Deliverable Factsheet
Date: 30 December 2009
Deliverable
D1.1 A Database containing a Technical Overview
of Pesticides and Their Contribution in the
Agricultural Production Process
Working Package
WP1: Pesticide Productivity, Efficiency, and
Shadow Pricing for Stochastic Agricultural
Production Technologies
Partner responsible
IG Eleftherohorinos, AUTH
Other partners participating
UOC
Nature
P
Dissemination level
PU
Delivery date according to DoW
February 2009
Actual delivery date
February 2009
Finalization date
30 December 2009
Relevant Task(s):
1.1, 1.2
Brief description of the deliverable
A review on the results related with the yield losses due to pests and on the essential role
of pesticide use in crop production is presented. The adverse effects of pesticide use on
human health and environment are also reported along with the information concerned on
criteria and environmental risk indicators needed for pesticide selection to maximize crop
production and to minimize impacts on human health and environment. Finally, the food
safety, food quality and benefits in relation with the pesticide use as well as the necessity
of their use for a viable future crop production in Europe are discussed.
Followed methodology / framework applied
A synthetic report is provided on pesticide use in agriculture and their implementation in
EU. Also, the role of pesticide use and its impact on agricultural process, operators,
consumers and the environment is reported. Moreover, the possibilities of using
alternatives to pesticides or plant protection products with lower risks to human health and
the environment as well as the possible implementation and feasibility of such a system
are discussed.
1
Target group(s)
WP1 group, which will provide an overall description of pesticides’ effects on the
agricultural production process by assessing the existing theoretical and empirical
literature.
WP2 group, which will investigate the effects of pesticides use on farmers’ health, as well
as productivity differences among farmers.
Key findings / results
High crop yield losses are resulted from pests.
Pesticides have been found to be very essential tools for viable crop production.
Pesticide use has been linked with adverse effects on human health and environment.
Criteria and environmental risk indicators should be used for pesticide selection to
maximize crop production and minimize their impacts on human health and environment.
Safe and high quality food can be produced with the appropriate use of pesticides.
The non-approval of some key pesticides in Europe will have negative impacts on the
viability of the future crop production.
Interactions with other WPs deliverables / joint outputs
WP no.
Relevant tasks Partner(s) involved
WP1
1.1, 1.2
UOC, WU
WP2
2.1, 2.5, 2.6
UOC, WU
Context of interaction
2
Project no. 212120
Project acronym: TEAMPEST
Project title:
Theoretical Developments and Empirical Measurement of the
External Costs of Pesticides
Collaborative Project
SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
THEME 2
Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology
Title of Deliverable:
D1.1 A Database containing a Technical Overview of Pesticides and
Their Contribution in the Agricultural Production Process
Author: IG Eleftherohorinos
Due date of deliverable: February 2009
Actual submission date: February 2009
Start date of project: 1st May 2008
Lead contractor for this deliverable: University of Crete
Version: Draft
Confidentiality status: PU
Duration: 36 months
4
Extended Summary
The review is concerned with the evaluation of the results related with the yield
loss due to pests (fungi, bacteria, viruses, animal pests and weeds) and the essential
role of pesticides in crop production. The adverse effects of pesticide use on human
health and environment are also reported along with the information concerned on
criteria and environmental risk indicators needed for pesticide selection to maximize
crop production and to minimize impacts on human health and environment. The food
safety, food quality and benefits in relation with the pesticide use as well as the
necessity of their use for a viable future crop production in Europe are discussed. The
results indicated that the potential yield loss of wheat, rice, maize, potatoes, soybean,
and cotton due to pests account worldwide for 51, 77, 68, 75, 61, and 83%,
respectively. Pesticides were found to be widely used in crop production because they
effectively manage to minimize infestations by pests and thus ensure greater supply
and higher quality of agricultural commodities with lower input costs. However,
although pesticides have been associated with significant positive effect on food
production, their heavy and inappropriate use in some cases has been linked with
considerable public concern for adverse effects on human health (worker exposure
during pesticide application and consumer exposure to pesticide residues found in
fresh fruit, vegetables and drinking water) and on the environment (water and air
contamination, toxic effects on non-target organisms). Regarding food safety and
quality in relation with the pesticide use, very few of the conventionally produced
food samples were found to contain pesticide residues above the maximum residue
limit (MRL), and these findings do not allow for conclusions related with potential
risks for human health due to dietary exposure to pesticide residues. In addition,
significant differences in terms of nutritional quality between conventional and
organic foods were not found, and this suggests that there is no reason to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods to increase the intake of
specific nutrients or nutritionally relevant substances. Moreover, grapes and apples
were found to be the most pesticide-demanding crops in Europe compared with
tomato, potato, maize and wheat. This was confirmed by the higher number of
fungicides and insecticides registered for use in Greece and many other countries in
EU [grapes (116) >apples (77) >tomato (74) >potato (68) >maize (23) >wheat (13)].
Within this context, the presented information on crop damage due to pests and on
pesticide risks and benefits could be used to provide a solid methodological
5
framework and empirical evaluation that will assist policy makers in identifying the
true impact of pesticides on agricultural production and in achieving a sustainable use
of pesticides. In addition, the considerable concerns related with the potential severity
of the non-approved pesticide impacts on the future sustainability of crop production
in Europe along with the use of some environmental risk indicators as tools for
pesticide selection should also be taken into account to minimise the environmental
and human adverse effects of pesticides and to ensure viable agriculture in Europe.
Page(s)
Deliverable factsheet
1
Deliverable cover page
3
Extended Summary
4
Table of contents
6
Main body of the deliverable
7
Introduction
7
Pesticide effects on human health
10
Pesticide effects on the environment
15
Pesticides in EU and their impacts on crop production sustainability
20
Most pesticide-demanding crops and related EU projects on pesticides
23
Food quality and safety with respect to pesticide use
26
The necessity of pesticides use in crop production
30
Conclusions
34
Policy recommendations and implementation
35
Relevancy of deliverable with related WP and the others WPs
36
Table of references
37
Appendix
44
7
Main body of the deliverable
Introduction
The selection of high-yielding and high-quality produce varieties coupled with the
appropriate soil preparation, the right application of water (irrigation), and the rational
management of the necessary nutrient inputs (fertilization) are major challenges to the
agricultural production. However, the most important requisite for crop production is
the protection of crops from pathogens (fungi, bacteria), viruses, and various animal
pests (arthropods, nematodes, rodents, birds, slugs, snails) that inevitably attack crops
and also from weeds that compete with crops for water, nutrients, and light (Oerke et
al., 1994; Oerke and Dehne, 2004; Oerke, 2006). Infestations by potentially harmful
organisms to crops have always been a major threat for the agricultural production
worldwide. Crop yield losses due to pests can be substantial and in the case of serious
product attacks the reduction in product quality can also occur (Hashemi et al., 2009).
In particular, Oerke and Dehne (2004) reported that the potential yield losses (losses
which occur without any cultural, physical, biological or chemical crop protection) of
wheat, rice, maize, barley, potatoes, soybean, sugar beet, and cotton due to pathogens,
viruses, various animal pests, and weeds were estimated worldwide to 15, 3, 18, and
32%, respectively, in 1996-1998. Among these eight crops the potential yield losses
by pests worldwide varied from less than 48% (on barley) to more than 80% (on sugar
beet and cotton). Recently published data by Oerke (2006) showed that the potential
yield losses of wheat, rice, maize, potatoes, soybean, and cotton due to pathogens,
viruses, various animal pests, and weeds were estimated worldwide to 13, 3, 19, and
34%, respectively, in 2001-2003, while the potential yield losses by pest infestations
varied among the six crops from 51% (on wheat) to more than 80% (on cotton) (Table
1).
Table 1. Estimated potential and actual losses due to pests (pathogens, viruses, animal pests,
weeds) in six major crops worldwide in 2001-2003 (Oerke, 2006).
Potential loss (%)
Crop
Pathogens
Viruses
Animal
Actual loss (%)
Weeds
Total
Pathogens
Viruses
pests
Animal
Weeds
Total
pests
Wheat
16
3
9
23
51
10
2
8
8
28
Rice
14
2
24
37
77
11
2
15
10
38
Maize
9
3
16
40
68
9
3
10
10
32
Potatoes
21
9
15
30
75
15
7
11
8
41
8
Soybean
11
2
11
37
61
9
1
9
9
28
Cotton
9
1
37
36
83
7
1
12
9
29
The estimated yield losses for 40 crops grown in the USA without herbicides (for
effective weed control) ranged from 5 to 67% (Gianessi and Reigner, 2006) and this
was because the projected increase in hand weeding and soil cultivation (as common
alternatives to herbicides) was not sufficient to prevent yield losses for these crops.
Moreover, the estimated yield losses for fruit and vegetable crops grown in the USA
without fungicides ranged from 50 to 95% (Gianessi and Reigner, 2005).
The most common methods used to keep crop plants healthy and productive are
cultural, physical, biological, and chemical. Cultural and physical methods used for
control of pathogens, viruses, animal pests, and weeds are crop and variety selection
(crops or improved varieties with disease and pest resistance or with high competitive
ability against weeds), crop rotation, cropping patterns, intercropping, planting time,
crop husbandry and hygiene, fertilization, irrigation, tillage, mowing of weeds, hand
weeding, cover crop management (mulches), soil solarization, burning (flaming), and
flooding (normally for weeds) (Barberi, 2002; Eleftherohorinos, 2008). Biological
control involves the use of any organism (e.g. natural predators, parasites, pathogens,
viruses, and herbivores) or any management practice using an organism to reduce or
eliminate potential detrimental effects of pests on crops. Finally, chemical control
involves the use of organic or inorganic synthetic pesticides (fungicides, insecticides,
acaricides, nematicides, and herbicides) that selectively kill pests and consequently
keep the crop plants healthy and able to give high yields of the best possible quality
produce.
The problem of weed control without herbicides has been cited numerous times as
the biggest obstacle to crop production that organic crop growers encounter (Barberi,
2002; Earthbound Organic, 2006), and this is the major reason that organic crop
hectarage in the USA totals 565,600 ha (0.5% of total US cropland) (Gianessi and
Reigner, 2007). The latter is also confirmed by Walz (1999) who found that organic
crop farmers from 30 research areas ranked weed control as the number one priority
in three national surveys. Moreover, Gianessi and Reigner (2006) estimated that US
crop production would decline by 135 billion kg of food and fibre or with a 20% loss
in value of $16 billion, if herbicides were not used. They also estimated that growers
spend $7 billion annually for herbicides and their application, whereas the total cost of
increased labour for hand weeding and soil cultivation is estimated at $17 billion for
9
an increase in production cost of $10 billion without herbicides. The need for fuel
would be 1,280 million L greater since twice as many cultivation trips would be
needed to replace herbicide sprays, and cultivators use four times more fuel per trip
than herbicide sprayers. A minimum of 1.1 billion h of hand labour would be required
at peak season for hand weeding, necessitating the employment of 7 million more
agricultural workers. However, even with increased soil cultivation and extra hand
weeding, crop yields would be 20% lower.
Pesticides are widely used in crop production because they help with consistency
to minimize infestations by pests and thus ensure great supply and high quality of
agricultural commodities with lower input costs (Matthews, 2006; Zimdahl, 2007;
Cooper and Dobson, 2007). Data form the USA indicate that herbicides are routinely
used on more than 90% of the area grown with several crops (Gianessi and Reigner,
2007) and fungicides are used on 91 to almost 100% of the area grown with peaches,
peanuts, cherries, celery, apples, potatoes, carrots, strawberries, and grapes (Gianessi
and Reigner, 2005). Despite the variety of crop protection methods (cultural, physical,
biological, and chemical) applied, the actual averaged yield losses by pest infestations
worldwide in 2001-03 are estimated to 26-29% for soybean, wheat and cotton, and to
31, 37 and 40% for maize, rice and potatoes, respectively (Table 1) (Oerke, 2006).
These findings suggest that the methods used to control pests should be applied more
properly for maximum efficacy (Gianessi and Reigner, 2007). Regarding pesticides,
they should be applied at the right place, right rate (according to pest density), right
time (according to pest stage), in the right way (using the most appropriate sprayer
equipment), and by taking into account all possible safety measures for the operator,
the consumers, and the environment (Polidoro et al., 2008).
Pesticides are registered with the EU Commission (Directive 91/414) or US-EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) or with any other legislation which ensure that
they can be used for their intended function without any undesirable effects on human
health and the environment. The registration of a pesticide is a scientific, legal, and
administrative process, where a wide variety of potential effects on human health and
the environment associated with the use of a pesticide product is assessed, considering
also the particular site or crop on which the product is going to be used, the amount,
frequency, and timing of its use, and the recommended storage and disposal practices
(Monaco et al., 2002; European Communities, 2004; US-EPA, 2009). Thus, results
from tests that determine whether a pesticide has the potential to cause adverse effects
10
on humans, wildlife, fish, or plants, including also endangered species and non-target
organisms, or the potential to cause contamination of surface water and groundwater
from leaching, runoff, and spray drift must be provided before registration. However,
although pesticides are developed to work with reasonable certainty and minimal risk
to human health and environment, the published results are not always in agreement
with this issue. Therefore, discussions among scientists and the public focused on the
real, predicted, and perceived risks that pesticides pose to human health (e.g. worker
exposure during pesticide application and consumer exposure to pesticide residues
found in fresh fruit, vegetables and drinking water) and the environment (e.g. water
and air contamination, toxic effects on non-target organisms) are justified (Pimentel,
2005; Burger et al., 2008; Mariyono, 2008; Damalas, 2009).
The objective of this review was to summarize and evaluate the results related
with crop yield losses due to pests and also to examine the role of pesticide use in
crop production. In addition, results on the adverse effects of pesticide use on human
health and the environment are presented along with the criteria and environmental
risk indicators needed for pesticide selection to maximize crop production and
minimize impacts on human health and the environment. Finally, food safety and food
quality in relation with pesticide use as well as the possible negative impacts on the
viability of the future crop production due to non-approval of some key pesticides in
Europe are discussed.
Pesticide effects on human health
Human exposure to pesticides occurs in the case of agricultural workers in open
fields and greenhouses, industrial workers, and exterminators of house pests (Atreya,
2008; Martínez-Valenzuela et al., 2009). The exposure of these workers increases in
the case of not paying attention to the instructions on how to apply the pesticides and
particularly when they ignore basic norms of hygiene regarding the use of personal
protective equipment and the practice of washing hands after pesticide handling or
before eating (Falck et al., 1999; Konradsen et al., 2003). In addition, the exposure of
the general population to pesticides occurs through eating food and drinking water
contaminated with pesticide residues.
The human (agricultural workers and general population) health risk assessment to
pesticides is not an easy and particularly accurate process because of differences in
11
the periods and levels of exposure, type of pesticides (regarding toxicity), mixtures or
cocktails used in the field, and the geographic and meteorological characteristics of
the agricultural areas where pesticides are applied (Bolognesi, 2003; Pastor et al.,
2003). Such differences refer mainly to people who prepare the mixtures in the field,
the pesticide operators and the population that lives near the sprayed places, storage
rooms, greenhouses and open fields. Therefore, considering that human health risk is
a function of pesticide toxicity and duration of exposure, a greater risk is expected
from a moderate toxic pesticide to which a person is highly exposed compared with a
highly toxic pesticide to which little exposure occurs. However, regarding the general
population dietary exposure to pesticide residues found on food and drinking water,
whether or not this exposure consists of a potential threat to human health is still the
subject of great scientific controversy (Magkos et al., 2006).
Regardless of the difficulties assessing the human health risk, the authorisation for
pesticide commercialisation in Europe currently requires data of potential negative
effects of the active substances on human health. These data are not obtained from
experiments (tests) using humans but from metabolism, acute toxicity, sub-chronic or
sub-acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, teratogenicity,
generation studies and irritancy experiments using rat as a model mammal and in
some cases dogs or rabbits (Matthews, 2006). The respective pesticide potential
toxicity tests required by EPA (2009) for human health risk assessments are 1) acute
toxicity tests, short-term exposure to a single dose [a) oral, dermal, and inhalation
exposure, b) eye irritation, c) skin irritation, d) skin sensitization, e) neurotoxicity], 2)
sub-chronic toxicity tests, intermediate repeated exposure (oral, dermal, inhalation,
nerve system damage) over a longer period of time (i.e., 30-90 days), 3) chronic
toxicity tests, long-term repeated exposure lasting for most of the test animal's life
span and intended to determine the effects of a pesticide after prolonged and repeated
exposures (chronic non-cancer and cancer effects), 4) developmental and reproductive
tests to identify effects in the fetus of an exposed pregnant female (birth defects) and
how pesticide exposure affects the ability of a test animal to reproduce successfully,
5) mutagenicity tests to assess pesticide potential to affect cell genetic components,
and 6) hormone disruption tests to measure effects for their potential to disrupt the
endocrine system (consists of a set of glands and hormones they produce that help
guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals including
humans).
12
The acute toxicity experiments are required for the calculation of the oral acute
lethal dose (LD50), which is the pesticide dose required killing half the members of a
tested animal (rat) population, and the skin and eye acute percutaneous LD50. In
addition, the acute inhalation lethal concentration (LC50), which is the pesticide
concentration required to kill half of the exposed (4 hours) tested animals to a
pesticide, is also calculated. These reference points are used by the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicity
classifications of pesticides shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2. The WHO classification derived from the acute toxicity of pesticides (BCPC,
2006).
LD50 for the rat (mg/kg b.w.)
Oral
Class
Dermal
Solids
Liquids
Solids
Liquids
Ia
Extremely hazardous
<5
<20
<10
<40
Ib
Highly hazardous
5-50
20-200
10-100
40-400
II
Moderately hazardous
50-500
200-2000
100-1000
400-4000
III
Slightly hazardous
>501
>2001
>1001
>4001
U
Product unlike to present acute
>2000
>3000
-
-
hazard in normal use
O
FM
Not classified: believed obsolete
Fumigants not classified
Table 3. The EPA classification and signal words derived from the acute toxicity of
pesticides (BCPC, 2006; EPA, 2009).
Acute toxicity to rat
Class
I
Signal
Oral LD50
Dermal
Inhalation
words
(mg/kg)
LD50 (mg/kg)
LC50 (mg/l)
DANGER
<50
<200
<0.2
Eye effects
Corneal opacity
Skin Effects
Corrosive
not reversible
within 7 days
II
WARNING
50-500
200-2000
0.2-2.0
Irritation
Severe irritation
persisting for 7
at 72 hours
days
III
IV
CAUTION
CAUTION
(optional)
500-5000
>5000
2000-20,000
>20,000
2.0-20
>20
Irritation
Moderate
reversible within
irritation at 72
7 days
hours
No irritation
Mild or slight
irritation at 72
hours
13
The long-term studies exposing test animals at a range of pesticide doses allow
defining the reference point below no adverse symptoms occur. This dose (reference
point), known as No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) or No Observed Effect
Level (NOEL), is used to derive the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans, which
is the amount of chemical that can be consumed every day for a lifetime with no
harm. It is worth mentioning that a 100-fold safety or uncertainty factor is taken into
account in calculating safe daily intakes of food by humans. This is done to overcome
the possible differences between animal used in tests and humans as well as the interindividual variability.
The Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) is also calculated for cases that people intake
much higher levels of a pesticide than the ADI as a result of consuming certain foods
or eating some foods only on one day. The value of ARfD is based on the lowest
NOAEL but is adjusted by an appropriate uncertainty factor. Regarding those working
with the pesticides regularly, the Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL) is
calculated on the basis of short-term toxicity studies related to the oral route of
pesticides (Matthews, 2006).
The pesticides are additionally classified according to the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) principles (given in main entries under ‘IARC
class’). The categorisation of a pesticide as carcinogenic is a matter of scientific
judgement that reflects the strength of the evidence from epidemiological studies in
humans, experiments with animals, and from mechanistic and other relevant data. The
category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
Exceptionally, a pesticide may be categorized as carcinogenic when evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that
the pesticide acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity. According to
IARC classification, a pesticide is classified in group 1, if it is carcinogenic to
humans, in group 2A, if it is probably carcinogenic to humans (e.g. there is limited
evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
experimental animals), in group 2B, if it is possibly carcinogenic to humans (e.g.
there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals), in group 3, if it is not
classifiable as regards its carcinogenicity to humans (e.g. there is inadequate evidence
of carcinogenicity in humans and inadequate or limited evidence of carcinogenicity in
14
experimental animals), and in group 4, if it is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
The respective US-EPA classes for carcinogenicity are 1) carcinogenic to humans, 2)
likely to be carcinogenic to humans, 3) suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,
4) inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential, and 5) not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans (EPA, 2009).
The results on toxicity characterization (based on US-EPA, IARC, WHO, and
Pesticide Action Network databases) of the 276 legally marketed active substances in
Europe indicate that 32 out of 76 fungicides, 25 out of 87 herbicides, and 24 out of 66
insecticides are related to at least one health effect (carcinogenic, endocrine disruptor,
reproductive and developmental toxicity, acute toxicity) (Karabelas et al., 2009). In
particular, 51 and 8 pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, insecticides) are characterised
as carcinogenic according to US-EPA and IARC databases, respectively, 24 pesticides
as endocrine disruptors (based on Pesticide Action Network database), 22 pesticides
as presenting reproductive and developmental toxicity (based on Pesticide Action
Network database), and 28 pesticides as presenting acute toxicity (based on WHO
classification).
The 84 out of 276 active substances (81 are pesticides) currently approved in
Europe and characterized as toxic by Karabelas et al. (2009) are in contrast with those
reported by Keml (2008) for Swedish Chemical Agency and by the Pesticides Safety
Directorate (2008) for UK. In particular, Keml (2008), taking into account the harder
new EU cut-off criteria for approval of active substances, found 23 (8 herbicides, 11
fungicides, 3 insecticides and 1 plant growth regulator) out of 271 active substances
(included in the Annex I of 91/414/EEC Directive as well as a number of substances
with decision pending) to meet the cut-off criteria. Seven of these 23 substances have
been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction, 11 as endocrine
disruptors and 4 substances as persistent, bio-accumulating, and toxic pollutants. The
Pesticides Safety Directorate (2008), considering the approval criteria adopted by the
Commission proposal and the European Parliament's Environment, Public Health and
Food Safety Committee's, found that 60 of the 278 substances assessed are toxic. It is
worth mentioning that only 14 and 37 characterised as toxic substances by Karabelas
et al. (2009) are common as toxic in the respective studies conducted by Keml (2008)
and the Pesticides Safety Directorate (2008). These results show clearly that the
number of criteria used and the methods of their implementation for assessing the
adverse effects of pesticides on human health affect differently the characterization of
15
the already approved pesticides in Europe and they would possibly affect the approval
of the new compounds that will be developed in the near future.
The above findings, because they were not resulted from cause-control studies on
humans but mainly from toxicological studies on animals (rats, dogs, and rabbits) and
in some cases from epidemiological studies (e.g. health effects due to rather long-time
human exposure to low concentrations of pesticides) associated with high uncertainty
in the estimation of the relevant human exposure pattern, should be interpreted with
extra caution by policy makers. Concerning the epidemiological studies, the fact that a
very large number (~704) of the most toxic active substances have been withdrawn in
Europe over the past nine years implies that the results of these studies (where the
currently banned toxic active substances unavoidably influenced the outcome) should
also be interpreted with extra caution, especially for drawing conclusions about the
present day pesticide health impact (Karabelas et al., 2009). In addition, the concern
of many independent and government scientists in Europe regarding the negative
effects of the fewer approved pesticides on crop protection against some pests, should
be taken into account by policy makers on pesticide use.
Pesticide effects on the environment
Pesticides, in addition to their potential negative effects on human health, can also
pose adverse effects on the environment (e.g. water, soil and air contamination, toxic
effects on non-target organisms) (Burger et al., 2008; Mariyono, 2008). In particular,
their inappropriate use has been often linked with 1) adverse effects on non-target
organisms (e.g. reduction of beneficial species populations), 2) water pollution from
mobile pesticides or from pesticide drift, 3) air pollution from volatile pesticides, 4)
injury on non-target plants from herbicide drift, 5) toxicity to rotational crops from
herbicide residues in the field, 6) crop injury due to high rate, wrong application time
or unfavourable environmental conditions prevailing at and after pesticide application
(Kent, 2009; Eleftherohorinos, 2008).
Many of the above adverse effects mainly depend on the toxicity of a pesticide,
the application rate, and how long a pesticide persists in the environment. Therefore,
for the assessment of environmental risk of a pesticide, its fate and behaviour are
initially assessed by the calculation of the predicted environmental concentration
(PEC), which in USA is referred to as estimated environmental concentration (EEC)
16
(Matthews, 2006). These environmental concentrations are calculated for soil, water,
sediment and air, and their validation is performed by their comparison with the data
obtained from the three levels of tests (needed for approval-registration purposes) to
assess the pesticide toxicity on key non-target organisms (Table 4). In addition, the
toxicity exposure ratio (TER) is also calculated to determine whether the risk to the
organism is acceptable or not (Matthews, 2006). In particular, the TER is calculated
from the LC50 or equivalent measure of the susceptibility of an organism divided by
the PEC relevant to the situation the organism is living. In general, a higher tier risk
assessment (2, 3) is needed when TER is <100, whereas a chronic risk assessment is
required in the case of TER <10.
Although the agricultural soil is the primary recipient for pesticides, water
bodies adjacent to agricultural areas are usually the ultimate recipient for pesticide
residues (Pereira et al., 2009). This issue is the reason for European authorities to
require data (before the pesticide commercialisation in Europe) related with the risk of
non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms when addressing the potential adverse
effects of pesticides on the environment.
Table 4. The three level tests to assess pesticide toxicity on non-target organisms
(Matthews, 2006; BCPC, 2006).
Species
Birds (bobwhite quail or mallard
ducks)
Freshwater fish (rainbow trout or
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Acute toxicity
Reproduction test
Field test
LD50 (8-14
Fish life
days)
cycle study
LC50 (96 h)
minnows)
Effects on
spawning
Aquatic invertebrate (Daphnia, shrimp)
LC50 (48 h)
Full life cycle
Non-target invertebrate (honey bee)
LD50 (48 h)
Effects of residues
Pollination
on foliage
field test
Non-target invertebrate (earthworms)
LC50 (14 days)
Effects of residues
on foliage
Aquatic plants (algae)
EC50 (96 h)
Other beneficial species
LD50 (48 h)
Plant vigour
Considering the adverse effects linked with the use of pesticides in agriculture, the
use of criteria to select pesticides that are effective, cost efficient, non-toxic to the
17
users, and environmentally safe has been an emerging reality because it reduces the
impact of pesticides on human health and the environment (Hornsby et al., 1993;
Reus et al., 2002; Bockstaller et al., 2009). In addition, the use of environmental risk
indicators as an alternative to direct pesticide impact measurements which are linked
with methodological difficulties (e.g. impossibility of measurement, complexity of the
system) or practical reasons (e.g. time, cost) has also been a reality (Bockstaller et al.,
2009). These indicators have already been used by Reus et al. (2002) and Bockstaller
et al. (2009) to assess the risk of pesticide use to surface water and groundwater
contamination, soil organisms (mainly earthworms), bioaccumulation, bees, human
health, and emission to air. The calculation of the environmental indicators used in
these two studies was based on pesticide persistence in soil (half-life, DT50), mobility
in soil (organic-carbon adsorption coefficient, Koc) and toxicity to water (lethal
concentration for aquatic organisms, LC50) and soil organisms (No observed effect
concentration, NOEC). Regarding the contribution of the environmental indicators on
pesticide selection, a study conducted by Reus et al. (2002) to evaluate 15 individual
pesticide applications by using eight indicators showed the following:
1. The ranking of the 15 pesticide applications by the indicators differed when the
score for the environment was concerned as a whole. This was caused by the large
environmental differences in the regions included in the study. However, some
pesticides among the 15 active ingredients had a high ranking (higher impact on
the environment) with all indicators.
2. The pesticide risk indicators gave similar ranking of the 15 pesticide applications
for the individual region surface water, groundwater, and soil contamination.
3. The ranking based on the indicator ‘kilograms of active ingredient’ did not show
correlation with most of the rankings by the pesticide risk indicators. The scores
for surface water contamination were largely determined by the toxicity to water
organisms, whereas the scores for groundwater contamination were determined by
DT50 and Koc. However, an exception was recorded with two pesticides that were
found toxic or mobile although they had been applied at extremely low rates.
Taking into account the above discrepancies, some of the parameters reported
below could also be used for the calculation of the environmental risk indicators in
order to increase their reliability for pesticide selection and consequently increase their
contribution on reduction of the pesticide adverse effects on environment (Reus et al.,
2002).
18
Kow = Partition coefficient between n-octanol and water (as the log value). A high
value for the partition coefficient is regarded as an indicator that substances
will bioaccumulate (unless other factors operate).
Henry’s Law constant at 25 oC = active substance volatility parameter (index for air
pollution).
GUS (Groundwater Ubiquity Score) leaching potential index: GUS= log10 (t1/2) x [4log10 (Koc)] (index for water pollution).
Koc = Organic carbon sorption constant (ml g-1) (index for water pollution).
DT50 = It is a measure of the amount of time it takes for 50 percent of the parent
compound to disappear from the field soil (index for environmental pollution).
Mamtox LD50 = It is the pesticide dose required to kill half the members of a tested
animal (rats, dogs, rabbits) population (index for non-target organism effect).
Fishtox LC50 = It is the pesticide concentration required to kill half the members of a
tested fish population (index for non-target organism effect).
Birdtox LD50 = It is the pesticide dose required to kill half the members of a tested
bird population (index for non-target organism effect).
Beetox LD50 = It is the pesticide dose required to kill half the members of a bee
population (index for non-target organism effect).
Algaetox LC50 = It is the pesticide concentration required to kill half the members of a
tested algae population (index for non-target organism effect).
Daphniatox LC50 = It is the pesticide concentration required to kill half the members
of Daphnia population (index for non-target organism effect).
Despite continuing disagreements over the degree of risk posed by pesticides, it
appears that people have become increasingly concerned about pesticide use and
particularly about their impacts on human health and environmental quality (Damalas,
2009). This increase in concern resulted from their reduced trust in agricultural and
industrial methods of production as well as on the authorities’ regulations that aim to
protect both the environment and human health. Therefore, considering the existence
of some uncertainties in evaluating the safety of pesticides, scientific data, policy
guidelines, and professional judgment must be incorporated in estimating whether a
pesticide can be used beneficially within the limits of acceptable risk.
The probability of reducing the environmental risk associated with pesticide use
is very low because the producers believe that lowering risk implies either decreased
output or increased input use resulting from substitution of the pesticide inputs or by
19
employing alternative disposal practices (Paul et al., 2002). Thus, policies that aim at
reducing the risks associated with pesticide use will impose some extra costs on the
agricultural production, which in turn will affect agricultural commodity prices. This
is confirmed by the cost-function-based production model used by Paul et al. (2002),
which indicated that substantive costs would be imposed on the agricultural sector by
requirements to reduce environmental risk deriving from pesticide use. These costs
are most directly associated with increases in effective pesticide demand, for a given
level of agricultural output, which implies induced innovation to augment pesticide
quality associated with increased cost. The costs of pesticide use in agriculture, in
terms of the augmentation of risks to both human health and environment, are private
and social. The private cost includes the purchase cost (unit price of the pesticide
input) incurred by the producers in the agricultural sector, which also reflects the cost
of the research developments embodied in the pesticide input that both enhance its
effective impact and reduce risk (Paul et al., 2002). The social cost accrues from the
use of the environment as a free input and by the producer’s use of pesticides that can
impose risks to both human health and to the broader ecological environment.
The above concerns about pesticide impacts on human health and environment led
the European Union to develop a Thematic Strategy on Sustainable use of Pesticides
(Commission of the European Communities, 2006a) and the agricultural scientists to
suggest and develop alternative crop management systems that would minimize the
negative effects of conventional farming (mainly with respect to pesticide use for crop
protection) to the environment, farm workers, and consumers’ health. Regarding the
alternative crop management systems, agricultural scientists developed the Integrated
Crop Management (ICM) that includes guidelines for the production of agricultural
products safe for the consumers, with simultaneous respect for the environment and
also having the sustainable development as the main target (Frangerberg, 2000; Baker
et al., 2002; Tsakiris et al., 2004; Nwilene et al., 2008; Bulger et al., 2008). ICM also
includes measures for good agricultural practices (GAP), the safety and hygiene of
workers, the safety of products, the full traceability of measurements, and specific
actions for the preservation of the environment (Chandler et al., 2008). Concerning
control of pests, ICM encourages the use of complementary methods (crop resistance
against insects and fungi, biological control, other cultural and physical measures) to
reduce pest populations below the economic injury level and to minimize impacts on
other components of the agro-ecosystem, satisfying the needs of producers, the wider
20
society, and the environment (Kogan, 1998). Concerning the use of pesticides, ICM
allows pesticide use only through an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program
(Nwilene et al, 2008; Chandler et al., 2008; Mariyono, 2008), where criteria are used
for pesticide selection, specific instructions are followed for their application on
crops, and residue analysis is one of the tools used for enforcement. Concerning the
selected pesticides for use in IPM, these are [1) biologically efficient (high selectivity,
fast impact, optimal residual effect, good plant tolerance, low risk of resistance), 2)
user friendly (low acute toxicity, low chronic toxicity, safe formulation and improved
packaging, easy application method, long store stability), 3) environmentally sound
(low toxicity to non-target organisms, fast degradation in the environment, limited
mobility in soil, no residues in food and fodder above MRLs, low application rates), 4)
economically viable (good cost/profit ratio for farmer, broad use, applicability in IPM,
innovative product characteristics, competitive, patentable)].
The introduction of IPM system contributed to a significant reduction of pesticide
use per unit of area without affecting crop productivity or increasing the probability of
crop losses (Nwilene et al., 2008; Mariyono, 2008; Burger et al., 2008). This was
achieved as a consequence of 1) using a pesticide at the recommended dose when a
pest is found or when a precautionary treatment is thought necessary, 2) optimizing
pesticide use for economic saving through adjusted doses according to pest population
density, and 3) minimizing pesticide need by altering the cultivation system to lower
the risk of pests (Burger et al., 2008). Regarding the analysis of the amount of active
ingredient applied or money spent on pesticides, these variables should be used only
as a first approximation, because the dosage of active ingredients is not closely related
to environmental activity, while environmental friendly and innovative compounds
are often more expensive than obsolete and hazardous ones.
Pesticides in EU and their impacts on crop production sustainability
Regardless of the difficulties to be precise about the active substances available
globally, the ongoing re-evaluation process (Directive 91/414) in European Union
indicated that there were 1066 (920 existing prior 1993 and 146 new) active
substances (Karabelas et al., 2009). One hundred ninety four (194) of the existing
active substances have been positively assessed by this process and retained in Annex
I, while evaluation of the 31 remaining active substances is still on-going (pending)
21
and 695 active substances have been withdrawn from the European market. In
addition, 82 of the new active substances have been approved by this process, while
55 are under evaluation (await judgment or decision) and nine (9) have been
withdrawn from the European market. Among the currently approved 276 active
substances in Europe, 87 are herbicides, 76 fungicides, 66 insecticides, 16 plant
growth regulators, and 31 various (acaricides, nematicides, rodenticides).
The number of the already available pesticides for use will be further reduced if
the amendments proposed by the European Parliament (2009) are going to be taken
into account. Most authorities believe that around 20 of the already approved
substances will be impacted by the harder cut-off criteria proposed by the European
Parliament (Karabelas et al., 2009). In particular, the key points of the new European
Parliament legislation on the production and licensing of pesticides are the following:

A positive list of approved active substances is to be drawn up at EU level.
Pesticides will then be licensed at national level on the basis of this list.

Certain highly toxic chemicals will be banned unless exposure to them would
in practice be negligible, namely those which are carcinogenic, mutagenic or
toxic to reproduction, those which are endocrine-disrupting, and those which
are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic or very persistent, very
bioaccumulative.

For developmental neurotoxic and immunotoxic substances, higher safety
standards may be imposed.

If a substance is needed to combat a serious danger to plant health, it may be
approved for up to five years even if it does not meet the above safety criteria.

Products containing certain hazardous substances are to be replaced if safer
alternatives are shown to exist (replacement should be done within three
years).

Substances likely to be harmful to honeybees will be outlawed.
The above cut-off criteria approved by the European Parliament will remove some
substances which are particularly important in the UK and other EU countries for
protection of minor crops such as carrots, onions, and parsnips (UK Pesticide Safety
Directorate, 2008; Turner et al., 2008). Also, there is a potentially severe impact on
management of pest resistance. This is because effective resistance management is
reliant on having pesticides with different modes of action incorporated into strategies
22
(including non-chemical methods) to reduce selection pressure and thus minimise the
likelihood of resistance development. Therefore, with reliance on fewer active
substances and in most cases on pesticides with similar mode of action, the
opportunity for choice is reduced and the risk of resistance substantially increased.
It is possible that the endocrine disruptor criteria could impact particularly the
fungicide availability and might result in 20-30% yield losses in cereals grown in UK
(Pesticide Safety Directorate, 2008; Turner et al., 2008). Also, the non-approval of
some key herbicides for black-grass control in cereals would result in severe
economic impacts and would make the cereal crops no longer viable. In addition, the
non-approval of pesticides for seed treatments and various other (only recently
approved) alternate mode of action chemicals would cause highly significant impact
across all areas of arable and horticultural crops, while in certain areas it may not be
economic to grow at all. The proposals would also have very significant impact in
amenity and industrial situations where weed control is important (Pesticide Safety
Directorate, 2008).
The analysis conducted by Turner et al. (2008) to estimate the possible impact of
four proposed revision scenarios (Commission Exclusion, Commission Substitution,
Parliament Exclusion, Parliament Substitution for EU Directive 91/414/EEC) on the
sustainability of current levels of pest control in wheat grown in UK indicated that
wheat yield losses due to pests (diseases, insects, weeds) are predicted to average 18
and 34% under the Commission Exclusion and Commission Substitution scenario,
respectively (Table 5). However, taking into account the Parliament Exclusion and
Parliament Substitution scenarios wheat yield losses will increase by 38 and 75%. In
addition, implementation of the Commission Exclusion, Commission Substitution and
Parliament Exclusion scenarios would raise food safety concerns due to the predicted
increase in the level of mycotoxins in grain. Expected benefits by the use of resistant
varieties do not compensate for losses that would be incurred due to loss of effective
fungicides, whereas a possible move to organic production would result in a minimum
of a 40% reduction in yields and yields are predicted to suffer at least a 16% loss due
to diseases. Finally, under all scenarios, new varieties and new chemistry would be
under enormous pressure for development of pest resistance, while the employment of
new cultural practices for the improvement of crop management carries also penalties
(Turner et al., 2008).
23
Table 5. Estimated impact of four revision scenarios of 91/414/EEC on UK wheat
yield loss* (Turner et al., 2008).
% yield loss (range across country)
Average
Current
Commission
Commission
Parliament
Parliament
impact
practice
exclusion
substitution
exclusion
substitution
Diseases
6 (1-13)
11 (4-25)
14 (5-32)
16 (7 –33)
26 (17-51)
Weeds
-
7
20
22
39
Pests (insects)
-
<1
<1
<1
10
Total impact
-
18
34
38
75
* Assumption made that attainable yield = 9 t/ha (mean of 2004 and 2007)
It is obvious from the above that the considerable concerns related with the
potential severity of the non-approval pesticide impacts on the future sustainability of
crop production should be taken into account of our European project (TEAMPEST)
that intends to provide 1) a solid methodological framework that will serve as the
foundation for the introduction of EU policies aiming at achieving a sustainable use of
pesticides in European agriculture, and 2) an accurate assessment of the external costs
of agricultural pesticide use and contribute to the relevant EU policies aimed at the
reduction of pesticide use to its socially optimal level.
Most pesticide-demanding crops and EU projects on pesticides
The comparison of the crops selected (apples, tomato, potato, grapes, maize, and
wheat) for joint research (case studies) in the ENDURE Network of Excellence
Program indicated that the reducing order of these crops, according to the number of
recorded fungi and insects species that infect and attack these crops grown in Greece,
is
apples>tomato>potato>grapes>maize=wheat
(Agrotypos,
2008);
however,
according to the number of recorded weed species that compete the crops for nutrients
and
water,
the
respective
reducing
order
is
apples>grapes>wheat>tomato=potato=maize. In addition, the reducing crop order,
according to the number (within parenthesis) of fungicides and insecticides registered
for use in Greece (and many other countries in EU) is grapes (116)>apples (77)
>tomato (74)>potato (68)>maize (23)>wheat (13), whereas the corresponding order
according to the number (within parenthesis) of herbicides registered for use is maize
(39)>wheat (30)>potato (16)=apples (9)>grapes (11)>tomato (8) (Agrotypos, 2008).
The above findings indicate that grapes and apples are the two most pesticide-
24
demanding crops and therefore could be used for our research as case studies. For this
purpose, the pesticides used for apple tree protection in Europe along with some
ecotoxicity and mammalian toxicity parameters are presented in Tables 6 and 7
(Tomlin, 2006; Agrotypos, 2008; FOOTPRINT, 2009).
Pesticide parameters (characteristics) related with General information, Physicochemical properties, Environmental Fate, Ecotoxicology and Human Health could be
found in the FOOTPRINT (Functional Tools for Pesticide Risk Assessment and
Management) Pesticide Properties Database (FOOTPRINT PPDB, www.eufootprint.org). This database provides the following information for 650 pesticide
active substances used in EU and worldwide:
• General information (common and chemical names, language translations, chemical
group, formula, structures, pesticide type, CAS/EC numbers and data related to
country registration).
• Physicochemical data (solubility, vapour pressure, density, dissociation constants,
melting point and information on degradation products).
• Environmental fate data [octanol-water partition constant (Log P), Henry’s law
constant, degradation rates in soil, sediments and water (half-life, DT50), the
Freundlich sorption coefficient (Kf) and the organic-carbon sorption constant (Koc)].
• Human health information [World Health Organisation toxicity classifications,
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), Acute Reference Dose (ARfD), toxicity to mammals
(LD50, LC50), other exposure limits and toxicity endpoints, plus the EC risk and
safety classifications (many risk symbols for handling and risk phrases), Maximum
Acceptable Concentration (MAC) in drinking water].
• Ecotoxicology (acute and chronic toxicity data for a range of fauna and flora plus
information on bioaccumulation).
Harmonised environmental and human health risk indicators for the pesticides
used in EU and worldwide could be found in HAIR (HArmonised environmental
Indicators for pesticide Risk) PROJECT database (http://www.rivm.nl/rvs/risbeoor/
Modellen/HAIR.jsp). This tool includes environmental fate and exposure data, and
the resulting acute and chronic risks for aquatic and terrestrial organisms,
groundwater, public health (including pregnant women) and applicators of the
pesticides. In particular, this database provides information on GIS, compound
properties, usage/sales, terrestrial indicators, aquatic indicators, groundwater
indicators, consumer indicators, and occupational indicators. The project supports
25
Community policies for sustainable agriculture by providing a harmonised European
approach for indicators of the overall risk of pesticides. It integrates European
scientific expertise on the use, emissions and environmental fate of pesticides and
their impact on agro-ecosystems and human health. The indicators provide new and
powerful assessment tools for monitoring and managing the overall risks of
pesticides. This contributes directly to Agenda 2000 aims for sustainable agriculture,
and to the 6th Environment Action Programme’s Thematic Strategy on the
Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products.
Pesticide data useful for our project are not available yet from the ENDURE
Network of Excellence Program, since this project started recently. However, it is
worth mentioning that the overall objective of this EU funded project (2007-2010) is
to restructure European research and development efforts on the use of plant
protection products and establish the new entity as a world leader in crop protection,
with the development and implementation of sustainable pest control strategies. This
includes a focus on rationalising and reducing pesticide inputs as well as on
mitigating inherent risks through a greater exploitation of alternative technologies,
and basing control strategies on a more cohesive knowledge of the ecology, behaviour
and genetics of pest organisms. The operational and structural objectives of the
network are:

To overcome fragmentation in crop protection research and development within
Europe through the design and implementation of a joint programme of research
on crop protection as well as through the creation of a virtual crop-pest control
laboratory.

To reinforce the R&D capacities needed in Europe to improve the basic
understanding of crop pest systems and develop durable pest control strategies.

To progress towards a transnational entity aimed at reducing and optimising
pesticides inputs by encouraging durable integration of the leading European
crop protection institutions, forming the nucleus of excellence around and from
which institutions and researchers can integrate their activities.

To create a European centre of reference for supporting public policy makers,
regulatory bodies, stakeholders and extension services.

To increase mobility of researchers and joint use of facilities, equipment and
tools.
26

To ensure the spreading of excellence and support training to facilitate the
adoption of safer and environmentally friendly crop protection approaches.
Food quality and safety with respect to pesticide use
Quality is a human construct and implies the degree of excellence of a product
or its suitability for a particular use. Quality of the produce, according to Abbott
(1999), encompasses sensory attributes (appearance, texture, taste and aroma),
nutritive values, chemical constituents, mechanical properties, functional properties
and defects. Although instrumental measurements are preferred over sensory
evaluations for many research and commercial applications, the consumers prefer to
integrate all of their sensory inputs such as appearance, aroma, flavor, hand-feel,
mouth-feel, and chewing sounds into a final judgment of the acceptability of a fruit or
vegetable (Abbot, 1999).
Some researchers claim that food quality is affected by the production system. In
particular, proponents of organic agriculture (food production without use of synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides) often claim that organically produced plant foods promote
health of humans more than products from conventionally grown plants (Brandt and
Molgaard, 2001). However, other researchers claim the opposite and many doubt that
there is no difference in food quality due to production system. Considering this issue,
the literature review related with the differences between food quality and particularly
between the nutrition profile of conventionally produced foods (with use of synthetic
pesticides and synthetic fertilizers) and organically produced foods is limited and far
from comprehensive (NZFSA, 2008). Therefore, this literature should only be read as
an indication of available research and not as a scholarly assessment of that research
(Bourn and Prescott, 2002; Magkos et al., 2006; Winter and Davis, 2006).
Review articles, making comparisons of the nutritional quality of organic and
conventional foods, did not indicate significant differences. Woese et al. (1997) using
results from more than 150 investigations (comparing the quality of conventionally
and organically produced cereals, potatoes, vegetables, and fruits) indicated no major
differences in physicochemical characteristics between products of the two different
production systems. In particular, their findings on nutritional profile of vegetables
showed no differences between organic and conventional products in the contents of
minerals, trace elements, vitamins [A (or b-carotin), B1, B2 and C], fructose, glucose,
27
saccharose, proportion of monosaccharides in total sugar, total protein (crude protein),
pure protein, relative protein content (share of pure protein among total protein),
organic acids (total acid, malic acid, citric acid and oxalic acid), betaine in beetroot,
mustard oils in white cabbage and leeks, raw fibres in carrots and tomatoes, and
lycopene in tomatoes. Similarly, comparisons between fruit (apples, pineapples and
strawberries) also showed no differences between organic and conventional products
in the content of minerals, vitamins (B1, B2, and C), carbohydrates, proteins, free
amino acids and organic acids (Woese et al., 1997). Finally, their results on potatoes
indicated no clear differences due to cultivation system in content of minerals, trace
elements, vitamin C, starch or dry matter.
In a review of 1149 nutrient content comparisons from 46 satisfactory qualitycrop studies vitamin C, phenolic compounds, magnesium, potassium, calcium, zinc,
copper, and total soluble solids content of organically and conventionally produced
foods were comparable (Dangour et al., 2009). Similarly, the comparison of fatty acid
composition (e.g. saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) of commercially
available edible oils from certified organic (59) and conventional (53) agricultural
methods indicated no consistent overall trend of difference in fatty acid composition
due to production system (Samman et al., 2008). In addition, Roose et al. (2009)
indicated that lutein and zeaxanthin content of organically produced soft and hard
wheat, in terms of benefits for a healthy nutrition, showed no major advantages or
disadvantages compared with conventionally produced wheat.
In contrast to the above results, the review of 41 studies showed that organic crops
contained 27% more vitamin C, 21.1% more iron, 29.3% more magnesium, and
13.6% more phosphorus than did conventional crops (Worthington, 2001). Winter and
Davis (2006) also reported that organic production methods lead to increases in
nutrients, particularly organic acids and polyphenolic compounds, many of which are
considered to have potential human health benefits as antioxidants. However, Woese
et al. (1997) found that the protein content of organically grown cereals, mainly wheat
and rye, was lower (this leads to undesirable consequences for baking properties) than
that of conventionally produced cereals. In addition, their findings in potatoes showed
a clear trend towards higher crude and pure protein contents in conventionally than
organically produced potatoes.
The above findings suggest that general conclusions are impossible to be drawn
from the present state of the published research and consequently there is no reason to
28
support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods to increase
the intake of specific nutrients or other nutritionally relevant substances. However,
these results, taking into account that pesticides have the potential of significant
increase of food production as compared with the alternatives used in organic food
production, allow suggesting that pesticides could be characterized as more useful
tools in food production than the alternative methods used for crop protection in
organic farming systems, having a positive effect on food production and no adverse
effect on food quality.
Food safety is receiving more attention than ever before by governments and
policy makers, health professionals, food industry, biomedical community, and public
(Magkos et al., 2006). This is because of the lack of trust in agricultural and industrial
methods of production and food quality that gives rise to uncertainty and insecurity.
Safe food from the view of consumers is ‘the food that did not contain any pesticide
(synthetic chemicals) residues, nitrates, pathogenic microbes, naturally occurring
toxins, environmental pollutants (heavy metals), biological pesticide residues, copper
and fluoride residues’ (Magkos et al., 2006; NZFSA, 2008). Regarding pesticide
residues, although extensive toxicological testing of food for their presence has been
carried out for more than 50 years, whether or not dietary exposure to such chemicals
constitutes a potential threat to human health is still the subject of great scientific
controversy (Magkos et al., 2006).
The limited reports comparing pesticide residues on organic and conventional
produce have consistently showed the presence of some pesticide residues on organic
produce, but often at lower prevalence and levels than on conventionally grown crops
(Baker et al., 2002; Tasiopoulou et al., 2007; Pesticide Residues Committee, 2008;
Cresseya et al., 2009). In particular, the three US surveillance programmes reported
by Baker et al. (2002) showed that the US Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data
Program found 23% of 127 organic samples contained pesticide residues, while 73%
of 26,571 conventional ‘no market claim’ samples had pesticide residues. In addition,
the California Department of Pesticide Regulation Marketplace Surveillance Program
found generally lower prevalence of pesticide residues in the samples examined with
only 6.5% of 1,097 organic samples and 30.9% of 66,057 ‘no market claim’ samples
containing pesticide residues. Finally, the Consumers Union survey of four food types
(apple, peaches, green peppers, tomatoes) found the highest prevalence of pesticide
29
residues of the three surveys with 27% of 67 organic samples and 79% of 68 ‘no
market claim’ samples containing pesticide residues.
The Italian study conducted by Tasiopoulou et al. (2007) showed a 10-fold greater
presence of pesticide residues (874 of 3242, 27%) in conventional products compared
with organic food (seven of 266 samples, 2.6%) samples. Regarding the presence of
multiple residues, the results showed the presence of multiple residues in 0.8% of
organic and 8.8% of conventional food samples. Concerning the presence of residues
exceeded the maximum residue limits (MRLs), there were found 1 and 36 samples in
organic and in conventional produce, respectively. Therefore, based on these findings,
any attempt to compare organic and conventional foodstuffs in terms of potential risks
for human health due to dietary exposure to pesticide residues cannot be done easily,
since in both cases the presence of residues above the MRLs is very low.
The Pesticide Residues Committee (2008), examining 4,129 food samples (a total
of 606,000 food and pesticide combinations), found that 53.8% of samples contained
no residues, 45% of samples had residues below the MRLs, and 1.2% of samples
contained residues above the MRLs. The Commission of the European Communities
(2008) in the monitoring of pesticide residues in products of plant origin found that
that 51% of the 54,652 analysed fruit and vegetable samples in 2006 contained no
residues, 45% of the samples had residues below the MRLs, and 4% of the samples
contained residues above the MRLs. It is worth mentioning that in European Union,
since September 2008, a new legislative framework (Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of
the European Parliament and of the Council) on pesticide residues is applicable. This
Regulation completes the harmonization and simplification of pesticide MRLs, while
also ensures better consumer protection throughout the EU. With the new legislation,
MRLs undergo a common EU assessment to make sure that all classes of consumers,
including the vulnerable ones, like babies and children, are sufficiently protected.
Moreover, the new harmonized Community provisions also facilitate commerce, by
eliminating inappropriate technical barriers to trade. All decision-making in this area
has to be science-based and a consumer intake assessment has to be carried out by the
European Food Safety Authority before concluding on the safety of an MRL (EFSA,
2009).
The recent study conducted by Cresseya et al. (2009) to determine the prevalence
and concentrations of pesticide residues in conventionally and organically produced
samples (bananas, broccoli, grapes, lettuce, potatoes, tomatoes, and wine) showed that
30
pesticide residues were found in 130 of 307 conventionally produced food samples
(42%) and in nine of 41 organic food samples (22%), including six out of eleven
(55%) organic tomato samples. Four organically produced food samples (9.8%) and
24% of conventionally produced food samples contained multiple residues. Nine
conventionally produced food samples (2.6%) had pesticide residues above the MRLs.
Where direct comparisons were possible between conventionally and organically
produced food samples, the mean concentration of residues was usually lower in the
organic produce, but was generally higher than would be expected from spray drift or
other adventitious sources. While the presence of these residues does not pose a major
risk to human health, their presence is inconsistent with consumer expectations for
organic produce.
The above findings show that regardless of the fact that organic food is supposed
to be pesticide-free, the organic fruits and vegetables were found to contain pesticide
residues much less frequently and at lower levels than their conventional alternatives.
Therefore, claims that organic foods are safer because of the fewer and less pesticide
residues than conventional foods are not justified because such compounds are not
permitted in organic food production (NZFSA, 2009). In addition, the claim that
organic foods are ‘safer’ than conventional food is not true because there is no current
evidence to support or refute this claim that organic food is safer and thus healthier
than conventional food, or vice versa (Magkos et al., 2006). Regarding food safety
from a practical standpoint, the marginal benefits of reducing human exposure to
pesticides in the diet through increased consumption of organic produce appear to be
insignificant (Winter and Davis, 2006).
The necessity of pesticide use in crop production
Pesticides have been classified for their important contribution to producers as the
most valuable and irreplaceable tools among the available methods used to minimize
infestations by pests and thus protect crops from potential yield losses and reduction
of product quality (Matthews, 2006; Zimdahl, 2007). This is because of 1) broad
spectrum, 2) fast and complete control, 3) effectiveness against difficult to control
pathogens, animal pests and weeds, 4) ability to control weeds (with herbicides)
beyond reach of cultivator, 5) reliability, 6) lower energy for efficient control, 7)
economical control, 8) less time and labor requirements, 9) flexibility for application,
31
10) increase of available cropping systems, 11) increase of production flexibility, 12)
increase of feasibility of no-tillage system that reduces soil erosion (due to herbicide
application), 13) improvement of total farm enterprises efficiency, 14) better
employment of workers, 15) protection of the environment (using herbicides to
control weeds reduces the need for cultivation that increases soil erosion and land
degradation), 16) protection of pets and humans (pesticides for control of spiders or
cockroaches in houses and fleas on pets), 17) prevention of problems [a) the use of
herbicides prevents weeds to establish in gardens and lawns, b) the treatment of
export and import produce prevents the spread of pests, and c) the treatment of stored
products prevents pest attack and destruction during storage], and 18) increase of
profit (Zimdahl, 2007; Jorgensen et al., 1999; Eleftherohorinos, 2008).
The main benefit of pesticide use to producers takes the form of increased output
(greater supply and higher quality of agricultural commodities) for a given level of
inputs (or lower input costs for a given production level) compared with that if
producers had to reduce environmental risk by decreasing output (production of
desirable and undesirable outputs) or increasing input use (substitution of pesticides
or use of alternative waste disposal practices) (Paul et al., 2002). The benefit from the
use of pesticides can not only accrue to producers, but also to other pesticide users,
marketplace, consumers, and society (Damalas, 2009).
For example, herbicides replace the laborious and more time required hand
weeding and reduce the fossil-fuel requirements for mechanical weed control. Also,
their use eliminates the trees and brush growing beneath power lines and provides
unobstructed access for maintenance and repairs. In addition, herbicides are used to
control vegetation along highways for safety reasons and to manage invasive weeds in
parks, wetlands, and natural areas. Other kinds of benefits due to pesticide use also
include the maintenance of aesthetic quality, the protection of human health from
certain disease-carrying organisms, the suppression of nuisance-causing pests, and the
protection of other organisms from pests, including endangered species (Damalas,
2009).
Although the reliance of crop production on chemical pest control may be reduced
in some cases, the pesticide-free production in fruits and vegetables would be a
disaster because it will reduce significantly their availability for all people and
particularly for the poor people (Knutson et al., 1997). This is because (a) genetic
resistance is often overcome by animal pests and pathogens, (b) the efficacy and
32
reliability of biocontrol agents is limited, and (c) today manual weed control cannot
be expected from farmers in most regions. Thus, the use of synthetic pesticides is
often unavoidable and its significance is projected to increase, especially in
developing countries. Considering the fact that there is no evidence to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods to increase the intake of
specific nutrients or nutritionally relevant substances, this allows suggesting that
pesticides, by increasing yield and improving quality of the produce, could be
classified as more useful tools in food production than the alternative methods used
for crop protection in organic farming systems.
One of the plant protection strategies that could reduce the amount of pesticides
used is the application of combined techniques, including biological, biotechnical,
plant breeding and agronomical methods in order to limit the use of pesticides to a
necessary extent (Burger et al., 2008). The term “necessary extent” of pesticide use,
according to German Pesticide Reduction Programme, describes the intensity of
pesticide use which is necessary to maintain crop production profitable, utilizing all
other practicable pest control measures and adequately considering the environmental
and consumer protection (Burger et al., 2008). This could be done by 1) using the
pesticides at the recommended doses, 2) following all environmental regulations, 3)
optimising plant protection and pesticide use at the intensity necessary to maintain
profitable cropping, 4) reducing pesticide use to a necessary minimum by more
integration of treatment thresholds, 5) adopting the use of non-chemical measures
(resistant or competitive cultivars) in order to lower the risk of pest infestation, and 6)
using pesticides as a last measure.
Despite of the available clear and useful information for farmers on optimising
pesticide use, the respective information about the effects of agronomical control
measures with relation to economics and risk is very contradictory and unclear.
Regarding the optimisation of pesticides amount used, crop-loss-models (possible
yield without any control measures) are needed to be developed by weed researchers,
phytopathologists and entomologists, which show the relationship between pest
(weed, insect, fungi) intensity and yield loss. Also, dose-response curves are required
that illustrate the effect that a pesticide has on a certain pest, so that doses needed for
a given level of control can be calculated. However, concerning the effects of
agronomical control measures on crop protection, Burger et al. (2008) reported that
non-chemical methods like mechanical weeding, cultural means or biological insect
33
control can be a substitution for pesticide use in individual cases, but they cannot
generally replace the pesticide use. In addition, although reduced tillage protects soil
from erosion and promises economic savings through reduced fuel, time and
machinery, it is associated with higher weed levels and consequently with the need of
herbicide use.
The pressure of infestation by harmful organisms on a crop depends on the
environmental conditions, cropping system, cultivar resistance and crop condition
(Burger et al., 2008). In general, complete pest control may not be appropriate to
maximise profit. For example, a crop is possible to tolerate some remaining weeds
after herbicide treatment and therefore the second application of other herbicides can
be avoided. Similarly, some fungicides with curative as well as protective properties
can be sprayed in smaller amounts if the treatment is delayed until the threshold for
the curative treatment is reached. These results indicate that epidemiological surveys
and calculations of prices and costs, economic injury levels should be taken into
account for a profitable crop production system aiming reduction of pesticides used.
Apart from the use of thresholds that form an integral part of integrated pest
management (IPM), the use of pesticides should be optimised according to the pests
to be treated and the environmental conditions.
The selection of the most appropriate pesticide, or a mixture, as well as the
adjustment of doses to the level of infestation, yield target and environmental
conditions at spraying time, can increase treatment success and consequently save
inputs and costs. Regarding pesticide selection, it has historically been based on the
expected efficacy and cost of the product and the pesticide user is not likely to
experiment with other products once a product has been found that controls the pests
of concern (Hornsby et al., 1993; Bockstaller et al., 2009). However, during the ’90s,
the use of criteria to select pesticides that are effective, cost efficient, user’s and
environmentally safe has been an emerging reality because it reduces the adverse
effects of pesticides on human health and environment (Hornsby et al., 1993; Reus et
al., 2002; Bockstaller et al., 2009). Among the criteria, the environmental risk
indicators have been used as an alternative to direct pesticide impact measurement
linked to methodological difficulties or practical reasons.
Although pesticides have been associated with a great positive effect on food
production, their heavy and inappropriate use in some cases has been linked with pest
resistance, surface and ground water contamination, toxic effects on non-target
34
organisms, and human health problems. Within this context, the reported information
on pesticides (general information, physicochemical properties, environmental fate,
ecotoxicology and human health) and on crop damage due to pests could be used to
provide a solid methodological framework and empirical evaluation which will assist
policy makers in identifying the true impact of pesticides on agricultural production
and in achieving a sustainable use of pesticides in European agriculture.
Conclusions
The results presented in this review paper allow the following conclusions to be
drawn:
1. Pests (fungi, insects, weeds, and other harmful organisms) constitute a major threat
for agricultural production.
2. Effective pest management is a vital part of crop production for highly productive
agricultural systems.
3. Pesticides are valuable and irreplaceable tools that can minimize effectively pest
infestations in crop production and thus can ensure great supply and high quality
of agricultural commodities.
4. Significant differences in terms of nutritional quality between conventional (with
the use of synthetic pesticides) and organic produced food were not found.
5. Organic fruits and vegetables were found to contain pesticide residues much less
frequently and at lower levels than their conventional alternatives.
6. Very few of the conventionally produced food samples were found to contain
pesticide residues above the maximum residue limits (MRLs).
7. The inappropriate use of pesticides is linked with considerable public concern for
adverse effects on human health and the environment.
8. The non-approval of some key pesticides in Europe would have significant impact
across all areas of the arable and horticultural crops.
9. The use of pesticide selection criteria and pesticide application as a last measure,
following all environmental regulations, reducing their use only when necessary
and adopting the use of non-chemical measures could ensure reliable agricultural
production and minimize the negative effects of pesticide use on the environment,
workers’ and consumers’ health.
35
10. The above presented information could be used by the European policy makers in
identifying the true impact of pesticides on crop production and in achieving a
sustainable use of pesticides and thus viable agriculture in Europe.
Policy recommendations and implementations
The review made provides information on a wide range of issues related to yield
losses due to pests and to the essential role of pesticide use in crop production. The
adverse effects of pesticide use on human health and environment are also reported
along with the information concerned on criteria and environmental risk indicators
needed for pesticide selection to maximize crop production and to minimize impacts
on human health and environment. Results on food safety, food quality and benefits in
relation with the pesticide use as well as the necessity of their use for a viable future
crop production in Europe are also given.
The presented information on crop damage due to pests and on the essential role
of pesticide use in crop production could be used to provide a solid methodological
framework and empirical evaluation that will assist policy makers in identifying the
true impact of pesticides on agricultural production and in achieving a sustainable use
of pesticides. Also, this information could be used by the researchers investigating the
impacts of pesticide use on production efficiency, farmers’ health status and
environment. Moreover, the reported data on food quality and food safety will affect
food consumption patterns through the increase of consumer’s awareness on the
safety of the conventionally versus organically produced food. Finally, the
considerable concerns related with the potential severity of the non-approved
pesticide impacts on the future sustainability of crop production in Europe along with
the use of some environmental risk indicators as tools for pesticide selection could
also be taken into account by the policy makers to minimise the environmental and
human adverse effects of pesticides and to ensure viable agriculture in Europe.
36
Relevancy of deliverable with related WP and the others WPs
The pesticides in this review (task 1.1, Work Package 1) are classified on the basis
of their chemical components and their negative effect on health and the environment.
In addition, the most pesticide-demanding crops and cultivations are identified and
their indirect costs of their usage. Extensive use of previous literature was made,
including in particular the results from other scientific projects (e.g. HAIR,
FOOTPRINT, ENDURE). The main purpose of this task 1.1 (very relevant with task
1.2) was the establishment of a detailed database that includes all relevant literature
(working papers, journal articles, consultant reports, reports by international
organisations) on the yield loss due to pests (fungi, bacteria, viruses, animal pests and
weeds) and the essential role of pesticides in crop production. The adverse effects of
pesticide use on human health and environment are also reported along with the
information concerned on criteria and environmental risk indicators needed for
pesticide selection to maximize crop production and to minimize impacts on human
health and environment. The food safety, food quality and benefits in relation with the
pesticide use as well as the necessity of their use for a viable future crop production in
Europe are discussed. This task, taking into account the provided information, is also
relevant with Work Package 2, which studies the negative effects of pesticides on
farmers’ health.
37
Table of references
Abbott, J.A. 1999. Quality measurement of fruits and vegetables. Postharvest
Biology and Technology 15:207–225.
AgroTypos. 2008. Pesticides registered for use in Greece. Available at
http://www.agrotypos.gr/.
Atreya, K. 2008. Health costs from short-term exposure to pesticides in Nepal. Social
Science and Medicine 67:511–519.
Baker, B.P., C.M. Benhbrook, E. Groth III and K. Lutz Benbrook. 2002.
Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown
and organic foods: insights from US data sets. Food Additives and
Contaminants 19(5):427-446.
Barberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the
right issues? Weed Research 42(3):177-193.
Bockstaller, C., L. Guichard, O. Keichinger, P. Girardin, M-B Galan, and G.
Gaillard. 2009. Comparison of methods to assess the sustainability of
agricultural systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development
29:223–235.
Bolognesi, C. 2003. Genotoxicity of pesticides: a review of human biomonitoring
studies. Mutat Res 543:251–272.
Bourn, D. and J. Prescott. 2002. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory
qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 42:1–34.
Brandt, K. and J.P. Mølgaard. 2001. Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce
the nutritional value of plant foods? Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture 81:924-931.
Burger, J., F. Mol and B. Gerowitt. 2008. The ‘necessary extent’ of pesticide use –
Thoughts about a key term in German pesticide policy. Crop Protection
27:343-351.
Chandler, D., G. Davidson, W.P. Grant, J. Greaves and G.M. Tatchell. 2008.
Microbial biopesticides for integrated crop management: an assessment of
environmental and regulatory sustainability. Trends in Food Science and
Technology 19(5):275-283.
38
Commission of the European Communities. 2006a. A thematic strategy on the
sustainable use of pesticides, COM (2006) 372. Brussels. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/home.htm.
Commission of the European Communities. 2006b. Proposal for a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, COM (2006) 388. Brussels.
Commission of the European Communities. 2008. Monitoring of pesticide residues
in products of plant origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland and
Liechtenstein 2006. SEC (2008) 2902 final. Brussels 2008.
Cooper, J., Dobson, H., 2007. The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the
environment. Crop Prot. 26, 1337–1348.
Cresseya, P., R. Vannoorta and C. Malcolmb. 2009. Pesticide residues in
conventionally grown and organic New Zealand produce. Food Additives and
Contaminants: Part B 2(1):21–26.
Damalas, C.A. 2009. Understanding benefits and risks of pesticide use. Scientific
Research and Essays 4(10):945-949.
Dangour, A.D., S.K. Dodhia, A. Hayter, E. Allen, K. Lock, and R. Uauy. 2009.
Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041 1-6.
Earthbound Organic. 2006. Organic Farming 101: Controlling weeds without
chemical herbicides. Available at http:/www.ebfarm.com/Organic/weedcontrol.
aspx.
Eleftherohorinos, I.G. 2008. Weed Science: Weeds, herbicides, Environment, and
Methods for Weed Management. AgroTypos, Athens. 408 p.
ENDURE Network of Excellence Program for the Durable Exploitation. Available at
http://www.endure-network.eu/.
European Communities. 2004. Council Directive of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (91/414/EEC). Available at
http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1991/en_1991L0414_do_001.pdf.
European Parliament. 2009. New EU pesticides legislation. Available at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdfs/news/expert/infopress/20090112IPR45936/
20090112IPR45936_en.pdf
Falck, G., A. Hirvonen, R. Scarpato, S. Saarikoski, L. Migliore, H. Norppa.
1999. Micronuclei in blood lymphocytes and genetic polymorphism GSTM1,
39
GSTT1 and NAT2 in pesticide exposed greenhouse workers. Mutat Res
441:225–237.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. 2002.
International code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides.
Retrieved on 2007-10-25.
FOOTPRINT (Functional Tools for Pesticide Risk Assessment and Management)
Pesticide properties database (FOOTPRINT PPDB). Available at http:/www.eufootprint.org.
Frangerberg, A. 2000. Integrated crop management as fundamental basis for
sustainable production. Pflanzenschutz Nachrichten 53(71):131-153.
Gianessi L.P. and N.P. Reigner. 2005. The value of fungicides in US crop
production, 2005 update. CropLife Foundation. 16 p. Available at
http:/www.croplifefoundation.org.
Gianessi L.P. and N.P. Reigner. 2006. The value of herbicides in US crop
production, 2005 update. CropLife Foundation. 32 p. Available at
http:/www.croplifefoundation.org.
Gianessi L.P. and N.P. Reigner. 2007. The value of herbicides in US crop
production. Weed Technology 21:559-566.
HAIR PROJECT (HArmonised environmental Indicators for pesticide Risk).
Available at http://www.rivm.nl/rvs/risbeoor/Modellen/HAIR.jsp
Hashemi S.M., S.M. Hosseini and C.A. Damalas. 2009. Farmers’ competence and
training needs on pest management practices: Participation in extension
workshops. Crop Protection 28:934–939.
Hornsby, A.G., T.M. Buttler and R.B. Brown. 1993. Water quality and the
environment Managing pesticides for crop production and water quality
protection: practical grower guides. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
46:187-196.
Jorgensen, L.N., G. Mikkelsen, S. Kristensen, and J.E. Orum. 1999. Estimated
crop losses and crop rotations in a scenarium without pesticides. DJF RapportMarkbrug 9:7-26.
Karabelas, A.J., K.V. Plakas, E.S. Solomou, V. Drossou, D.A. Sarigiannis. 2009.
Impact of European legislation on marketed pesticides-A view from the
standpoint of health impact assessment studies. Environment International
35:1096–1107.
40
KEMI. 2008. Interpretation in Sweden of the impact of the “cut-off” criteria adopted
in the common position of the council concerning the regulation of placing plant
protection products on the market (document 11119/08), Sweden.
Kent, J. 2009. Pesticides in agriculture. Agricultural Protection, School of
Agriculture, Charles Sturt University. Wagga Wagga. NSW 2678. Available at
http://www.regional.org.au/au/roc/1992/roc1992031.htm.
Knuston, R.D., C.R. Hall, E.G. Smith, S.D. Contner, and J.W. Miller. 1997.
Pesticide-free production ‘disaster’. Commercial Grower 52:8-10.
Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated pest management: historical respective and
contemporary development. Annual Review of Entomology 43:243-270.
Konradsen, F., W. van der Hoek, D.C. Cole, G. Hutchinson, H. Daisley, S. Singh,
M. Eddleston. 2003. Reducing acute poisoning in developing countries-options
for restricting the availability of pesticides. Toxicology 192:249–261.
Magkos, F., F. Arvanti and A. Zampelas. 2006. ‘Organic Food: Buying more safety
or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature.’ Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition 46(1):23-55.
Mariyono, J. 2008. Direct and indirect impacts of integrated pest management on
pesticide use: a case of rice agriculture in Java, Indonesia. Pest Management
Science 64:1069-1073.
Martínez-Valenzuela,
C.,
S.
Gómez-Arroyo,
R.
Villalobos-Pietrini,
S.
Waliszewski, M-E. Calderón-Segura, R. Félix-Gastélum, and A. ÁlvarezTorres. 2009. Genotoxic biomonitoring of agricultural workers exposed to
pesticides in the north of Sinaloa State, Mexico. Environment International
35:1155–1159.
Matthews, G.A. 2006. Pesticides: Health, safety and the environment. Blackwell
Publishing, UK. 235 p.
Monaco, J.T., S.C. Weller and F.M. Ashton. 2002. Herbicide registration and
environmental impact. In Weed Science: Principles and Practices, 4th ed. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 671 p.
Nwilene, F.E., K.F. Nwanze and A. Yiudeowei. 2008. Impact of integrated pest
management on food and horticultural crops in Africa. Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata 128:355-363.
New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA). 2008. Policy on organic food: A
background
paper.
38p.
Available
at
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/policy-
41
law/policy-statements/policy-on-organic-food/organics-research-paperfinal.pdf.
Oerke, E.C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 144:31-43.
Oerke, E.C. and H.W. Dehne. 2004. Safeguarding production-losses in major crops
and the role of crop protection. Crop protection 23:275-285.
Oerke, E.C., H.W. Dehne, F. Schonbeck and A. Weber. 1994. Crop production
and crop protection. Elsevier Publications, Amsterdam. 808 p.
Pastor, S., A. Creus, T. Parrón, A. Cebulska-Wasilewska, C. Siffel, S. Piperakis
et al. 2003. Biomonitoring of four European populations occupationally
exposed to pesticides: use of micronuclei as biomarkers. Mutagenesis 18:249–
258.
Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC). 2008. Annual report of the pesticide residues
committee. York (UK): Pesticide Safety Directorate.
Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD). 2008. Revised assessment of the impact on
crop protection in the UK of the ‘cut-off criteria’ and substitution provisions in
the proposed regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the placing of plant protection products in the market. Mallard
House, Peasholme Green York, United Kingdom. 46 p. Available at
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/.
Paul, C.J.M., V.E. Ball, R.G. Felthoven, A. Grube, and R.F. Nehring. 2002.
ffective costs and chemical use in United States agricultural production: using
the environment as a ‘free’ input. American Journal Agricultural Economics
84(4):902–915.
Pereira, J.L., Ζ. Sara, C. Antunes, Ζ. Bruno, B. Castro, Ζ. Catarina, R.
Marques, Ζ. Ana, M.M. Goncalves, Ζ.F. Goncalves, and Ζ.R. Pereira. 2009.
Toxicity evaluation of three pesticides on non-target aquatic and soil organisms:
commercial formulation versus active ingredient. Ecotoxicology 18:455–463.
Pimentel, D., 2005. Environmental and economic costs of the application of
pesticides primarily in the United States. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 7:229–252.
Polidoro, B.A., Dahlquist, R.M., Castillo, L.E., Morra, M.J., Somarriba, E.,
Bosque- Perez, N.A., 2008. Pesticide application practices, pest knowledge,
and cost-benefits of plantain production in the Bribri–Cabecar Indigenous
Territories, Costa Rica. Environ. Res. 108:98–106.
42
Reus, J., P. Leendertse, C. Bockstaller, I. Fomsgaard, V. Gutsche, K. Lewis, C.
ilsson, L. Pussemier, M. Trevisan, H. van der Werf, F. Alfarroba, S.
Blümel, J. Isart, D. McGrath, T. Seppälä. 2002. Comparison and evaluation
of eight pesticide environmental risk indicators developed in Europe and
recommendations for future use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
90:177–187.
Roose, M., J. Kahl, and A. Ploger. 2009. Influence of the farming system on the
xanthophyll content of soft and hard wheat. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 57:182–188.
Samman, S., J.W.Y. Chow, M.J. Foster, Z.I. Ahmad, J.L. Phuyal, P. Petocz.
2008. Fatty acid composition of edible oils derived from certified organic and
conventional agricultural methods. Food Chemistry 109:670–674.
Schmider, F. 2009. Review-current status of active substances in EU. European Crop
Protection Association (ECPA), Director General, Madrid, March 2009.
Hashemi S.M., S.M. Hosseini and C.A. Damalas. 2009. Farmers’ competence and
training needs on pest management practices: Participation in extension
workshops. Crop Protection 28:934–939.
Tomlin, C.D. 2006. The pesticide manual. 14th edition. Published by British Crop
Protection Council. 1349 p.
Turner, J., S. Parker, P. Jennings, S. Elcock, M. Taylor and W. Luo. 2008.
Evaluation of the impact of the proposed revisions to EU Directive 91/414/EEC
on wheat production in the UK. Department for Environment, Food, and Rural
Affairs. Available at http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/.
Tsakiris, I.N., T.G. Danis, I.A. Stratis, N. Nikitovic, I.A. Dialyna, A.K. Alegakis,
and A.M. Tsatsakis. 2004. Monitoring of pesticide residues in fresh peaches
produced under conventional and integrated crop management cultivation. Food
Additives and Contaminants 21(7):670-677.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. What is a pesticide?
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/ October 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Registering pesticides.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ regulating/registering/index.htm
Walz, E. 1999. Final results of the third biennial national organic farmers’ survey.
Santa Cruz, CA: Organic Farming National Foundation.
43
Winter, C.K. and S.F. Davis. 2006. Organic foods. Journal of Food Science
71(9):117-124.
Woese, K., D. Lange, C. Boess and K.W. Bogl. 1997. A comparison of organically
and conventionally grown foods-results of a review of the relevant literature.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 74:281-293.
Worthington, V. 2001. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits,
vegetables, and grains. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
7:161–73.
Zimdahl, R.L. 2007. Fundamentals of weed science. 3rd ed. Elsevier Inc., Oxford.
666 p.
44
Appendix
45
Table 4. Ecotoxicity and mammalian toxicity parameters of the registered insecticides in EU for apple tree protection (Tomlin, 2006;
FOOTPRINT, 2009).
a/a
Insecticides
Kow
Henry’s
Law
Field
DT50
(days)
GUS
leaching
Koc
Birdtox
LD50
Beetox
LD50
Mamtox
LD50
Fishtox
LC50
(mg/kg)
(μg/bee)
(mg/kg)
(mg/l)
ADI
AOEL
1
acetamiprid
0.8
5.3x10-4
3
0.94
107
98
8.09
213
100
0.07
0.124
2
alpha cypermethrin
5.5
6.9x10-2
35
-1.18
57889
2025
0.033
57
0.0028
0.015
0.01
3
azadirachtin (2008)
1.09
1.69x103
26
4.46
7
816
2.5
4241
0.48
-
-
4
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Aizawai
-
-
-
0.13
5000
5000
-
5050
0.656
-
-
5
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki
6
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki/Aizawai
7
bifenthrin
6
1.02x102
115.6
-1.94
236610
569
0.015
5
0.00015
0.015
0.0125
8
chlorpyrifos
4.7
0.478
21
0.15
8151
13.3
0.059
66
0.0013
0.01
0.01
9
chlorpyrifos-methyl
4
0.235
-
0.16
4645
923
0.11
2814
0.41
0.01
0.01
10
cyfluthrin (2008)
6
5.3x10-2
33
-1.23
64300
2000
0.001
10
0.00047
0.003
0.02
11
cypermethrin
5.3
2x10-2
69
-1.66
85572
10000
0.02
7.5
0.0028
0.05
-
12
deltamethrin
4.6
3x10-2
21
-1.85
460000
2250
0.0015
87
0.00026
0.01
0.075
46
13
diflubenzuron
3.89
4.7x10-4
-
0.19
4013
1206
25
4640
0.13
0.02
0.033
14
etofenprox (2008)
6.9
0.0136
-
0.05
9025
2000
0.13
2000
0.0027
0.03
0.2
15
fenoxycarb
4.07
3.3x10-5
5.94
1.04
1816
3000
0.1
10000
0.66
0.06
0.1
16
flufenoxuron
4.01
7.46x10-6
-
0.80
33200
2000
410
3000
0.049
-
-
17
fluvalinate
-7.02
1.2x10-4
10.5
-1.13
750746
2510
5.83
1
0.0027
0.005
0.044
18
indoxacarb (2008)
4.65
6x10-5
20
0.23
6450
98
0.18
268
0.65
0.006
0.004
19
lambda cyhalothrin
6.9
2x10-2
25
-1.67
157000
3950
0.038
20
0.00021
0.005
0.0025
20
lufenuron
5.12
3.41x10-2
184
-0.75
41182
2000
197
2000
29
0.015
0.015
21
methomyl
1.24
2.13x10-6
-
2.20
25
24.2
0.16
30
0.063
0.0025
0.0025
22
methoxyfenozide
3.72
1.64x10-4
28
3.02
402
2250
100
5000
4.2
0.1
0.1
23
phosmet
2.96
1.36x10-3
7
0.24
3212
57
0.22
113
0.23
0.01
0.015
24
pirimicarb
1.7
3.3x10-5
9
2.73
388
1805
40
20.9
79
0.035
0.035
25
pyriproxyfen
5.37
1.16x10-2
3.5
-0.33
21175
863
100
5000
0.27
0.1
0.1
26
spinosad
4
1.89x10-7
-
-0.62
34600
2000
0.0029
2000
30
0.024
0.024
47
27
tebufenozide
4.25
6.95x10-5
13
3.23
572
2150
234
5000
3
0.02
0.008
28
teflubenzuron
4.3
6.98x10-3
13.7
-0.82
26062
2250
72
5038
0.0065
0.01
0.006
29
thiacloprid
1.26
5x10-10
18
1.44
615
49
17.32
444
30.2
0.01
0.02
30
thiamethoxam (2008)
-0.13
4.7x10-10
39
3.66
70
576
0.024
-
100
0.026
0.08
31
triflumuron
4.9
1.79x10-3
22
-0.11
11981
561
200
5000
0.021
0.014
0.036
32
Fatty acids
7.6
1.98x10-3
-
-
-
5620
25
5000
59.2
-
-
33
Paraffin oils
6.3
117x10-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
77.5
-
-
Kow = Partition coefficient between n-octanol and water (as the log value). A high value for the partition coefficient is regarded as an indicator that a substance
will bioaccumulate (unless other factors operate)
Henry’s Law constant at 25 0C = active substance volatility parameter
GUS (Groundwater Ubiquity Score) leaching potential index: GUS= log10 (t1/2) x [4-log10(Koc)]
Koc = Organic carbon sorption constant (ml g-1)
DT50 = It is a measure of the amount of time it takes for 50 percent of the parent compound to disappear from the field soil.
Mamtox LD50 = It is the pesticide dose required to kill half the members of a tested animal (rat, dog) population.
Fishtox LC50 = It is the pesticide concentration required to kill half the members of a tested fish population.
Birdtox LD50 = It is the pesticide dose required to kill half the members of a tested bird population.
Beetox LD50 = It is the pesticide dose required to kill half the members of a bee population.
AOEL = Acceptable Operator Exposure Level – Systemic (mg kg-1 bw day-1).
ADI = Acceptable Daily Intake (mg kg-1 bw day-1).
48
Table 5. The registered fungicides and herbicides in EU for apple tree protection (Agrotypos, 2008).
a/a
Fungicides
Herbicides
1
bitertanol
chlorthal-dimethyl
2
boscalid/pyraclostrobin
dichlobenil
3
bromuconazole
diquat
4
bupirimate
glufosinate
5
captan
glyphosate
6
cyproconazole
napropamide
7
cyprodinil
oxyfluorfen
8
difenoconazole
oxadiazon
9
diphenylamine
quizalofop-p-ethyl
10
dithianon
terbuthylazine/glyphosate
11
dodine
12
fenarimol
49
13
fenbuconazole
14
flusilazol
15
folpet/triadimenol
16
fosetyl
17
8-hydroxyquinoline sulfate
18
kresoxim methyl
19
mancozeb
20
metiram
21
myclobutanil
22
propineb
23
pyrimethanil
24
pyrimethanil/fluquinconazole
25
tebuconazole
26
thiophanate methyl
50
27
thiram
28
triadimenol
29
trifloxystrobin
30
ziram
31
sulfur
32
copper hydroxide
51
52
Table: No Herbicide Use and Production Impacts By Crop (Gianessi and Reigher,
2005)
Production
Crop
Million Lbs
$ Million
Yield Loss (%)
2005
without
Herbicides2
2001
2005
2001
Almonds
Apples
Artichokes
Asparagus
Blueberries
Broccoli
Canola
Carrots
Celery
Citrus
Corn
Cotton
Cranberries
Cucumbers
Dry Beans
Grapes
Green Beans
Green Peas
Hops
Hot Peppers
Lettuce
Mint
Onions
Peaches
Peanuts
Potatoes
Raspberries
Rice
Sorghum
Soybeans
Spinach
Strawberries
Sugar beets
Sugarcane
Sunflowers
Sweet Corn
Sweet Potatoes
Tomatoes
Wheat
Wild Rice
Total
5
15
16
55
67
14
45
48
0
0
20
27
50
66
25
1
20
20
25
0
13
58
43
11
52
32
0
53
26
26
50
30
29
25
16
25
20
23
25
50
58.2
909.8
9.3
104.1
47.7
145.8
890.1
1,884.0
0
0
144,256.0
2,462.4
252.7
431.2
483.6
98.3
268.2
145.5
15.7
0
810.3
4.4
2,538.3
177.1
2,138.2
13,236.1
0
11,065.3
6,810.3
43,430.4
127.8
194.9
14,778.4
16.625.0
529.0
2,036.2
200.9
4,900.0
16,500.0
0.3
288,565.5
77.4
923.4
7.8
91.1
36.9
141.3
665.1
1,489.3
0
0
152,458.2
2,909.5
295.5
424.9
648.7
104.4
266.5
122.2
12.4
0
827.8
4.4
2,714.3
165.8
2,409.0
12,475.4
0
1 1,593.5
5,216.3
46.085.4
30.6
272.4
15,679.3
12,264.5
468.3
1,898.1
221.1
5,357.7
17,363.5
0.3
295,722.2
31.5
139.6
5.4
115.1
14.6
36.0
78.4
271.4
0
0
3,765.0
868.0
47.0
84.0
102.5
21.9
21.5
19.2
29.9
0
153.7
53.0
266.0
36.0
505.9
771.1
0
465.4
236.1
3,106.5
7.6
126.9
316.3
223.7
48.2
173.7
29.4
367.6
763.0
0.5
13,301.6
117.1
167.0
3.5
80.6
22.3
40.3
62.4
244.6
0
0
4,123.3
1,424.6
100.7
92.3
125.5
22.5
20.2
16.9
24.5
0
159.7
57.3
336.0
34.0
422.7
861.6
0
928.7
169.2
4,214.2
4.1
162.6
312.9
180.0
51.5
182.3
43.4
501.0
981.8
0.4
16,291.0
53
Table: Benefit Impacts of Fungicide Use by Crop (Gianessi and Reigher, 2005)
Crop
Almonds
Apples
Artichokes
Asparagus
Bananas
Barley
Blueberries
Cabbage
Cantaloupes
Carrots
Celery
Cherries
Citrus
Collards
Cotton
Cranberries
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapes
Green Beans
Hazelnuts
Hops
Hot Peppers
Kiwi
Lettuce
Mint
Nectarines
Onions
Papaya
Parsley
Peaches
Peanuts
Pears
Pecans
Pistachios
Plums and Prunes
Potatoes
Raspberries
Rice
Soybeans
Spinach
% Yield to
fungicides
Production
Net Benefit ($000)
S Thousand
Million Lbs.
70
86
35
22
30
16
63
34
23
26
39
76
49
65
14
68
70
50
95
27
75
69
50
25
47
23
45
24
100
33
54
71
99
44
50
45
44
60
23
19
38
626
6,803
27
18
4
158
116
596
320
810
727
526
14,105
85
134
338
1,093
144
13,873
331
18
40
42
4
3,829
<1
239
1,308
46
5
1,207
2,180
1,526
53
59
221
18,262
67
2,595
919
190
682,486
1,223,007
18,928
14,973
1,887
8,854
103,777
68,956
58,574
126,221
91,991
228,027
926,968
15,992
59,361
110,323
184,605
42,090
2,674,028
75,757
8,775
78,255
11,546
1,493
878,052
3,816
45,864
171,778
11,900
1,480
283,650
389,143
224,704
45,755
65,584
62,015
1,158,947
49,986
111,825
26,309
44,565
654,921
1,153,399
18,642
13,907
1,655
4,977
99,366
65,807
55,903
118,426
89,191
213,293
896,991
15,681
29,578
108,311
177,484
41,142
2,550,987
64,798
7,848
74,335
11,253
1,416
862,626
3,528
43,223
160,858
11,283
1,446
264,321
289,977
216,964
20,442
62,474
58,871
1,058,783
47,277
65,008
14,936
41,767
Strawberries
59
1,123
705,500
692,218
Sugarbeets
28
11,902
232,925
187,080
Sweet Corn
44
1,347
112,584
101,663
Sweet Peppers
78
1,006
329,811
324,717
Tomatoes
19
3,905
749,410
719,579
Walnuts
50
152
71,440
65,682
Watermelons
62
1,961
147,166
137,443
Wheat
19
1,720
106,804
46,267
Wild Rice
28
1
1,848
1,639
96,761
12,849,735
11,969,382
Total