Why is this topic of interest to DCPA? Why are we sponsoring this debate?
- It impacts the availability of our products to the market – directly impacting the farmers and in the end us, the consumers – the eaters
Carbon footprint: Without the 75 substances, carbon footprint would increase by 47% (up from today of 83 mio tons of CO2 emissions)
So to summarize:
- So it is a topic that is of high interest to us, but should also be to the average consumer
"In recent years any discussion of crop protection issues has inevitably led to the question: biologicals - are they a better option than chemicals?
The short answer is - yes - by almost every metric, also from a human health perspective.
However, as our understanding of the mechanisms behind biologicals continues to grow, we must continually be aware that biopesticides, despite generally having a low risk potential for human health or as an environmental hazard, are not necessarily harmless, despite being of natural origin. "
"Biologics in Crop Protection are a better option than chemicals from a human health perspective.
However, as our understanding of the mechanisms behind biologicals continues to grow, we must continually be aware that biopesticides, despite generally having a low risk potential for human health or as an environmental hazard, are not necessarily harmless, despite being of natural origin."
"Negligible risk derogation – why the fuss for pesticides?
Where hazard is high (cut-offs CMR and ED), exposure must be very low for risk to be acceptable
Negligible exposure is implicit, but negligible risk is quantifiable and consistent with regulating « low hazard » substances where exposure could be dangerously high. "
A tendency to believe that banning pesticides will remove the risk
Fails to consider the benefits. Fails to consider the consequences – what will the farmer do?
ED Guidance describes an ideal data set if submitted today ….. Sufficient to conclude
Much less helpful to deal with dossiers already submitted …. All available evidence
Conflicting communications by scientists: Does endocrine disruption really require a special approach in toxicological risk assessment?
Scientists and science media need to be much more prudent and responsible in their communication with mainstream media and politicians especially with regard to simplifications and in how far new findings can be extrapolated to the broader context
Stakeholders (Industry, Gov. Authorities) should embrace a much more proactive approach, rather than doing the „just required“ in order to provide for the „safety and reasurance“ the public seeks.
"Are Pharmaceutical Painkillers Over-the-Counter Endocrine Disruptors?
- Yes; they are. "
Potential health effects resulting from exposure to pesticides continue to be on the agenda in the public debate. This is despite the fact that pesticides are among the most well tested and regulated substances, and that public health or environmental authorities are not pointing at any health concerns. The concern is mainly fueled by NGO:s, Media, Marketers of organic food and certain parts of the scientific community that want to raise research grants and lobby for more conservative chemicals legislation. A strategy has been to suggest that health is at risk because of uncertainties relating to aspects of pesticide regulation where the regulation is developing alongside the corresponding scientific frontier. One such aspect is that of ”cocktail effects” – i.e. the joint risk posed by concomitant exposure to different pesticides and other types of chemicals.
"From a scientific point of view, adverse health effects resulting of pesticide residues in foods is very unlikely. "
Endocrine disruption is under special focus in the European Regulatory context. At the same time questions on the existence of thresholds for endocrine disruptors, suspected “low dose effects” or non-monotonic dose response curves were/are controversially discussed.
"There is no evidence for adverse or non-adverse effects at the low dose / reference dose for single compound and mixture, and there is no evidence for a non-monotonic dose response for single compound and mixture."
Jens Peter Ellekilde Bonde
The potential environmental impact on male reproductive health due to endocrine disruption of fetal development is a controversial topic dividing the scientific community. This calls for systematic and transparent reviews of current evidence according to international guidelines.
"The current epidemiological evidence is compatible with a small increased risk of male reproductive disorders following pre- and postnatal exposure to a specific compound - the DDT metabolite DDE. "
"We are suffering from chemophobia"
More pesticides are found in Danish drinking water. Regulatory scientists say there is no concern – but the public does not trust them, so some politicians request action to protect the health, especially of the unborn child. But why this discrepancy in perception. In spite of the rigerous testing before marketing, why are the public and some scientist still concerned about the potential adverse health effects of pesticide exposure. The public cannot distriminate between hazard and risk and does not consider exposure levels. Without exposure to the hazard (pesticide) no risk, and unfortunately high quality information on the level of exposure is limited.
We have extensive information on the hazards of pesticides, but why can we not communicate the message of risk to the public. They receive the information through the information chain – scientist – journalist/NGO – politicians. Independent university scientist are more trustworthy than regulatory and company scientists as well as scientists whose work are supported by the industry. We have to look at the receipient of information many people suffers of chemophobia and are afraid of synthetic chemicals.
More articles on the seminar will be brought on the www.plantevaern.dk website during week 46