Report from the Sub-comittee on the environment and health

Conclusion concerning
future pollution of
groundwater
Conclusion concerning
spray drift and evaporation
The sub-committee’s
recommendations
6. The finds of authorised pesticides above <strong>the</strong> limit value in both
groundwater near <strong>the</strong> surface and deeper aquifers indicate that <strong>the</strong>
present authorisation scheme does not ensure completely against future
pollution of <strong>the</strong> groundwater. A warning system for pesticides has
<strong>the</strong>refore been established to enable rapid assessment and possible
removal of authorised pesticides.
7. Two reasons why pesticides are found in precipitation, surface water
and unsprayed areas are spray drift and evaporation. Calculations
indicate that <strong>the</strong>re can be considerable evaporation of <strong>the</strong> substances
fenpropimorph, pendimethalin, prosulfocarb and trifluralin. There is thus
a risk of <strong>the</strong>se substances being dispersed in <strong>the</strong> atmosphere and detected
in rainwater and surface water. The fate and occurrence of <strong>the</strong>se
substances in <strong>the</strong> atmosphere over Denmark have not been investigated.
In Denmark and <strong>the</strong> EU, authorisation of pesticides is at present based on
analyses of research results and assessment of <strong>the</strong> consequences for
health and <strong>the</strong> environment. Particularly <strong>the</strong> fate of <strong>the</strong> pesticides is thus
not subjected to an analysis of <strong>the</strong> uncertainties and actual variations
used in an integrated mass flow analysis because, for such an analysis,
data are needed on <strong>the</strong> actual use, dispersal and degradation under
Danish conditions. The sub-committee recommends that an actual mass
flow analysis be carried out in connection with <strong>the</strong> review of pesticides
with a view to renewal of <strong>the</strong>ir authorisation in pursuance of section
33(4) of <strong>the</strong> Act on Chemical <strong>Sub</strong>stances and Products. The analysis
must include both average and “worst-case” situations based on
measurements and experience gained in <strong>the</strong> period <strong>the</strong> substance in
question has been in use. If data are lacking on <strong>the</strong> individual flows in
this mass flow analysis, <strong>the</strong> sub-committee recommends that <strong>the</strong>
precautionary principle be applied in <strong>the</strong> assessment of <strong>the</strong> substances in
order to counteract or prevent any consequences of <strong>the</strong> dispersal of <strong>the</strong>
pesticides for human health and <strong>the</strong> environment.
The sub-committee recommends that <strong>the</strong> gross list set up with a view to
reassessment of pesticide leaching be included in recommendations on
substitution with less dangerous substances in <strong>the</strong> use situation. The subcommittee
also recommends that new products be assessed in relation to
<strong>the</strong> gross list and in relation to alternative, non-chemical methods.
<strong>Sub</strong>stances that are <strong>the</strong>reby placed at <strong>the</strong> critical end of <strong>the</strong> gross list or
that can be replaced by suitable alternative, non-chemical methods
should not be authorised. The sub-committee recommends use of <strong>the</strong>
following alternative methods:
• mechanical weed control
• biological control of pests
• use of resistant varieties, including genetically modified crops
• preventive operating methods.
Since <strong>the</strong> alternative methods can also be harmful to <strong>the</strong> environment and
health, <strong>the</strong>ir suitability should be assessed in <strong>the</strong> same way as chemical
methods.
The sub-committee recommends that pesticides no longer be used in
areas where groundwater is extracted for drinking purposes. In <strong>the</strong>se
215