Report from the Sub-comittee on the environment and health

Ranking with respect to
impacts on <strong>the</strong> terrestrial
environment
The sub-committee’s
recommendations
concerning impacts on <strong>the</strong>
terrestrial environment
Ranking with respect to <strong>the</strong>
aquatic environment
The sub-committee’s
recommendation with
respect to <strong>the</strong> aquatic
environment
Ranking with respect to
public health
The sub-committee’s
recommendations with
respect to public health
Conclusion concerning
changes in energy
consumption
In <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> terrestrial environment it is not possible to indicate a
method for ranking <strong>the</strong> direct effects because it is <strong>the</strong> indirect effects and
<strong>the</strong> combination of many pesticides that play <strong>the</strong> biggest role. However,
<strong>the</strong> treatment frequency index can be used as a measure of <strong>the</strong> load
because it is based on <strong>the</strong> biologically active field dosage and is thus a
simple indicator of both <strong>the</strong> direct effect on <strong>the</strong> target organisms and
<strong>the</strong>ir related species and <strong>the</strong> indirect load on <strong>the</strong> ecosystem as a
consequence of changes in <strong>the</strong> quantity and type of food resources in <strong>the</strong>
food chains. It would also be possible to calculate an index for <strong>the</strong> dose
that, as far as is known at present, would be harmless to <strong>the</strong> vast majority
of <strong>the</strong> flora and fauna in uncultivated areas that receive pesticides via
spray drift or atmospheric transport (critical loads).
As a starting point, <strong>the</strong> sub-committee recommends that <strong>the</strong> treatment
frequency index be used as index for <strong>the</strong> entire load on flora and fauna in
<strong>the</strong> field and its immediate surroundings.
In <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> aquatic environment, in <strong>the</strong> present authorisation
scheme an expert assessment is carried out that can lead to authorisation
of new pesticides or products on certain conditions concerning distance
to watercourses and lakes. Such distance requirements indicate that <strong>the</strong>
substance (<strong>the</strong> product) is problematical with respect to aquatic
organisms and could be used directly for ranking or classifying
pesticides.
The sub-committee recommends that <strong>the</strong> administratively set distance
requirements be used for ranking or classifying pesticides.
For <strong>the</strong> human-toxicological area one could use <strong>the</strong> relationship between
<strong>the</strong> Acceptable Daily Intake, ADI, and <strong>the</strong> estimated exposure to <strong>the</strong>
substance as <strong>the</strong> basis for ranking pesticides. Generally speaking, with
<strong>the</strong> current use of pesticides, <strong>the</strong> exposure at single substance level
through food products is around 1% or less of ADI. A ranking scheme
would enable identification of substances that, with <strong>the</strong>ir present use,
have <strong>the</strong> lowest safety margin for humans. However, since <strong>the</strong> effects of
<strong>the</strong> individual substances are not comparable, a ranking scheme would
not suffice alone but would have to be supplemented by an expert
assessment.
The sub-committee recommends that a ranking scheme be based on <strong>the</strong>
relationship between <strong>the</strong> Acceptable Daily Intake of <strong>the</strong> individual active
ingredient and <strong>the</strong> actual intake.
11.8 The sub-committee’s conclusions concerning energy
consumption, emissions of greenhouse gases and nutrient
leaching
In <strong>the</strong> event of restructuring for pesticide-free agriculture, <strong>the</strong> direct
energy cost for mechanical weed control would rise, but would be offset
to some extent by a saved, indirect energy cost for production of
pesticides. The sub-committee concludes that <strong>the</strong> total energy cost for
225