Will court ruling reduce harmful pesticides? “I worry it leads to further policy complexity”
Pesticides will soon be less easily be permitted on the Dutch market. This is because the Dutch court last week increased the requirements for admission, the “most recent scientific knowledge” must now be included in the decision. Does this really result in less use of harmful pesticides?
Five years ago, the Pesticides Action Network (Pan) filed a lawsuit to ban the pesticides Dagonis, Pitcher and Closer from the Dutch market. That is because those pesticides not only protect crops from fungi and insects, but also cause hormone disruption in humans and animals. Last week, the Dutch court ruled in Pan’s favour.
As a result of that ruling, national assessment authorities in Europe, such as the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (Ctgb) in the Netherlands, have to adjust their working methods. From now on, “recent scientific knowledge” must also be included in the process. After all, a lot of time passes between the submission of the application and the final assessment, during which time new insights may have arisen.
What does this ruling mean for the future of pesticides in the Netherlands? Folia asked professor of environmental ecology and Ctgb member Annemarie van Wezel and associate professor of water quality and ecotoxicology Milo de Baat.
How is it possible that harmful pesticides still end up on the market?
De Baat: “When a producer wants to place a pesticide on the market, it is obliged to report to the assessment authority, such as the Ctgb, about the toxicity of the pesticide. There are all kinds of requirements for this, the applicant producer has to meet all kinds of standards and norms, conduct literature research and have its tests performed by accredited laboratories. The Ctgb then acts as a kind of referee that assesses whether the scientific research is correct and whether the dossier is complete and complies with what the law requires.”
“But the dossier provided by the producer does not paint the whole picture, because they only test the drug for so-called required ‘endpoints’. That way of testing is like looking through a straw. You only look at a certain set of endpoints and overlook other things. In the case of the trial, that was endocrine disruption.”
“The judge now also requires the assessment authorities to include all scientific insights that have arisen after submission in its assessment. That also requires the Ctgb to have its own record of what scientific knowledge is available.”
It sounds very logical to include all scientific knowledge when assessing a pesticide.
Van Wezel: “Yes, that sounds logical. But the Ctgb – like all member states of the European Union – is lagging behind in assessing pesticides. This is because it is becoming increasingly complicated to assess pesticides and there are more and more endpoints. With this ruling, even more information has to be included, which has emerged after submission. That is why it has not been done so far. So the quest is to find a balance between a safe assessment and a method by which you get down to assessing the entire pesticide package.”
Will the ruling also lead to fewer harmful pesticides entering the market?
De Baat: “Not necessarily. It’s very nice that for endocrine disruption, the most recent literature is now included in the assessment, but that’s not all. Endocrine disruption is very broad, so we can still overlook effects. And then there are other endpoints such as neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity that are not included. So there is the danger that you are going to allow an alternative that is just as harmful.”
Van Wezel: “That is a well-known phenomenon, also known as regrettable substitution. That is a reason to argue in favour of assessing pesticides more at group level, as has now been proposed for legislation on PFAS and designer drugs, instead of per each individual molecule.”
Is the judge’s ruling a victory for science?
De Baat: “Yes, but with a caveat. Because it cannot be the responsibility of scientists to come up with new insights for all authorised pesticides. Is that the job of science? Or does that responsibility lie with the chemical companies where the research money is? The system is set up so that industry is also required to test their product for the more subtle endpoints such as endocrine disruption. However, the industry does benefit if those tests turn out to be insensitive because it increases the chances of getting the drug approved.”
Whether Van Wezel is happy with the judge’s ruling? She hesitates. “I welcome movement on pesticide policy. But I do worry that this ruling leads to further policy complexity. There is a tendency towards more and more detail for the one substance, while we know there is a whole hump of substances that we have not yet assessed.”
“Among those substances there are also green agents, such as micro-organisms, plant extracts or pheromones, (scents that animals spread to influence the behaviour of mates ed.). And the more complex the assessment becomes, the more time elapses between submission and approval of a substance. So you want to leave enough freedom in the assessment so that green substances can also get through and we can get rid of harmful chemistry as quickly and as much as possible.”
What will the Ctgb do differently now?
Van Wezel: “The Ctgb has already adjusted its working method and has now included the latest knowledge for the endpoint ‘endocrine disruption’ in the assessment of the three pesticides in Pan’s case. The Ctgb has to decide again in six months’ time. The new methodology will also apply to all pesticides that follow.”
