Report from the Sub-comittee on the environment and health

Conclusions concerning
exposure to pesticides in
<strong>the</strong> working environment
Conclusions concerning
accidents in connection
with alternative methods
The sub-committee’s
recommendations
concerning health and
safety
220
In <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> use of pesticides in forestry, for <strong>the</strong> fauna it is <strong>the</strong>
indirect effects that are most damaging. The long-term effects on both
flora and fauna cannot be assessed owing to a lack of tools and
knowledge.
For <strong>the</strong> intermediate scenarios in which pesticides are used, <strong>the</strong> subcommittee
recommends more consistent and systematic use of permanent
spray-free zones and protection borders to help protect watercourses,
lakes and ponds and preserve <strong>the</strong> vegetation in small biotopes and nature
areas, where <strong>the</strong>se still exist. In this connection it must be ensured that
continuous dispersal corridors are established. Where <strong>the</strong> vegetation of
small terrestrial biotopes has been seriously affected by both herbicides
and fertilisers in <strong>the</strong> last few decades, recolonisation will normally be
very slow. Here, it will be necessary to establish permanent spray-free
and fertiliser-free edge zones where it is found desirable to get <strong>the</strong>
vegetation and associated fauna re-established. In addition, <strong>the</strong> subcommittee
recommends actual nature rehabilitation, including recreation
of a more diverse flora and fauna (e.g. introduction of amphibians and
invertebrates with a low capacity for recolonisation).
The sub-committee also thinks that consideration should be given to
increasing <strong>the</strong> distance requirements to watercourses and lakes.
11.4 The sub-committee’s conclusions and recommendations
concerning health and safety
The risk of acute effects <strong>from</strong> pesticides is deemed to be considerably
lower today than it was just 10 years ago because <strong>the</strong> most harmful
products may no longer be used. Some risk cannot be excluded for
persons who do not observe <strong>the</strong> rules on personal protection and correct
use of pesticides and persons who use inappropriate work routines and do
not practise good work hygiene. The sub-committee notes, however, that
<strong>the</strong>re can be considerable exposure of sprayer operators and workers in
greenhouses and in <strong>the</strong> production of fruit and vegetables, where frequent
use is made of pesticides.
The sub-committee concludes that <strong>the</strong> risk of occupational injuries may
rise in connection with mechanical weed control through <strong>the</strong> introduction
of more machines and thus more repair work and maintenance. In
addition, increased manual weeding could result in a higher frequency of
injuries in connection with monotonous, repetitive work (MRW). There
is a generally higher risk of physical damage, particularly in <strong>the</strong> form of
rheumatism, in agricultural workers. This risk is associated with stable
work, milking, tractor operation and heavy physical work and is thus not
related to <strong>the</strong> use of pesticides.
Nei<strong>the</strong>r conventional nor organic farmers are accustomed to thinking
very much about health and safety, and injuries are not always reported
despite <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> agricultural sector has many serious accidents
and more fatal accidents than all o<strong>the</strong>r sectors of industry. The subcommittee
recommends that higher priority be given to health and safety
in <strong>the</strong> agricultural sector, in connection with both conventional and
pesticide-free operation.