Report from the Sub-comittee on the environment and health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Basic need for knowledge models. The results of <strong>the</strong>se research activities can be expected to become available in <strong>the</strong> next couple of years. There are four reasons why it has not been possible to identify <strong>the</strong> pesticides authorised for use today that present <strong>the</strong> greatest threat to <strong>the</strong> groundwater: 1) It is not certain that we properly understand <strong>the</strong> main processes responsible for <strong>the</strong> transport of pesticides down to <strong>the</strong> groundwater – e.g. <strong>the</strong> importance of preferential flow. 2) We have only limited understanding of <strong>the</strong> variation in a number of <strong>the</strong> main parameters (e.g. degradation and adsorption in soil) included in <strong>the</strong> description of <strong>the</strong> leaching of pesticides to <strong>the</strong> groundwater. 3) There is a lack of recognised methods for rapidly assessing <strong>the</strong> leachability of <strong>the</strong> individual substances. 4) There is a lack of data for <strong>the</strong> different models – particularly <strong>the</strong> complicated models such as MACRO. 1) Need for more knowledge about <strong>the</strong> geological factors In <strong>the</strong> last few years a lot of new knowledge has been gained about <strong>the</strong> main processes of pesticide leaching to <strong>the</strong> groundwater. However, <strong>the</strong> results indicate that we have insufficient understanding of <strong>the</strong> spatial variation in <strong>the</strong> hydraulic parameters that govern <strong>the</strong> transport of pesticides <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> ploughing layer to <strong>the</strong> groundwater. We need to translate <strong>the</strong> knowledge gained concerning <strong>the</strong> flow in structured soils into a quantitative mapping of <strong>the</strong> geographical extent of <strong>the</strong>se properties. 2) Need for more knowledge about <strong>the</strong> individual pesticides Despite <strong>the</strong> considerable resources that have gone into research activities aimed at increasing our general understanding of <strong>the</strong> transport of pesticides down to and in <strong>the</strong> groundwater, <strong>the</strong>re are a number of vital problems that remain to be answered in relation to risk assessment of <strong>the</strong> individual pesticides. One of those problems is <strong>the</strong> variation in <strong>the</strong> parameters that are important in <strong>the</strong> description of <strong>the</strong> individual pesticides. • Variation in degradation paths and rates, and <strong>the</strong> substances’ adsorption in <strong>the</strong> ploughing layer, which can vary considerably, both within <strong>the</strong> individual field and between different fields. • Variation in <strong>the</strong>se parameters down through <strong>the</strong> soil profile. Analyses carried out in soil <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> ploughing layer do not necessarily describe <strong>the</strong> fate of <strong>the</strong> substances when <strong>the</strong>y get down below <strong>the</strong> ploughing layer. • The information on possible metabolites <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual substances is insufficient. It is not enough to know <strong>the</strong> degradation paths in <strong>the</strong> ploughing layer. In <strong>the</strong> case of relatively mobile substances, it is also important to know <strong>the</strong> degradation paths in <strong>the</strong> subsoil and possibly in <strong>the</strong> groundwater. This information can be procured in future by tightening <strong>the</strong> requirements for authorisation of pesticides, but this method will only 153
154 help in <strong>the</strong> assessment of new substances or in actual reviews. It may also be necessary to obtain EU agreement to such requirements. It will at any rate take time before <strong>the</strong> desired data are available. Before <strong>the</strong> requirements can be tightened, agreement must be reached on which data are necessary and sufficient, and a procedure must be laid down for procuring <strong>the</strong>m. 3) New decision-making tools based on statistical methods Although ranking methods are based on a very simple understanding of <strong>the</strong> process and <strong>the</strong>refore cannot stand alone in an assessment, major studies indicate that <strong>the</strong>re is, in spite of everything, some relationship between relatively simple parameters and <strong>the</strong> occurrence of pesticides that is observed. Much of <strong>the</strong> observed variation in occurrence can in fact be explained on <strong>the</strong> basis of relatively simple relationships (Koplin et al. 1998; Kreuger, Tornqvist 1998). As results come in <strong>from</strong> still more studies (national and international), it is recommended that decisionmaking tools be developed (simple ranking index) on <strong>the</strong> basis of statistically documented relationships with a view to generalising <strong>the</strong> studies to uninvestigated areas and pesticides. The possibility of developing simple, stochastic (probabilistic) models should also be looked into. 4) Better data for <strong>the</strong> deterministic models The question has been raised of whe<strong>the</strong>r one could use model calculations to rank authorised pesticides on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong>ir leaching risk. The calculation of leaching by means of MACRO covers a range of factors that are not taken into account in <strong>the</strong> simple indices – <strong>the</strong> relevant dosage for a specific crop, plant cover, dosing time, Danish climatic conditions (precipitation and temperature) and preferential flow for structured soils. However, some factors have to be clarified before MACRO can be used to rank <strong>the</strong> authorised pesticides: • Quality-assured data have to be obtained for each pesticide’s degradation and adsorption in different types and strata of soil, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> dosage. • It must be clarified how <strong>the</strong> uncertainty on <strong>the</strong> variables describing <strong>the</strong> degradation and adsorption is to be assessed. • Limit values must be defined. • It must be clarified how representative <strong>the</strong> scenarios used by DEPA are. Ranking by means of MACRO does not directly include an assessment of <strong>the</strong> extent to which metabolites are formed, which must be considered a serious constraint. Even if satisfactory data are obtained and o<strong>the</strong>r factors can be satisfactorily clarified, ranking by means of MACRO cannot stand alone. An integrated expert assessment will also be needed.
Page 1:
The Bichel Committee 1999 R
Page 4 and 5:
1 INTRODUCTION 7 2 THE SUB-COMMITTE
Page 6 and 7:
9 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSME
Page 8:
1 Introduction On 15 May 1997 <stro
Page 11 and 12:
The President Members 10 Henrik San
Page 13 and 14:
Consultants’ reports 12 The sub-c
Page 15 and 16:
14 4 Occurrence of pesticides in <s
Page 17 and 18:
The Nationwide Monitoring Programme
Page 19 and 20:
Counties analyse samples fr
Page 21 and 22:
20 system. However, the</st
Page 23 and 24:
941 110 22 MB 270 31 13 MB 1281 10
Page 25 and 26:
Substance Permitte
Page 27 and 28:
26 The distribution of finds of pes
Page 29 and 30:
28 concentrations of up to 11 micro
Page 31 and 32:
Table 4.10 Occurrence of pesticides
Page 33 and 34:
32 It will be seen from</st
Page 35 and 36:
34 • The frequency of detection i
Page 37 and 38:
36 Soil water samples containing pe
Page 39 and 40:
38 Bromoxynil 3 n.d. 0.04 54 DNOC 4
Page 41 and 42:
40 concentrations found so far are
Page 43 and 44:
42 mononitrophenols and oth
Page 45 and 46:
44 The main measure used to try to
Page 47 and 48:
Models for volatilisation 46 • It
Page 49 and 50:
Calculation of the
Page 51 and 52:
Processes that remove pesticides <s
Page 53 and 54:
52 atrazine and the</strong
Page 55 and 56:
Potential sources of pesticides in
Page 57 and 58:
56 Example 1: IPU dosage 1000 g act
Page 59:
58 completely against future pollut
Page 62 and 63:
Exposure of field fauna through tre
Page 64 and 65:
Leaf beetles Direct effects of spra
Page 66 and 67:
Indirect effects on mammals and bir
Page 68 and 69:
Birds are particularly interesting
Page 70 and 71:
Importance of headland vegetation t
Page 72 and 73:
Effects of pesticides in forestry A
Page 74 and 75:
Repeated spraying changes t
Page 76 and 77:
Effect on seed production The wild
Page 78 and 79:
Impact on the flor
Page 80 and 81:
• The sub-committee recommends mo
Page 82 and 83:
Effects on primary producers The ef
Page 84 and 85:
Effects on amphibians Unlawful use
Page 86 and 87:
concentrations than the</st
Page 88:
The sub-committee recommends more c
Page 91 and 92:
General ergonomic problems Particul
Page 93 and 94:
Tractor accidents Accidents resulti
Page 95 and 96:
The sprayer operator’s exposure t
Page 97 and 98:
Pesticides and cancer 96 th
Page 99 and 100:
Studies of frequency of cancer Repr
Page 101 and 102:
Neurotoxicity Immunotoxicity and se
Page 103 and 104: Population studies 102 • Long-ter
Page 105 and 106: Other risk groups
Page 107 and 108: 106 tomat salat kinakål kartofler
Page 109 and 110: Calculation of pesticide intake <st
Page 111 and 112: The Danes’ dietary pattern Reduct
Page 113 and 114: Estimated intake from</stro
Page 115 and 116: Table 6.4 Estimated pesticide intak
Page 117 and 118: Variation in daily intake of pestic
Page 119 and 120: Endosulfan = Endosulfan Methidathio
Page 121 and 122: Limit values Authorisation of pesti
Page 123 and 124: Analytical studies: case control st
Page 125 and 126: Cancer Mechanism behind the
Page 127 and 128: Neurotoxicity Neurotoxicity in chil
Page 129 and 130: 128 6.2.7 Conclusions There is insu
Page 131 and 132: 130 • It cannot be proven on <str
Page 133 and 134: 132 Danish products. There are big
Page 135 and 136: 134
Page 137 and 138: Definition of proportionality Heavy
Page 139 and 140: Tropospheric ozone Veterinary drugs
Page 141 and 142: 140 effect that can be expected per
Page 143 and 144: Synthetic pesticid
Page 145 and 146: 144 formulations. Therefore, <stron
Page 147 and 148: International cooperation 146 be il
Page 149 and 150: Fuzzy Expert model Expert assessmen
Page 151 and 152: Setting up a gross list with a view
Page 153: Better monitoring of the</s
Page 157 and 158: Impact index for the</stron
Page 159 and 160: Knowledge-building in the</
Page 161 and 162: 160 In relation to the</str
Page 163 and 164: Uncertainties and variations 162 A
Page 165 and 166: 164 which is fixed at 0.1 microgram
Page 167 and 168: 166 If the risk as
Page 169 and 170: Prevention of disease in cereal cro
Page 171 and 172: Prevention of pest attack in agricu
Page 173 and 174: 172 plants whose ability to establi
Page 175 and 176: Biobeds Municipal environmental sup
Page 177 and 178: Malt barley and gushing Direct effe
Page 179 and 180: Effect of soil treatment on wild pl
Page 181 and 182: Emissions of greenhouse gases 180 p
Page 183 and 184: Conclusions concerning environmenta
Page 185 and 186: Conclusions concerning leaching of
Page 187 and 188: 0+-scenario: almost total phase-out
Page 189 and 190: Scenarios for forests Weath
Page 191 and 192: Soil Residues in the</stron
Page 193 and 194: Impact on the fiel
Page 195 and 196: Earthworms 194 has been carried out
Page 197 and 198: Assumptions and uncertainties Resul
Page 199 and 200: Comparison of weed control with and
Page 201 and 202: Results of calculations with <stron
Page 203 and 204: 202 Scenarier Ingen behandling Plus
Page 205 and 206:
Impacts on the flo
Page 207 and 208:
Results of the mod
Page 209 and 210:
Mechanical weed control 208 Behandl
Page 211 and 212:
The Dane's dietary pattern and dail
Page 213 and 214:
212 11 The sub-committee’s summar
Page 215 and 216:
Conclusion concerning lack of time
Page 217 and 218:
Conclusion concerning impacts on fl
Page 219 and 220:
Conclusions concerning model analys
Page 221 and 222:
Conclusions concerning exposure to
Page 223 and 224:
Conclusion concerning mycotoxins Th
Page 225 and 226:
Ranking with respect to groundwater
Page 227 and 228:
Conclusion concerning emissions of
Page 229 and 230:
Conclusions concerning natural subs
Page 231 and 232:
230 12 References Abell, A., Bonde,
Page 233 and 234:
232 Colborn, T., vom Saal., F.S., S
Page 235 and 236:
234 Eyer, P. (1995). Neuropsychopat
Page 237 and 238:
236 Graae, B.J. (1999). Florest flo
Page 239 and 240:
238 Protection Conference: Pesticid
Page 241 and 242:
240 Lindhardt, B., Sørensen, P.B.,
Page 243 and 244:
242 consumption of fossil energy wi
Page 245 and 246:
244 intoxication. The Pesticide Hea
Page 247 and 248:
246 Underudvalget for Miljø og Sun
Page 249 and 250:
248 Annex 1 Data required for autho
Page 251 and 252:
250 11) Metabolism in animals The s
Page 253 and 254:
252 Annex 2 The general rules for r
Page 255 and 256:
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 25
Page 257:
256 reasonable and usable system fo
show all

Report from the Sub-comittee on the environment and health

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?