingredients that have (often not quantified) synergistic or additive effects. Compared to the single active substance of synthetic pesticides it is much more difficult to maintain a certain standard and guarantee the


efficacy of these products. Indeed, the quality of the plant extracts can be very variable (Regnault-Roger 2006); (Foerster, Varela et al. 2001). Furthermore, the raw material has to be accessible and cheap (Regnault-Roger 2006). This automatically leads to the problem of registration requirements. On the one hand, the registration authorities have the duty to serve the interests of the consumers by guaranteeing standardized, effective and safe products and to warrant respect of the environment. On the other hand, the necessary investments to fulfill the registration requirements (duration, quantity of tests, administrative hurdles) are often so high that de facto only the “big players”, that is to say the international agro-industry, can afford them. Indeed, currently, the registration largely follows rules developed for synthetic pesticides and possibly irrelevant investigations are requested. This lead to costly risk assessment studies and long-term evaluation of dossiers keeping these products off the market. This also excludes small or middle sized companies from competing in the market. Yet, most of the firms developing biopesticides are middle-sized firms. Therefore, modified registration processes by the designed national registration authorities are considered for introducing non-synthetic pesticides. This has happened in the USA. Indeed, as the biological studies have demonstrated the ecological and toxicological advantages of the biopesticides, the producers of these products call for a reduced procedure. However, these products will still have to demonstrate their innocuousness for the applicator and the consumer and their effectiveness and specificity (Regnault-Roger 2006); (Foerster, Varela et al. 2001); (Bateman 2006); (Ehlers 2006). Absence of undesired environmental impact needs also to be provided. Indeed the possible negative impact of these compounds on beneficial microorganisms such as mycorrhizae or on organic matter's mineralization, for instance, must be considered. The authorities have also to take measures favouring the development and the use of this type of pesticides. For example, research to understand mechanisms governing the species' cohabitation and to develop pest control strategies taking the ecological balances into account has to be further developed (Regnault-Roger 2006). Indeed, thanks to their safety to non-target organisms, natural pesticides should be considered as tools in IPM programs and their interaction with other agents such as natural enemies should be well understood. Most research has been limited to evaluate the effect on the abundance of natural enemies. However, as could be seen from the few results available, the effect of some non-synthetic pesticides could affect the fitness of the natural enemies manifesting itself only in the next generation (Foerster, Varela et al. 2001). Researches have also to try to circumvent the problem of transferring biopesticides from the laboratory into the field. Indeed, the biopesticides giving promising results in laboratory conditions are often disappointing when transferred to fields (Bateman 2006). Another reason for the poor commercial development of these products is perhaps their lack of efficiency. Therefore, enhancement of efficiency of some products is also searched for. This could be done, in part, for example, by the use of adjuvants, activators and synergists (Foerster, Varela et al. 2001). 1.4.21.4.21.4.21.4.2 Pests'Pests'Pests'Pests' predators predators predators predators andandandand parasitesparasitesparasitesparasites Classical biological control of insects has been applied for more than 120 years, and release of natural enemies has resulted in the permanent reduction of at least 165 species. For biological control, more than 150 species of natural enemy are presently available on demand for the control of about 100 species. Biological control may offer new avenues to control those alien species that threaten indigenous ecosystems and crops (Bigler 2006).


However, biological control via pests' predators and parasites is not easy and is never 100 percent effective. Neither natural nor introduced beneficial insects will reduce a pest population to zero. When pest populations fall below a certain level, beneficials move on in search of new food sources. Thus, when little or no insect damage to the crop can be tolerated, reliance on natural enemies is not appropriate (Peet 2004). Proper timing of release relative to pest populations is critical even when limited insect damage is acceptable. Beneficial insects need time to increase their populations sufficiently to reduce pest populations. They must be released before severe damage occurs, but releases, when no pests are present or populations are very low, are rarely effective either because the parasites need pest hosts to survive. If pest populations are low, predators may simply fly away from the release site in search of better hunting grounds (Peet 2004). Moreover, for some time and especially since the Rio Conference in 1992, the biological control, renown before as good for the environment, is evaluated in a more critical way and is subject to intense debates concerning the effects that exotic auxiliaries can have on indigenous ecosystems. Indeed, there is still debate about the impacts, on indigenous ecosystems, of some exotic animals introduced in the frame of the biological control: for instance, Asian ladybirds (Harmonia axyridis) in our regions and giant toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Therefore, additional appropriate rules are necessary to keep the confidence of the public and facilitate the introduction of these species. Nevertheless, these registration rules should not institute too restrictive and long registration process. Indeed, as for the other alternative methods, the market is restricted and the small and medium-sized firms can not afford long and expensive procedures for registration (Bigler 2006). In this frame, it is also important to orient the researches on the potential of native natural enemies. Indeed, currently, although a wide range of arthropod biocontrol agents are commercially available in Europe, about half of these are not native to the area of release (Madhian, Tirry et al. 2006) Therefore, currently, the biological pest control is mostly restricted to an use in certain cropping systems in glasshouses in form of mass releases designed for immediate control of pests difficult to control with insecticides (Bigler 2006); (Peet 2004). 1.4.31.4.31.4.31.4.3 Physical weedingPhysical weedingPhysical weedingPhysical weeding Mechanical methods such as weed harrowing and inter-row hoeing, have provided promising results in cereals, pulse and oil seed rap, particularly when they are part of a strategy that also involves farming methods such as fertilizer placement, seed vigor, seed rate and competitive varieties (Melander 2006); (Melander, Rasmussen et al. 2005). In row crops, intra-row weeds constitute a major challenge. A number of investigations have focused on optimizing the use of thermal and mechanical methods against intra-row weeds, such as flaming, harrowing, brush weeding, hoeing, torsion weeding and finger weeding. New methods are now tested such as robotic weeding for row crops with abundant spacing between individual plants and band-steaming for row crops developing dense crop stands. Indeed, the major obstacle for selective intra-row weeding is the lack of differentiation between crop plants and weeds. Therefore, new systems for electronic or optic differentiation and systems integrating GPS technology are expected in future (Melander 2006); (Melander, Rasmussen et al. 2005).


The mechanical methods are the most used physical methods. Wide ranges of tools are available. They are regarded as technically simple and of low cost at purchase and use. On the other hand, if thermal techniques such as flaming and steaming present some advantages such as leaving no chemical residues in soil and water and undisrupted soil structure, they also have disadvantages: they are energy consumer, slow and little selective (Melander 2006). Although research in preventive, cultural, and physical methods have improved weed control in row crops and small-grain cereals, effective long-term weed management in low external input and organic systems can only be achieved by tackling the problem in a wider context, i.e., at the cropping system level. Basic principles of this approach, recover, for example cover crop and intercropping use for weed suppression, and rotation (Melander, Rasmussen et al. 2005). 1.4.41.4.41.4.41.4.4 Prophylaxis and cultural methodsProphylaxis and cultural methodsProphylaxis and cultural methodsProphylaxis and cultural methods As already mentioned above, good plant health can also be preserved by indirect methods such as farming practices and prevention. Concerning soil-borne diseases for example, notions such as soil receptivity, soil inoculum potential and suppressive soils are important. In this frame, rotation, organic soil improvement, burial of green or composted plants, ploughing and their combination can contribute to make the soils resistant to some diseases. Actually, the effect of tillage depends upon the specific interactions "pathogen-soil-crop-environment". Therefore, efforts are needed in order to understand the effects of the farming practices on the soils' health and to determine when and how manage the soil. This will enable the farmer to make the good decisions. The cultivar and its features can also play a role. Moreover, the sanitary quality of the vegetal material must be proved (Decoin, Steinberg et al. 2006). 1.4.51.4.51.4.51.4.5 Means and actions to be implemented for extension of the integrated Means and actions to be implemented for extension of the integrated Means and actions to be implemented for extension of the integrated Means and actions to be implemented for extension of the integrated

crop managementcrop managementcrop managementcrop management As for the popularisation of the good phytosanitary practices, for the active promotion of the integrated crop management, the following frame-conditions need to be considered (Foerster, Varela et al. 2001); (INRA and CEMAGREF 2005): • Awareness: in order to choose alternative pest control strategies the farmers need to be aware of them. A basic understanding of ecology as it is generally taught, for example explaining IPM during farmer training (ecological balance between pests and antagonists, interference and the long term effects of the application of broad-spectrum pesticides), is a precondition for the successful application of alternatives. This requires:

- the successful training of trainers; - the formation of farmers groups; - learning and working together with and from the farmers.

• This sort of education should be also institutionalised by considering ecological training in schools, vocational agricultural training, at the very least in the curriculum of national agricultural schools and universities. Education comprises also research that contributes on the one hand, thanks to immediate results gained from trials, to the technical improvement of alternative cropping concepts. On the other hand, the students, by conducting research


on the integration of alternative methods into ICM concepts, can achieve long-term benefits: after the completion of their studies they could potentially become decision makers later who can promote this sort of concept. Also there is a direct dissemination effect. • Demonstration, or “seeing is believing”: Trials can be carried out on research and experimental stations, but one should be aware that only few farmers will have access to it. Studies and questionnaires carried out in many countries revealed that most farmers obtain their information on technical innovations from other farmers (80-90 %) Therefore on-farm trials and facilitating cross-visits with neighbouring farmers are successful means of disseminating information. • Training is required to demonstrate how to use ICM means. Farmers more readily adopt options which require less work, such as the use of tolerant cultivars, for example. • Concerning the development and improvement of the technology of alternatives methods of crop protection, it should also be kept in mind that a different kind of research should be applied than that used for development of synthetic products. The entire cropping system has to be considered. Even when a single control strategy seems to be insufficiently effective in controlling pests it can be functionally combined with other methods which are considered in high input cropping systems as “weak” strategies. Each of the abovementioned strategies alone is not as efficient in trials as the application of broad-spectrum pesticides, but in combination, may turn out to be more efficient, sustainable and cheaper. • Structural requirements: Coordinated and planned efforts from governments, industry, international and national organisations and NGOs play a vital role in the popularisation of alternative methods in the frame of the ICM. Kenmore & Pincus (1995 cited by Foerster, Varela et al. 2001) presented actions needed for the adoption of ICM. Actions needed at these various levels include:

- Integrated crop management should be incorporated in a national agricultural policy, to give direction to research efforts and facilitate application of results. These policies should recognise the importance of farmers’ participation in local, farm, field, and crop decision taking.

- Vigorous steps must be made by government to encourage the spread of integrated pest management. Government support in the form of short-term subsidies, abolition of import duty, excise duty and sales taxes can improve the price competitiveness of biopesticides and other alternative methods. This will encourage their development and commercialisation.

- There is also a need that the authorities set up structures for the individual follow-up of the farmers and for helping farmers to implement alternative methods. The authorities must invest in this type of projects.

- Farmers' formation with participation ensures suitability of the technology to farmers’ circumstances and its adoption. According to Van Huis (1997 cited by Foerster, Varela et al. 2001), IPM strategies are often not adopted because farmers’ production systems are frequently not well understood or sometimes neglected in the process of generation and packaging of technologies. Fixed IPM packages do not work in such circumstances since site-specific agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions often determine what is best at one particular place. The participatory approach enables farmers to understand some of the problems that affect productivity in their farming systems and help them to develop solutions through research. These approaches also stimulate farmers’ initiatives and


confidence in them and initiate further activities to share experiences with other farmers.

• Information requirements:

- Widespread publicity for biopesticides and other alternative methods is important. The small-scale manufacturers need assistance for effective sales campaigns and demonstrations of the efficiency of their products.

- Information on effectiveness and rates of application of alternative products, especially those used by smallholders should be available and accessible to the users.

• Research and Technical requirements:

- Synthetic pesticides are dominating the market today. The development of alternatives will continue to depend largely on the public sector and requires the same support as synthetic pesticides in the past, until a strong industry working on alternatives has been set up, which is able to invest into research. Many products have been investigated by research institutes but never reached the market. Future research should consider market potential right from the outset and linkages to possible marketers should be sought from an early stage in development.

- Economic studies on the costs/benefits of the use of these natural products are essential.

- Currently, most of the research programs relating to crop protection are carried out on the farming cycle and field scales, whereas the subjacent processes often function on multi-annual and supra-field scales. Widening the scales taken into account supposes important methodological adaptations, particularly for dealing with the difficulties of data's collection and exploitation. Under these conditions, it appears that modelling will have to occupy a central place in the methods implemented to approach these new scales. Indeed, the principles of a non-chemical protection are, essentially, known (knowledge of the cycles, qualitative effects of the main techniques). On the other hand, their coherent integration within a technical route, and more largely within the framework of farming systems, for a broad range of objectives and constraints, still needs substantial research efforts.


2222 QQQQUANTIFICATION TECHNIUANTIFICATION TECHNIUANTIFICATION TECHNIUANTIFICATION TECHNIQUES FOR PESTICIDE IQUES FOR PESTICIDE IQUES FOR PESTICIDE IQUES FOR PESTICIDE IMPACT ASSESSMENTMPACT ASSESSMENTMPACT ASSESSMENTMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.1 Measures to reduce the impact on the environment

groundwater

Infiltration - Leaching

Drift

Runoff and erosion

Drainage

surface water

DIRECT LOSSES (POINT SOURCES) : product handling on hard surfaces on which runoff

is important.

HARD SURFACES (concrete, pavement…)

Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4----1111: Representation of different losses of ppp to the environment (Debongnie, Bee: Representation of different losses of ppp to the environment (Debongnie, Bee: Representation of different losses of ppp to the environment (Debongnie, Bee: Representation of different losses of ppp to the environment (Debongnie, Beernaerts et rnaerts et rnaerts et rnaerts et al. 2003)al. 2003)al. 2003)al. 2003)

2.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.1 Measures to reduce direct lossesMeasures to reduce direct lossesMeasures to reduce direct lossesMeasures to reduce direct losses The direct losses have a localized origin, do not last a long time but can be of great intensity (CRP 2004). A pilot project carried out in the catchment basin of the Nil for the period 1998-2001 showed that the direct losses represent 50 to 80% of the losses to the environment. These correspond to 0,4 to 2,2% of the total applied amounts (Debongnie, Beernaerts et al. 2003). They are among others:

- can spilling, splashes; - tank filling (overflowing); - leaking seals; - cleaning and waste disposal; - …

Most of these losses (such as can spilling, tank overflowing…) are accidental. It is thus of primary importance to prevent such losses. The "Nil pilot project" demonstrated the possibility to reduce these losses and thus reduce the environment contamination by 60 to 80% thanks to application by the farmers of several simple measures. Nevertheless, most of the surveyed farmers and other actors automatically assumed that the presence of crop protection products in water is linked to the total amounts applied, and that pollution will therefore be reduced only through a reduction of these total amounts (tendency of the regulations for the 10 last years) (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). Figures concerning current use of the different measures depicted below come from two surveys. The first survey was carried out in the frame of the "Nil pilot project" in 2000-2001. 59 field crop farmers from the catchment basin of the Nil in the Walloon Brabant Province were interviewed (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001).


The second survey was performed in 2002-2003 in the frame of the "POCER project". For fruits, 100 growers from Flanders were interviewed. For vegetables, 114 growers from Flanders were interviewed. For field crops, a hundred farmers from the Walloon Brabant Province were surveyed (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004); (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003). 2.1.1.12.1.1.12.1.1.12.1.1.1 BBBBEFORE TREATMENTEFORE TREATMENTEFORE TREATMENTEFORE TREATMENT

When handling ppp cans, precautions should be taken to avoid their fall, damage or spilling. It is also recommended to arrange the storage facilities close to the filling area (CRP 2004). In both surveys, some farmers suggested that the shape of the product cans should be changed for easier disposal. Among others, it is suggested to equip the cans containing liquid formulations with two caps to modulate air inlet which tends to splash the active substance when pouring (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004); (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). Some cans are also not very easy to open and this can be a source of incidents. Errors in preparation of the mixture can have serious consequences. The labels of the cans should be read with attention in order to prevent confusion between the different ppp, non-compatible mixtures and to apply the right dose. But, as there is a lot of information on the label, the text is often written in very small letters and this can cause problem to some farmers. Concerning the problem of confusion, this seems to be due to the standardization of the product cans. In both surveys, some farmers suggested therefore that it would be easier if the cans had different colours for the different types of pesticide (i.e. one colour for fungicides, one for insecticides, one for herbicides, etc.) (Maraite, Steurbaut et al., 2004); (Pussemier, Debongnie et al., 2001). The tank filling phase is a source of accidents. Indeed, for instance, tank overflowing is a frequent incident. A gauge will be useful only if the operator constantly stays concentrated on the filling of the sprayer. The risk can be easily avoided by the installation of a water meter with automatic stop. From the survey for the Nil project, it was noticed that only one farmer on 59 had such an accessory (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001); (CRP 2004); (CORPEP). To prevent water supply network contamination, it should be avoided to pump water directly from surface waters or the sprayer should be equipped with a non-return valve which will prevent the return of the mixture. Tank filling shouldn't also take place on an impermeable area linked to rivers or sewage systems (CRP 2004); (PHYTOMIEUX); (SPF 2005). Currently, tank filling occurs:

- on concrete (50%); - on pavement (40%); - on grass, soils…(10%).

In 42% of the cases, the filling area has a direct link to the sewage systems. The used water comes mostly from the public network (70%) and 24% of the farmers pump directly water from wells or rivers (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). Concerning the sprayer, it should be equipped with an filling funnel/hopper for the introduction of the active substance which will be included in the tank via an injector whereas the tank is filled. A funnel ensures that the active substances cannot be messed and diminishes the contact with them. Finally, the empty cans should be rinsed immediately with a special washer (wash can) in the funnel and the rests of the packing are thus included in the mixture (PHYTOMIEUX); (ALT 2005); (CORPEP). It is also important to prepare the correct volume of mixture needed to carry out the treatment. This allows to reduce to the minimum the remaining amounts of mixture after treatment (CRP 2004); (SPF 2005); (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001).


Concerning current sprayers' equipment, the results of the two surveys performed on a different sample of farmers are divergent. Indeed, in the Nil project, 70% of the sprayers were found not to have any of the 3 recommended accessories (wash can, annex tank and filling hopper). Only 11% of the sprayers had all the tree accessories at once whereas, in the POCER survey, 70% of the sprayers had the tree accessories (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004); (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). Leakages and non-watertightness of the equipment can also be responsible of important losses. Therefore, the sprayer must be in good state and well maintained (the leakages must be repaired, the worn nozzles must be changed…) (SPF 2005). The various sprayer's settings must also be frequently adjusted. 2.1.1.22.1.1.22.1.1.22.1.1.2 DDDDURING TREATMENTURING TREATMENTURING TREATMENTURING TREATMENT

Boom priming should not occur on an impermeable surface such as the road, for example (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). The sprayer's speed and the rate of spray flow must be well adjusted to use exactly the volume contained in the tank in order to limit the remaining mixture after treatment (CORPEP). 2.1.1.32.1.1.32.1.1.32.1.1.3 AAAAFTER TREATMENTFTER TREATMENTFTER TREATMENTFTER TREATMENT

After treatment, the major problems are the elimination of the volume of mixture left-over in the tank and the sprayer's cleaning. Indeed, the inappropriate treatment of the tank bottom residue when the spraying is completed is the most important source of point pollution (CRP 2004). According to most of the farmers (48%), the remaining mixture after treatment varies between 10 and 20 litres. For 26%, it is less than 5 litres and for 26% too, it is more than 30 litres (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). In all the cases, the sprayer may not be emptied in a localised place and on impermeable surfaces. The tank must be rinsed several times by pure water and the residual waters must be applied on the field at high speed. This supposes that the sprayer must be equipped with an annex tank or that the farmer takes water cans. The rinsing will be more efficient with rotary jets in the tank. Thanks to this technique, up to 99% of the pollution caused by the remaining mixture after treatment can be avoided (example with 50 litres of mixture remaining after treatment diluted twice with 100 litres of pure water). The 1% remaining after this should be treated with a biofilter (described below). This allows to again reduce by 10 to 100 times the amounts of active substances released to the environment (CRP 2004); (CORPEP); (SPF 2005). In both surveys (cited above), a large majority (about 80% in both cases) of the farmers said that they apply the tank bottom residues on the field. Nevertheless, in both cases, this statement is considered to be largely overestimated (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004); (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). The sprayer must never be cleaned on an impermeable surface linked to rivers or sewage systems. However, currently, in 88 % of the cases, the sprayer is rinsed and washed at the tank-filling location whereas only 10% of the farmers carry out this operation on a less impermeable surface (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). As said above, a biofilter can deal with impossibility of carrying out the last rinsings, as well as the cleaning of the sprayer's body in the field, or impossibility of managing losses which


have occurred at the time of an incident during preparation. On this observation, the CERVA and then the CRA-W (since 2003) study the development of biofilters intended to treat waters charged in ppp on the tank-filling and sprayer-cleaning site. In order to achieve good retention and degradation of the active substances, each unit of the biofilter is filled with an organic substrate composed of chopped straw, soil and compost or composted manure. After 3 years of study, this type of substrate showed a very good retention (more than 92 %) and degradation (more than 95%) efficiency for various pesticides families (Devleeschouwer and Cors 2006); (Pussemier, De Vleeschouwer et al. 2004). After spraying, the sprayer must be sheltered from the rain in order to avoid leaching of the eventual splashes on the machine (Pussemier, Debongnie et al. 2001). As said above, the empty packaging must be immediately rinsed and the rests of the packing must be included in the mixture. After rinsing, the cans must be safety stored until the collect campaign of Phytofar-Recover (CRP 2004). In 2003, 92,38% of the packaging on the Belgian market were collected and treated (PHYTOFAR 2006). 2.1.22.1.22.1.22.1.2 Measures to reduce diffuse lossesMeasures to reduce diffuse lossesMeasures to reduce diffuse lossesMeasures to reduce diffuse losses Contrary to the direct losses, the diffuse losses have a more widespread origin, a longer duration and the resulting pollution is often less acute (CRP 2004). These represent 20 to 50% of the losses in the environment. They are among others:

- drainage; - drift; - run-off (due to rain) and erosion; - leaching; - evaporation.

A first important factor that must be taken into account to reduce these losses is the meteorological conditions. Indeed, the efficiency of the application of the products is highly influenced by the local weather conditions. The wind speed and direction, the temperature, the humidity and the rainfall frequency are important factors acting on the quality of the product's deposits. The product's label generally indicates the optimal weather conditions. Information over the duration to be respected between the application and the rain is also often available on the label, even if for the majority of the products, a second application is not necessary if precipitations take place more than 2 hours after the treatment. On the other hand, in the case of root herbicides, it can be useful to apply the product before a rain or when the soil is still moist (CRP 2004). 2.1.2.12.1.2.12.1.2.12.1.2.1 MMMMEASURES TO REDUCE DREASURES TO REDUCE DREASURES TO REDUCE DREASURES TO REDUCE DRIFTIFTIFTIFT

2.1.2.1.12.1.2.1.12.1.2.1.12.1.2.1.1 DDDDRIFT MIRIFT MIRIFT MIRIFT MITIGATION STRATEGIESTIGATION STRATEGIESTIGATION STRATEGIESTIGATION STRATEGIES

Several possible solutions have been suggested to combat spray drift. However, most of these solutions are centred around three major concepts:

1) not spraying at all when the weather conditions are not favourable; 2) reducing the volume of spray contained in small droplets; 3) altering the flight paths of small spray droplets by mechanical means to

increase efficiency of deposition on the target. Although most operators are aware of spray drift and the problems associated with it, treatment of a field during unfavourable weather conditions may be unavoidable when the pest population is at a level such that further delay in spraying may result in total crop loss.


Since most of the drift problems are created by the movement of small droplets outside the application area, research has been conducted to reduce the volume of spray contained in small droplets. Manufacturers have introduced nozzles that are designed to reduce the number of small, drift-prone droplets. Other companies have developed chemical products known as drift retardants, to achieve the same result, which reduce the volume of spray contained in small droplets. Research has shown the significance of spray mixture properties on spray droplet size and drift when these products are added to the spray mixture (e.g. Richardson, 1974; Haq et al., 1983; Akesson et al.,1990; Bouse et al., 1990; Ozkan et al., 1994). Several recent developments have been aimed at modifying existing equipment to increase deposition efficiency of the more effective small droplets while reducing the potential for drift. In general, this has been accomplished by using either air-assist technology or some kind of shield or shroud to overcome the drift producing air currents and turbulence that occur around the nozzle during spraying. Although air-assist technology has been proven to be effective in increasing deposition while reducing drift, commercially available equipment using this technology currently has not yet been widely adopted by the pesticide applicators because of the relatively high cost of the equipment. In the following sections some management strategies which can be used to reduce spray drift for different spray application situations are listed.

2.1.2.1.22.1.2.1.22.1.2.1.22.1.2.1.2 GGGGROUND ROUND ROUND ROUND BBBBOOM OOM OOM OOM SSSSPRAYERS PRAYERS PRAYERS PRAYERS ((((FIELD APPLICATIONSFIELD APPLICATIONSFIELD APPLICATIONSFIELD APPLICATIONS)))) (O(O(O(OHIOLINEHIOLINEHIOLINEHIOLINE,,,, 2002)2002)2002)2002) - If possible and if biological effectiveness can be maintained, use of nozzles that

produce large droplets; - Keep the boom close to the spray target; - Use of greater spray volume and nozzles with larger orifices; - Lower system pressure; - Use drift retardants if droplet size cannot be controlled with nozzle selection; - Follow label recommendations to avoid drift with highly volatile pesticides; - Avoid spraying on extremely hot, dry days, especially if sensitive vegetation is

nearby; - Avoid spraying when conditions are favourable for an atmospheric inversion; - Although the distance droplets will drift is a function of many other factors such as

droplet size, relative humidity, temperature and boom height, it is best not to spray when wind speeds are greater 8 km/h;

- Avoid spraying near sensitive areas located downwind. Leaving a buffer strip 15 to 30 meter wide can significantly reduce damage due to drift. If desired, spray the parts of the field near sensitive areas later when the wind shifts and when drift is likely to be low. New label requirements may use a drift model to determine the required buffer width. Travel slower (and lower boom height) and use nozzles which produce large droplets near sensitive areas. This will reduce the required buffer zone width, then, as distance from the sensitive area increases, nozzles can be changed to produce smaller droplets, if desired, and boom height raised so travel speed can be increased;

- In the future, label requirements may specify nozzles that produce a certain droplet size spectrum, such as fine, medium, coarse, very coarse, etc. A careful check of the label is recommended to determine the optimum droplet size and proper nozzle size for a spray application.


2.1.2.1.32.1.2.1.32.1.2.1.32.1.2.1.3 OOOORCHARD AND RCHARD AND RCHARD AND RCHARD AND VVVVINEYARD INEYARD INEYARD INEYARD SSSSPRAYERS PRAYERS PRAYERS PRAYERS (O(O(O(OHIOLINEHIOLINEHIOLINEHIOLINE,,,, 2002)2002)2002)2002) Many of the same principles for reducing drift for boom sprayers apply to orchard (air blast) spraying as well. Some measures which can be taken to reduce drift are:

- turning off the sprayer when there are no trees present; - keeping the spray as close to the target as possible; - minimizing the small droplet fraction. However, the applicator must keep in mind

that the main purpose of spraying is to control pests. Large droplets may not provide the desired control, without increasing the application rate;

- matching the sprayer air jet (volume and direction) and nozzle system to the trees being sprayed;

- special techniques should be used near sensitive areas, especially for the last few downwind rows. These special measures may include: a) the use of large droplets; b) the use of techniques which make it possible to better directly spray the targets (e.g. a handgun); c) only spraying the last few rows upwind; d) wait and spray when the wind shifts; e) the use of special measures or equipment to create barriers or direct spray at the target (tunnel sprayer, etc.).

2.1.2.1.42.1.2.1.42.1.2.1.42.1.2.1.4 AAAAERIAL APPLICATION ERIAL APPLICATION ERIAL APPLICATION ERIAL APPLICATION (O(O(O(OHIOLINEHIOLINEHIOLINEHIOLINE,,,, 2002)2002)2002)2002)

In most cases, experiments have shown that spraying with either airplanes or helicopters produces more drift than other application methods. This is caused by the high travel speed, the wing-tip vortices that tend to transport droplets above the wing, and the release height. There are only a few options available for reducing drift when spraying with aircrafts. The single most effective strategy to reduce drift from aerial spraying is having aircraft operators who are carefully trained to make good decisions on when to spray and when to stop spraying. Here are some other measures which can reduce the amount of spray drift:

- a maximum reduction of spray height without compromising safety; - the careful use of a spray offset to calculate how far the wind will carry the main

spray swath; - the use of global positioning instruments in aircrafts to assist the operator in

making sure the correct field is being sprayed and in selecting the proper spray paths;

- choose the largest droplet size that will produce the desired biological effect; - a right nozzle orientation (backward, toward the tail of the aircraft) to reduce

formation of the small droplets.

2.1.2.1.52.1.2.1.52.1.2.1.52.1.2.1.5 SSSSPRAY INTERCEPTION BYPRAY INTERCEPTION BYPRAY INTERCEPTION BYPRAY INTERCEPTION BY NATURAL AND ARTIFIC NATURAL AND ARTIFIC NATURAL AND ARTIFIC NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES IAL STRUCTURES IAL STRUCTURES IAL STRUCTURES ((((SHIELDSSHIELDSSHIELDSSHIELDS)))) Many studies have been carried out to investigate and determine the effectiveness of different kind of natural and artificial shields in reducing off-target movement of droplets (e.g. Lake et al., 1982; Ford, 1984; AEI, 1987; Maybank et al., 1990; Fehringer & Cavaletto, 1990; Fehringer & Cavaletto, 1990;Furness, 1991; Wolf et al., 1993; Cenkowski et al., 1994; Davis et al., 1994; Porskamp et al., 1994; Ozkan et al., 1997; Dorr et al., 1998; Van de Zande, 2000). Most of the studies conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of shields indicate that most of these devices efficiently reduce off-target spray drift by 45 to 90% (Hewitt, 2001). Several studies showed that shelter vegetation (natural shields) is more effective than artificial shelter at reducing drift (AEI, 1987; Holland & Maber, 1991). Shields can be considered as an economically viable alternative to expensive air-assisted sprayers.

2.1.2.1.62.1.2.1.62.1.2.1.62.1.2.1.6 DDDDRIFT RETARDANT CHEMIRIFT RETARDANT CHEMIRIFT RETARDANT CHEMIRIFT RETARDANT CHEMICALSCALSCALSCALS Adjuvants can be separated into two groups, activator adjuvants and utility adjuvants. Activator adjuvants directly enhance the efficacy of the pesticide once it has been deposited on the target surfaces. Utility adjuvants generally work on the properties of the


spray solution or the spray mixture (e.g. compatibility agent, defoaming agent, deposition agent, drift control agent, water conditioning agent, acidifying agent, buffering agent, colorant). Utility adjuvants do not directly affect the pesticide efficacy, but they or rather used to make the application process easier. However, utitlity adjuvants can improve pesticide efficacy by reducing or minimizing any negative effects on application (e.g. spray drift) (McMullan, 2000). A drift control agent (DCA) is defined as ‘a material used in liquid spray mixtures to reduce spray drift (ASTM, 1995). The driftable fraction of the spray cloud (spray drift) is typically characterized as droplets that are smaller than 150 µm in diameter (Downer et al., 1995; Downer et al., 1998; Hazen & Olsen, 1995), although droplet sizes less than 105 µm have been reported (Chamberlain and Rose, 1998; Richards et al., 1998). The primary function of the DCA is to reduce the amount of off-target drift; however, they can increase the amount of pesticide deposited on target surfaces because of a reduction in the amount of spray that moves off-target. DCA’s (sometimes referred to as antidrift agents or drift retardants) impart their effectiveness by altering the viscoelastic properties of the spray solution (Hewitt, 1998). Extensional viscosity (elongational viscosity) tends to resist liquid stretching. Shear viscosity is the viscosity of a liquid at a given shear rate. As the viscosity decreases, coarser sprays are produced. The addition of polymers to the spray mixture tends to cause an increase in the initial extensional viscosity and can decrease shear viscosity. Altering these two factors in this manner will produce a coarser spray with a higher volume median diameter (VMD) and lower driftable fraction (McMullan, 2000). Typically, the VMD and driftable fraction, are used to characterize a DCA. A typical DCA reduces the percentage of droplets less than 150 µm in diameter in the spray cloud and increases the VMD (McMullan, 2000). The use of adjuvants for the control of spray drift offers a number of advantages over alternative methods that have been suggested. For example, in comparison to the use of buffer zones the use of adjuvants does not require that a proportion of the crop is left untreated. In comparison to physical devices, adjuvants may be a far simpler and cheaper option for applicators and they also do not suffer from the disadvantage of covering the boom which makes it difficult for the operator to check if nozzles have become blocked (McMullan, 2000) Examples of drift retardant agents are Direct, Driftgard, Formula 358, Nalco-trol, Target. Factors influencing drift are described in task 2. Some of these spraying factors must first and foremost be adapted in order to reduce spray drift (please refer to task 2 for further explanation on how these parameters can be adapted for drift mitigation):

- wind speed and direction: indeed, the wind is the principal factor to observe to avoid drift. Table 4-1ErreurErreurErreurErreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.! Source du renvoi introuvable.! Source du renvoi introuvable.! Source du renvoi introuvable. gives some indications to be kept in mind at the time of decision-making;

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----1111:::: Wind speed and spraying (CRP 2004)Wind speed and spraying (CRP 2004)Wind speed and spraying (CRP 2004)Wind speed and spraying (CRP 2004)

DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription Air speedAir speedAir speedAir speed Apparent signsApparent signsApparent signsApparent signs DecisionDecisionDecisionDecision Still wind < 2 km/h Vapours rising up vertically Not spray if

temperatures are too high

Light air 2-3 km/h Direction indicated by the vapours' deviation

Ideal conditions for spraying


Light breeze 3-7 km/h Leafs rustling and blow on the face

Ideal conditions for spraying

Gentle breeze 7-10 km/h Leafs constantly on the move Use anti-drift nozzles Moderate wind 10-15

km/h Thin branches on the move and dust rising up

Use anti-drift nozzles and avoid herbicides application

Moderate to strong wind

>15 km/h Not spray

- humidity and temperature: during all the application, the temperature has to be

sufficient without being excessive and the hygrometry has to be high (minimum 60 %) so that the ppp act effectively. In addition, high temperature and low relative humidity reduce the droplets size because of evaporation, which accentuates the risk of drift. In summer, these conditions are mainly met in the evening and even more often in the morning (because the evening can still be hot);

- formulations; - height of spray release; - direction of release; - time of application; - stage of crop development, canopy geometry and density; - number of applications; - sprayer speed; - fan speed (air-blast sprayer); - spray pressure; - nozzle type; - specific sprayers (sprayer with air assistance, tunnel sprayer, cross-flow fan

sprayer…). Below, some additional techniques and equipments which allow spray drift mitigation are presented.

2.1.2.1.72.1.2.1.72.1.2.1.72.1.2.1.7 BBBBUFFER ZONESUFFER ZONESUFFER ZONESUFFER ZONES To avoid spraying above surface waters and prevent spray drift to surface waters, it will be soon mandatory to respect no-spray buffer zones between 2 and 200 meters broad. The size of the buffer zone will depend on the risk of the ppp for aquatic organisms, on the amount of driftable droplets generated by an application and on the distance that these droplets will travel. It is also mandatory to respect, in all circumstances, a buffer zone of minimum one meter when spraying with a boom-sprayer and of minimum 3 meters for orchards spraying in order to limit phytotoxicity on neighbouring crops and wild flora, toxic effects on non-target fauna and water contamination. Indeed, a buffer zone is intended to capture the major portion of driftable droplets within a treatment area to minimize risk to adjacent protected areas (SPF 2005); (Mc Lean 2001). The buffer zone size can be adjusted by compensating through the use of equipment reducing drift (specific nozzles and sprayers) and through a vegetation barrier (SPF 2005).

2.1.2.1.82.1.2.1.82.1.2.1.82.1.2.1.8 VVVVEGETATION BARRIER EGETATION BARRIER EGETATION BARRIER EGETATION BARRIER //// VVVVEGETATION ON BUFFER EGETATION ON BUFFER EGETATION ON BUFFER EGETATION ON BUFFER ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE It is recognized that the structure of both target crop and plants in the margin between the sprayed area and water can have a strong influence on rates of deposition to surface waters.


There have been a variety of research experiments on this subject, which have documented reductions in spray drift up to 80-90%. However, there are still enormous data gaps to utilize this method accurately (Ucar and Hall 2001). In a series of field experiments spray drift was assessed when spraying a sugar beet crop and a potato crop. Next to the crop, the field margin was planted with a 1.25m wide strip of different heights of Miscanthus (Elephant grass) acting as a windbreak. The height of the windbreak had a clear effect on spray drift deposit (figure 4-2) (van de Zande, Michielsen et al., 2004).

Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4----2222: Spray drift when spraying a potato crop (2000) with a windbreak cr: Spray drift when spraying a potato crop (2000) with a windbreak cr: Spray drift when spraying a potato crop (2000) with a windbreak cr: Spray drift when spraying a potato crop (2000) with a windbreak crop of different heights op of different heights op of different heights op of different heights next to it (equal height as the potato crop, +50 and +100 cm higher than potato crop canopy), next to it (equal height as the potato crop, +50 and +100 cm higher than potato crop canopy), next to it (equal height as the potato crop, +50 and +100 cm higher than potato crop canopy), next to it (equal height as the potato crop, +50 and +100 cm higher than potato crop canopy), without air assistance (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004)without air assistance (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004)without air assistance (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004)without air assistance (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004)

Spray deposit at 3-4m distance from the last nozzle decreased significantly with increasing heights of the Miscanthus. When Miscanthus was cut to equal height as the crop height spray drift reduction was 55% compared to spray drift on the same distance when no windbreak was grown. With the 0.5 and 1.0 meter above crop height levels of Miscanthus spray drift was reduced by respectively 75% and 90%. The combination of a windbreak crop higher than the arable crop (sugar beet or potatoes) and an air-assisted field sprayer reduced spray drift with 95-99% (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004). Spray drift to the soil and air next to the orchard might also be reduced by a wind-break of trees around the orchard. In a series of experiments the effect of a wind-break on the emission outside the orchard was evaluated. The alder tree wind-break around the orchard resulted in significantly lower drift to the soil and air at the places behind the wind-break. On the soil next to the orchard, the wind-break gave an emission reduction in the range of 68 (in the growth stage before May 1st) to more than 90% (full leaf stage) at a distance of


0-3 m behind the wind-break. The emission to the air next to the orchard was reduced by 84 to more than 90%, in the height range of 0-4 m above the soil surface. Results depended on the leaf density of the wind-break and the wind speed during the experiments (van de Zande, Michielsen et al. 2004).

2.1.2.1.92.1.2.1.92.1.2.1.92.1.2.1.9 AAAADJUVANTSDJUVANTSDJUVANTSDJUVANTS There is increasing interest in the use of adjuvants for reducing spray drift. Indeed, some additives allow a narrowing in the drops spectrum by decreasing the quantity of small drift-prone droplets. A drift-reducing additive increases drop size by changing liquid properties such as viscosity. The behaviour of an adjuvant depends in part on the tank mix partners. Studies were made in well-defined conditions. They are thus specific studies which do not make it possible to recommend their use under all the nozzles/ppp/wind conditions. Indeed, even if certain additives were approved with the mention "anti-drift", many factors remain unknown. The studies showed that different drop spectra might be generated with different types of nozzle and with some specific products. Moreover, some drift-reducing agents are sensitive to shearing by the pump and may even end up producing smaller droplets than without the product. Thus, although drift-retardant chemicals can be effective in reducing the number of drift-prone droplets, in most cases using low-drift nozzles and operating sprayers at lower pressures seems to be a better and more cost-effective approach to reduce spray drift. Therefore, according to different experts, adjuvants should be used as a last resort (ITV, ARVALIS et al. 2005); (Woods 2004); (AG 2004); (Spanoghe, Steurbaut et al. 2002); (Nuyttens, Sonck et al. 2004).

2.1.2.1.102.1.2.1.102.1.2.1.102.1.2.1.10 TTTTARGETING TECHNOLOGIEARGETING TECHNOLOGIEARGETING TECHNOLOGIEARGETING TECHNOLOGIESSSS Sensing and real time control of spray application can significantly reduce the amount of pesticide required to maintain acceptable efficacy; concurrently, non-target deposition and spray drift can be virtually eliminated through focusing pesticide deposition exclusively on the targets. Integration of GPS systems and on-board sensors can allow real-time mitigation of spray drift. In addition to drift mitigation, all these technologies can potentially improve efficacy, allow greater use of reduced-risk chemicals, increase applicator productivity and significantly improve accountability for agrochemical use (Ken Giles 2004). The use of optical sensors to actuate spray nozzles in combination with nozzles spraying individually each row of the crop can be an effective tool in reducing spray drift. By design, the system only sprays a detected weed or pest, and since it is not spraying all the time it is most effective for drift control because it is reducing the amount of pesticide being applied. However, in combination with improper nozzle selection and high pressures this technology would not be very effective (Wolf 2004). The application of ppp to fruit crops with air-assisted sprayers produces much higher risk of drift contamination than other common types of ground spraying activity. Fruit growers may use alternative drift mitigation (Walklate 2004). The behaviour of a spectrophotometric sensor system for canopy absence / presence detection had been tested in intensive semi dwarf Belgian orchards in full leaf stage. The quantity of drift and soil deposit was reduced by 50 to 90% depending on the planting system, on the number of sensors and on their positioning. In comparison with shielded spraying, it reaches a similar level of savings with a considerable number of assets (Jaeken, Vercruysse et al.). Strategies based on the use of practical methods of dose adjustment and particularly the approach build on the principles of Pesticide Adjustment to the Crop Environment (PACE) has also been established to improve the control of pesticide application by achieving


uniform deposition across a wide range of different crop structures (Table 4-2) (Walklate 2004).

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----2222: Different practical methods of dose adjustment (Walklate 2004): Different practical methods of dose adjustment (Walklate 2004): Different practical methods of dose adjustment (Walklate 2004): Different practical methods of dose adjustment (Walklate 2004)

Name of dose adjustment Name of dose adjustment Name of dose adjustment Name of dose adjustment methodmethodmethodmethod Key crop scaling parameterKey crop scaling parameterKey crop scaling parameterKey crop scaling parameter Label Spatial interval between spray applications Fruit wall area (FWA) Fruit wall area divided by the row length (i.e.

average tree height) Tree row volume (TRV) Tree row volume divided by row length (i.e.

average tree cross-sectional area) Tree area density (TAD) Target area of tree row divided by row

volume (i.e. tree area density) Full optimized (FO) Target crop area per unit row length for

constant volume fraction on target The fully optimized method of dose adjustment (FO), involving spray plume adjustments to match average tree size and suitable dose adjustments, offers the greatest potential for drift reduction (87%) before beginning of flowering. The tree area density method of dose adjustment (TAD) is predicted to have a slightly lower potential for drift reduction (76%), but avoids the necessity of adjusting the spray plume to match the size of the crop across the full growing season. Other methods of dose adjustment, based of tree row volume (TRV) and fruit wall area (FWA) scaling principles, are predicted to give drift reductions of 49% and 32%, respectively (Walklate 2004). Additional equipments that will utilize different technologies in combination with on-the-go site-specific application practices to help reduce drift are forthcoming. Sprayers using prescription application maps (GPS) for variable rate applications are in development (Wolf 2004). Each of the above technologies has seen limited adoption because of the additional cost added to the spray equipment. As future application guidelines regarding increased efficacy and spray drift minimization are established, more technologies will be developed and adopted. These developments will require sound research to support adoption (Wolf 2004). 2.1.2.22.1.2.22.1.2.22.1.2.2 MMMMEASUREASUREASUREASURES TO REDUCE RUNES TO REDUCE RUNES TO REDUCE RUNES TO REDUCE RUN----OFF AND EROSIONOFF AND EROSIONOFF AND EROSIONOFF AND EROSION

2.1.2.2.12.1.2.2.12.1.2.2.12.1.2.2.1 WWWWEATHER FORECASTEATHER FORECASTEATHER FORECASTEATHER FORECAST

It should not rain within the two to three hours following the application to avoid run-off of the ppp. Moreover, it is recommended to not apply ppp during winter or at the end of autumn.

2.1.2.2.22.1.2.2.22.1.2.2.22.1.2.2.2 BBBBUFFER ZONESUFFER ZONESUFFER ZONESUFFER ZONES Well-positioned (along surface waters…) grassed buffer zones can reduce pesticides transport by surface run-off from cultivated fields to streams. Experimentations performed since 1992 in France by the ITCF highlighted the great efficiency of grass zones to retain various ppp. These buffer zones decrease the transfer of water by 43 to 87% with a 6 meters broad band, and from 85 to 99% when the width is increased to 18 meters. The suspended matters are also trapped, up to 99% in some tests. Finally, the transfer of the six tested products was limited from 44 to 99% by the presence of a band of 6 meters. This


effect is particularly notable at the time of the first rains which generate the main part of the transfers. On the other hand, the interest of the wooded and wet zones remains to be examined (Gril 2004); (Lacas 2005).

2.1.2.2.32.1.2.2.32.1.2.2.32.1.2.2.3 CCCCULTURAL TECHNIQUESULTURAL TECHNIQUESULTURAL TECHNIQUESULTURAL TECHNIQUES Various farming techniques can reduce the negative impact of ppp on the environment. For example, sowing the crop perpendicular to the slope allows to limit the run-off of ppp towards surface waters. The "zero tillage" or conservation tillage practices, by keeping a certain quantity of organic matter on the surface, make it possible to limit erosion (and thus the ppp's transfer towards water) and to support their biological degradation (CRP 2004). Other farming practices which increase the roughness of ground surface or keep crop residues in surface are also recommended in case of important run-off (Réal 2002). 2.1.2.32.1.2.32.1.2.32.1.2.3 MMMMEASURES TO REDUCE DREASURES TO REDUCE DREASURES TO REDUCE DREASURES TO REDUCE DRAINAGEAINAGEAINAGEAINAGE,,,, LEACHING AND EVAPOR LEACHING AND EVAPOR LEACHING AND EVAPOR LEACHING AND EVAPORATIONATIONATIONATION

The main factors to be taken into account to reduce these losses are the meteorological conditions and particularly:

- rainfalls for drainage and leaching (the transfer by drainage is linked to the water saturation level of the soil);

- temperature and relative humidity for evaporation. 2.1.32.1.32.1.32.1.3 Measures to reduce the applied amountsMeasures to reduce the applied amountsMeasures to reduce the applied amountsMeasures to reduce the applied amounts The goal of the measures mentioned below is to apply the products in a more efficient way and hence, need less product. 2.1.3.12.1.3.12.1.3.12.1.3.1 MMMMANDATORY GENERAL USEANDATORY GENERAL USEANDATORY GENERAL USEANDATORY GENERAL USE REDUCTION REDUCTION REDUCTION REDUCTION

Mandatory general use reduction objectives are not specifically targeted and therefore are prone to stimulate a substitution of less efficient but likely also less harmful ppp with a higher dosing rate by those with lower dosing rates but higher problematic properties. Such a substitution is not necessarily correlated to lower risks. Impacts of mandatory general use reduction are thus hard to calculate as the dimension and direction of substitution effects is not predictable and ways of implementation remain unclear. On a qualitative basis, if the political objective of quantitative use reduction is applied to all crops, higher costs for the users may result if ppp will be substituted with new, more efficient and thus likely more expensive products. This may eventually also lead to crop losses if plant protection can not any more be carried out because the amount allowed for use is not sufficient for appropriate plant protection (BIPRO 2004). To achieve this general use reduction, a restriction of the number of application of a ppp on a field could also be considered. 2.1.3.22.1.3.22.1.3.22.1.3.2 TTTTARGETING TECHNOLOGIEARGETING TECHNOLOGIEARGETING TECHNOLOGIEARGETING TECHNOLOGIESSSS

See higher (Measures to reduce drift). Moreover, several researchers have found that, for example, site-specific herbicide applications can account for weed spatial variability, leading to a decrease in herbicide use and production cost. According to (Lamastus-Stanford and Shaw 2004), depending on the study, on the field and on the used method, reductions in pesticide use thanks to site-specific weed management (SSWM) vary between 47 and 60%. This research has thus demonstrated the potential value of SSWM from an economic standpoint (it generally


allows thus higher net return than broadcast applications), although in certain situations, a broadcast treatment may be just as effective as a SSWM program. Nevertheless, the extra expenses such as sampling and technology costs mustn't be forgotten and, when included in the net returns calculations, would reduce the difference between SSWM and conventional methods. Indeed, a important consideration for SSWM is the scouting intensity required to make effective management decisions. Intensive weed sampling may be necessary to accurately determine weed distributions in a field, since less-intense sampling increases the possibility of poor population estimates because of spatial variability. Many researchers have mapped weed populations using different cell sizes and grids. However, a study of sampling intensity to accurately estimate weed populations is needed to determine if sampling weeds less intensively, as compared to more intense scales, will produce accurate treatment options and estimated net returns. The same can be implemented for patchy diseases. Indeed, disease control could be more efficient if disease patches within fields could be identified and spray applied only to the infected areas. Recent developments in optical sensor technology have the potential to enable direct detection of foliar disease under field conditions by differentiation of diseased and healthy areas of the crop and thus the prospect of automatically measuring the spatial distribution of crop diseases. This technology offers a method of disease detection with enhanced spatial resolutions compared to aircraft- or satellite-systems. According to these data, the boom is controlled by a spray map, comprising small pixels determining nozzle use (on/off) in individual boom sections and larger units determining spray dose, which is changed by altering spray pressure along the whole boom. However, many technical challenges have to be overcome before affordable practical systems operating at appropriate work-rates (>3ha/h) can be produced. Among others, new spray boom technologies are under development to facilitate spatially variable application of ppp at normal tractor speeds. Moreover, the number of patchy diseases that are likely to be detected in time for spatially variable spray application to be effective is limited (West, Bravo et al. 2003). 2.1.3.32.1.3.32.1.3.32.1.3.3 DDDDECISION SUPPORT SYSTECISION SUPPORT SYSTECISION SUPPORT SYSTECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMSEMSEMSEMS

As depicted higher in Task 3, various decision support systems allow to achieve a reduction of the treatment's frequency and thus a reduction of the total applied amounts. 2.1.3.42.1.3.42.1.3.42.1.3.4 FFFFARMING TECHNIQUES ARMING TECHNIQUES ARMING TECHNIQUES ARMING TECHNIQUES ---- AAAALTERNATIVE METHODS LTERNATIVE METHODS LTERNATIVE METHODS LTERNATIVE METHODS ---- LLLLABELSABELSABELSABELS

Integrated production and various associated labels (depicted higher in Task 3), which aim at an optimised use of ppp, lead consequently to a quantitative use reduction. 2.1.3.52.1.3.52.1.3.52.1.3.5 CCCCHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCT

To reduce damage to the environment, the farmers may choose less harmful products: - less ecotoxic; - less persistent; - specific (avoid broad-spectrum ppp).

Of course, the chosen product must remain efficient enough for the wanted use. In practice, only 6% of the fruit growers, 2% of the vegetable growers and 4% of the field crop farmers consider the environmental impact as a determinant factor for ppp choice. The main determinant factors remain price and efficiency. Moreover, about 66% of the field crop farmers confess to use broad-spectrum products (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004). Impacts on the environment of such measures depend on the considered ppp.


2.2 Measures to reduce the impact on the applicator's health All the measures presented above, which aim at reducing ppp's impacts on the environment, lead also consequently to lower risks for the applicator's health. Even if relatively brief in comparison with the application, the preparation contributes to more than 50% of the total potential exposure at the time of a ppp treatment (Vercruysse 2000). In field crops, risks of contamination are 10 times higher during mixing-loading than during the application (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004). As mentioned and discussed in task 1, pesticide operators and applicators are people who mix, load and apply pesticides. Since the pesticide handler works with the concentrated product, exposure during mixing and loading can form an important part of the total exposure of the pesticide operator. Operators are not only exposed to pesticides during mixing, loading and spraying but also during seed treatment, application of granules, dipping into pesticide solution or pouring pesticide solution onto plants (Vercruysse & Steurbaut, 2002). The major routes of exposure are inhalation and dermal absorption (Lundehn et al., 1992). The oral exposure in agriculture is of a minor importance when appropriate hygienic measures are taken (Van Hemmen, 1992). In addition, uptake through the eyes is possible when pesticides splash up. This mainly occurs during mixing and loading activities (Van Hemmen, 1993).

2.2.12.2.12.2.12.2.1 Factors influencing exposureFactors influencing exposureFactors influencing exposureFactors influencing exposure Various relevant variables that can effect dermal and inhalation exposure in different agricultural settings are mentioned in literature. The most important parameters are (Van Hemmen, 1992; Franklin & Worgan, 2005):

• Formulation: liquids, such as emulsifiable concentrate (EC) solutions and aqueous suspensions are prone to splashing and occasionally spillage, resulting in permeation of clothing and skin contact. Solids, such as wettable powders (WPs), granules and dusts, may present a plume of dust while being loaded into application equipment, so producing both a respiratory hazard and exposures to the face and eyes. Some newer water-dispersable granules (WG) have been formulated to drastically reduce this potential exposure;

• Type of equipment used; • Task being performed; • Amount of pesticide handled; • Packaging: the opening of bags, depending on type, may result in significant

exposure. The size of cans, bottles or other liquid containers may affect the potential for spillage and splashing;

• Environmental conditions: climatological factors, such as temperature and humidity, may influence chemical volatility, perspiration rate and use of protective clothing. Wind can have a profound effect on spray drift and resultant operator exposure;

• Personal protective equipment: protective clothing, such as chemical-resistant gloves, coveralls and respiratory protection (masks) can dramatically reduce skin contact and inhalation exposure;


• Hygienic behaviour: worker care with regard to pesticide handling can also have substantial impact on exposure. Workers who avoid mixing and spraying during windy conditions can reduce their exposure. Proper use and maintenance of protective clothing are also important behaviours associated with reduced chemical exposures.

• Duration of activity: in addition to measuring the unit exposure for a worker on a daily basis for a particular scenario, exposure and risk assessment requires knowledge and characterization of the frequency and duration of exposure, both on a seasonal and lifetime basis.

2.2.22.2.22.2.22.2.2 Exposure mitigation measuresExposure mitigation measuresExposure mitigation measuresExposure mitigation measures

Once the risk factors have been identified, it may be necessary to reduce exposure levels. This entails exploring options for reducing exposure and recalculating the risks to see if they are within an acceptable range. To reduce the exposure risk, measures that affect above mentioned factors can be taken. The options range from (Brouwer et al., 1994; Franklin & Worgan, 2005):

- replacement by less toxic pesticides; - lower dose rate; - limiting the amount of pesticide that can be sold; - limiting the uses for the product; - requiring improved lower exposure formulation types and packaging; - restricting the type of equipment that could be used to load and deliver the

pesticide; - requiring applicators to wear gloves, coveralls, respirators (PPE); - requiring appropriate hygienic behaviour; - requiring applicators to use ‘closed-cab’ systems (closed-mixing loading systems,

closed cabs for application equipment).

Regulatory agencies may also restrict use of a pesticide to trained certified applicators or require that registrants implement a product stewardship programme. It must be determined whether the risk mitigation options selected are feasible and provide a realistic use pattern, and whether compliance can be enforced. Another significant consideration is that options are cost-sensitive and are unlikely to be accepted if their cost exceeds the economic value of the commodity on which the pesticide is to be used. Control or mitigation strategies for occupational exposure are normally expressed as a hierarchy, with engineering controls considered to be the first choice, administrative controls the second choice and personal protection a choice of last resort (Franklin & Worgan, 2005). This approach has a sound basis in industrial hygiene practice and is outlined explicitly in the US Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. For pesticide handlers, however, this approach has not been adopted routinely. Rather, regulatory agencies worldwide have relied heavily on chemical protective clothing to mitigate exposure, and have made the use of such clothing a legal requirement for many compounds (USEPA, 1992; Easter & Nigg, 1992). While this is a sensible interim strategy, it should not be considered an adequate long-term control strategy for worker protection. Further efforts are needed to improve equipment design, application procedures and pesticide formulations to reduce exposures. Additionally, substitution of less hazardous compounds for pest control is the most certain means of preventing health risks for this population.


2.2.32.2.32.2.32.2.3 Formulation of Formulation of Formulation of Formulation of the active substancesthe active substancesthe active substancesthe active substances Inhalation exposure of the lungs occurs from breathing dusts, spray mists or fumigant gases. Fine particles from pressure spraying and aerosols are particularly hazardous to lungs. A Belgian study showed that respiratory exposure during handling wettable powder (WP) formulations is 3 to 5 times greater than handling other formulations such as liquid formulations like EC and SC and water-dispersable granules (WG) (University-Nebraska-Lincoln 2005); (Vercruysse, Steurbaut et al. 1999). Dermal exposure makes the major contribution to the total exposure (during mixing-loading, the potential dermal exposure is 1000 times higher than the potential inhalation exposure; during application, the same ratio varies between 50 and 1000). It occurs when pesticides touch the skin. Contact with the skin is a hazard during mixing of concentrated pesticides when they can be spilled or splashed. Also, during spraying operations pesticide drift may settle on exposed skin or clothing. The degree to which pesticides are absorbed by the skin depends on the type and formulation of the pesticide and the location on the body. According to University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2005), the skin is prone to absorption of liquid formulations such as emulsifiable concentrates. However, according to Vercruysse (2000), the higher potential exposure via the hands during mixing-loading comes from WP formulations. Indeed, a study performed in Belgium showed that dermal exposure during mixing and loading can be high since the pesticide operator then works with concentrated products. In particular, dermal exposure during handling of WP (wettable powder) formulation was very high: more than tenfold the exposure with liquid formulations (SC) or granules (WG) (figure 4-3) (Vercruysse 2000); (EUROPOEM model).

Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4----1111: Potential dermal exposure via the hands during mixing: Potential dermal exposure via the hands during mixing: Potential dermal exposure via the hands during mixing: Potential dermal exposure via the hands during mixing----loading (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004); loading (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004); loading (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004); loading (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004); (Vercruysse 2000)(Vercruysse 2000)(Vercruysse 2000)(Vercruysse 2000)

Thus, in all the cases, the applicator should avoid WP formulations, which present an average tenfold exposure risk (Vercruysse 2000). To overcome this problem, liquids are used but they offer a risk associated with splashing. Also, the presence of organic solvents in some liquid formulations (like EC) favours dermal absorption. Wettable granules (WG) overcome the problems mentioned with liquids and they also create less airborne dust than WP formulation (Vercruysse, Steurbaut et al. 1999); (Marquart, Brouwer et al. 2003).


2.2.42.2.42.2.42.2.4 Personal protective equipmentPersonal protective equipmentPersonal protective equipmentPersonal protective equipment Reference to PPE may be found in the product label. It is essential to adhere to label instructions regarding correct PPE. All PPE should conform to current standards (CSIRO 2002). In practice, protection of the applicator answers to a compromise between comfort and protection. As shown in figure 4-4, PPE are very poorly adopted by the Belgian field crop farmers with less than 50% wearing any PPPE. Figures presented in the following paragraphs show that, in this matter, the field crop farmers score very badly compared to vegetable and fruit growers (13% of the fruit growers and 11% of the vegetable growers do not wear any PPE) (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004).

Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4----2222: PPE worn by Belgian field crop farmers (Jadin, : PPE worn by Belgian field crop farmers (Jadin, : PPE worn by Belgian field crop farmers (Jadin, : PPE worn by Belgian field crop farmers (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004)Marot et al. 2004)Marot et al. 2004)Marot et al. 2004)

Gloves Gloves Gloves Gloves The wearing of gloves is absolutely necessary. Indeed, during mixing-loading, 80 to more than 95% of the contamination occurs via the hands (Vercruysse 2000). The gloves must resist the chemicals: leather, latex or PVC gloves are not appropriate. Wearing nitrile rubber gloves allows to achieve a reduction in the potential exposure to ppp via the hands by more than 99% during mixing-loading and by 75% during the application (CRP 2004); (Vercruysse 2000). A study performed in France with Regent 800WG® showed that the exposure ranges from 107% of the AOEL to 61% of the AOEL when wearing gloves (Arnich, Cervantés et al. 2005). Wearing gloves is thus a good way to significantly reduce exposure with less discomfort (figure 4-5). Currently, only 64% of the ppp applicators on average (75% of the fruit growers, 68% of the vegetable growers and only 49% of the field crop farmers) wear gloves (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004).

PPE worn by Belgian field crop farmers (Jardin, Mar ot et al. 2004)

no protection (51%)

gloves (21%)

gloves + mask (12%)

gloves + coverall (9%)

gloves + mask + coverall (7%)


Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4----3333: Risks for the operator during a mancozeb application in function of the PPE types and of : Risks for the operator during a mancozeb application in function of the PPE types and of : Risks for the operator during a mancozeb application in function of the PPE types and of : Risks for the operator during a mancozeb application in function of the PPE types and of the formulations (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004)the formulations (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004)the formulations (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004)the formulations (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004)

Mask Mask Mask Mask The wearing of a mask is recommended as well during the preparation as during the application and particularly for powder formulations handling or orchard spraying (except if working with a tractor's cab equipped with activated carbon filter). It is considered that a half mask is enough if it is provided with filters for gas and dust and accompanied by goggles. Masks of A2B2P3 type offer a protection from ppp inhalation up to 99,9% The replacement of the filter must be regular (CRP 2004); (PHYTOFAR, CRP et al. 2006); (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004). Currently, only 38% of the ppp applicators on average (57% of the fruit growers, 37% of the vegetable growers and only 20% of the field crop farmers) wear a mask (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004). GogglesGogglesGogglesGoggles Some products are corrosive or irritating. The wearing of goggles protects the applicator against ocular damage from splashes of such products (CRP 2004). Currently, on average, only 9% of the ppp applicators (14% of the fruit growers, 10% of the field crop farmers and only 4% of the vegetable growers) wear goggles (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004). Coverall Coverall Coverall Coverall The wearing of a disposable or durable coverall is essential, but sometimes not very comfortable. The coverall should conform to current standards. The penetration of ppp through a cotton coverall can reach more than 20% compared with less than 0,5% for a waterproof (PVC or PA) coverall. However, the cotton coverall offer an average reduction of potential dermal exposure during application of 63%. Even if not totally protective, the cotton coverall offers thus a satisfactory protection for application of low toxic ppp with less discomfort and heat. The perspiration due to heat opens the skin pores and increases the contamination risks. Nevertheless, because trace amounts of pp residues cannot be removed from cotton coveralls, they should be replaced frequently (Fishel 2006); (CRP 2004); (Vercruysse 2000); (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004). Annexe 3.1 presents the fabric characteristics of some common personal protective materials used in pesticide applications.


Currently, on average, only 25% of the ppp applicators (37% of the vegetable growers, 22% of the fruit growers and only 17% of the field crop farmers) wear a coverall (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004). BootsBootsBootsBoots Wearing boots is also recommended. The boots must resist the chemicals (CRP 2004). Currently, on average, only 40% of the ppp applicators (77% of the vegetable growers, 36% of the fruit growers and only 6% of the field crop farmers) wear boots (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Maraite, Steurbaut et al. 2004). Dressing orderDressing orderDressing orderDressing order First, the farmer has to put on the coverall, then the gloves, the boots and mask and last, the goggles. The coverall should be worn over the boots and the gloves and not in the boots and the gloves in order to avoid penetration of liquid in these (PHYTOFAR, CRP et al. 2006). 2.2.52.2.52.2.52.2.5 Hygiene after treatmentHygiene after treatmentHygiene after treatmentHygiene after treatment After spraying, firstly, the gloves, the boots and the coverall (if reusable) must be rinsed. Then, the farmer has to take off the mask and after, the coverall. After, the gloves and boots are taken off and thrown if disposable. Finally, the applicator has to wash his hands with water and soap and then have a shower (PHYTOFAR, CRP et al. 2006). Nevertheless, currently, according to the survey, 13% of the applicators do not wash their hands and about 80% do not wash their body after spraying (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003). All equipment, clothing, gloves, boots, goggles and masks should be thoroughly washed with soap and water (CSIRO 2002). Indeed, an influence of maintenance, cleaning and changing of (protective) clothing or gloves on dermal exposure is to be expected (Marquart, Brouwer et al. 2003). Currently, only 12% of glove users replace them regularly (five utilisations maximum) (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003). 2.2.62.2.62.2.62.2.6 Material equipmentMaterial equipmentMaterial equipmentMaterial equipment The sprayer should be equipped with a wash-hands can and a pure water supply in order to allow rinsing in case of accident (CRP 2004). The structures intended to ensure the operator's safety (steps, levers and protections) must be correctly laid out. If the operator is in comfortable position at the time of mixture's preparation and sprayer's adjustment, he will be less prone to splashes, falls and injuries (CRP 2004). Concerning tractor's cabs, Vercruysse (2000) has show that orchard spraying without cab leads to a fivefold inhalation exposure. On the other hand, field crop spraying with a closed cab or with a semi-open cab leads to a same range of exposure. It is better to use cab equipped with filter for aerosols, dusts and vapour. The filters must be changed regularly (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004). 2.2.72.2.72.2.72.2.7 Choice of the productChoice of the productChoice of the productChoice of the product The product's choice is determining the risk incurring by the operator. When several alternatives exist, this element has to be taken into account. To reduce hazard for their health, the farmers may choice less harmful products (with lower acute and chronic toxicities). However, only 7% of the fruit growers, 4% of the vegetable growers and 5% of


the field crop farmers consider user toxicity as a determinant factor for product's choice (Marot, Godfriaux et al. 2003); (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004). Moreover, in this framework, the knowledge of the danger pictograms and of the risk sentences is very important. The survey carried in 2003 in the Walloon Brabant showed that more or less one out of two farmers did not know the significance of the pictograms present on the label (Jadin, Marot et al. 2004). Suppression or use restrictions for the most harmful ppp may be considered. Impacts on the applicator's health of such measures depend on the considered ppp. 2.2.82.2.82.2.82.2.8 ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion Improvement of farmers' behaviours with regards to pesticides handling and wear of protective items offers prospects of significant reduction of pesticides impact on the applicator.

2.3 Measures to reduce the impact on the field worker’s health Agricultural workers are potentially exposed to pesticide residues when they enter pesticide-treated fields to perform a variety of manual labour tasks, such as pruning, thinning, scouting and harvesting, required for the agricultural production of crops. These exposures can occur in different crops throughout the growing season and can be of similar magnitude to exposures of workers who mix, load and apply pesticides (Worgan & Rosario, 1995). However, the practical options for managing exposures through the use of personal protective equipment or engineering controls are considerably more limited for re-entry workers than for mixer/loaders and applicators. The establishment of restricted entry intervals (REIs), which are intended to provide sufficient time for pesticide residues to degrade to a safe level before allowing unprotected workers to enter a field, is the primary method for managing post-application exposures (Worgan & Franklin, 2005). Thus an REI is the minimum time (hours or days) following application of a pesticide at which workers may re-enter agricultural fields. REIs are established by determining the time at which the daily exposure for a given work activity and dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) level is equal to an established safe level for the pesticidal active ingredient in question. The DFR represents the potentially available pesticide residue with which the worker may come in contact. Re-entry exposure monitoring studies were initially performed form an industrial hygiene perspective to characterize the magnitude of exposure by various routes, and from this early work the dermal route was determined to be predominant in most cases (Milby et al., 1964). Such studies proved useful information in establishing conditions responsible for worker illness following early re-entry exposures to treated orchards (Popendorf & Spear, 1974). During the late 1960s and early 1970s, health experts found that worker re-entry exposure declined with declining foliar residue levels, and it was on this basis the USEPA proposed initial guidelines for developing REIs (USEPA, 1984). At about the same time, researchers developed an empirical measure of residue transferability, now known as transfer coefficient (TC). Popendorf and Leffingwell (1982) observed that the TC differs by type of activity and crop. Zweig et al. (1985) and Nigg et al. (1984) demonstrated the concept of a TC for both row crops and orchard crops. Subsequently, it became apparent


that re-entry exposure was a function of degree of body immersion in treated foliage and the efficiency of transfer of the pesticide residue from the treated foliage to a worker’s skin (Krieger et al., 1990). A major data gap is the degree of penetration of pesticide residues through clothing following contact with treated crop foliage (Worgan & Rosario, 1995). Under hot and humid work conditions, penetration of pesticide residues through clothing may be enhanced by dampening of the clothing with sweat (Raheel, 1991) and/or plant juices generated by contact or certain work activities. There are a limited number of ways to mitigate the risk associated with worker re-entry exposures. As noted above, the REI, which is the time between pesticide application and re-entry contact with treated foliage, is the major mechanism for protecting workers from undue risk. PPE has an important impact on reducing the dermal absorbed dose.

2.4 Measures to reduce the impact on the bystander's health Bystander exposure will mainly occur by contact with spray drift during application processes on the field. Bystander exposure when spraying greenhouse crops and when applications are performed with treated seeds, granules, plants dipped in pesticide solution or when a pesticide solution is poured onto the plant, is considered negligible (Vercruysse & Steurbaut, 2002). Thus reducing spray drift or using treated seeds, granules, plants dipped in pesticide solution or pouring the pesticide solution onto the plant, can reduce bystander exposure. Spray drift, which is defined as movement of pesticides by wind from the application site to an off-target site, is one of the major problems challenging pesticide applicators. Spray drift is undesirable and needs to be controlled because (Ozkan et al., 1993):

- it results in inefficient use of application equipment and applicator time; - it may result in under-application of chemicals and ineffective pest control, which

leads to additional applications, reduced yield and higher production costs; - it may result in over-application if the applicator knowingly over-applies chemicals

to compensate for drift losses and to ensure the desired level of control; - losses and/or costly litigation may result if sensitive crops in adjacent fields are

damaged; - unintentional contamination of foodstuffs from unacceptable pesticide residues can

result in mandatory destruction of the crop; - it may contribute to contamination of air and water resources; - it may affect the health and safety of susceptible human and livestock populations.

Although complete elimination of spray drift is very difficult, its magnitude can be reduced significantly if factors which enhance creation of drift can be altered or eliminated. 2.4.12.4.12.4.12.4.1 Factors influencing spray driftFactors influencing spray driftFactors influencing spray driftFactors influencing spray drift The factors that significantly influence off-target movement of droplets are wind velocity and direction, droplet size and density, and distance from the atomizer to the target. Other factors that influence drift include droplet velocity and direction of discharge from the atomizer, volatility of the spray fluid, relative humidity, ambient temperature, and atmospheric turbulence intensity (Smith et al., 1982). The factors influencing drift are usually grouped into one of the following categories:


- spray characteristics; - equipment and application techniques used; - weather; - operator care and skill.

Many scientists have conducted field tests to study influence of these variables on spray drift. Variables affecting drift are discussed in detail by Smith et al. (1982). Weather, especially the wind, which the applicator cannot control, plays an important role in the generation and movement of drift. Two other factors which influence spray drift are chemical formulations and application parameters, including selection and proper operation of the spray equipment. The most important application factor influencing drift is the size of droplets sprayed. Bode and Butler (1983) indicated that spray drift, target deposit, and coverage depend largely on the range of droplet sizes produced by the atomizer. Small droplets, if deposited on the target, provide better coverage and this usually results in increased control of some pests. However, small droplets are susceptible to drift. Large drops are less susceptible to drift, but may result in inadequate spray coverage at low spray application rates. Bode and Butler (1983) indicated that coverage may be inadequate for satisfactory control of some pests when droplets greater than 200 µm diameter are applied at low volume application rates. Research has shown that for typical applications with boom type sprayers droplets of 100 µm or less often drift out of the intended target area, and droplets of 50 µm diameter or less, completely evaporate before reaching the target (Zhu et al., 1994). Yates et al. (1985) measured drop size spectra of fan and cone nozzles in a wind tunnel. They concluded that, although drops as large as 400 µm may pose some drift hazard, drops smaller than 150 µm in diameter would generally pose the most serious drift hazard. Bode (1984) indicates that the droplet size above which drift potential becomes insignificant depends on wind speeds, but lies in the range of 150 to 200 µm for wind speeds of 0,5 to 4 m/s. When using conventional spray equipment, the total volume of spray made up of droplets less than 100 µm in diameter is relatively small, but even such small amounts may sometimes cause serious health problems and/or damage crops in nearby fields (Ozkan et al., 1997). These measures are worked out in paragraph 2.1.2.1.

2.5 Conclusion The field of pesticide exposure assessment is complex and challenging. Exposures occur through multiple routes and are highly variable. Risks associated with pesticide handling differ substantially for the different activities and from those experienced by agricultural re-entry workers. Different assessment and control strategies are needed for each population. Professional training in the field of occupational hygiene and exposure assessment is needed to enhance the scientific capabilities of researchers and public health officials responsible for evaluating and controlling pesticide exposures (Franklin & Worgan, 2005).

2.6 Evaluation of some of these measures via the PRIBEL indicator In the following paragraphs, an example has been worked out, based on a standard treatment scheme for potatoes (table 4-3).


Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----3: “Systematic” treatment scheme on a sensible potato variety (14 anti3: “Systematic” treatment scheme on a sensible potato variety (14 anti3: “Systematic” treatment scheme on a sensible potato variety (14 anti3: “Systematic” treatment scheme on a sensible potato variety (14 anti----mildow treatments) mildow treatments) mildow treatments) mildow treatments) –––– moderate pression moderate pression moderate pression moderate pression

Date of Date of Date of Date of applicationapplicationapplicationapplication

Active Active Active Active substancesubstancesubstancesubstance

Dose Dose Dose Dose (g/ha)(g/ha)(g/ha)(g/ha)

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation ProductProductProductProduct Flowering Flowering Flowering Flowering (yes/(yes/(yes/(yes/no)no)no)no)

1/5 Linuron 500 SC Luxan Linuron 500 No 1/5 Aclonifen 1200 SC Challenge No 1/5 Metribuzin 350 WG No 1/5 Flufenacet 480 WG

Artist No

4/6 Mancozeb 1500 WG Penncozeb No 11/6 Mancozeb 1875 WG Penncozeb No 16/6 Cymoxanil 112.5 WP No 16/6 Mancozeb 1625 WP

Curzate M No

21/6 Mancozeb 1875 WG Penncozeb No 28/6 Dimethomorf 187.5 WG No 28/6 Mancozeb 1667.5 WG

Acrobat extra No

5/7 Cymoxanil 150 WG Yes 5/7 Famoxadone 150 WG

Tanos Yes

13/7 Mancozeb 1875 WG Penncozeb Yes 20/7 Dimethomorf 187.5 WG Yes 20/7 Mancozeb 1667.5 WG

Acrobat extra Yes

27/7 Cymoxanil 112.5 WP Yes 27/7 Mancozeb 1625 WP

Curzate M Yes

2/8 Fluazinam 150 SC Shirlan No 10/8 Fluazinam 150 SC Shirlan No 17/8 Zoxamide 149.4 WG No 17/8 Mancozeb 1200.6 WG

Unikat Pro No

23/8 Zoxamide 149.4 WG No 23/8 Mancozeb 1200.6 WG

Unikat Pro No

26/8 Cyazofamide 80 SC Ranman component A

No

3/9 Metoxuron 1200 WP Purivel No 10/9 Diquat 600 SL Reglone No

Remark: in this scheme, it is supposed that all products are applied by spraying, the applicator does not use any protective clothing and no anti-drift nozzles are used The PRIBEL-indicator has been calculated for this treatment scheme and the results are presented in table 4-4. It has to be remarked that for this calculation no specific reducing measures have been taken into account.


Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4: Results of the PRIBEL4: Results of the PRIBEL4: Results of the PRIBEL4: Results of the PRIBEL----calculations for a treatment scheme on potatoescalculations for a treatment scheme on potatoescalculations for a treatment scheme on potatoescalculations for a treatment scheme on potatoes

ProductProductProductProduct Active Active Active Active

substancesubstancesubstancesubstance ApplicatorApplicatorApplicatorApplicator GroundGroundGroundGround waterwaterwaterwater

Surface Surface Surface Surface waterwaterwaterwater BirdsBirdsBirdsBirds WormsWormsWormsWorms BeesBeesBeesBees ConsumerConsumerConsumerConsumer

Luxan Linuron 500 linuron 18,05 754,96 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 Challenge aclonifen 12,18 0,00 4,37 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00

metribuzin 2,19 1046,37 0,42 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Artist

flufenacet 2,29 499,95 0,30 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Penncozeb mancozeb 3,48 2,51 0,22 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Penncozeb mancozeb 4,35 3,14 0,28 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

cymoxanil 6,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Curzate M

mancozeb 74,74 2,72 0,23 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Penncozeb mancozeb 4,35 3,14 0,27 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

dimethomorf 0,17 112,31 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Acrobat extra

mancozeb 3,87 2,79 0,24 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

cymoxanil 0,41 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 Tanos

famoxadone 2,54 27,51 0,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Penncozeb mancozeb 4,35 3,14 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00

dimethomorf 0,17 112,31 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 Acrobat extra

mancozeb 3,87 2,79 0,22 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00

cymoxanil 6,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Curzate M

mancozeb 74,74 2,72 0,22 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 Shirlan fluazinam 20,30 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Shirlan fluazinam 20,30 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

zoxamide 0,04 0,00 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Unikat Pro

mancozeb 2,79 2,01 0,16 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

zoxamide 0,04 0,00 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Unikat Pro

mancozeb 2,79 2,01 0,16 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Ranman component A cyazofamide 0,09 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Purivel metoxuron 68,99 192,45 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Reglone diquat 194,90 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05

TOTALTOTALTOTALTOTAL 534,07534,07534,07534,07 2772,892772,892772,892772,89 7,607,607,607,60 0,000,000,000,00 0,030,030,030,03 0,050,050,050,05 0,140,140,140,14

Based on this treatment scheme, the impact of some reduction measures on the PRIBEL-score has been calculated. The following reduction measures have been taken into account:

• The impact of decision support systems (some fungicide treatments are left out) • The impact of TERRA NOSTRA-level (some fungicide treatments are left out) • The impact of direct losses reduction (direct losses -100%, -75% and -50%) • The impact of drift reduction by vegetation barrier (drift reduction -75% (on 0.5 m)

and -90% (on 1 m)) • The impact of drift reduction by vegetation barrier and air assistance (-95% and -

99% drift losses) • The impact of runoff reduction by grassed buffer zones (runoff -44% and -99%) • The impact of alternative defoliation/haulm killing (all defoliation treatments are

left out) • The impact of mechanical weeding (all herbicide treatments are left out)


• The impact of powder formulations suppression (WS, DS and DP formulations are replaced by other formulations)

• The impact of different types of personal protective equipment (mask, gloves, coverall, mask+gloves+coverall, gloves+coverall, gloves+mask)

The results are given in table 4-5.

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----5: Results of the impact of reduction measures on the PRIBEL5: Results of the impact of reduction measures on the PRIBEL5: Results of the impact of reduction measures on the PRIBEL5: Results of the impact of reduction measures on the PRIBEL----scorescorescorescore

Reduction measureReduction measureReduction measureReduction measure CompartmentCompartmentCompartmentCompartment Total score Total score Total score Total score Reduction on standard schemeReduction on standard schemeReduction on standard schemeReduction on standard scheme applicator 445.77 17% Decision support

system groundwater 2652.55 4% surface water 6.90 9% birds 0.00 - worms 0.03 - bees 0.05 - consumer 0.13 7%

applicator 441.42 17% TERRA NOSTRA groundwater 2649.41 5%

surface water 6.65 13% birds 0.00 - worms 0.03 - bees 0.04 20% consumer 0.13 7% ----100%100%100%100% ----75%75%75%75% ----50%50%50%50% ----100%100%100%100% ----75%75%75%75% ----50%50%50%50%

applicator 534.07 534.07 534.07 - - - Direct losses groundwater 2786.83 2783,34 2779,86 * * *

surface water 0.23 2.08 3.92 97% 73% 48% birds 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - worms 0.03 0.03 0.03 - - - bees 0.05 0.05 0.05 - - - consumer 0.14 0.14 0.14 - - - ----75%75%75%75% ----90%90%90%90% ----75%75%75%75% ----90%90%90%90%

applicator 534.07 534.07 - - Drift reduction (vegetation barrier) groundwater 2773.25 2773.32 * * surface water 7.49 7.47 1% 2% birds 0.00 0.00 - - worms 0.03 0.03 - - bees 0.05 0.05 - - consumer 0.14 0.14 - - ----95%95%95%95% ----99%99%99%99% ----95%95%95%95% ----99%99%99%99%

applicator 534.07 534.07 - - Drift reduction (air assistance) groundwater 2773.35 2773.37 * * surface water 7.46 7.46 2% 2% birds 0.00 0.00 - - worms 0.03 0.03 - - bees 0.05 0.05 - - consumer 0.14 0.14 - - ----44%44%44%44% ----99%99%99%99% ----44%44%44%44% ----99%99%99%99%

applicator 534.07 534.07 - - Runoff reduction groundwater 2772.89 2772.89 0.2% 0.2%

surface water 7.59 7.56 0.1% 0.5% birds 0.00 0.00 - - worms 0.03 0.03 - - bees 0.05 0.05 - - consumer 0.14 0.14 - -

applicator 270.18 49% Alternative defoliation groundwater 2580.45 7%

surface water 7.59 - birds 0.00 -


worms 0.03 - bees 0.05 - consumer 0.08 43%

applicator 499.36 6% Mechanical weeding groundwater 471.61 83%

surface water 2.50 67% birds 0.00 - worms 0.02 33% bees 0.05 - consumer 0.10 29%

applicator 506.57 5% groundwater 2580.45 7%

Powder formulations suppression

surface water 7.61 - birds 0.00 - worms 0.03 - bees 0.03 40% consumer 0.19 -

applicator 64.55 88% PPE: mask groundwater 2772.89 -

surface water 7.60 - birds 0.00 - worms 0.03 - bees 0.05 - consumer 0.14 -

applicator 90.92 83% PPE: gloves groundwater 2772.89 -


applicator 522.93 2% PPE: coverall groundwater 2772.89 -


applicator 53.41 90% PPE: mask+gloves+coverall groundwater 2772.89 - surface water 7.60 - birds 0.00 - worms 0.03 - bees 0.05 - consumer 0.14 -

applicator 79.78 85% PPE: gloves+coverall groundwater 2772.89 -


applicator 64.55 88% PPE: gloves+mask groundwater 2772.89 -



The impact of a decision support system and the TERRA NOSTRA-label on the PRIBEL-score is quite similar. Both of those reduction measures have an influence on the risk for the applicator, groundwater, surface water and consumers. The TERRA NOSTRA-label in particular also reduces the score for bees, since some fungicide applications during the flowering season (Curzate M, July 27) have been left out. The reduction of direct losses, drift losses and runoff especially has an influence on the risk for surface water organisms. If direct losses can be avoided (-100%), the risk will be reduced by 97%! The influence of drift losses and runoff is much smaller and only causes a risk reduction of 0.5 – 2%. While alternative defoliation reduces the risk for the applicator (-49%) and the consumer (-43%), mechanical weeding has a greater influence on the environmental compartments: groundwater (-83%), surface water (-67%) and worms (-33%). In case of powder formulations suppression, the WP/WS/DS/DP-formulations have been replaced by SL or WG formulations (Curzate M replaced by Profilux, Purivel replaced by Reglone). SL and WG formulations have a smaller impact on the applicator especially during mixing/loading because there is less dust in comparison with powder formulations. Besides that, the risk for bees has been reduced by 40%. The main reduction measure for the applicator is the use of PPE (personal protective equipment), especially a mask, gloves and a coverall. It is obvious that a mask and gloves have the greatest influence on the risk for the applicator (resp. 88 and 83% reduction). Especially in case of mixing/loading, gloves and a mask reduce the impact of splashing and dust drift. The combination of a mask, gloves and coverall during mixing/loading and application reduces the total risk for the applicator with 90%!


3333 RRRRISKS FOR THE CONSUMEISKS FOR THE CONSUMEISKS FOR THE CONSUMEISKS FOR THE CONSUMERSRSRSRS

3.1 Strong and weak points of the monitoring program

3.1.13.1.13.1.13.1.1 Foodstuffs and pesticides testedFoodstuffs and pesticides testedFoodstuffs and pesticides testedFoodstuffs and pesticides tested On the overall, tests that are carried out in Belgium by the FASFC are well targeted. Indeed the planning of the foodstuffs to be tested under the national surveillance program is well established. Crucial criteria are taken into account to match this planning with the global issue of pesticide residue. To ensure a high food safety, the FASFC relies on different key parameters that guarantee the accuracy of the targeting in the national surveillance programme. For foodstuffs, choices of the type and number of samples to be tested largely depend on the average consumption of these foodstuffs by consumers, monitoring results of previous years, RASFF messages4, commodities included in the European follow-up enforcement, budgetary and analytic possibilities, national and foreign origin of foodstuffs as well as information gathered in meetings. Concerning the pesticides that have to be sought for, the FASFC analyzes the monitoring results of previous years, RASFF messages, commodities included in the European follow-up enforcement, budgetary and analytic possibilities, registered active substances in Belgium and results gathered by other authorities (other countries, auctions,…). It is therefore a strong point of the national surveillance program to rely on such an amount of different information sources. Indeed, special emphasis can be given on suspicious commodities or pesticides by broadening the scope of reliable information source as it is done.

3.1.23.1.23.1.23.1.2 Targeted vs Random surveillaTargeted vs Random surveillaTargeted vs Random surveillaTargeted vs Random surveillance programnce programnce programnce program A surveillance program is designed in order to assess the exposure of consumers to pesticide residues whereas a targeted control has as main objective to ensure compliance with the legal MRLs and the detection of the use of illegal substances. In the first case the sampling will be at random and cover all possible foodstuffs containing pesticides while in the second case the sampling will be targeted taking into account previous exceedings, RASFFs, problem foodstuffs, etc. These two monitoring programmes are thus intrinsically different with regard to the aims and to the sampling methodology and, thus, they should not be confused.

3.1.33.1.33.1.33.1.3 Environmental contaminantsEnvironmental contaminantsEnvironmental contaminantsEnvironmental contaminants As showed in Task 2, some environmental contaminants, mostly banned OC, can still be found in foodstuffs. The situation faced today do not allow to identify clearly the origin of these contamination since OC were banned long ago and the way these pesticides enter commodities is not always known. As a matter of fact, the issue here is not to promote numerous tests of OC residues in samples taken, but to emphasize on the importance to remain vigilant about the issue. Indeed, sampling tests operated in 2003 and 2004 by the FASFC showed a decrease in terms of frequency of detection for most of the OC tested. Nevertheless, for chlordane, α-HCH and HCB the frequency of detections has increased between the two years. Therefore, uptakes of samples to test OC residues should be

4 The purpose of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed is to provide the control authorities with an effective tool for exchange of information on measures taken to ensure food safety.


pursued especially for animals and derived foodstuffs which are more likely to contain OC residues through biomagnification. Special attention should be devoted to more risky foodstuffs such as wild and farmed fish, free-range eggs, etc.

3.1.43.1.43.1.43.1.4 PrePrePrePre----market controlsmarket controlsmarket controlsmarket controls Often when foodstuffs contain pesticide residues exceeding MRLs value, it is too late to call back all the foodstuffs already sold in the distribution sector. Measures to implement pre-marketing controls could be useful to detect contaminated foodstuffs before it is bought by consumers. It may be difficult to control by this way all the foodstuffs consumed by Belgians, but special emphasis can be given to commodities that appear to be often over MRL during previous year controls. Actually, pre-market controls are already carried out by the auctions for fruit and vegetables. It is, however, not possible to have full information on the controls made, their results and the actions undertaken. It could be useful that the authorities were much more involved in these pre-market controls in order to ensure full transparency and to be better aware of the situation on the field.

3.2 Possible gaps and alternative assessment

3.2.13.2.13.2.13.2.1 Modelling consumers exposure with accuracyModelling consumers exposure with accuracyModelling consumers exposure with accuracyModelling consumers exposure with accuracy As it is explained in this project, a Belgian risk assessment for the consumer would gain in accuracy if carried out with national data. Indeed, actual knowledge in the food security field rely on relatively rough data from international literature (eg. FAO/GEMS, EU MRLs). Some actions in the research field should be implemented in this purpose. In order to calculate the consumer’s exposure to pesticide residues, two main parameters are needed : the amount of pesticide residues found in food commodities and the consumption of each commodity by consumers. Both data can help to calculate the daily intake of a pesticide residue. If this data is compared with the scientifically assessed ADI, it can determined whether or not the exposure is higher than the ADI. A proper risk assessment based on this principle could be led with refined values as described below. To calculate the exposure, two methods can be used as described in Task 2. For a more accurate risk assessment, the probabilistic modelling such as the Monte Carlo model is indicated (Tomerlin, 2000 ; Hughes, 2002 ; Renwick, 2002 ; Hamilton et al., 2004).

3.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.1 FFFFOOD CONSUMPTIOOD CONSUMPTIOOD CONSUMPTIOOD CONSUMPTIONONONON

Information and data related to diet surveys are collected in by agencies of many countries and are readily available in electronic format, allowing dietary intake calculations, in the United States and the United Kingdom (Tomerlin et al., 2004). In Belgium, the situation has improved recently by the release of the “National food consumption survey in Belgium, 2004”5 led by the Scientific Institute of Public Health in May 2006. The study offers a strong asset as data obtained on food consumption are sorted by population group, gender, ages,... Indeed these data could be used for a probabilistic assessment of the consumer exposure. Nevertheless, data available for public access are still too restricted for the assessment, as it is individual data that are requested for a probabilistic assessment. Therefore a cooperation with the Scientific Institute of Public Health is needed to achieve this task.

5 Available at http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/epifr/foodfr/table04.htm


3.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.2 PPPPESTICIDE CONCENTRATIESTICIDE CONCENTRATIESTICIDE CONCENTRATIESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN FOODSTUFFSONS IN FOODSTUFFSONS IN FOODSTUFFSONS IN FOODSTUFFS

Assuming that concentrations of pesticide residues are reaching MRL levels may not always picture the reality. A better assessment could be led if sampling data from official and non-officials monitoring sources are used to determine real residue concentrations. In fact, if these data are treated efficiently they could furnish a more precise evaluation of the residue levels in foodstuffs. Given by foodstuffs, different pesticide residues sought for in a certain amount of samples are found in various proportion depending both on the commodity tested and on the pesticides sought for. As these data are existing in the database of the FASFC as well as the database of different members of the distribution sector, it would be useful to promote their collection and their analysis. Outputs from this work can help governmental bodies to carry out better actions for consumers since risk assessment would provide a better picture of the pesticide residue situation in Belgium.

3.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.3 PPPPROCESSING FACTORSROCESSING FACTORSROCESSING FACTORSROCESSING FACTORS

Once produced, sometimes foodstuffs undergo various operations before being eaten. Indeed consumers are often preparing meals in a way that some parts of foodstuffs can be removed. These operations are washing, trimming, peeling, milling, cooking, or juicing. They may all cause reduction in residue concentration (Tomerlin, 2000 ; Winter, 2001). In order to assess properly the amount of pesticides consumers may intake, it would be interesting to study more in depth the consequences of these operations on pesticide residue levels in foodstuffs.

3.2.23.2.23.2.23.2.2 Risk assessment and risk indicatorRisk assessment and risk indicatorRisk assessment and risk indicatorRisk assessment and risk indicator A risk assessment using Belgian database should provide a more realistic view on food safety for consumers. In addition, uses of data from the monitoring program guarantee a certain degree of precision because it is based on real measurements downstream of the production and transformation processes. The situation would not be seen as it is done currently, from the farmer side (by estimating the exposure with the MRL) but from the end of the production when the foodstuff is about to be sold. Besides, if the exposure to a pesticide is known, it would be possible to asses if it this exposure is too high by comparing it to a toxicological endpoint : the ADI (for chronic exposure) or the ARfD (for acute exposure). To be compared with the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), exposure to a pesticide should be calculated as the sum of the residues present in all commodities for which the pesticide is registered. Chronic exposure and acute exposure should both be taken into account. If data on consumer’s exposure were complete and updated regularly, it should be possible to improve the risk indicator for the consumers by using a ratio of real exposure to toxicity. Such an indicator could allow to perform a better follow-up of the risks for consumers in Belgium. Ideally, both local produced foodstuffs as well as imported goods should be assessed by the risk indicator for consumers.


3.3 Improvement of field practices

3.3.13.3.13.3.13.3.1 Good Agricultural PracticesGood Agricultural PracticesGood Agricultural PracticesGood Agricultural Practices The idea of this chapter is surely not to detail all the steps from the application of pesticides until the marketing of foodstuffs where efforts could be made to reduce pesticide uses, but to emphasize on the most relevant points for consumers safety. Basically, the amount of pesticides found in commodities is due to the nature of the pesticide, the quantity of chemical doses used and the time of application before harvest.

3.3.1.13.3.1.13.3.1.13.3.1.1 CCCCHOICE OF PESTICIDESHOICE OF PESTICIDESHOICE OF PESTICIDESHOICE OF PESTICIDES

With all the precautions that have to be given to the interpretation of the results given by PRIBEL, it is possible to orientate the choice of pesticides to reduce the risk for consumers. In general, it should be emphasized that for the consumer’s safety the best pesticides are those presenting the highest distance between exposure (estimated via MRL as a worst case) and the toxicity endpoints. Also, a low persistence of the chemical will be an additional safeguard to avoid persistent residues in the food chain. If based on the intrinsic toxicity, PRIBEL tackled the issue of sulphur and copper in orchards for fruit production. Their high contribution the total (potential) risk in Belgium should be taken into account, especially because they are widely used in organic farming. Residues of these pesticides could be sought for in foodstuffs treated to verify the safety level is respected.

3.3.1.23.3.1.23.3.1.23.3.1.2 CCCCHEMICAL DOSESHEMICAL DOSESHEMICAL DOSESHEMICAL DOSES

It is of utmost importance for farmers to respect the chemical doses spread on the field. Application of higher quantities of pesticides than needed is not synonym of a better protection for the crops. Often it is rather an economic loss for the farmer but it can also be harmful for the consumer since pesticide residues will remain in higher levels in the foodstuff treated with a real threat of exceeding the legal constraints (MRL).

3.3.1.33.3.1.33.3.1.33.3.1.3 TTTTIME OF APPLICATION IME OF APPLICATION IME OF APPLICATION IME OF APPLICATION BEFORE HARVESTBEFORE HARVESTBEFORE HARVESTBEFORE HARVEST

As pesticide residue declines after a certain amount of time, it is important that pesticide applications occur enough before the harvest. The non-respect of this criterion may enhance considerably the residue concentration in foodstuffs. For some foodstuffs such as tomatoes or paprika with a spreading out of the harvest, the probability of the crop being harvested short after treatment can be very high and, hence, the risk of exceeding the MRL is more important for such crops.

3.3.23.3.23.3.23.3.2 Importance Importance Importance Importance of Integrated Pest Management systemsof Integrated Pest Management systemsof Integrated Pest Management systemsof Integrated Pest Management systems In Task 4, different labels have been ranked regarding to the amount and the relevancy of food safety guidelines of each label. As IPM systems gives an interesting alternative to reduce pesticide uses, it would be relevant to implement a study based on real efficiency of these systems regarding to pesticide residues. The meta-analysis done by Baker et al. (2002) on pesticide residues in conventional, IPM and organic foods in the US provides interesting results. Based on three main datasets, the study tends to prove that IPM foods are intermediate between the conventional and organic farming in terms of frequency of residues. Focusing on relative residue levels, the median ratio for organic-conventional and IPM-conventional crop/pesticide data pair are highly similar. Thus, a governmental action could be implemented to check what kind of impacts food safety standards enumerated in label guidelines have on the pesticide residue issue. To


fulfil this objective, a survey based on the same patterns than the ones followed by the study of Baker et al. could be carried out in the Belgian context. Besides, market shares of labelling systems seem likely to continue to grow in coming years. Further attention is therefore welcome from now on.

3.3.33.3.33.3.33.3.3 Organic farmingOrganic farmingOrganic farmingOrganic farming Organic farming is an alternative to reduce pesticide residues in the food chain. Various studies (Baker et al, 2002 ; Pussemier et al., 2006) have observed a better situation in organic farming in terms of residues levels, number of detected residues and multicontamination samples. But precautions have to be addressed since compounds such as sulphur and copper are found risky by the PRIBEL indicator. Therefore, a thorough assessment of the toxicity of sulphur and copper derivatives should be done in parallel with surveys on their real uses and on the presence of residues left in foodstuffs. A potentially significant gap in this analysis is the lack of data on natural pesticides, used by some organic farmers and some non-organic growers as well. Included are botanical insecticides such as rotenone and pyrethrum, sulphur and copper compounds, and a variety of other traditional pesticides permitted in organic agriculture. It has been suggested that residues of these natural pesticides are present in organic foods and offset the absence of residues of conventional crop chemicals (Baker et al., 2002).


4444 BIOCIDALBIOCIDALBIOCIDALBIOCIDAL EFFECTSEFFECTSEFFECTSEFFECTS The prioritisation of measures to reduce the impact of biocides implies a good knowledge of the impact itself. From the previous chapters on PT18 biocides in this report, it can be concluded that this is actually not the case. Several bottlenecks exist, especially with regard to exposure. This was to be expected: since most of the active substances that occur in PT18 biocidal products are also used in PPP, more data on effects are available than exposure data. As the exposure aspect of biocides PT18 remains rather vague up till now, reduction of biocide impact should thus focus on research needs rather than actual reduction measures. Nevertheless, Callebaut et al. (2004) identified some general measures, based on the actions of the reduction program of 1998 (Schoeters & Vanhaecke, 1998), the measures included in the Royal Decision of 22/05/2003 on the placing on the market and use of biocidal products and finally on the actions which were derived from reduction programs and measures set in various European countries. A limited feasibility study of these measures resulted in an action program. A brief overview of this action program is given hereafter. First priority:

� Phasing-out of active substances, included in Annex III of Regulation (EC) N° 2032/2003;

� Development of a system to obtain complete and accurate sales figures; � Development of a methodology to identify priority active substances, to allow for an

efficient use of research resources; Second priority:

� Direct measures: o Prohibition of the use of a product for certain applications, based on the

specific impact of the product (e.g. product with high aquatic toxicity not to be used when aquatic exposure potential is high);

o Information of the general public by means of campaigns and/or better labelling of the product;

o Establish voluntary agreements with industry and/or public services to reduce biocide use/risks;

� Other measures: o research on alternative substances/methods (chemical and non-chemical)

for the identified (see higher) priority active substances (substitution principle). Prohibition of the use of active substance with higher risk when feasible alternative is identified;

o research on dose reduction of biocides. Needs for further research, identified in the framework of this report, are discussed hereafter.

4.1 Needs for further research to enhance knowledge of impact of biocides PT18

In task 3, an indicator was proposed to quantify the impact of PT18 biocides on human health. The key elements of this indicator are:


� Identification of an accurate exposure scenario, taking into account the user type (professional/general public), the treatment type, the formulation type and the application device;

� The availability of an accurate toxicological endpoint to quantify the human health effects of the product for the applicator and the secondary exposed person.

Several bottlenecks were encountered when calculating the indicator for the relevant products. These are discussed hereafter.

4.1.14.1.14.1.14.1.1 Identifying accurate exposure scenariosIdentifying accurate exposure scenariosIdentifying accurate exposure scenariosIdentifying accurate exposure scenarios Some work has been carried out on a European and international level to define quantitative exposure scenarios for human health for specific product types. However, readily available scenarios, which allow for the calculation of an ambient product concentration are limited. Three situations can be distinghuised :

� no exposure scenario could be identified from available literature ; � an exposure scenario is available, but data for some parameters are lacking and/or

the reliability of the data for some parameters is questioned ; � Belgian data availability does not allow for the identification of the accurate

scenario.

4.1.1.14.1.1.14.1.1.14.1.1.1 NNNNO EXPOSURE O EXPOSURE O EXPOSURE O EXPOSURE SCENARIO IDENTIFIED SCENARIO IDENTIFIED SCENARIO IDENTIFIED SCENARIO IDENTIFIED FROM AVAILABLE LITERFROM AVAILABLE LITERFROM AVAILABLE LITERFROM AVAILABLE LITERATUREATUREATUREATURE

From the literature review it is clear that certain exposure scenarios need to be developed for amateur use as well as for professional use. The scenarios involved are presented in table 4-6. Scenarios for professional use only are indicated in boldboldboldbold.


Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----6: Overview of PT18 exposure scenarios which need to be developed6: Overview of PT18 exposure scenarios which need to be developed6: Overview of PT18 exposure scenarios which need to be developed6: Overview of PT18 exposure scenarios which need to be developed

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device TreatmentTreatmentTreatmentTreatment ApplicatorApplicatorApplicatorApplicator Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary exposureexposureexposureexposure

aerosol "one shot" aerosol sprayer

Flying and crawling insects, no animals or persons present during application X X

collar collar Ectoparasites on cats and dogs - X

liquified gasliquified gasliquified gasliquified gas(1)(1)(1)(1) fumigation devicefumigation devicefumigation devicefumigation device Crawling insectsCrawling insectsCrawling insectsCrawling insects XXXX(2)(2)(2)(2) XXXX(2)(2)(2)(2)

plastic platelet plastic platelet Ants in and around the residence - X


Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Ants in and around the residence Flying and crawling insects X X

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution brushbrushbrushbrush Lacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insects XXXX XXXX

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution triggertriggertriggertrigger

Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local Flying and crawling insects, local applicatioapplicatioapplicatioapplication directly on walls and n directly on walls and n directly on walls and n directly on walls and objectsobjectsobjectsobjects XXXX XXXX

ready to use stick stick Ants in and around the residence - X (1): applications involving methyl bromide (2): data might be available from applicators


A thorough literature study and or measurements under laboratory/field conditions are needed to establish the exposure scenarios, mentioned in Table 4-. To efficiently use the reseach resources, the relevance of each exposure scenario for the Belgian population should be identified. This will allow for a prioritisation with regard to the development of the scenarios, given in Table 4-. This relevance can be quantified by means of sales figures of the products involved in the specific application, on the condition that these data are accurate. For the development of professional use scenarios, professionals should be contacted and asked for experimental data on duration of the treatment, frequency, potential exposure routes, …

4.1.1.24.1.1.24.1.1.24.1.1.2 EEEEXPOSURE SCENARIO IS XPOSURE SCENARIO IS XPOSURE SCENARIO IS XPOSURE SCENARIO IS AVAILABLEAVAILABLEAVAILABLEAVAILABLE,,,, BUT DATA FOR BUT DATA FOR BUT DATA FOR BUT DATA FOR SOME PARAMETERS ARE SOME PARAMETERS ARE SOME PARAMETERS ARE SOME PARAMETERS ARE LACKING LACKING LACKING LACKING

ANDANDANDAND////OR UNRELIABLEOR UNRELIABLEOR UNRELIABLEOR UNRELIABLE

The Technical notes for Guidance mention certain limitations with regard to some of the exposure scenarios:

� Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1: the conditions of the simulation exercises may not be a true representation of the way a product is meant to be used. The selection of application period, followed by dwell period is the key determinant of predicted deposition and dose through inhalation;

� Spraying model 7: no data for hand exposure, values based on small database, possible mismatch between techniques and geometry of the buildings in the USA and Europe;

� Misting model 1: data collected from a survey of application of amenity herbicides by controlled droplet application. The data are specific to this type of activity;

� Spraying model 1 (amateur wasps): high uncertainty of product rate on hands. Furthermore, certain scenarios were incomplete with regard to the calculation of the impact indicator and assumptions had to be made by expert judgement (see task 3). More specifically it concerns: fogging model 3 (professionals), misting model 1 (professionals), spraying models 1 and 7 (professionals) and scenarios for the treatment of pets/lifestock. These restrictions question the accuracy of the scenarios. They should be subject to a sensitivity analysis, resulting in a margin of uncertainty, which will reveal the reliability of the models. Where data are lacking, a literature search on experimental data should be carried out or the setup of experiments should be considered. All scenarios for secondary exposure were established by means of expert judgement. Some bottlenecks are already known:

� the calculation of dermal secondary exposure is based on 1 application and an exposure time of 7 days. However, in some scenarios, more than 1 application/week is taken into account (e.g. ‘Consumer product spraying and dusting model 1’: 90 days/year). The accumulation of the product that occurs in those scenarios is not taken into account when calculating dermal secondary exposure;

� the secondary exposure through inhalation is calculated from the saturated air concentration of the active substance (except for electrical evaporators). This parameter is calculated from intrinsic characteristics such as vapour pressure of the active substance, molecular wieght of the active substance, the gas constant and the temperature. As such, the saturated air concentration does not depend on the


applied amount of product or the room volume. This makes the exposure scenario less accurate.

A peer review of these scenarios by experts should be organised. Whether or not the peer review should be international will depend on the availability of Belgian experts. The Flemish research potential with regard to hazardous substances was identified in 2001 by Ecolas (2001). Walloon and Brussels counterparts might be identified from federal and regional databases and/or research programs (administrations). Again, to efficiently use the reseach resources the relevance of each exposure scenario for the Belgian population should be identified. A prioritisation of the optimalisation of the scenarios, based on accurate sales figures, is deemed nescessary.

4.1.1.34.1.1.34.1.1.34.1.1.3 EEEEXPOSURE SCENARIO AVAXPOSURE SCENARIO AVAXPOSURE SCENARIO AVAXPOSURE SCENARIO AVAILABLEILABLEILABLEILABLE,,,, BBBBELGIAN DATA ARE INADELGIAN DATA ARE INADELGIAN DATA ARE INADELGIAN DATA ARE INADEQUATEEQUATEEQUATEEQUATE

The identification of an accurate exposure scenario requires a good insight in the application of the product. Several assumptions were made in this report to identify the approprioate exposure scenario for each relevant product (see task 3). Currently, specific information on exposure has to be provided by the applicant in the Belgian authorisation dossier, to allow for a human exposure assessment (see task 2 - annex 10). The information needed to identify the accurate exposure scenario can vary (see task 3). At least the following information should be readily available:

� type of applicator: professional or general public; � treatment type; � formulation type of the product; � application device.

To guaranty this availability, the format of the autorisation dossier should be cross-checked with the information that is needed. If necessary, this format needs to be reviewed. Furthermore, the consultation of the autorisation dossiers is not evident since the dossiers are not available in an electronic format. It can be concluded that a re-organisation of the data management system of the competent authorities is essential. A first step is the requirement to submit the authorisation dossier in an electronical form. This requires the development of an electronical format, which can easily be entered in a database :

� the database should allow for a pragmatic consultation of the data. An option is to introduce several access levels, depending on the status of the user (authority, permit holder, large public, researchers, …). As such, the competent authorities can decide which data is confidential and which will be accessible to a large public ;

� ideally, the format should allow for an automatic deduction of the most accurate exposure scenario, based on type of applicator, treatment type, formulation type, application device , …;

� an automated follow-up procedure can facilitate the management of the dossiers.

4.1.24.1.24.1.24.1.2 Identifying an accurate human health effect endpointIdentifying an accurate human health effect endpointIdentifying an accurate human health effect endpointIdentifying an accurate human health effect endpoint The accuracy of certain aspects of the effect assessment by the indicator, proposed in this report, is questioned.


The accuracy of the AOEL value to represent the secondary exposure effect is questioned. The use of these conservative AOEL values to assess the risk for secondary exposed persons will overestimate the risk. A literature search might reveal other end points which are more suitable to assess the risk for the secondary exposed persons. However, since the use of the AOEL value leads to a conservative assessment of the risk for secondary exposed persons, this reseach is not considered to be prioritary. The accuracy of the ADI value to represent the AOEL values when the latter is lacking is questioned. The ADI value might underestimate the effect of active substances contained in products for which the dermal and/or inhalatory exposure is also significant. Furthermore, effects of additives are currently not taken into account by the indicator. AOEL values for additive substances are rather scarce, which hampers the introduction of additives in the indicator. Ideally, an analysis is needed to identify the additive substances in each product and their AOEL - or ADI value. However, a more pragmatic approach is suggested by checking out the approach towards dealing with additives in other (European) countries. The risk of the PT18 product is represented by the sum of the risk ratios for the active substances contained within the product. This implies that the active substances do not influence one another with regard to effects. It can be assumed that this is not always the case and that another aggregation of the AOEL values is required. A literature study on ‘cocktail’ toxicity might reveal a better insight into this problem.

4.1.34.1.34.1.34.1.3 Quantifying environmental impactQuantifying environmental impactQuantifying environmental impactQuantifying environmental impact PT18 biocides are merely used indoors. From a pragmatic point of view it was deemed justifiable to focus on human health when developing an impact indicator in the HEEPEBI framework. However, PT18 biocides might also end up in the environment:

� use around the house (ants, wasps): deposition on soil, leaching to ground water, drainage to surface water;

� use indoors: presence in domestic wastewater from cleaning activities and rinsing of pets after shampoo application: (in)direct release to surface waters.

From the literature review it is clear that there is a need for the development of environmental exposure scenarios for PT18 substances. However a pragmatic approach is advisable, taking into account:

� the relevance of the environmental exposure potential of the application; � the relevance of each application in Belgium, based on accurate product sales

figures. Subsequently, an indicator should be developed to quantify the environment impact of PT18 biocides. Next to an exposure assessment, this requires an effect assessment. In analogy with existing risk assessment procedures for chemical substances, effects assment can be based on the Predicted No Effect Level.


4.2 Action plan for the integration of impact data of biocides PT18 in a risk reduction programme

The Belgian action programme to reduce the risks of biocides and pesticides (PRP) aims at a reduction of the impact of pesticides and biocides with 50%, compared to the year 2001. To that aim, impact reduction measures are needed. To reach the goal of the PRP, the knowledge of the annual impact of pesticides and biocides, particulary since the year 2001, is required. Furthermore, the influence of each impact reduction measure should be quantifiable. This will allow for an effective use of the resources (prioritisation of reduction measures by means of 80/20 principle6) and an accurate follow-up of the impact reduction and as such, the compliance with the goal of the plan. The annual impact of pesticides and biocides can be calculated by means of an indicator, which quantifies the impact on human health and the environment. An indicator for the impact of PT18 biocides on human health was proposed in this report. However, the accuracy of the indicator, especially the exposure aspect, is questioned. In section 4.1 of task 4, needs for further research to enhance the knowledge of the impact of biocides PT18 were identified. Several of these needs relate to the optimisation of the indicator and the optimisation of the data that are needed (especially accessibility). The risk quotients, calculated in task 3 by means of the indicator, represent the impact of the biocidal products on human health, in particular on the health of the applicator and the secondary exposed persons. The impact of the products for the general population in Belgium in a certain year can be calculated by multiplying the risk quotient by the amount of the product sold in that year. However, specific problems with regard to data availability in Belgium exist and were stressed in task 2 of this report. No specific reduction measures for biocides were proposed in this study. However, from our experience, some feedback on specific issues with regard to reduction measures for biocides is given. To allow for a prioritisation of the reduction measures and a follow-up of the compliance with the goal of the PRP, the influence of each impact reduction measure should be quantifiable. Reduction measures which are related to the use and/or product (formulation, composition, …) can be quantified by means of the proposed indicator (see task 3). The quantification of other types of reduction measures is currently a bottleneck. Effects of measures such as education, sensibilisation, economic impulses, … cannot easily be translated in a quantitative reduction of exposure to and/or effect of the product. However, such a quantification is required to allow for a prioritisation of reduction measures. Consequently, a system needs to be developed, to quantify the reduction of the impact which will be brought about by measures which are not directly related to the use and/or the product itself. It is obvious that the elimination of the above mentioned reseach needs and policy measures is of prior importance to be able to comply with the goal of the PRP. Furthermore, to comply with the goal of the PRP, the impact analysis should not be restricted to PT18 products but widened to all products types. Again, a prioritisation e.g. based on sales figures is needed to identify the relevant product groups for Belgium. 6 Reaching 80% of the result by means of 20% of ‘energy’ input


5555 REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

AEI, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (1987). The effect of shelter on spray drift from orchard spraying. Report No. CR358, Agricultural Engineering Institute, Hamilton, New Zeeland, 24p.

AKESSON, N.B., GIBBS, R.E. (1990). Pesticide drop size as a function of spray atomizers and liquid formulations. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: 10th Volume, ASTM Publication STP 828, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 170-183.

Baker, B.P., Benbrook, C.M., Groth E., Benbrook, C.M. (2002). Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest managment (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. food additives and contaminants, 19:427-446.

Bateman, R. (2006). Transferring mycopesticides from the laboratory into the field: the importance of "enabling technologies". 58th International Symposium on Crop Protection, Ghent University.

Bigler, F. (2006). "Les invertébrés dans la lutte biologique contre les arthropodes. Succès et défis posés par les réglementations et les OGM en Europe." Phytoma - La Défense des Végétaux 951: 19-23.

BODE, L.E., MCWHORTER, C.G. (1977). Toxicity of MSMA, fluometuron, and propanil to soybeans. Weed Science, 25: 101-105.

BOUSE, L.F., KIRK, I.W., BODE, L.E. (1990). Effect of spray mixture on droplet size. Transactions of the ASAE, 33: 783-788.

BROUWER, D.H., DE VREEDE, M., DE HAAN, M., VAN DE VIJVER, L., VEERMAN, M., VAN HEMMEN, J. (1994). Exposure to pesticides during and after application in the cultivation of chrysanthemums in greenhouses. Health risk and risk management. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent, 59/3B, 1393-1401.

Callebaut, K., Nysten, K., Vanhaecke, P. (2004). Research study on the impact of biocides. Study on behalf of the Directorate-general Public Health: Environment. Reference 03/08018/PV. CENKOWSKI, S., FORBES, A.M., TOWNSEND, J. (1994). Effectiveness of windscreens on modifying airflow around a sprayer boom. Transactions of the ASAE, 10: 471-477.

CHAMBERLAIN, P. AND ROSE, S.A. (1998). Effect of non-ionic polyacrylamides on spray droplet size, spray drift, and pesticide efficacy. In. McMullan, ed. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Challenges and Opportunities. Proc. Fifth. Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Volume 1. Memphis, TN, pp. 463-467.


Commission of the European Communities – DG SANCO (2001). Guidance for the setting of acceptable operator exposure levels (AOELs): draft guidance document. 7531/VI/95 rev.6. CRP (2004). Guide de bonne pratique phytosanitaire - Partie générale - 2004, Comité régional PHYTO, Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Direction du Développement et de la Vulgarisation.

DAVIS, B.N.K., BROWN, M.J., FROST, A.J., YATES, T.J., PLANT, R.A. (1994). The effects of hedges on spray deposition and on the biological impact of pesticide spray drift. Ecotox. And Environ. Safety, 27: 281-293.

Decoin, M., C. Steinberg, et al. (2006). "Méthodes indirectes: prophylaxie et méthodes culturales." Phytoma - La Défense des Végétaux 951: 30-31.

DORR, G., WOODS, N., CRAIG, I. (1998). Buffer zones for reducing drift from the application of pesticides. Paper No. SEAg 98/008, International Conference on Engineering in Agriculture.

DOWNER, R.A., MACK, R.E., HALL, F.R., UNDERWOOD, A.K. (1998). Roundup Ultra with drift management adjuvants: Some aspects of performance. In. McMullan, ed. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Challenges and Opportunities. Proc. Fifth. Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Volume 1. Memphis, TN, pp. 468-474.

DOWNER, R.A., WOLF, T.M., CHAPPLE, A.C., HALL, F.R., HAZEN, J.L. (1995). Characterizing the impact of drift management adjuvants on the dose transfer proces. In. R.E. Gaskin, ed. Proc. Fourth. Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Rotorua, New Zeeland, pp. 138-143.

EASTER, E.P. & NIGG, H.N. (1992).Pesticide protective clothing. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 128: 1-16.

Ecolas (2001). Preparatory study on an impulse program for hazardous substances. Study on behalf of the Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department AMINABEL. Reference AMINAL/AMINABEL/BVO/MBP2/MJP2000/37/1. CDC. (2006). "International Chemical Safety Cards, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ", from http://www.cdc.gov/about/default.htm.

Ehlers, R.-U. (2006). REBECA - EU policy support action to review regulation of biological control agents. 58th International Symposium on Crop Protection, Ghent University.

Elsey, B. and K. Sirichoti (2001). "The Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) by Tropical Fruit Growers in Thailand as an Example of Change Management Theory and Practice." Integrated Pest Management Reviews 6(1): 1-14.

FEHRINGER, R.J. AND CAVALETTO, R.A. (1990). Spray drift reduction with shrouded boom sprayers. ASAE Paper No. 90–1008, St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.

Foerster, P., A. Varela, et al. (2001). Best Practices for the Introduction of Non-Synthetic Pesticides in Selected Cropping Systems, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Division 45 – Rural Development.


FORD, R.J. (1984). Comparative evaluation of three drift control devices. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 26: 97-99.

FRANKLIN, C.A. & WORGAN, J.P. (2005). Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Pesticides. Wiley, England, 421p.

Fravel, D. R. (2005). "Commercialization and implementation of biocontrol." Annual Review of Phytopathology 43: 337-359.

FURNESS, G.O. (1991). A comparison of simple bluff plate and axial fans for air-assisted, high-speed, low-volume spray application to wheat and sunflower plants. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 48: 57-75.

Hall, F.R. (1989). Effect of formulation, droplet size and spatial distribution on dose transfer of pesticides. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: 10th Volume, ASTM Public. STP 980, D.A. Hovde and G.B. Beestman, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 145-154.

Hamilton, D., Ambrus, A., Dieterle, R., Felsot, A., Harris, C., Petersen, B., Racke, K., Wong, S.-S., Gonzalez, R., Tanaka, K., Earl, M., Roberts, G., Bhula, R. (2004). Pesticide residues in food—acute dietary exposure. Pest Manag Sci 60:311–339

HAQ, K., AKESSON, N.B., YATES, W.E. (1983). Analysis of droplet spectra and spray recovery as a function of atomizer type and fluid physical properties. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: 3rd Volume, ASTM Publication STP 828, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 67-82.

HEWITT, J. (2001). Drift filtration by natural and artificial collectors: a literature review.

HOLLAND, P.T. AND MABER, J. (1991). The drift hazard from orchard spraying. Report to Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, New Zeeland.


INS (2003). "Recensement agricole belge."


KRIEGER, R.I., BLEWETT, C., EDMISTON, S., FONG, H.R., MEINDERS, D.D, O’CONNELL, L.P., SCHNIEDER, F., SPENCER, J., THONGSINTHUSAK, T., ROSS, J.H. (1990). Gaugin pesticide exposure of handlers (mixer/loader/applicators) and harvesters in California agriculture. La Med. Lavoro, 81818181: 474-479.

LAKE, J.R., GREEN, R., TOFTS, M., DIX, A.J. (1982). The effect of an aerofoil on the penetration of charged spray into barley. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference - Weeds. BCPC Publications, 1009-1016.


LUNDEHN, J.R., WESTPHAL, D., KIECZKA, H., KREBS, B., LÖCHER-BOLZ, S., MAASFELD, W., PICK, E.D. (1992). Uniform principles for safeguarding the health of applicators of plant protection products (Uniform Principles for Operator Exposure). Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Heft 227, Berlin, Germany, 61p.

Madhian, K., L. Tirry, et al. (2006). Potential of native pentatomid predator Picromerus bidens (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae), an ignored species for biological control. 58th International Symposium on Crop Protection, Ghent University.

Maraite, H., W. Steurbaut, et al. (2004). Final report: development of awareness tools for a sustainable use of pesticides, Belgian Science Policy, Universiteit Gent, UCL, CERVA-CODA.


MAYBANK, J., SHEWCHUK, S.R., WALLACE, K. (1990). The use of shielded nozzles to reduce off-target herbicide spray drift. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 32: 235-241.

MCMULLAN, P.M. (2000). Utility adjuvants. Weed Technology, 14: 792-797.

Melander, B. (2006). "Lutte physique contre les adventices." Phytoma - La Défense des Végétaux 951: 26-29.

Melander, B., I. A. Rasmussen, et al. (2005). "Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control - examples from European research." Weed Science 53(3): 369-381.

MILBY, T.H., OTTOBONI, F., MITCHELL, H.W. (1964). Parathion residue poisoning among orchard workers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 189: 351-356.

NIGG, H.N., STAMPER, J.H., QUEEN, R.M. (1984). The development and use of a universal model to predict tree crop harvester pesticide exposure. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 45555: 182-186.

Nuyttens, D., B. Sonck, et al. (2004). Literatuustudie: Het belang van drift en haar reducerende maatregelen ter bescherming van het milieu in Vlaanderen, Departement voor Mechanisatie - Arbeid - Gebouwen - Dierenwelzijn en Milieubeveiliging Centrum voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek Merelbeke, Departement voor Gewasbescherming Universiteit Gent, Departement voor Agrotechniek en -Economie Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

OHIOLINE (2002). Reducing Spray Drift (Bulletin 816-00): http://ohioline.osu.edu/b816/b816_3.html

OZKAN, H.E., MIRALLES, A., SINFORT, C., ZHU, H., FOX, R.D. (1997). Shields to reduce spray drift. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 67: 311-322.

OZKAN, H.E., REICHARD, D.L., ZHU, H., ACKERMAN, K.D. (1993). Effect of drift retardant chemicals on spray drift, droplet size and spray pattern. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems, 13: 173-190.


OZKAN, H.E., REICHARD, D.L., ZHU, H., ACKERMAN, K.D. (1994). Effect of Drift Retardant Chemicals on Spray Drift, Droplet Size and Spray Pattern. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: 13th Volume, ASTMSTP 1183, Paul D. Berger, Bala N. Devisetty, and Franklin R. Hall, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 173-190.

Papadaki-klavdianou, A., E. Giasemi, et al. (2000). "Environmental attitudes of integrated pest management greenhouse producers in Greece." International Advances in Economic Research 6(2): 306-315.

PARKIN, C.S., WALKLATE, P.J., NICHOLLS, J.W. (2003). Effect of drop evaporation on spray drift and buffer zone risk assessment. The BCPC International Congres – Crop Science & Technology, 261-266.

Peet, M. (2004). "Insect management: Commercially Available Parasites and Predators." from http://www.ncsu.edu/sustainable/IPM/insects/par_pred.html.

Perry, M. J. and P. M. Layde (2003). "Farm pesticides: Outcomes of a randomized controlled intervention to reduce risks." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24(4): 310-315.

PHYTOMIEUX (2005). "La première boite à outils des prescripteurs pour diffuser les messages de bonnes pratiques phytosanitaires." Appel à projet ADAR.

POPENDORF, W.J. & SPEAR, R.C. (1974). Preliminary survey of factors affecting the exposure of harvesters to pesticide residues. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 35: 374-380.

POPENDORF, W.J., LEFFINGWELL, J.T. (1982). Regulating of pesticid-residues for farmworker protection. Residue Reviews, 82: 125-201.

PORSKAMP, H.A.J., MIECHIELSEN, J.M.P.G., HUIJSMANS, J.F.M. (1994). De invloed van een windhaag op emissies bij fruitteeltspuiten (The reduction of the drift of pesticides in fruit growing by a windbreak). IMAG-DLO Report 94-29, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Price, L. (2001). "Demystifying farmers' entomological and pest management knowledge: A methodology for assessing the impacts on knowledge from IPM-FFS and NES interventions." Agriculture and Human Values 18(2): 153-176.


Raaijmakers, J. M. (2006). "Microorganismes et lutte biologique contre les maladies des plantes." Phytoma - La Défense des Végétaux 951: 24-25.

RAHEEL, M. (1991). Pesticide transmission in fabrics: Effects of perspiration. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 46: 837-844.


Rautmann, D. Testing and listing of drift reduction sprayers in Germany, Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Application techniques division, Braunschweig.

Regnault-Roger, C. (2006). "Les substances naturelles d'origine végétale. Qu'elles soient biopesticides ou éliciteurs (SDN), quelles sont leurs perspectives dans la protection des cultures." Phytoma - La Défense des Végétaux 951: 14-18.

Renwick A.G. (2002). Pesticide residue analysis and its relationship to hazard characterisation (ADI/ARfD) and intake estimations (NEDI/NESTI). Pest Manag Sci 58: 1073-1082

RICHARDSON, R.D. (1974). Control of spray drift with thickening agents. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 19: 227-231.

Schoeters, K. & Vanhaecke, P. (1998). Reduction program for pesticides which are used outside an agricultural setting. Study on behalf of the Secretary of State of the Environment. SMITH, D.B., HARRIS, F.D., BUTLER, B.J. (1982). Shielded sprayer boom to reduce drift. Transactions of the ASAE, 25: 1136-1140.

SMITH, D.B., HARRIS, F.D., GOERING, C.E. (1982). Variables affecting drift from ground sprayers. Transactions of the ASAE, 25: 1499-1503.


Steurbaut, W., Garreyn, F. (2006, in press). Do Belgian Greenlabels attribute to environmental sustainability ? in Sustainability of certified production systems : the case of labels in the food sector.

SUNDARAM, K.M.S., SUNDARAM, A., SLOANE, L. (1996). Foliar persistence and residual activity of tebufenozide against spruce budworm larvae. Pesticide Science, 47: 31-40.

Timme, G., Walz-Tylla, B. (2004). Effects of food preparation and processing on pesticide residues in commodities of plant origin. In Pesticide residues in food and drinking water : Human exposure and risks (p.121-148). Edited by Denis Hamilton and Stephen Crossley.

Tomerlin, J.R., Petersen, B.J. (2004). Diets and dietary modelling for dietary exposure assessment. In Pesticide residues in food and drinking water : Human exposure and risks (p. 167-211). Edited by Denis Hamilton and Stephen Crossley.

Tomerlin, J.R. (2000). New methodologies for assessment of risk from pesticide residues. BCPC symposium proceedings n°75. Human Exposure to Pesticide Residues, Natural Toxins and GMOs : Real and perceived risks. pp. 15-28

UNSWORTH, J.B., WAUCHOPE, R.D., KLEIN, A.W., DORN, E., ZEEH, B., YEH, S.M., AKERBLOM, M., RACKE, K.D., RUBIN, B. (1999). Significance of the long range transport of pesticides in the atmosphere – Technical report. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 71: 1359-1383.


US EPA (1984). Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision K, Exposure: Re-entry Protection. Report No. 540/9-84-001, Washington, DC,USA.

US EPA (1992). Worker Protection Standard (Final Rule). Federal Register, 57 (163), 38102-38166, August 21, Washington, DC, USA.

VAN DE ZANDE, J.C., MIECHIELSEN, J.M., STALLINGA, H., DE JONG, A. (2000). The effect of windbreak height and air assistance on exposure of surface water via spray drift. Proceedings British Crop Protection Conference – Pests and Diseases 2000, Brighton, UK, 2B-4: 91-96.


VAN HEMMEN, J.J. (1992). Agricultural pesticide exposure data bases for risk assessment. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 128: 1-85.

VAN HEMMEN, J.J. (1993). Predictive exposure modelling for pesticide registration purposes. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 37: 541-564.

VERCRUYSSE, F. & STEURBAUT, W. (2002). POCER, the pesticide occupational and environmental risk indicator. Crop Protection, 21: 307-315.

WAUCHOPE, R.D., RICHARD, E.P., HURST, H.R. (1982). Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza-Sativa). 2. Arsenic residues in foliage and grain and relationships between arsenic residues, rice toxicity symptoms, and yields. Weed Science, 30: 405-410.

Weppner, S., K. Elgethun, et al. (2005). "The Washington aerial spray drift study: Children's exposure to methamidophos in an agricultural community following fixed-wing aircraft applications." J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol.


WOLF, T.M., GROVER, R., WALLACE, K., SHEWCHUK, S.R., MAYBANK, J. (1993). Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 73: 1261-1273.

Wolf, R. E. (2004). Ground Field Sprayers for Drift Management. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

WORGAN, J.P. AND ROSARIO, S. (1995). Pesticide exposure assessment: Past, present and future. In Methods of Pesticide Exposure Assessment, Curry, P.B., Iyengar, S., Maloney, P.A. and Maroni, M., Plenum Press, New York, USA, pp. 1-8.

ZWEIG, G., LEFFINGWELL, J.T., POPENDORF, W. (1985). The relationship between dermal pesticide exposure by fruit harvesters and dislogeable foliar residues. Journal of


Environmental Science and Health – Part B Pesticide Food Contaminants and Agrocultural Wastes, 20: 27-59.


TASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHTASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHTASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHTASK 5: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH In this finalizing part practical conclusions are formulated based on the scientific risk assessment from tasks 1 to 3 and on the possible measures to obtain the established reduction in task 4. The possible actions which are considered to be important in order to result into considerable reduction of the pesticide impact implied by the Belgian reduction plan and the possible research and steps which are very useful for a continuous improvement in the future of a sustainable crop protection system in Belgium are listed up in this part of the study. The suggestions are based on a scientific risk assessment and they can be used as risk management tool in the pesticide risk reduction plan of the Belgian government.

1111 LLLLIST OF SUGGESTIONS AIST OF SUGGESTIONS AIST OF SUGGESTIONS AIST OF SUGGESTIONS AND MEASURESND MEASURESND MEASURESND MEASURES These suggestions are targeted on training, stewardship, labeling and a few economic aspects, and not on imposing new taxes for the farmers/users. Belgian farmers are already obliged to pay a lot of taxes so it would not be feasible to invent more new taxes. Moreover, additional taxes would no longer contribute to a decreased use of plant protection products but could conversely lead to misuse. Much attention has been paid to the need of research and the need of data. To attain a clear picture of the impact of plant protection products and biocides on the environment and human health, accurate and recent data are indispensable. In the two last points specific measures are highlighted.

1.1 Training of applicators

� Exposure during application � Environmental impact � Consumer exposure: the applicators must be aware that the respect of

good agricultural practices in general and the compliance with the list of authorized products, recommended dosage and time of application in particular, are essential conditions to guarantee the absence of residues in the commodities that will be brought on the market. Hence, training will focus on these aspects and all extension courses and activities will give an important place to this point, whatever the mode of cultivation (conventional or under “green labels”) will be.

1.2 Stewardship Better information of the risks, benefits, usage,… Impact reduction without pesticide users information is not relevant

� Awareness of risks � Optimization of use


� Website where pesticide users have the possibility to calculate the impact of their pest management (with POCER II or Pribel )

� Promotion of decision supporting system (by email, fax…) � Regular information via the information sources of the pesticide users

(formation and information of the company sales representative…)

1.3 Sustainable crop protection by labeling and certification systems

� Better regulation: since labels do allow a voluntary approach towards

sustainable crop protection, it is of paramount importance to check carefully the relevance of the choices made within the various labels regarding, for example, the list of authorized products (see section need of research)

� Restricted use

1.4 Economic aspects

� Encouragement of presentation of short term and if possible long-term cost/benefit analysis in reports on experimentation of crop protection strategies.

� Indirect losses

1.5 Need of research

� Better evaluation methods for exposure during and after (secondary) treatment

� Methods for multiple exposure (food, secondary exposure,…) � Development of multiple parameters � Further development and improvement of decision support systems for

reduction of pesticide use � Analysis of uncertainty in relation to risk assessment � Evaluation and comprehension of the situation at farm level with regards

to evolution in pesticide use (constraints in farmer’s adoption of practices reducing the negative impact of pesticides, identification of farmer’s groups presenting the highest impact, understanding of the gap between awareness of risks associated with pesticide use and behavior during the use, …)). Development of actions for focused stewardship of farmers in the various cropping areas in Belgium.

� More research is needed to certify that labels really offer an added value

in terms of residues in food: a careful study of the list of authorized


pesticides should be undertaken and targeted residues determination should be carried out in order to compare with conventional farming. One should be aware, indeed, that a pesticide that presents more selectivity towards beneficials is not necessarily the best choice for the consumers (important persistence of benzoylurea insecticides, for example)

� More research on the presence of pesticides in raw and in processed

products. Attention should be paid to the following aspects: o variability in residues contents according to the type of crop

and the mode of application (new spraying equipment, new formulations, seed treatment, ….);

o particular “pesticide-crop” combination presenting a high potential risk (e.g. chloormequat in cereals, numerous pesticides with a high risk index for the consumer in the orchard crop group);

o effect of some crucial processing steps (e.g. what is the effect of some disinfection treatments for pre-packed salads on the fate of fungicide (dithiocarbamate, sulphur, …) residues?);

o relevant transformation products (inclusive after food processing).

� What is the real exposure of the Belgian population? The following points

should receive special attention: o exposure of the average population to the main pesticides

used in Belgium or introduced with imported goods (deterministic and probabilistic determination);

o exposure of some target groups such as babies, infants, elderly people vegetarians, ethnic minorities, …(deterministic and probabilistic determination).

Note that this research should necessitate detailed databases on food consumption habits for the general population and for the targeted groups and on residue levels in raw products and in processed commodities.

� Development of better pesticide risk indicators for consumers. The

current PRIBEL indicator is based on a potential exposure in food units produced in Belgium. It would be more relevant to have an indicator relying on actual exposure due to the consumption of foodstuffs by the Belgian consumers. By filling the gaps described above (more information on the presence of residues and on the exposure of the Belgian population), it should be possible to made the first steps in the development of a better indicator.

� Increase the knowledge of the health impact of interactions between

several types of pesticides and between pesticides and other chemicals (drugs, contaminants, food ingredients). Since the number of combinations of different chemicals is very large, a pragmatic approach could be privileged, based on the actual most encountered mixtures of pesticides that are found in our diet (see exposure of the Belgian population)

� Increase the knowledge on (eco)toxicity of some pesticides generally

considered as innocuous (sulphur, copper, pyrethrins and other plant extracts, synergists and additives, chlorate in drinking water, …)


� Assessment of the practical value of POCERII or PRIBEL as a tool of

education in the adoption of crop protection strategies reducing the negative impact of pesticides.

� Identifying accurate biocide exposure scenarios for the applicator and

the secondary exposed persons � Identifying an accurate human health effect endpoint for biocidal impact

on secondary exposed persons � Development of environmental exposure scenarios for biocides and an

environmental impact indicator � Development of a system to quantify the impact reduction which will be

brought about by measures which are not directly related to the use and/or the biocidal product itself (e.g. education, sensitization, economic impulses, …)

1.6 Need of data

1.6.11.6.11.6.11.6.1 Usage dataUsage dataUsage dataUsage data

� Usage of each pesticide per crop type � Application dosage � % of area treated

1.6.21.6.21.6.21.6.2 Sales dataSales dataSales dataSales data

� Sales data per biocidal product instead of active substance � Optimize the completeness of sales data by means of direct measures:

o Set a regular reporting of sales figures as a condition to maintain authorisation of the biocidal product in question

o Development of product registers, to be kept by any person who sells the product in question to the user

1.6.31.6.31.6.31.6.3 (Eco)tox and food consumption data(Eco)tox and food consumption data(Eco)tox and food consumption data(Eco)tox and food consumption data

� Oncogene potency � Pseudo-estrogene effects � Effect of sensitive systems: YOPI’s (young, old, pregnant and

immunodeficient)

1.7 Development of response indicators And their relevance/importance as an evaluation and/or follow-up tool in the reduction programme

� % of organic farming � % residues > MRL � % hydroculture


� % recycling of containers � Number of biobeds � % of labelling systems � Enquiring results related to consumer attitudes � % of controlled application systems � % biological control areas � % biocidal products use/sold � Etc…

1.8 Specific measures and their importance

� Selection procedure of suitable active ingredients and its formulation type

� Optimal dosage � Drift reduction measures

- nozzle type - spray boom heights - non spray zones - no spraying at high wind velocity

� Point source pollution � Protection measures for application � Cultural measures:

o promotion of labels. Prerequisite: make sure that the label to be promoted really offers an added value in terms of food safety (see need for research).

o Pre harvest control by auctions: this system offers nice advantages

for the consumers but it should be made more transparent. What is the percentage of non compliance? Which pesticides and foodstuffs pose the greatest risks? What to do with the non compliant batches?

� Non-chemical crop protection measures � “geleide bestrijding” vs calendar spraying (comparing different spraying

schemes) � Phasing-out active biocidal substances, included in Annex II of

Regulation (EC) N° 2032/2003 � Prohibition of the use of a product for certain applications, based on the

specific impact of the product � Information of the general public by means of campaigns and/or better

labelling of the biocidal product � Establishing voluntary agreements with industry and/or public services

to reduce biocide use/risks


� Stimulate substitution principle: use of alternative substances/methods (chemical and non-chemical) for active biocidal substances with large human health and/or environmental impact

1.9 Measures to be taken by the authorities

• Make a clear distinction between surveillance programs (compliance with the MRL regulation) and vigilance programs (assessment of the level of exposure of the population, follow up of trends in exposure, …):

o ideally two different monitoring programs should be implemented with their own specificities regarding statistical base and selection of commodities and pesticides to be searched for;

o develop another indicator than percentage of non compliant samples in order to better reflect the real risks supported by the population;

o take the necessary (administrative) sanctions in order to lower the level on non compliance and distinct those clearly from the measures to be taken to protect consumers’ health.

• Continue the efforts towards harmonization between countries in order to be

able to carry out sound comparisons: o harmonize the list of pesticides (and metabolites) and foodstuffs to be

monitored; o harmonize the measurements performances (same limit of

quantification whenever possible); o analyze more in depth the reasons for the currently diverging

percentages of non compliant samples between countries for a same year, or between years for a same country;

o set common MRLs for some foodstuffs not yet covered by legislation (example: OC insecticides in fish).

2222 OOOOVERALL CONCLUSIONVERALL CONCLUSIONVERALL CONCLUSIONVERALL CONCLUSION A worldwide literature study revealed that some pesticides and type 18 biocides evoke several environmental and human health effects, ranging from acute and chronic effects, over carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption and reproductive health effects. Since the PT18 type biocides relevant for Belgium are mainly used indoors focus was put on a human health risk assessment, including the proposal of an indicator. For pesticides applied in Belgium, the human and environmental impact is estimated with the PRIBEL-indicator. Several problems, uncertainties and research needs came forward, especially with regard to exposure routes and human health effect endpoints concerning biocides, and monitoring and exposure data for pesticides. A series of reduction measures are proposed for the different human health and environmental aspects which can be used in the Federal Program for Reduction of Pesticides and Biocides to help to reduce the impact of those products. This study was completed with a look into the future by postulating suggestions for further research and development.


ANNEXESANNEXESANNEXESANNEXES


1111 ANNEXESANNEXESANNEXESANNEXES TASKTASKTASKTASK 1111 Annex 1: OvAnnex 1: OvAnnex 1: OvAnnex 1: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the freshwater compartmenterview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the freshwater compartmenterview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the freshwater compartmenterview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the freshwater compartment

Active substanceActive substanceActive substanceActive substance LCLCLCLC50505050 fish fish fish fish remarksremarksremarksremarks LCLCLCLC50505050 crustaceancrustaceancrustaceancrustacean remarksremarksremarksremarks

growth growth growth growth inhibition ECinhibition ECinhibition ECinhibition EC50505050 algaealgaealgaealgae remarksremarksremarksremarks LCLCLCLC50505050 insect insect insect insect remarkremarkremarkremark

allethrin 19 µg/l (c) 96 hours; Salmo gairdneri; 0.9g, 13°C; static bioassay

11 µg/l (95% confidence limit 8-15 µg/l) (c)

96 hours; Gammarus fasciatus; 21°C; mature; static bioassay 2.9 mg/l (j)

72 hours; biomass

5.6 µg/l (95% confidence limit 4.9-6.4 µg/l) (c)

96 hours; Pteronarcys californica; 15°C; second year class; static bioassay

17.5 mg/l (a) 96 hours; Oncorhynchus mykiss 20 µg/l (f)

48 hours; Gammarus lacustris 2.1 µg/l (f)

96 hours; Pteronarcys californica, 3-3.5cm; 15.5°C; static; pH 7.1

30 mg/l (a) 96 hours; Ictalurus punctatus 0.021 mg/l (j) 48 hours; Daphnia magna

0.134 mg/l (j) 96 hours

0.0165 mg/l (j) 96 hours; Salmo salar

methyl bromide NR NR NR NR

permethrin

16 mg/l (95% confidence limit 8.71-29.6 mg/l) (c)

96 hours; Pimephales promelas: flow-through bioassay with measured concentrations; 25.4°C; dissolved oxygen 7.5 mg/l, hardness 45.7 mg/l calcium carbonate, alkalinity 41.6 mg/l calcium carbonate, pH 7.1 0.354 µg/l (j)

96 hours; Penaeus duorarum; static; 19°C

1.55 (nominal) – 0.506 (measured) µg/l (j)

72 hours; growth rate 0.1 µg/l (j)

96 hours; Hexagenia bilineata; dynamic test; 22-23°C; mean measured concentration

3.2 µg/l (c)

96 hours; brook trout; 12°C; static bioassay without aeration; pH 7.2-7.5; water hardness 40-50 mg/l as calcium carbonate and alkalinity of 30-35 mg/l; technical material 92.5% 0.075 µg/l (j)

48 hours; Daphnia magna; static; 21°C; nominal concentration

0.204 (nominal) – 0.066 (measured) µg/l (j) biomass 21 ng/l (j)

96 hours; Hexagenia bilineata; dynamic test; mean measured concentration


5.2 µg/l (c)

96 hours; brook trout; 12°C; static bioassay without aeration; pH 7.2-7.5; water hardness 40-50 mg/l as calcium carbonate and alkalinity of 30-35 mg/l; liquid 5.7% 0.6 µg/l (j)

48 hours; Daphnia magna; static; 21°C; nominal concentration > 10mg/l (j)

72 hours; biomass

2.3 µg/l (c)

96 hours; brook trout; 12°C; static bioassay without aeration; pH 7.2-7.5; water hardness 40-50 mg/l as calcium carbonate and alkalinity of 30-35 mg/l; emulsifiable concentrate 13.3%

2.5 µg/l (a) 96 hours; Salmo gairdneri

5.4 µg/l (a) 48 hours; Salmo gairdneri

1.8 µg/l (a) 48 hours; bluegill sunfish

0.43 µg/l (j) 96 hours; Procambarus clarkii; flow through; 21°C

6.1 µg/l (j) 96 hours; Lepomis macrochirus; static

0.69 µg/l (j) 96 hours; Oncorhynchus mykiss

9 (juveniles)-19 µg/l (j)

96 hours; Salmo gairdneri; dynamic test

tetrachlorvinphos NR NR NR NR (a): Tomlin (1994); (c): HSDB; (f): IPCS INCHEM; (j): electronic minutes from Higher Health Council (Degloire, pers. comm.) NR: not relevant The freshwater compartment is not relevant for methyl bromide or for tetrachlorvinphos when used in PT18 products (see further task 2). ErreurErreurErreurErreur ! ! ! ! Source du renvoi introuvable.Source du renvoi introuvable.Source du renvoi introuvable.Source du renvoi introuvable. shows that the acute effect data set for the aquatic compartment is most complete for permethrin. LC50 – data of permethrin for fish are of the same order of magnitude, except for Pimephales promelas. For allethrin, LC50 – data for fish vary widely. It is not relevant to discuss the variation of the other available acute data (crustacean, algae, insect), since these are rather scarce (maximum 3 datapoints).


Annex 2: OvervieAnnex 2: OvervieAnnex 2: OvervieAnnex 2: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the terrestrial compartmentw of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the terrestrial compartmentw of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the terrestrial compartmentw of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the terrestrial compartment

Active substanceActive substanceActive substanceActive substance short term short term short term short term L(E)C50plantL(E)C50plantL(E)C50plantL(E)C50plant

short term short term short term short term L(E)C50earthwormL(E)C50earthwormL(E)C50earthwormL(E)C50earthworm remarksremarksremarksremarks

short term short term short term short term L(E)C50microorganismL(E)C50microorganismL(E)C50microorganismL(E)C50microorganism

allethrin NR NR NR

methyl bromide NR NR NR

permethrin > 1,000 mg/kg soil (j) Eisenia andrei

tetrachlorvinphos NR NR NR (j): electronic minutes from Higher Health Council (Degloire, pers. comm.) NR: not relevant In the consulted literature databases, acute effect data for terrestrial organisms are scarce. The terrestrial compartment was considered not to be relevant for allethrin, methyl bromide and tetrachlorvinphos when used in PT18 products (see further task 2).

Annex 3: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the air compartmentAnnex 3: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the air compartmentAnnex 3: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the air compartmentAnnex 3: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the air compartment

ActActActActive substanceive substanceive substanceive substance LDLDLDLD50505050 toxicity to toxicity to toxicity to toxicity to Apis Apis Apis Apis melliferamelliferamelliferamellifera remarkremarkremarkremark

allethrin 3.4 µg/bee (f) contact; 26-27°C

4.6-9.1 µg/bee (f) oral

methyl bromide


permethrin 0.098 µg/bee (a) 24 hours; oral

0.029 µg/bee (a) 24 hours; topical

0.19 µg/bee (j) 24 hours; oral

0.05 µg/bee (j) 24 hours; topical

tetrachlorvinphos 1.37 µg/bee (h) contact; technical material (a): Tomlin (1994); (f): IPCS INCHEM; (j): electronic minutes from Higher Health Council (Degloire, pers. comm.); (h): US EPA Pesticide Factsheets In the consulted literature databases, no data were available on acute effects of methyl bromide on Apis mellifera. Annex 2 shows that the acute ecotoxicity of permethrin to Apis mellifera is significantly higher than that of the other active substances which are being considered.


Annex 4: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the marine compartmentAnnex 4: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the marine compartmentAnnex 4: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the marine compartmentAnnex 4: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of acute effects for the marine compartment

Active substance

growth inhibition EC 50

marine algae LC50 marine crustacean remark LC 50 marine fish remark

allethrin 16.5 µg/l (f) 96 hours; Salmo salar, 10cm, 11.07g; technical grade; renewal system; 10°C

methyl bromide NR NR NR

permethrin 2.39 µg/l (j) 96 hours; Uca pugilator; static; 19°C 21 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Cyprinodon bovinus; static

0.0155 µg/l (j) 96 hours; Mysidopsis bahia; 25°C; mean measured concentration 7.8 µg/l (m)

96 hours; Cyprinodon variegatus; flow through

0.018 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Menippe mercenaria; static 88 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Cyprinodon variegatus; static

0.34 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Penaeus aztecus; static 17 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Cyprinodon variegatus; static

0.22 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Penaeus duorarum; flow through > 300 µg/l (m)

96 hours; Cyprinodon variegatus; flow through

0.17 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Penaeus duorarum; static

0.51 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Penaeus duorarum; static

7.6 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Uca pugilator; static

2.65 µg/l (m) 96 hours; Uca pugilator; static

tetrachlorvinphos NR NR NR (f): IPCS INCHEM; (j): electronic minutes from Higher Health Council; (m): US EPA ECOTOX NR: not relevant


In the consulted literature databases, no data were available on acute effects on marine algae, molluscs and echinoderms for the active substances allethrin and permethrin. The marine compartment is not relevant for methyl bromide and tetrachlorvinphos when used in PT18 products (see further task 2). Annex 4 shows that the LC50 - data for crustaceans vary widely for permethrin. Annex 5 gives an overview of the availability of environmental effect data, reported in international literature, for the relevant PT18 active substances which are not allowed to occur in plant protection products. The following legend is used:

� NR: the active substance is not relevant for this compartment when used in PT18 products; � -: no data is available in the consulted literature databases; � +: one dataset is available for some of the endpoints; � ++: at least one dataset is available for each of the endpoints; � +++: more than 2 datasets are available for the majority of the endpoints.

This scoring system is not applicable to the air compartment since only one endpoint (LC50 bees) was considered for that compartment. Overall, it can be concluded that the available effect data for bees are rather scarce, except for permethrin. The scoring system was neither applied to evaluate the data availability for endocrine disruptive effects, since no specific data requirements (especially number of endpoints) are defined to assess these effects (European Chemicals Bureau, 2000). However, from the available scientific literature in the ED-North database (Comhaire & Janssen, 2001) it can be concluded that the information for wildlife is rather scarce.

Annex 5: Overview of availability of environmental effect data for relevant PT18 active substances which are not aAnnex 5: Overview of availability of environmental effect data for relevant PT18 active substances which are not aAnnex 5: Overview of availability of environmental effect data for relevant PT18 active substances which are not aAnnex 5: Overview of availability of environmental effect data for relevant PT18 active substances which are not allowed to occur in plant protection llowed to occur in plant protection llowed to occur in plant protection llowed to occur in plant protection productsproductsproductsproducts

Active substance Acute effect data Chronic effect data Freshwater Marine Terrestrial Freshwater Marine Terrestrial Sediment Allethrin ++ + NR + - NR - Methyl bromide NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Permethrin +++ +++ + + + - - Tetrachlorvinphos NR NR NR NR NR NR NR An overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects of active substances that that are not allowed to occur in plant protection products in Belgium is given in for the relevant environmental compartments.


Annex 6: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the freshwater compartmentAnnex 6: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the freshwater compartmentAnnex 6: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the freshwater compartmentAnnex 6: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the freshwater compartment

Active substanceActive substanceActive substanceActive substance NOECalgaeNOECalgaeNOECalgaeNOECalgae remarksremarksremarksremarks NOECfishNOECfishNOECfishNOECfish NOECNOECNOECNOECDaphniaDaphniaDaphniaDaphnia remarksremarksremarksremarks

allethrin < 1,1 mg/l (j) 72 hours methyl bromide NR NR NR

permethrin 0,007-0,047 µg/l (j) 72 hours 0,06 µg/l (j)

21 days; dynamic test; 21°C; mean measured concentration

1 mg/l (j) 72 hours tetrachlorvinphos NR NR NR (j): electronic minutes from Higher Health Council The freshwater compartment is not relevant for methyl bromide or for tetrachlorvinphos when used in PT18 products (see further task 2). Annex 6 shows that chronic effect data for the aquatic compartment are rather scarce for the active substances of concern. In the consulted literature databases, no data were encountered for chronic effects on the sediment compartment for the active substances of concern.


Out of the active substances under consideration, permethrin was the only active substance considered relevant for the terrestrial compartment when used in PT18 products (see further task 2). However, in the consulted literature databases, no data were encountered for chronic effects of permethrin on that compartment.

Annex 7: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the Annex 7: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the Annex 7: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the Annex 7: Overview of ecotoxicological endpoints of chronic effects for the marine compartmentmarine compartmentmarine compartmentmarine compartment

Active substanceActive substanceActive substanceActive substance

NOECmarine NOECmarine NOECmarine NOECmarine crustacean: crustacean: crustacean: crustacean: reproductionreproductionreproductionreproduction remarkremarkremarkremark

allethrin methyl bromide NR

permethrin 0,0056 µg/l (j)

28 days; Mysidopsis bahia; dynamic test; 25°C; mean mesured concentration; endpoint not specified

tetrachlorvinphos NR (j): electronic minutes from Higher Health Council Methyl bromide and tetrachlorvinphos are considered not to be relevant for the marine compartment when used in PT18 products (see further task 2). In the consulted literature databases, no data were available for chronic effects of the substances under concern on marine algae, fish (growth), echinoderms and molluscs.


Annex 8: Regularity of pesticide detection in raw groundwater resources (EUREAU, 2001)Annex 8: Regularity of pesticide detection in raw groundwater resources (EUREAU, 2001)Annex 8: Regularity of pesticide detection in raw groundwater resources (EUREAU, 2001)Annex 8: Regularity of pesticide detection in raw groundwater resources (EUREAU, 2001)


Annex 9: RAnnex 9: RAnnex 9: RAnnex 9: Regularity of pesticide detection in raw river water resources (EUREAU, 2001)egularity of pesticide detection in raw river water resources (EUREAU, 2001)egularity of pesticide detection in raw river water resources (EUREAU, 2001)egularity of pesticide detection in raw river water resources (EUREAU, 2001)


Annex 10: Chemical summary tables from the WHO revised guidelines for drinking water quality Annex 10: Chemical summary tables from the WHO revised guidelines for drinking water quality Annex 10: Chemical summary tables from the WHO revised guidelines for drinking water quality Annex 10: Chemical summary tables from the WHO revised guidelines for drinking water quality (third edition, 2004)(third edition, 2004)(third edition, 2004)(third edition, 2004)


Annex 11: Results of Annex 11: Results of Annex 11: Results of Annex 11: Results of the 7th Joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOCB/WPRSthe 7th Joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOCB/WPRSthe 7th Joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOCB/WPRSthe 7th Joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOCB/WPRS----Working Group “Pesticides and beneficial organisms”. Working Group “Pesticides and beneficial organisms”. Working Group “Pesticides and beneficial organisms”. Working Group “Pesticides and beneficial organisms”. Assessment of the reduction in beneficial capacity (egg laying, parasitism) besides mortality, 4 evaluation categories : 1 = harmlesAssessment of the reduction in beneficial capacity (egg laying, parasitism) besides mortality, 4 evaluation categories : 1 = harmlesAssessment of the reduction in beneficial capacity (egg laying, parasitism) besides mortality, 4 evaluation categories : 1 = harmlesAssessment of the reduction in beneficial capacity (egg laying, parasitism) besides mortality, 4 evaluation categories : 1 = harmless (< 30 %); 2 = s (< 30 %); 2 = s (< 30 %); 2 = s (< 30 %); 2 = slightly harmful ( 30slightly harmful ( 30slightly harmful ( 30slightly harmful ( 30----79 %); 3 = moderately harmful (8079 %); 3 = moderately harmful (8079 %); 3 = moderately harmful (8079 %); 3 = moderately harmful (80----99 %) and 4 = harmful (>99 %) (Sterk 99 %) and 4 = harmful (>99 %) (Sterk 99 %) and 4 = harmful (>99 %) (Sterk 99 %) and 4 = harmful (>99 %) (Sterk et al.et al.et al.et al., 1999), 1999), 1999), 1999)


Annex 12: Summary of laboratory and field data on toxicity of plant protection products to Annex 12: Summary of laboratory and field data on toxicity of plant protection products to Annex 12: Summary of laboratory and field data on toxicity of plant protection products to Annex 12: Summary of laboratory and field data on toxicity of plant protection products to eartearteartearthworms (Duiker & Stehouwer, 2003)hworms (Duiker & Stehouwer, 2003)hworms (Duiker & Stehouwer, 2003)hworms (Duiker & Stehouwer, 2003)


Annex 13: Toxic signs in birds associated with lethal exposure to several commonly used pesticides. Annex 13: Toxic signs in birds associated with lethal exposure to several commonly used pesticides. Annex 13: Toxic signs in birds associated with lethal exposure to several commonly used pesticides. Annex 13: Toxic signs in birds associated with lethal exposure to several commonly used pesticides. The organophosphorus and carbamate chemicals often cause death in a few minutes or hours The organophosphorus and carbamate chemicals often cause death in a few minutes or hours The organophosphorus and carbamate chemicals often cause death in a few minutes or hours The organophosphorus and carbamate chemicals often cause death in a few minutes or hours (Nimmo & McEwen, 1994)(Nimmo & McEwen, 1994)(Nimmo & McEwen, 1994)(Nimmo & McEwen, 1994)


2222 ANANANANNEXESNEXESNEXESNEXES TASKTASKTASKTASK 2222 Annex 1: Horizontal repartition of 11 plant protection products and metabolites in groundwater of Annex 1: Horizontal repartition of 11 plant protection products and metabolites in groundwater of Annex 1: Horizontal repartition of 11 plant protection products and metabolites in groundwater of Annex 1: Horizontal repartition of 11 plant protection products and metabolites in groundwater of Flemish region (AMINAL In Claeys Flemish region (AMINAL In Claeys Flemish region (AMINAL In Claeys Flemish region (AMINAL In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., 2005), 2005), 2005), 2005)


Annex 2: Studies from 1991 to 2002 are made Annex 2: Studies from 1991 to 2002 are made Annex 2: Studies from 1991 to 2002 are made Annex 2: Studies from 1991 to 2002 are made by water producer companies in Flemish region and by water producer companies in Flemish region and by water producer companies in Flemish region and by water producer companies in Flemish region and the ranking according to 4 main geological eras (primary limestone, secondary chalk, tertiary sand the ranking according to 4 main geological eras (primary limestone, secondary chalk, tertiary sand the ranking according to 4 main geological eras (primary limestone, secondary chalk, tertiary sand the ranking according to 4 main geological eras (primary limestone, secondary chalk, tertiary sand and quaternary alluvium) are done for 5 herbicides (chosen according to importance of their use) and quaternary alluvium) are done for 5 herbicides (chosen according to importance of their use) and quaternary alluvium) are done for 5 herbicides (chosen according to importance of their use) and quaternary alluvium) are done for 5 herbicides (chosen according to importance of their use) (Belgaqua (Belgaqua (Belgaqua (Belgaqua In Claeys In Claeys In Claeys In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., 2005), 2005), 2005), 2005) a.a.a.a. Primary limestonePrimary limestonePrimary limestonePrimary limestone

b.b.b.b. Secondary chalkSecondary chalkSecondary chalkSecondary chalk


c.c.c.c. Tertiary sandTertiary sandTertiary sandTertiary sand

d.d.d.d. Quaternary alluviumQuaternary alluviumQuaternary alluviumQuaternary alluvium


Annex 3: Chart of application date for different ppp in Belgium (Holvoet Annex 3: Chart of application date for different ppp in Belgium (Holvoet Annex 3: Chart of application date for different ppp in Belgium (Holvoet Annex 3: Chart of application date for different ppp in Belgium (Holvoet et al.et al.et al.et al., 2004), 2004), 2004), 2004)


Annex 4: General characteristics and sources oAnnex 4: General characteristics and sources oAnnex 4: General characteristics and sources oAnnex 4: General characteristics and sources of emission of 14 hazardous substances (ppp) f emission of 14 hazardous substances (ppp) f emission of 14 hazardous substances (ppp) f emission of 14 hazardous substances (ppp) considered as relevant by the Walloon Administration are summarized in this chart (Rung considered as relevant by the Walloon Administration are summarized in this chart (Rung considered as relevant by the Walloon Administration are summarized in this chart (Rung considered as relevant by the Walloon Administration are summarized in this chart (Rung et al.,et al.,et al.,et al., 2005)2005)2005)2005)


Annex 5: List with selectivity of pesticides for insecticides used in potatoes (Jansen Annex 5: List with selectivity of pesticides for insecticides used in potatoes (Jansen Annex 5: List with selectivity of pesticides for insecticides used in potatoes (Jansen Annex 5: List with selectivity of pesticides for insecticides used in potatoes (Jansen et al.et al.et al.et al.))))


Annex 6:Annex 6:Annex 6:Annex 6: Percentages of drift reduction in function of the spraying technique (SPF, 2005) Percentages of drift reduction in function of the spraying technique (SPF, 2005) Percentages of drift reduction in function of the spraying technique (SPF, 2005) Percentages of drift reduction in function of the spraying technique (SPF, 2005)


Annex 7: Tables of spraydrift (percent of the applied dose) (Ganzelmeier Annex 7: Tables of spraydrift (percent of the applied dose) (Ganzelmeier Annex 7: Tables of spraydrift (percent of the applied dose) (Ganzelmeier Annex 7: Tables of spraydrift (percent of the applied dose) (Ganzelmeier et al.et al.et al.et al., 1995), 1995), 1995), 1995) a) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field cropa) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field cropa) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field cropa) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field crops, late growth stages, late growth stages, late growth stages, late growth stage


b) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field crops, early and late growth b) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field crops, early and late growth b) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field crops, early and late growth b) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for field crops, early and late growth stagestagestagestage


c) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, early growth stagec) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, early growth stagec) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, early growth stagec) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, early growth stage


d) Statistical ed) Statistical ed) Statistical ed) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, late growth stagevaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, late growth stagevaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, late growth stagevaluation or the results of drift measurements for fruit crops, late growth stage


e) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for hops, early growth stagee) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for hops, early growth stagee) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for hops, early growth stagee) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for hops, early growth stage


f) Statistical evaluaf) Statistical evaluaf) Statistical evaluaf) Statistical evaluation or the results of drift measurements for hops, late growth stagetion or the results of drift measurements for hops, late growth stagetion or the results of drift measurements for hops, late growth stagetion or the results of drift measurements for hops, late growth stage


Annex 8Annex 8Annex 8Annex 8: Overview of active substances in PT18 biocides authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 : Overview of active substances in PT18 biocides authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 : Overview of active substances in PT18 biocides authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 : Overview of active substances in PT18 biocides authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 –––– 16/01/200616/01/200616/01/200616/01/2006 2(1-methylethoxyphynyl)N-methylcarbamate = propoxur 3-(2,2 dichlorovinyl)2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate of alpha-cyano-4-fluoro-3-phenoxybenzyl

allethrin alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-2,2-dimethyl-3-(2-methyprop-1-enyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate

alpha-cypermethrin

aluminium phosphide amitraz

azamethiphos

bioresmethrin

boric acid methyl bromide sodium dimethylarsinate

chlorpyrifos

cis-tricos-9-ene

citronella oil

cypermethrin

deltamethrin

diazinon

dichlorvos esdepallethrin

fenitrothion

fenoxycarb

fipronil

flufenoxuron

essential oils

hydramethylnon

imidacloprid

magnesium phosphide

permethrin

phenothrin (d-)

phoxim

piperonyl butoxide

pyrethrins

resmethrin

silicium dioxide

tetrachlorvinphos

tetramethrin

trans-2-(2,2-dichlorovinyl-3,3-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate de 2,3,5,6 tetrafluorobenzyle

trichlorfon


Annex 9: Overview of PT18 products with one or more selected active substances, authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 Annex 9: Overview of PT18 products with one or more selected active substances, authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 Annex 9: Overview of PT18 products with one or more selected active substances, authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 Annex 9: Overview of PT18 products with one or more selected active substances, authorized in Belgium dd 22/11/2005 –––– 16/01/2006 16/01/2006 16/01/2006 16/01/2006

Product nameProduct nameProduct nameProduct name FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation class Aclass Aclass Aclass A application application application application devicedevicedevicedevice TreatmentTreatmentTreatmentTreatment

use on use on use on use on domestic domestic domestic domestic animalsanimalsanimalsanimals indoor useindoor useindoor useindoor use indoor airindoor airindoor airindoor air

domesticdomesticdomesticdomestic wastewaterwastewaterwastewaterwastewater

outdoor outdoor outdoor outdoor useuseuseuse

outdoor outdoor outdoor outdoor airairairair

sealed from sealed from sealed from sealed from environmentenvironmentenvironmentenvironment referencereferencereferencereference

Agrichem Deltamethrin SC

concentrated suspension

long lasting insecticide for control of crawling insects (cockroaches, woodlice, ... ) by local application

Air Control aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - -

http://www.ormatorino.it/english/starten.html

Almetex powder

canister with child-proof fastener

dust powder for local control of ants in and around buildings - + - + + + - Nijs; pers. comm.

Antilouse powder powder canister

contact insecticide to control fleas, lice and ticks on dogs and cats + + - - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Antilouse shampoo


contact insecticide to control fleas, lice and ticks on dogs and cats + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Bayer antiparasitical powder powder canister pet treatment assumed + + - + - - - expert judgement

Bayer antiparasitical shampoo

ready to use solution synthetic bottle + + - + - - - expert judgement

Bayer antiparasitical spray aerosol aerosol sprayer pet treatment assumed + + + - - - - expert judgement Baygon electrical evaporation device against mosquitos

cardboard platelet

electrical evaporator - + + - - - + Nijs; pers. comm.








Baygon ant powder powder canister not on market in 2006 - + - + + - - expert judgement

Baygon vermin box bait bait box - + - - - - + Nijs; pers. comm.

Baygon powder against crawling insects powder canister surface treatment assumed - + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Bieva Spray ready to use solution

low pressure spraying device producing coarse droplets

liquid pulverised undiluted with coarse droplet and low pressure where insects are hiding (local application) - + + + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Bolfo Direct aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of crawling insects (fleas) by local application where insects are hiding - + + + - - -

Bayer, pers. comm.

Bolfo powder powder canister pet treatment assumed + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Bolfo shampoo ready to use solution synthetic bottle

control of fleas, lice and hair eating parasites on dogs + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.








Bolfo spray aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of fleas, lice, aphids, wing lice and ticks on dogs, cats, pigeons and other domestic animals except song birds and aviary birds + + + - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Caniderm antiparasites shampoo

ready to use solution synthetic bottle + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Canitex collar for dogs and cats collar collar + + - - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Canitex solution ready to use solution synthetic bottle + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Canitex powder powder canister pet treatment assumed + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Canitex shampoo

ready to use solution synthetic bottle + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Chlorpyrifos gel gel spraygun

solely for control of cockroaches and crickets; apply 1 to 5g of gel in bait or as such at places where the animals are hiding - + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Chlorpyrifos paste paste X spraygun

solely for control of cockroaches and crickets; apply 1 to 5g of gel in bait or as such at places where the animals are hiding Nijs; pers. comm.








Friskies antilouse collar for cats collar collar + + - - - - - expert judgement

Friskies antilouse collar for dogs collar collar + + - - - - - expert judgement

Dalf spray ready to use solution trigger assumed pet treatment assumed + + + - - - - expert judgement

Defencare spray aerosol aerosol sprayer pet treatment assumed + + + - - - - expert judgement

Desbrom liquified gas X fumigation device - + + - - - - expert judgement

Detrans CIK aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - - Degloire, pers. comm.

Detrans OB FIK aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - - Degloire, pers. comm.

Detrans WB FIK aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - - Degloire, pers. comm.

Diagnos insecticide spray aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of ectoparasites like fleas and lice on dogs and cats more than 6 months old + + + - - - - expert judgement








Empire 200

concentrated suspension in micro-capsules

spraying device producing coarse droplets (diameter 500 µm-1000 µm; 2-3 bar)

control of crawling insects, for local application only at places where animals are hinding; application device should allow for local application only - + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Flamingo antiparasite collar collar collar + + - - - - - expert judgement

Fly-kill aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of flies, wasps, mosquitos and all other flying insects for indoor and outdoor application - + + - + + -

http://www.bioservice.be/functions/productDetail.asp?Pid=72&cat=6&pag=3_1

Fogger aerosol "one shot" aerosol sprayer - + + - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Formax ready to use solution synthetic bottle

Viscous liquid, solely for control of ants in and around buildings: apply few droplets on porous surface at places frequented by ants. Can also be mixed with water to be poured into the ant nest - + - + + - - expert judgement

Foxide ready to use solution X

to be applied by brush or sprayer

permanent insecticide laquer to control crawling insects; low-pressure spraying application assumed - + + + - - -

http://www.sid.be/nl/prod_details.php?id=31&PHPSESSID=35e9eecdff6ec42a510978b2869cf808








HGX spray against flying and crawling insects aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of crawling and flying insects - + + + - - - expert judgement

Insecticide Kaporex all crawling insects aerosol aerosol sprayer surface treatment assumed - + + + - - - expert judgement

Insectivor vrac ready to use solution

hand-held pressurised 3-litre garden sprayer assumed surface treatment assumed - + + + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Insectstop aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Integral Blat ready to use solution X

hand-held compression sprayer assumed

control of fleas, silverfish, ants, crickets, flies, mites and mosquitos in rooms, by local application. Product is pulverised directly on walls and objects. Dose: 25 à 50 ml/m² - + + + - - - expert judgement

Integral Tox ready to use solution X

hand-held compression sprayer assumed

control of insects by local application at hiding places. Dose : 25 à 50 cc/m² - + + + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Itec aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - - expert judgement








K-Othrine Flow 25

concentrated suspension

spraying device for local application

local application to control crawling insects. Dose: 50 ml in 5 liter water for 100 m² - + - + - - - expert judgement

K-Othrine Flow 7,5

concentrated suspesion

spraying device for local application

local application to control crawling insects. Dose : 25 ml in 1 liter water voor 10 m² - + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

K-Othrine insect powder powder canister - + - + + - - expert judgement

K.O. spray against crawling insects aerosol aerosol sprayer surface treatment assumed - + - + - - - expert judgement

Kadox spray ready to use solution trigger

aqueous, ready to use pump spray solution; control of ectoparasites in sleep and rest places of smal pets, indoors and outdoors (kennels) - + - + + + - Nijs; pers. comm.

Kapo flying insects with natural vegetable pyrethrins aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - - expert judgement

Kapo insecticide all flying insects aerosol aerosol sprayer air space treament assumed - + + - - - - expert judgement

Kaporex insecticide crawling insects spraying liquid liquid trigger surface treatment assumed - + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm. Mafu electrical evaporation device against mosquitos

cardboard platelet

electrical evaporator








Max antiparasitical collar for dogs and cats collar collar + + - - - - - expert judgement

Max insecticide powder powder canister pet treatment assumed + + - + - - - expert judgement

Max antiparasitical shampoo for dogs and cats


control of fleas and ticks on dogs + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Max antiparasitical solution


Mebrom Pure liquified gas X fumigation device - + + - - - - expert judgement

Mirazyl D powder canister control of ants in and around the residence - + - + + - - expert judgement

Mirazyl R disc plastic platelet plastic platelet

control of ants in and around the residence - + - + + - - expert judgement

Natura antiparasitical shampoo


Pedigree care flea collar collar collar








Perma Sid ready to use solution

hand-held pressurised 3-litre garden sprayer assumed

spray product at places frequented by insects. Flying insects: around doors, windows, walls, ... Crawling insects: cracks and crevices, ... Ectoparasites on pets: sleep and resting places - + - + - - - expert judgement

Permas-D powder canister control of ants, wasps and other crawling insects - + - + + (1) + (1) -

Degloire, pers. comm.

Pinto ready to use solution hand pump

spray against fleas and ectoparasites on pets + + - + - - - expert judgement

Pokon ant stop to be scattered or poured powder canister - + - + + - - expert judgement

Pybuthrin 33 ready to use solution X

misting or surface spraying surface treatment assumed - + - + - - - expert judgement

Pynamin Forte Mat 40 tablet

electrical evaporator control of mosquitos - + + - - - -


Pyretrex Fogger

product for hot or cold evaporation X

suitable nebulisation device

control of crawling but mainly flying insects in storage facilities, rooms used for business purposes, ... (cockroaches, ants, silver fish, fleas, crickets, moths, flies, mosquitos, wasps, ...) - + + - - - - expert judgement

Scalibor dog collar collar collar + + - - - - - expert judgement








Scalibor shampoo

ready to use solution

Smash Killer ready to use solution - + ? ? - - - expert judgement

Smash Killer CE10

liquid to be diluted X

pulverisation or thermo-nebulation device

control of flying and crawling insects, especially in fowl nurseries - + + (1) + (1) - - -


Antilouse and antitick solution


Tectonick Pour On

miscellaneous X

control of flies on lifestock. Dose : 10 ml/100 kg with a maximum of 25 ml/animal, tobe applied on the back of the animal. Repeat treatment with intervals of 7 to 11 weeks + + - + - - - expert judgement

Ti-Tox Total aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of flying (mosquitos, flies, ...) and crawling (cockraoches, ants, ...) by local application, control of ectoparasites on pets, control of wood-eating insects + + + - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Ti-Tox Total with bioallethrin aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of flying and crawling insects, lice and fleas on pets, Anobium, ... + + + - - - -

http://www.riem.be/belgie/insecticiden-planten.html








Topscore Pal ready to use solution trigger

local application at hinding places for control of ants, cockroaches, fleas, flies, wasps, woodlouse - + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Topscore spray aerosol aerosol sprayer control of crawling and flying insects - + + + - - -

http://www.fransagro.be/webshop/index.asp?show_detail=1&NR=FTOPS06

Total Insecticide ready to use solution

hand-held pressurised 3-litre garden sprayer assumed

spray product at places frequented by insects. Flying insects: around doors, windows, walls, ... Crawling insects: cracks and crevices, ... Ectoparasites on pets: sleep and resting places - + - + - - - expert judgement

Vapona antiwasp spray aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of flying insects, especially wasps - + + - - - -


Vapona electrical antimosquito automatic liquid

electrical evaporator - + + - - - - expert judgement

Vapona ant stick

ready to use stick stick - - - + - - - expert judgement

Vapona ant powder powder canister - + - + - - - expert judgement








Vapona spray against crawling insects aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of crawling insects such as ants, cockroaches, ... Indoors and outdoors - + + - + + - expert judgement

Vapona tablet cardboard platelet



Vermikill 5-monthly flea collar collar collar + + - - - - -


Vermikill insecticide shampoo


control of fleas on dogs and cats + + - + - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Vermikill insecticide spray aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of ectoparasites such as fleas, lice and ticks on dogs and cats + + + - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Vermikill Super Actif flea collar for dogs collar collar + + - - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Vermikill Super Actif flea collar for cats collar collar + + - - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Vespa powder

general public: canister professionals: powder distributor control of wasps and ants - + + (1) + + + (1) -


Vitakraft insecticide shampoo









Vitakraft insecticide spray aerosol aerosol sprayer pet treatment assumed + + + - - - - expert judgement

Vlido Electro antimosquito

cardboard platelet



Whiskas Care flea collar collar collar + + - - - - - expert judgement

Wolfs antiparasitical collar collar collar + + - - - - - expert judgement

Youcki flea shampoo dog/cat


Zerox aerosol aerosol sprayer

control of flying insects in buildings, residences and stables - + + - - - - expert judgement

Zerox-P powder canister control of fleas on lifestock - + - + - - - expert judgement

Zerox One Shot aerosol "one shot" aerosol sprayer

control of fleas and other crawling and flying insects - + + - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

Zerox P.A. aerosol aerosol sprayer

biological spray to control flies and mosquitos in residences - + + - - - - Nijs; pers. comm.

(1) use by professionals


Annex 10: Overview of specific information on exposure, to be provided in the autorisatioAnnex 10: Overview of specific information on exposure, to be provided in the autorisatioAnnex 10: Overview of specific information on exposure, to be provided in the autorisatioAnnex 10: Overview of specific information on exposure, to be provided in the autorisation dossier to n dossier to n dossier to n dossier to allow for a human exposure assessment (Annex II of the Royal Decision of 03/10/2005allow for a human exposure assessment (Annex II of the Royal Decision of 03/10/2005allow for a human exposure assessment (Annex II of the Royal Decision of 03/10/2005allow for a human exposure assessment (Annex II of the Royal Decision of 03/10/20057777 on changes on changes on changes on changes made to the Royal Decision of 22/05/2003 on the placing on the market and the use of biocidal made to the Royal Decision of 22/05/2003 on the placing on the market and the use of biocidal made to the Royal Decision of 22/05/2003 on the placing on the market and the use of biocidal made to the Royal Decision of 22/05/2003 on the placing on the market and the use of biocidal products)products)products)products) Section 3.2. of Annex II of the Royal Decision of 03/10/2005: Use category: professional use and/or general public Section 3.3 of Annex II of the Royal Decision of 03/10/2005: Method of use:

� detailed description of the method of use of the product (e.g. rub with brush/sponge, paint, pour on, nebulise, dipping, automatic distribution, …) and of the preparatory actions that are required (e.g. dilution)

� duration of a single application � frequency of treatment (per day/week/month/year) � lifetime of a package when used intensively (e.g. 1 month for aerosol sprayer of

500 ml) � quantitative (0% < X < 100%) and/or qualitative (continuous/ sporadically/…)

indication of occupational time spend with intensive use of the product � prescribed dose for each application

7 BG of 18/10/2005 pages 44532-44550


3333 ANNEXESANNEXESANNEXESANNEXES TASKTASKTASKTASK 3333 Annex 1: EUROPOEMAnnex 1: EUROPOEMAnnex 1: EUROPOEMAnnex 1: EUROPOEM----coefficientscoefficientscoefficientscoefficients

ProductFormulation ApplicationTechnique Indoor/Outdoor ApplicationDirection MixLoadInhal MixLoadDermal ApplicInhal ApplicHand ApplicDermal

Liquid (EC, etc.) Mechanical Outdoors Downwards 0,005 20 0,008 2 0,6

Liquid (EC, etc.) Mechanical Outdoors Upwards 0,005 20 0,03 11 63

Liquid (EC, etc.) Manual Outdoors Downwards 0,1 130 0,01 100 250

Liquid (EC, etc.) Manual Outdoors Upwards 0,1 130 1 65 1100

Liquid (EC, etc.) Manual Indoors Downwards 0,1 130 0,3 1350 130

Liquid (EC, etc.) Manual Indoors Upwards 0,1 130 0,3 1350 130

Powder (WP) Mechanical Outdoors Downwards 1 100 0,008 2 0,6

Powder (WP) Mechanical Outdoors Upwards 1 100 0,03 11 63

Powder (WP) Manual Outdoors Downwards 0,015 2 0,01 100 250

Powder (WP) Manual Outdoors Upwards 0,015 2 1 65 1100

Powder (WP) Manual Indoors Downwards 0,015 2 0,3 1350 130

Powder (WP) Manual Indoors Upwards 0,015 2 0,3 1350 130

Granule (WG) Mechanical Outdoors Downwards 0,1 2 0,008 2 0,6

Granule (WG) Mechanical Outdoors Upwards 0,1 2 0,03 11 63

Granule (WG) Manual Outdoors Downwards 0,1 0 0,01 100 250

Granule (WG) Manual Outdoors Upwards 0,1 0 1 65 1100

Granule (WG) Manual Indoors Downwards 0,1 0 0,3 1350 130

Granule (WG) Manual Indoors Upwards 0,1 0 0,3 1350 130

Granule (GR) Mechanical Outdoors Downwards 0,1 2 0 0 0

Granule (GR) Mechanical Outdoors Upwards 0,1 2 0 0 0

Granule (GR) Manual Outdoors Downwards 0,1 0 0 0 0

Granule (GR) Manual Outdoors Upwards 0,1 0 0 0 0

Granule (GR) Manual Indoors Downwards 0,1 0 0 0 0

Granule (GR) Manual Indoors Upwards 0,1 0 0 0 0

Powder (WP) Mechanical Outdoors Downwards 1 100 0,008 2 0,6

Powder (WP) Mechanical Outdoors Upwards 1 100 0,03 11 63

Powder (WP) Manual Outdoors Downwards 0,015 2 0,01 100 250

Powder (WP) Manual Outdoors Upwards 0,015 2 1 65 1100

Powder (WP) Manual Indoors Downwards 0,015 2 0,3 1350 130

Powder (WP) Manual Indoors Upwards 0,015 2 0,3 1350 130

Powder > Seed Mechanical Outdoors Downwards 1 100 0,008 2 0,6

Powder > Seed Mechanical Outdoors Upwards 1 100 0,03 11 63

Powder > Seed Manual Outdoors Downwards 0,015 2 0,01 100 250

Powder > Seed Manual Outdoors Upwards 0,015 2 1 65 1100

Powder > Seed Manual Indoors Downwards 0,015 2 0,3 1350 130

Powder > Seed Manual Indoors Upwards 0,015 2 0,3 1350 130

Health and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 ... · Health and environmental effects...

Documents

Transcript of Health and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 ... · Health and environmental effects...