FEATURE
general of the European Crop Protection
Pesticide
Association (ECPA), “so let’s go for chemicals
that bind tightly to organic substances
because the risk of them escaping to ground-
water or to soil is nearly zero. But, if you do
regulation
that, there is no longer any biological efficacy,
because your chemical is bound to the organic
substance. You need some sort of solubility to
get the biological efficacy.”
Regulations provide the means for countries
gets into
and regions to navigate through this minefield
and determine an appropriate trade-off. But
what is an appropriate trade-off for one
group is not an appropriate trade-off for
hot water
another, especially in a complex area such
as pesticides. And the question is whether
regulatory agencies around the world are
increasingly being encouraged to shift this
trade-off towards the safety end of the
spectrum, and what kind of affect this is
having on the crop protection industry.
This issue is perhaps most critical in Europe,
especially in member states of the European
Union, where pesticides are mainly regulated
under Directive 91/414. This was introduced
in 1991 to harmonise the registration of new
pesticide active ingredients (ais) at the EU
level, but it also required the implementation
of a programme to review the registrations
of over 800 ais then being sold in pesticide
products throughout Europe.
This programme involved splitting the
800 ais into four groups and then asking
manufacturers to submit a wide range of data
on the ais’ chemical properties, toxicity to
both target and non-target organisms, and
persistence and transport in the environment.
This data is evaluated by one of the member
state regulatory authorities, which then
submit a report on the ai to the European
Continual changes being made to pesticide regulations in
Food Safety Authority (EFSA). After reviewing
Europe and the US could have dire consequences for the
the report, the EFSA makes a recommendation
crop protection industry and growers, finds Jon Evans
to the European Commission’s Standing
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal
Health (SCFCAH) on whether or not the ai
should be included in Annex 1 of the directive.
A final decision on inclusion is then made
T
he trouble with pesticides is that they’re This contest between the opposing forces of
a bit like kettles. For although kettles
safety and efficacy is shared by pesticides, by the SCFCAH and formally confirmed by
have become increasingly safe over
which need to be toxic enough to kill pests the European Commission, which details any
but not toxic enough to kill or harm anything conditions on inclusion or the time-scale for
the years, thanks to the development
else. But the job of refereeing this contest and withdrawal if the ai is to be excluded.
of cordless models and automatic switch-offs,
determining an appropriate trade-off between
they still produce boiling water, which can be
safety and efficacy is a great deal more
Things started to go wrong right from
dangerous. Indeed, the ideal kettle from a safety complicated for pesticides than for kettles.
the start of this review programme, with
perspective would just heat water up until it was
assessments taking much longer than
“For instance, you can say that you want a anticipated. The first existing ai to have
a slightly warm, greatly decreasing the risk of
pesticide product that can’t escape to ground- its registration formally approved and be
scalding but resulting in a lousy cup of tea.
water,” explains Friedhelm Schmider, director included in Annex 1 of the directive was
0 November  2007  •  www.agrow.com
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24