Several European (EU) member states – including Ireland – are objecting to proposals to modernise how Europe collects data on pesticide use, according to Dr. Edward Straw, a researcher at University College Dublin (UCD).
And, in doing so, he said, it will deny scientists the data they need to provide independent oversight on the safety and usage of pesticides.
This is particularly important when the only data that is available to scientists in this area, is of very little use, Dr. Straw told Agriland.
Dr. Straw studies the impacts on pesticides on the environment, with a focus on their impacts on bees.
He explained:
“This is because all that’s available is an estimate of pesticide use for a whole nation, based on a survey sent to a small subset of farmers. Worse still, only one farming sector is sampled each year, so most years, for most crops, we can only work with old data.”
To fix this situation the European Commission is reforming the statistics legal framework by proposing a regulation on Statistics on Agricultural Input and Output.
This legislation requires member states to collect statistics on pesticide use. The proposal is for member states to collect the records that farmers already have to keep on their use of pesticides and then transmit it to Eurostat.
The value of data
Eurostat would then anonymise the data and publish the data creating a large and very rich dataset.
“With a team of pesticide researchers across a range of disciplines, we wrote a letter supporting this reform,” Dr. Straw said.
“Each of us recognised the value that having more data on pesticide usage would bring to science, and the opportunities it would allow in studying how pesticides impact human and environmental health.”
While the EU’s regulation of pesticides is unarguably world leading, it is also true that the system has many flaws and blind spots, said Dr. Straw.
It is up to academic scientists, those not working for the regulatory system or the agrochemical industry, to make up for these flaws in the system, he added.
This is academic – that’s why it is important
Research carried out by academic scientists has played a huge role in informing which pesticides are authorised or banned.
This was most notable in the case of the neonicotinoids – insecticides the EU authorised based on agrochemical industry data, but then banned once academic scientists did more detailed experiments, which revealed severe harm to bees.
“For us to be able to provide this independent oversight, we need the EU institutions to facilitate our research, principally by providing us with better data on where and when pesticides are used,” Dr. Straw said.
Access to an EU-wide dataset on pesticide use would make it possible for scientists to study the real impacts of pesticides, rather than just using laboratory experiments.
Dr. Straw explained:
“We’d be able to directly compare how, where, and which pesticides are used with the health of humans and wildlife nearby.
“The scope and scale of such a dataset would allow for even minor effects of pesticides to be detected, which would then provide more information for the EU to determine what substances are and aren’t safe for use.”
This can be done successfully because it has already been done. California has been collecting data like this for 70 years, with no major issues, he pointed out.
“So the EU proposal is far from a dangerous revolutionary idea. The transparency and data availability this approach has brought has allowed scientists in California to address a number of important questions about pesticides.
“Scientists have been able to track how and where endangered species and bees are exposed to pesticides, and how waterways become polluted with them. It’s allowed human health researchers to identify which substances are used near residential areas, and how they lead to negative effects on human health.”
More costly – but at what cost
It is true that the proposal would be more costly to run than the existing system, but the transparency and research opportunities it would enable would bring a solid return on investment, Dr. Straw said.
“We already know that some pesticides can have negative impacts on human and environmental health, so giving researchers a powerful tool to identify which substances are and aren’t safe would help prevent such harm.
“Ultimately, this would lead to better human health outcomes, which would save governments money on healthcare. Further, it would help protect wildlife, which is itself inherently valuable, but would also boosts crop yields through improved pollination and pest control.”
A headline figure of the Farm to Fork strategy is the target of a 50% reduction in pesticide usage and risk by 2030.
But this target is meaningless in the absence of the data which allows us to know if it been reached, Dr. Straw said.
“If the aim is to reduce the risk of pesticide applications, how can we know if this is being achieved unless we know when and where pesticides are being sprayed?”