2006 - belgium · health and environmental effects of pesticides and health and environmental...

Programme de Réduction des Pesticides et des Biocides

Programma voor de Reductie van Pesticiden en Biociden

Program for Reduction of Pesticides and Biocides

Health and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)

2006

TASK 2

Contract / Contrat P05/21(461)-C05/37

Vergucht, S.1; de Voghel, S.2; Misson, C.3 (until 31/01/06);

Vrancken, C.3 (from 01/02/06); Callebaut, K.4; Steurbaut, W.1; Pussemier, L.2 ; Marot, J.3 ; Maraite, H.3 ; Vanhaecke, P.4

1 : Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University 2: Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervuren

3: Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) 4: Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas)

Health and environmental effects of Health and environmental effects of Health and environmental effects of Health and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides pesticides and type 18 biocides pesticides and type 18 biocides pesticides and type 18 biocides

(HEEPEBI)(HEEPEBI)(HEEPEBI)(HEEPEBI) Report from the contract AP/02/05A between theReport from the contract AP/02/05A between theReport from the contract AP/02/05A between theReport from the contract AP/02/05A between the Belgian Science Policy and Department Belgian Science Policy and Department Belgian Science Policy and Department Belgian Science Policy and Department of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research of Crop Protection Chemistry, Ghent University; Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Centre (VAR), Tervuren; Unité deUnité deUnité deUnité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance and Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas)(Ecolas)(Ecolas)(Ecolas) Vergucht, S.Vergucht, S.Vergucht, S.Vergucht, S.1111; de Voghel, S.; de Voghel, S.; de Voghel, S.; de Voghel, S.2222; Misson, C.; Misson, C.; Misson, C.; Misson, C.3 3 3 3 (until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.(until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.(until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.(until 31/01/06); Vrancken, C.3 3 3 3 (from 01/02/06); (from 01/02/06); (from 01/02/06); (from 01/02/06); Callebaut, K.Callebaut, K.Callebaut, K.Callebaut, K.4444; Steurbaut, W.; Steurbaut, W.; Steurbaut, W.; Steurbaut, W.1111; Pussemier, L.; Pussemier, L.; Pussemier, L.; Pussemier, L.2222 ; Marot, J.; Marot, J.; Marot, J.; Marot, J.3333 ; Maraite, H.; Maraite, H.; Maraite, H.; Maraite, H.3333 ; Vanhaecke, P.; Vanhaecke, P.; Vanhaecke, P.; Vanhaecke, P.4444 1 1 1 1 : Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University: Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University: Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University: Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University 2222: Vete: Vete: Vete: Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervurenrinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervurenrinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervurenrinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Tervuren 3333: Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL): Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL): Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL): Unité de Phytopathologie, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) 4444: Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas): Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas): Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas): Environmental Consultancy & Assistance (Ecolas)

September 2006September 2006September 2006September 2006

HealthHealthHealthHealth and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)

TTTTABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS TASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN THE AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN THE AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN THE AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USEBELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USEBELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USEBELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USE

1 Analysis of the possible origin of environmental damages from pesticides in

Belgium with identification of knowledge gaps ................................................................ 1

1.1 Review of the current situation about water quality in the local context of Belgium

1 1.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1.2 State for ground waters............................................................................................................. 1 1.1.3 State for surface waters............................................................................................................. 7 1.1.4 Legislation .............................................................................................................................. 16 1.1.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 16

1.2 Review of the current situation about other environmental contaminations in the

local context of Belgium .......................................................................................................... 18 1.2.1 Invertebrates and fishes in North Sea and Scheldt.................................................................. 18 1.2.2 Invertebrates ........................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.3 Vertebrates.............................................................................................................................. 21 1.2.4 Atmosphere............................................................................................................................. 25 1.2.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 30 1.2.6 Summary................................................................................................................................. 33

1.3 Review of application techniques and effects on the drift problem ........................ 34 1.3.1 Drift ........................................................................................................................................ 34 1.3.2 Application techniques of plant protection products mostly used in Belgium and their effects

on drift problem ................................................................................................................................... 39 1.3.3 Legislation .............................................................................................................................. 45

2 Review of pesticide and biocide toxicity for human beings in Belgium ................. 46

2.1 Acute pesticide exposure in Belgium (National Poison Centre Belgium, 2004) ..... 46

2.2 Chronic pesticide exposure: cancers and birth defects in Belgium (Janssens et al.,

2002) 47 2.2.1 Lung cancer ............................................................................................................................ 47 2.2.2 Colorectal cancer .................................................................................................................... 48 2.2.3 Hormone dependent cancers................................................................................................... 48 2.2.4 Testicular cancer..................................................................................................................... 48 2.2.5 Soft tissue sarcomas................................................................................................................ 49 2.2.6 Spina bifida............................................................................................................................. 49

3 Pesticide and Biocide exposure assessment in Belgium ......................................... 50

3.1 Uncertainties and special problems with regard to exposure.................................. 50 3.1.1 Relevance of specific applications.......................................................................................... 50 3.1.2 Problems with availability of data .......................................................................................... 50

3.2 Exposure of the consumer at the Belgian level ......................................................... 52 3.2.1 Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for consumers ..................... 52 3.2.2 Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring program....................... 53 3.2.3 Non official residue monitoring.............................................................................................. 61

3.3 Pesticide exposure at farm level in Belgium.............................................................. 68 3.3.1 Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide use ........................ 68

1.4.4.3.1. Economic reasons ................................................................................................ 80

HealthHealthHealthHealth and environmental effects of pestic and environmental effects of pestic and environmental effects of pestic and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)ides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)ides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)ides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)

1.4.4.3.2. Non economic reasons ......................................................................................... 80

3.4 Biocides exposure at the Belgian level ....................................................................... 82 3.4.1 Selection of relevant active substances................................................................................... 82 3.4.2 Assessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect data ................................................... 85 3.4.3 Uncertainties to identify and quantify exposure routes for biocides....................................... 86

4 References ................................................................................................................. 96

HealthHealthHealthHealth and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) 1

TASK 2: DETERMTASK 2: DETERMTASK 2: DETERMTASK 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES INATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES INATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES INATION OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES WITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USEWITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USEWITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USEWITHIN THE BELGIAN CONTEXT OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE USE

1111 AAAANALYSIS OF THE POSSINALYSIS OF THE POSSINALYSIS OF THE POSSINALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIROBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIROBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIROBLE ORIGIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES FROMNMENTAL DAMAGES FROMNMENTAL DAMAGES FROMNMENTAL DAMAGES FROM

PESTICIDES IN PESTICIDES IN PESTICIDES IN PESTICIDES IN BBBBELGIUM WITH IDENTIFIELGIUM WITH IDENTIFIELGIUM WITH IDENTIFIELGIUM WITH IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE CATION OF KNOWLEDGE CATION OF KNOWLEDGE CATION OF KNOWLEDGE GAPSGAPSGAPSGAPS

1.1 Review of the current situation about water quality in the local

context of Belgium

1.1.11.1.11.1.11.1.1 IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In Belgium, there are some 300 active substances of plant protection products and most of them do not induce residues in water sources for the production of drinking water. However, residues of plant protection products can be detected and water quality monitoring data show that herbicides are the group of ppp most frequently detected in ground- and surface-waters. Availability and persistence of an herbicide in the plant/soil environment for effective weed control also means that the herbicide is potentially available for transport in the water phase away from its intended target area. These residues are a preoccupation for water producers and for industries of plant protection products too because the European legislation is very strict about this. It is preferable to prevent or minimize the water contamination because treatments or blending requirements are complex and expensive (Carter 2000; Belgaqua and Phytofar 2002). A further concern over herbicide residues in water is their potential impact on non-target aquatic organisms. Indeed, watercourses can be polluted by industrial and domestic effluents and by contaminated run-off. Plant protection products can affect the functioning of flora and faun and accumulate in tissues throughout food chain (DGRNE, 2005). 1.1.21.1.21.1.21.1.2 State for ground watersState for ground watersState for ground watersState for ground waters 1.1.2.11.1.2.11.1.2.11.1.2.1 IIIIN N N N WWWWALLOON ALLOON ALLOON ALLOON RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

On the basis of transfer model (absorption in soil and persistence of substances) and quantities sold in Belgium, the research of about sixty actives substances and metabolites is assessed as pertinent for ground waters. In practice, seventy-seven substances are currently measured by drinking water producers since 2001 (Delloye, 2005b). In Walloon Region, the current monitoring is constituted by tests passed on drinking water producers since 90’s and the first data of patrimonial network of monitoring since 2003; these data are included in CALYPSO database (Delloye, 2005a). A global view of these average results in each water catchments shows that herbicides of agricultural use and non-agricultural use (domestics uses, garden, municipalities, railway…) are responsible for most of the problems in ground waters and these active substances have globally a significant impacts (Delloye, 2005b):

- Atrazine and its principal metabolite (desethylatrazine) are most often found in groundwaters (more 50 % of contaminations observed);

- Several contaminations are caused by the use of bentazone, diuron, bromacile, simazine;

- Some cases caused by chloridazon, isoproturon and chlortoluron are signaled.


For what concerns agricultural uses, the atrazine was essentially used in maize; the bentazone is used in maize, cereals, peas and beans, the chloridazon is used in beets culture, isoproturon and chlortoluron are used in cereal. Diuron, bromacile, simazine are principally used for non-agricultural uses. Atrazine, simazine and bromacile have not been included in annexe I of directive 91/414/CEE. But the removal of atrazine poses new questions about substitute molecules. For most cases of contaminations by atrazine, it is hardly possible to prove the agricultural or non-agricultural origin. However, the non-agricultural origin of the next 2 most frequent contaminants simazine and diuron is hardly refutable and is a strong argument in favour of he non-agricultural origin of atrazine in ground waters also (Debongnie et al., 2003). The most affected groundwaters are located in « les Sables Bruxelliens », « les Graviers de Meuse », « les Calcaires du Synclinorium de Dinant » and « les Craies de Hesbaye ». Indeed, some ground waters benefit from natural protection more efficiency by filter function of soil (Guillaume, 2005). According to TBE 2004 and on the whole, plant protection products alter 3 water masses on 33 and they are declared as a risk by this. Figure 2-1 shows herbicides with higher concentrations in ground waters in Walloon region from 1996 to 2003. Figure 2-2 shows the situation of ppp with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) corresponds to exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----1: 1: 1: 1: Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996Herbicides with higher concentrations in ground water in Walloon Region (1996----2003) 2003) 2003) 2003) (DGRNE, 2005)(DGRNE, 2005)(DGRNE, 2005)(DGRNE, 2005)


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----2: 2: 2: 2: Situation of ppSituation of ppSituation of ppSituation of ppp with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) p with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) p with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) p with impacts on ground waters after January 2001. The class 3 (pink) corresponds to exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005)corresponds to exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005)corresponds to exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005)corresponds to exceeding norm of drinking water (0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone) (Delloye, 2005) The atrazine and its principal metabolite, desethylatrazine, are both molecules with most items. The atrazine was used like total herbicide at high doses on roads, paths, parkings, etc until 1991 and used like selective herbicide (principally in maize) until 2004. This active substance is forbidden for an alone use since February 2002 and totally forbidden since September 2004 by the decision 2004/247//EC (and stock use until September 2005). World Health Organisation (WHO) evaluates its toxicity level at 2 µg/l. This active substance can to degraded in two relevant metabolites: the desethylatrazine and the deisopropylatrazine. The first metabolite would have a longer lifespan than atrazine, already particularly persistent. Some groundwaters are contaminated by atrazine and its metabolites for long term because the transfer time is very long. However, protection areas around water catchments are installed, it’s a measure complying with water framework directive (Delloye, 2005a). In the last assessment period (2001-2004), atrazine detected for 26 % of together drinking water points and first sites of representative network of the Walloon Region (this network is building and it completes data supply by drinking waters producers in order to have a fully representative sampling of water masses). There is an exceeding of potable norm of 3,6 %. The desethylatrazine detected for 29 % and an exceeding of potable norm of 5,1 %. In comparison with previous assessment period, concentrations of atrazine and desethylatrazine decrease very slowly but significantly. The decreasing of atrazine and desethylatrazine concentrations only begins and the end of this item will be in several years for some groundwaters with long answer times. This decreasing is probably linked with the use restrictions of this active substance (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005).

Pesticides avec impact sur les eaux souterraines - Situation après janvier 2001

(données partielles :les étiquettes reprennent le nombre de sites contrôlés; 3 à 4 analyses par site)

323

375

233

326

340

477

483

340

443

426

323

337

64

77

29

16

7

15

13

4

4

2

43

37

22

9

3

8

10

3

1

23

18

15

2

1

1

1

3

10

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Déset.atrazine

Atrazine

dichlorobenzamide

Bentazone

Bromacile

Diuron

Simazine

Déprop.atrazine

Isoproturon

Chlortoluron

Pentachlorophenol

Lénacile

Su

bs

tan

ce

ou

mé

tab

oli

te

Classe_0 (teneur moyenne < 25 ng/l) Classe_1 (25 < teneur < 50) Classe_2 (50 < teneur < 100) Classe_3 (teneur > 100 )


However, the evolution of groundwaters contamination by the bentazone and total herbicides for non-agricultural uses (bromacile, diuron, simazine…) are very worrying. This situation is principally explained by a use increase of bentazone and by a professionalism lack of herbicide occasional users (unsuitable doses, unsuitable spray…) (DGRNE 2005). In 2005, detection rates are for the bromacile of 5,5 % and for diuron of 5,2 % (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). The monitoring of most catchments shows the appearance of other molecules like, the 2,6-dichlorobenzamide or BAM. The BAM is a metabolite of dichlobenil that is used as selective herbicide in nurseries and in fruit crops and as total herbicide (with higher doses) for non-agricultural uses, particularly to weed graveyard paths. The dichlobenil is measured since 15 years but rarely detected because it quickly transforms into BAM (DGRNE 2005). The analysis method was elaborated in 2003 and since this year, the BAM is tested in groundwaters and these values for data even if partial are alarming (detection rate of 22 % and exceeding of potable norm of 5,0 %) (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). Restriction of use has been imposed by European Commission: the simazine was forbidden by decision 2004/247/EC since February 2004 (and stock use until September 2005) but Belgium has obtained a derogation and can use this active substance for essential uses until December 2007 (commercialisation until January 2007) because there isn’t alternative solution yet (Phytoweb, 2005). On advice of the Comity for agreation of ppp intended to agricultural use, agreements of some products based on bentazone have been taken away since 2004 (like in potatoes crop) to limit the bentazone use and to prevent the groundwaters contamination (Phytoweb 2005). On advice of Comity for agreation of ppp intended to agricultural use, agreements of products based on diuron have been forbidden since 2002 (and stock use until April 2004), except products with diuron mixed with other active substances and which have a effective control with maximum 1,5 kg/ha*year. This decision has been taken because the diuron is frequently found at a concentration higher than legal norm in groundwaters and surface waters (Phytoweb 2005). With local impacts, active substances for agricultural use must also be noted (isoproturon for cereals and chlortoluron for beet). For both, there is a decreasing of impacts since 2001 (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). In general and conversely to the rapid reaction in surface waters, the time between an event occurring at surface level and the pollution of groundwaters can take from 10 to 15 years, considering the transfer time of water in ground (Guillaume, 2005). Figure 2-3 shows the evolution of groundwaters quality for several herbicides in the Walloon Region between 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. Figure 2-4 shows the evolution of ppp presence rate in groundwaters in the Walloon Region before and after 2001. This year is pivot maximal possible to have a balance of sites on which data are available before and after a year (Delloye, 2005).


Figure2Figure2Figure2Figure2---- 3: 3: 3: 3: Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Walloon Region (between 1996Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Walloon Region (between 1996Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Walloon Region (between 1996Evolution of ground waters quality for herbicides in Walloon Region (between 1996----1999 and 20001999 and 20001999 and 20001999 and 2000----2003) (DGRNE, 2005)2003) (DGRNE, 2005)2003) (DGRNE, 2005)2003) (DGRNE, 2005)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----4: 4: 4: 4: Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after Evolution of ppp presence rate in ground waters in the Walloon Region before and after 2001200120012001 (Delloye, 2005) (Delloye, 2005) (Delloye, 2005) (Delloye, 2005)

According to « Observatoire des eaux souterraines (Division Eau – DGRNE) » and according to monitoring of drinking water producers, it’s difficult to draw trends in the time but it however would seem that pollution levels peaks have decreased since 1999 for the two most important families (triazines and substituted ureas). They think this improvement results from better practices in agricultural, particularly for ground waters influenced by surface waters (Delloye, 2005b). However, most polluted catchments are not used

Evolution du taux de présence des pesticides dans les nappes en Wallonie (300 à 500 sites contrôlés)

0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80

Déset.atrazine

Atrazine

dichlorobenzamide

Bentazone

Bromacile

Diuron

Simazine

Déprop.atrazine

Isoproturon

Chlortoluron

Pentachlorophenol

Lénacile

Su

bs

tan

ce

ou

mé

tab

olite

indice

avant janvier 2001 Après janvier 2001


anymore and then it has a positive influence about statistics and it seems better (DGRNE, 2005). Since 2001, a global improvement of the quality of ground water is observed when considering ppp for agricultural use. However, more localized impacts of several total herbicides for non-agricultural use are still worrying. 1.1.2.21.1.2.21.1.2.21.1.2.2 IIIIN N N N FFFFLEMISH LEMISH LEMISH LEMISH RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

In Flanders, the qualitative and quantitative ground water status is monitored through a series of measurement networks. There are specific networks, for drinking water extractions, nature reserves, agricultural areas, landfill sites and potentially polluting industries. To have a picture of groundwater quality, a selection of wells of groundwater network of AMINAL has been sampled during Spring 2005 and the MIRA report shows results. 11 plant protection products or their metabolite are tested. These products are most of the time used according to sales figures, it is the case for of atrazine and its metabolite desethylatrazine, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, simazine, diuron, bentazon, linuron, isoproturon, chlortoluron and metolachlor. Norms of 0,1 µg/l for a ppp alone and 0,5 µg/l for total ppp have been used. In this sampling, there are 279 wells. For the majority, one sampling has been realised but for 20 % of the wells, two samplings have been realized at two different depths to try to draw up a vertical repartition of ppp. Results of this study are reported in table 2-1 (Claeys et al., 2005). The table shows if a ppp or a metabolite is detected in groundwater, if the norm of 0,1 µg/l is exceed and the repartition between 2 sampling of a same well but at different level. In this study, the atrazine and the desethylatrazine exceed the norm of 0,1 µg/l in, respectively, 6,6 % and 9,1 % of the cases. The metabolite of glyphosate, AMPA, exceeds the norm in 2,1 % of the cases. When the vertical repartition is analysed, most ppp or metabolite have been found in higher level of sampling; except AMPA. In 4,8 % of cases, the norm of 0,5 µg/l is exceed for the sum of ppp. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----1: 1: 1: 1: 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish Region to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (ClaeysRegion to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (ClaeysRegion to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (ClaeysRegion to make an image of ground waters quality per sample (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2005)2005)2005)2005)


Results can be analyzed by wells in order to obtain a picture of among contaminated sites (table 2-2). It turns out that for 5,7 % of sampling sites, the norm of 0,5 µg/l for total ppp and relevant metabolite is exceeded and that 10,8 % of sampling sites exceed the norm of 0,1 µg/l for a ppp. Then, 16,5 % of sites do not match with norms (Claeys et al., 2005). On the basis of these data, a horizontal repartition has been drawn up (Annexe 2.1). This map shows that--- there is no issue for big areas (along polders, the North of Oriental and Occidental Flanders, the North of « Campine » and along « Meuse »). But in others area, ppp are always detected. Most of the sites that are exceeding norms are located in the South of Occidental Flanders in the silt nearby the « Dendre » and surrounding areas. The plentiful presence of silt can be a possible cause (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----2: 2: 2: 2: 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish 11 plant protection products and some metabolites are been tested for the Flemish Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys Region to make an image of ground waters quality per site (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., 2005), 2005), 2005), 2005) Number of

samples > 0 µg/l; ≤0.5 µg/l incl. < 0.1 µg/l

> 0 µg/l; ≤0.5 µg/l With at least 1 exceeding, incl. > 0.1 µg/l

> 0.5 µg/l Exceeding total standard (≥ 0.1 µg/l or sum ≥ 0.5 µg/l)

Sum 279 60 30 16 46 Percentage (%)

21.5 10.8 5.7 16.5

With regard to ground waters intended to drinking water, the quality of them is controlled by water production companies. Studies from 1991 to 2002 have been made in the Flemish Region and the ranking according to 4 main geological eras (primary limestone, secondary chalk, tertiary sand and quaternary alluvium) are done for 5 herbicides (chosen according to importance of their use). Results show (Annexe 2.2) that simazine, diuron and isoproturon are not or almost not found at above concentrations 0,05 µg/l in these waters in Flanders. However, atrazine and its metabolite, desethylatrazine, are found at higher concentrations than 0,05 µg/l and even than 0,1 µg/l except in primary era but this layer contribute just for a little part of groundwater in Flanders and only a little number of data are available. In other layers, the situation seems to improve for both substances (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.1.31.1.31.1.31.1.3 State for surface watersState for surface watersState for surface watersState for surface waters

1.1.3.11.1.3.11.1.3.11.1.3.1 SSSSURFACE WATERS INTENDURFACE WATERS INTENDURFACE WATERS INTENDURFACE WATERS INTENDED TO DRINKING WATERED TO DRINKING WATERED TO DRINKING WATERED TO DRINKING WATER

Water production companies test surface waters intended to drinking waters and the results are summarized in the report of Belgaqua and Phytofar of 2002 for the Belgian situation. Measures sites were located in catchment area of Meuse, Escaut and Yser 4 active substances and 1 metabolite (atrazine, desethylatrazine, simazine, diuron and isoproturon) are analyzed. These substances are selected because they are regularly detected in surface waters. But other active substances are also punctually detected. Results are shown quarterly because analyses are made more often during Spring and Summer (generally periods in which ppp concentrations are higher) than others period for economic reasons (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). In the catchment area of « Meuse », in general, a gradual improvement has been observed between 1993 and 2001. In surface waters, climatic conditions can act upon observations of a particular year. For atrazine, the evolution of its concentration shows a seasonal


profile according to spring application. A chart of application date for different ppp is shown in annex 2.3. Measured concentrations in 2001 are reduced about by half since 1993. This decreasing are more obvious in « Haute Meuse » and the norm of 0,1 µg/l is only occasionally exceeded. Concentrations of simazine are lower that atrazine. There is less seasonal variation because its appearance is not a direct result of run-off and a part comes from groundwaters, observed values are rather stable and in general less than 0,2 µg/l. The temporal profile of diuron is almost similar of the ones of atrazine and simazine but the variability is clearly more important. There are very high peaks at fixed moment and concentrations increase also from upstream to downstream. In general, the diuron is the ppp most often present in water of « Meuse ». Concentrations of isoproturon are variable during the year but they generally stay less than 0,3 µg/l (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). In the catchment area of « Yser », few samplings have been realised but it seems to draw up a reduction trend of some active substances, more particularly, atrazine, simazine and diuron. However, in general, concentrations of these are higher than in water of « Meuse ». Annual maximum of atrazine and diuron was near or above 5 µg/l, there are also great peak for isoproturon. The combination of low flow and the important use in this catchment area are the principal reasons of high levels and high variability. But direct dumping of ppp in surface waters can also cause these high concentration peaks. In autumn and winter, concentrations are lower but generally above potability norm. Other ppp are also detected in « Yser » and sometimes at high levels (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). In catchment area of « Escaut », concentrations of atrazine, diuron and isoproturon is stable at quite high level with peaks above 0,1 µg/l almost each year until 2000. In 2001, a reduction is observed for all active substances, except isoproturon. Others ppp are detected in surface waters. Although their presence are less regular in a year and geographically more localized, it can pose a problem at water producers. Between 1999 and 2001, products shown in table 2-3 have been detected for surface waters intended to drinking water at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 µg/l (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance has been detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----3: 3: 3: 3: Products detected, between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 Products detected, between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 Products detected, between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 Products detected, between 1999 and 2001, at concentrations above 0,1 µg/l and 0,5 µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance µg/l for surface waters intended to drinking water (when 2001 is indicated, it means the substance has bhas bhas bhas been detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)een detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)een detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)een detected during this year) (Belgaqua & Phytofar, 2002)

0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l0,5 µg/l > X > 0,1 µg/l >= 0,5 µg/l>= 0,5 µg/l>= 0,5 µg/l>= 0,5 µg/l Carbendazim (2001) Chloridazon (2001) Chloropropham (2001) Linuron (2001) Chlorotoluron (2001) Metamitron Cyanazine (2001) Metazachlore (2001) Desisopropylatrazine (2001) Metobromuron (2001) Ethofumesate (2001) Metolachlore Metabenzthiazuron (2001) Metoxuron Terbutryn (2001) Monolinuron (2001) Terbutylazine (2001)

Analyses realized on sampling taken in « Escaut » and some effluents between 2000 and 2002 show that no watercourses are totally free from contaminations. Some active substances are found in more important concentrations in water and often during application periods (Spring and Summer for the majority). Ppp most frequently detected in


sampling are atrazine, diuron, glyphosate and isoproturon. Beyond frequent detection, result of analyses on these sampling for year 2002 show that limiting ppp for a good aptitude of water to biology are essentially atrazine, simazine, lindane, endosulfan, diuron, isoproturon, chlorothalonil, metolachlore, parathion-ethyl and prosulfocarbe (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). 1.1.3.21.1.3.21.1.3.21.1.3.2 IIIIN THE N THE N THE N THE WWWWALLOON ALLOON ALLOON ALLOON RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

In the Walloon Region, plant protection products are controlled by stations located downstream the most sensible sub-catchment area (Escaut, Dendre, Senne, Dyle-Gette and Meuse aval) (DGRNE, 2005). Figure 2-5 shows plant protections products with higher concentrations in surface waters in the Walloon Region from 1998 to 2004.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----5: 5: 5: 5: Plant protection proPlant protection proPlant protection proPlant protection products with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon ducts with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon ducts with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon ducts with higher concentrations in surface water in the Walloon Region (1998Region (1998Region (1998Region (1998----2004) (DGRNE, 2005)2004) (DGRNE, 2005)2004) (DGRNE, 2005)2004) (DGRNE, 2005)

According to « Tableau de bord de l’environnement wallon 2005 », there are more and more plant protection products for non-agricultural uses in watercourses. The diuron (total herbicide principally for non-agricultural uses) and the atrazine are both molecules with the most items in watercourses. Both molecules are in decreasing in the most measurement stations, probably because of use restrictions (see above in state of groundwater). However, the « Division Eau » of the « DGRNE » observes more and more frequently the presence of glyphosate (total herbicide, the most frequently used by private) in high concentration in watercourses. The quality of the Walloon watercourses is improving for others ppp like simazine, lindane (forbidden by European decision 2000/801/EC) or isoproturon. There are two measures networks, principally realised by « Institut Scientifique de Service Public » (ISSeP): the first network monitors physicochemical parameters in surface waters since 1994 (since 2004, 21 ppp on 31 sampled sites are allowed); the second network is very specific to « hazardous substances » on 7 official sampling sites (there are some


sampling unsystematic on 21 others stations). Since 2004, the new list enumerates 14 hazardous substances (ppp) considered as relevant by the Walloon Administration and for these substances, quality objectives have been set for surface waters (non intendended to drinking water) (except for glyphosate, bromacile and dichlobenil). This list is presented in table 2-4. General characteristics and uses are summarized in annexe 2.4. Some of these substances are included in annexe X of directive 2000/60/CE like hazardous substance at European level (Rung et al., 2005). In the context of the Directive 2000/60/CE, each Member State of the European Union has to make a list of the catchment areas that are on their territory and its attach to hydrographic districts. Wallonia does not have its own hydrographic district. The Walloon catchment areas are attached to four international hydrographic districts: the « Meuse », the « Escaut », the « Rhin » and the « Seine » (Rung et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----4: 4: 4: 4: "Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon"Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon"Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon"Quality objectives" set by Ministry of Walloon region for 14 relevant substances. NF region for 14 relevant substances. NF region for 14 relevant substances. NF region for 14 relevant substances. NF means that “quality objectives” have not still been set by this ministry (Rungmeans that “quality objectives” have not still been set by this ministry (Rungmeans that “quality objectives” have not still been set by this ministry (Rungmeans that “quality objectives” have not still been set by this ministry (Rung et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

From 1998 to 2004, samplings for the monitoring were only taken between April and August and this could bias results. Then, since 2005, monitoring is realized on the whole year. Results from both measurement networks have been analysed in an intermediate report of Rung (2005). In the whole, with regard to the hydrographic district of the « Escaut », ppp most frequently detected in samples are atrazine, diuron, isoproturon and glyphosate. For the « Meuse » atrazine, diuron and isoproturon are also found but also ion bromure, simazine and chlortoluron. For the hydrographic district of the « Rhin », it is rather lindane, atrazine and simazine. Currently no sampling station is located in the hydrographic district of the « Seine » (Rung et al., 2005). Since 2001, for atrazine, all the results of analyses show a reduction of the average concentrations lower than 0,1 µg/l for the majority of the intake points. In 2002, the threshold of 2 µg/l is respected on all of the points. These trends are currently confirmed by the results of analyses for the year 2004. The average concentration highest recorded is of 0,640 µg/l (Rung et al., 2005).


For the diuron, on all the studied catchment areas, no exceeding of the quality objective was recorded (Rung et al., 2005). For the isoproturon, there is a slight proportion exceeding the quality objective (Rung et al., 2005). For the glyphosate, results of 2003 and 2004 seem to show an increasing trend but it needs to be confirmed by following results. However, the analysis of its metabolite, AMPA, will maybe be interesting (Rung et al., 2005). The great majority of the organochlorine compounds are not any more to market. However, the lindane (insecticide not approved any more in Belgium since 2001) relatively stays present in surface waters but since 2000, there is a failing trend (Rung et al., 2005). 1.1.3.31.1.3.31.1.3.31.1.3.3 IIIIN THE N THE N THE N THE FFFFLEMISH LEMISH LEMISH LEMISH RRRREGIONEGIONEGIONEGION

Since 1996, the VMM (Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij) has sampled the surface water in about one hundred sites in Flanders and since 2003, they have analysed one hundred of plant protection products and of metabolites. Results of measurements in 2004 show that, like for the other years, a great number of ppp are not detected or only sporadically. On the other hand, a little number of ppp are frequently found in surface waters. MCPA, atrazine, isoproturon, linuron, carbendazim, chloridazon, simazine and bentazone are detected in 30 to 50 % of samples. Diuron, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA are detected in more than 50 % of measurements. But the lindane, which is forbidden since 2001, is still detected and the linuron is more frequently detected in 2004 (40 %) than in 2003 (5 %) (Claeys et al., 2005). In 2004, a large variety of ppp per sampling sites was particularly found in the «Haspengouw» fruit region and in the «Yser » basin (Map 2-1).

Map 2Map 2Map 2Map 2----1: 1: 1: 1: Number of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004Number of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004Number of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004Number of ppp or metabolite detected per sampling sites in 2004 (VMM In Claeys (VMM In Claeys (VMM In Claeys (VMM In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005) The analysis of results from 1999 to 2003 shows that for endosulfan, methidathion, parathion, isoproturon, metalochlore, monolinuron and terbutryn, the percentage of detection of these substances is stayed constant.


For atrazine, simazine and diuron, there is a decreasing trend but percentages of detections are still high. Diuron was detected in 2003 in 84 % of sampling sites. For 2,4-D, bentazon, chloridazon and linuron, an increasing trend of percentage of detection is revealed. With regard to ppp or metabolite concentrations found in surface waters, table 2-5 shows an evolution of concentrations for several substances from 1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average realised on a period of 3 years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors. For ppp that are subject to restrictive measures for their use, results show that the average concentration of these substances like atrazine and diuron decreases in watercourses. On the other hand, for 2,4-D, linuron, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA annual average concentrations increase on the concerned period. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----5: 5: 5: 5: Evolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their mEvolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their mEvolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their mEvolution of concentrations for several plant protection products or their metabolite from etabolite from etabolite from etabolite from 1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average realised on a period of 3 1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average realised on a period of 3 1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average realised on a period of 3 1998 to 2004. The average presented in this chart is a mobile average realised on a period of 3 years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors years (1 year before and 1 after the concerned year) to limit the influence of climatologically factors (VMM In Claeys(VMM In Claeys(VMM In Claeys(VMM In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2005)2005)2005)2005)


A general evaluation is not possible because no particular standards exist for all substances (MIRA 2003). Concentrations of these products found in surface waters can be compared with existing base quality norms or European norms or others reference values. The median on 1 year of an organochlorine must be lower or equal to 0,1 µg/l and the total of organochlorine must be lower or equal to 0,2 µg/l, these are base quality norms for organochlorine. With regard to organochlorine, lindan (3 sites) and α- and β-endosulfan (respectively 13 and 11 sites) are the cause of exceeding the quality norm. For some ppp, there are threshold values in Flanders (table 2-6). But for lots of substances like diuron, glyphosate, carbendazim, bentazon, mecoprop, isoproturon, MCPA, the metabolite endosulfan sulphate, dichlorprop (2,4-DP), chlortoluron, 2,4-D and chloridazon, there are still not available quality norms. Then, for these products, the comparison with relevant references is interesting like PNEC (“Predicted No-Effect Concentration”) that gives a concentration of safety at long term or MAC (“Maximum Admissable Concentration”) that is based on acute toxicology, a value that could normally never been exceeded. These references are based on ecotoxicology data of December 2003 and they are given in table 2-7. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----6: 6: 6: 6: Base quality norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders Base quality norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders Base quality norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders Base quality norms of some plant protection products in surface waters in Flanders (VLAREM II In Claeys(VLAREM II In Claeys(VLAREM II In Claeys(VLAREM II In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----7: 7: 7: 7: PNEC and MAC values for several plant protecPNEC and MAC values for several plant protecPNEC and MAC values for several plant protecPNEC and MAC values for several plant protection products and their metabolites based tion products and their metabolites based tion products and their metabolites based tion products and their metabolites based on ecotoxicological data of December 2003 (VMM In Claeyson ecotoxicological data of December 2003 (VMM In Claeyson ecotoxicological data of December 2003 (VMM In Claeyson ecotoxicological data of December 2003 (VMM In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Results of analyses of several plant protection products or their metabolites were compared with PNEC and MAC values of table 2-7 for 2003 and 2004 and exceeding percentage are shown in Table 1-8. For MAC values, almost all concerned substances exceed these values in some sites in 2004. In function of the substances, the percentage of sites exceeding these values varies from 1 % to 32 %. In other words, it means that an acute effect is possible in watercourses by these substances. For PNEC values, the percentage that exceeds these values is often low except for dimethoate, diuron, α- and β endosulfan, endosulfan sulfate and glyphosate. The linuron exceeded the PNEC value in 2004 whereas in 2003, there are not any exceeding and the percentage exceeding the MAC value doubled in comparison with 2003. For the dimethoate, an increasing trend of the values is also clearly determined. On the other hand, percentages of isoproturon and lindane are lower in 2004 than in 2003. Table 2-8 shows that the use of diuron in Flanders is a problem to reach the good quality state of water like definite in the water framework directive. Indeed, the diuron is in excess in almost half of sampling sites during too long period. On the other hand, the glyphosate is in excess in a quarter of sampling sites.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----8: 8: 8: 8: Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and Exceeding percentage of plant protection products and their metabolite at PNEC and MAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM In ClaeysMAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM In ClaeysMAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM In ClaeysMAC values in 2003 and in 2004 (VMM In Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

1.1.3.41.1.3.41.1.3.41.1.3.4 SSSSOURCES OF CONTAMINATOURCES OF CONTAMINATOURCES OF CONTAMINATOURCES OF CONTAMINATIONIONIONION

The “SEPTWA (System for the Evaluation of Pesticides Transport to Surface Waters)” model developed by « Centre d’Etude et de Recherche Vétérinaires et Agrochimiques de Tervuren (CERVA) » allows to assess emissions of plant protection products to surface and groundwaters. Simulations for priority substances of water framework directive have been realised. These simulations also show that some active substances found in great quantities in surface water (like diuron) come from applications realised by the non-agricultural sector (Table 9) (DGRNE-Division-eau 2005). Users of ppp, and more particularly herbicides, are multiple and it is often difficult to identify responsible person. However, the pilot project for catchment basin of Nil (Walhain-St-Paul) developed by the CERVA from 1998 to 2001 showed that 50 % to 75 % (according to molecule) of quantity of plant protection products found in surface water directly come from direct losses by manipulations of products on impermeable surfaces. Indeed, these surfaces favour run-off ways of product to watercourses by sewerage system or by ditch. A reduction of ppp quantity found in the Nil from 60 % to 80 %, according to the active substances, was obtained after 2 years of consultation with farmers. Like all users of herbicides, municipalities contribute also to surface and ground waters contamination and the percentage of applied quantity found in the Nil is more important for non-agricultural use products than agricultural use products because they are principally applied on impermeable surfaces (table 2-9: example for diuron) (Pussemier et al., 2001); (SPGE).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----9: 9: 9: 9: Percentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and nonPercentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and nonPercentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and nonPercentage of total applied amounts found in the Nil for agricultural and non----agricultural agricultural agricultural agricultural uses (SPGE)uses (SPGE)uses (SPGE)uses (SPGE)

DiuronDiuronDiuronDiuron Quantities found in the Nil Quantities found in the Nil Quantities found in the Nil Quantities found in the Nil (march to june 1999)(march to june 1999)(march to june 1999)(march to june 1999)

TotTotTotTotal applied al applied al applied al applied amountsamountsamountsamounts

Percentage of total applied Percentage of total applied Percentage of total applied Percentage of total applied amounts found in the Nilamounts found in the Nilamounts found in the Nilamounts found in the Nil

Agricultural use

8,8 kg 1077 kg 0,8 %

Non-agricultural

use 10,3 Kg 53,4 kg 19,3 %

These results show that contaminations routes of waters in Belgium differ from other countries. Indeed, contaminations come mainly from non-agricultural use and direct losses in agricultural use (Pussemier, personal commentary, 2006). A way to limit pollution risks is to promote actions that lead to a more reasoned application of herbicides on private and public spaces (DGRNE, 2005). 1.1.41.1.41.1.41.1.4 LegislationLegislationLegislationLegislation The European Directive 98/83/EC about drinking water stipulates the limit of quantity of active substance at 0,1 µg/l for one pesticide and at 0,5 µg/l for total pesticides in the drinking water. This directive also imposes this value at relevant metabolites, products of reaction and products of degradation. These values reflect the principle of precaution and they aren’t necessary in relation with limits of risk for human health. For four insecticides (aldrine, dieldine, heptachlore and heptachlore epoxyde) the parametric value is 0,03 µg/l. Another European Directive, the directive 2000/60/EC, establishes a framework for community action in the field of water policy. This water framework directive provides an integrated framework for assessment, monitoring and management of all surface waters and groundwater based on their ecological and chemical status. Several European directives about water quality or water pollution are going to be repealed by the water framework directive. It will be the case for 75/440/CEE concerning the quality required of surface water intended for drinking water in the Member States; 76/464/CEE on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community; 80/68/CEE on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances. For the moment, there are no norms for ground waters but they are in preparation and should be the same as the portability norms (Delloye, 2005c) (see also task 1). 1.1.51.1.51.1.51.1.5 ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion Water analyses realized in Belgium have shown that mainly herbicides are found in waters. Table 2-10 gives a summary of the current situation of the main ppp found in waters in Belgium.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----10: 10: 10: 10: Summary oSummary oSummary oSummary of the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in Belgiumf the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in Belgiumf the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in Belgiumf the current situations of the main ppp found in waters in Belgium

Active substancesActive substancesActive substancesActive substances TypesTypesTypesTypes UsesUsesUsesUses Current Current Current Current situationssituationssituationssituations

MeasuresMeasuresMeasuresMeasures

Atrazine + desethylatrazine

Herbicide

Maize

� Banned since 2004

Bentazone Herbicide Non-agric. + maize, cereals, peas and beans

� ! Use restrictions (forbidden in potatoes since 2005)

Diuron Herbicide Non-agric. � ! Bromacile Herbicide Non-agric. ! Banned since 2002 Simazine Herbicide Non-agric. � Banned since 2004

(essential uses permitted until 2007)

Chloridazon Herbicide Beet � Isoproturon Herbicide Cereals (�) - Chlortoluron Herbicide Cereals � Dichlobenil + BAM Herbicide Non-agric. ! Use restrictions since

2006 Glyphosate + AMPA

Herbicide Mainly non-agric. + agric.

� !

Lindane Insecticide Beet + maize � Banned since 2000 Linuron Herbicide Potatoes � 2,4 D Herbicide Non-agric. +

grasslands + cereals

�

It seems that concentrations of atrazine and of its metabolite, desethylatrazine decrease in groundwaters but the decreasing is low because of times of reactions are long. It is probably linked with the use restrictions of this active substance. However, the concentration of substitute products can increase in reply to these restrictions (DGRNE 2005). Another issue is the non-agricultural use of plant protection products; the concentration of these herbicides is worrying. Two other products are worrying: in Wallonia, dichlorobenzamide or BAM is measured since 2003 and first data are alarming and in Flanders, the metabolite of glyphosate, AMPA, exceeds the portability norm of a pertinent metabolite in several cases. For surface waters intended to drinking water, water producers have observed in general a gradual improvement. But in catchment area of “Yser”, there are high concentration of atrazine and diuron and high peaks for isoproturon. For all surface waters in Wallonia, diuron and atrazine cause most of the issues but both molecules are in decreasing in most measurement stations. However, glyphosate is more and more found in high concentrations watercourses. In Flanders, diuron, glyphosate and AMPA are detected in more than 50 % of measurements and concentrations of atrazine and diuron decrease but concentrations of 2,4-D, linuron, glyphosate and AMPA increase. However, concentrations measured must be compared with norm or quality objectives or others referential values in order to determine impact on aquatic organisms.


1.2 Review of the current situation about other environmental

contaminations in the local context of Belgium Recent studies, performed in the Flemish region, about the effects of ppp on all compartments of the environment are summarized in the report “Verspreiding van bestrijjdingmiddelen” of the “Vlaamse milieumaatschapij”. The risk index evaluation for all compartments had also be done through the POCER-indicator for the period going from 1992 to 2004 (figure 2-6) (Claeys et al., 2005). This gives an estimation of the risk for a compartment per hectare of treated surface with the considered active substance. It is thus important to note that the use's frequency of the active substance is not taken into account.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----6: 6: 6: 6: Risk for the 12 compartments of POCERRisk for the 12 compartments of POCERRisk for the 12 compartments of POCERRisk for the 12 compartments of POCER----indicator (Flanders 1992indicator (Flanders 1992indicator (Flanders 1992indicator (Flanders 1992----2004) (Claeys 2004) (Claeys 2004) (Claeys 2004) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005) 1.2.11.2.11.2.11.2.1 Invertebrates and fishes in North Sea and Scheldt Invertebrates and fishes in North Sea and Scheldt Invertebrates and fishes in North Sea and Scheldt Invertebrates and fishes in North Sea and Scheldt

In 2001, at 16 places in the Belgian North sea and in the western Scheldt, different invertebrates (crabs and shrimps), flat fishes (tunas, dabs, plaices) and cods were sampled. These samples were analyzed among others for 10 different chlorinated pesticides (OCP’s). The results are presented as the sum of the hexachlorocyclohexane-isomers (HCH), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), pentachlorobenzene and DDT and its metabolites (figure 2-7) (Claeys et al., 2005).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----7: 7: 7: 7: OCP concentrations in invertebrates and livers of flat fishes OCP concentrations in invertebrates and livers of flat fishes OCP concentrations in invertebrates and livers of flat fishes OCP concentrations in invertebrates and livers of flat fishes and cods in North Sea and and cods in North Sea and and cods in North Sea and and cods in North Sea and Scheldt (ClaeysScheldt (ClaeysScheldt (ClaeysScheldt (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

In comparison with other studies, the North Sea OCP’s values are similar to seas elsewhere in the world. On the other hand, the Scheldt is highly contaminated with OCP's. The city and/or the port of Antwerp seem to have an impact on this OCP pollution in the Scheldt (Claeys et al., 2005). The five substances with the highest risk index per hectare of treated surface for water organisms are chloropicrin, dazomet, methyl bromide, dichlorvos and lenacil. High risk-indices are the result of high application doses combined with low MTC (Maximum Tolerable Concentrations). Lenacil is an exception: it is not applied in high doses, but has low MTC and moreover very low Koc-value. In 2004, the risk for water organisms in Flanders has decreased of 44% in comparison with 1992, mainly because of reduced sales of methyl bromide (see higher, Figure 6) (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.21.2.21.2.21.2.2 InvertebratesInvertebratesInvertebratesInvertebrates

1.2.2.11.2.2.11.2.2.11.2.2.1 EEEEARTHWORMSARTHWORMSARTHWORMSARTHWORMS

By combination of a high application dose and a rather low LC50 for the earthworms, methyl bromide is the substance with the highest risk index per hectare of treated surface for earthworms. 1,3-Dichloropropene and chloropicrin come on the second and third place. The curve of the risk for earthworms in Flanders (see higher, figure 2-6) has decreased in 2004, up to 30% compared to the situation in 1992. Decreasing sales of methyl bromide during this period explain this trend (Claeys et al., 2005). Benomyl and carbendazim are also particularly lethal to earthworms and also exhibit this repellent effect, which results in the avoidance of feeding in treated soils.


1.2.2.21.2.2.21.2.2.21.2.2.2 PPPPESTS PREDATORS AND PESTS PREDATORS AND PESTS PREDATORS AND PESTS PREDATORS AND PARASITESARASITESARASITESARASITES

There are several substances with high risk index per hectare of treated surface for useful arthropods (carbofuran, methiocarb, dimethoate, dichlorvos and chlorpyrifos). The risk curve for the useful arthropods in Flanders (see higher, figure 2-6) has a fluctuating pattern with a reduction of 27% in 2004 (in comparison with 1992) (Claeys et al., 2005). To encourage farmers to take beneficial insects into consideration and to use products that are less harmful for them, the CRA-W measures the impact of products authorized in Belgium on the commonest useful arthropods in different crops. In cereals, the effects of fungicides and insecticides applied when beneficials insects are active were assessed with respect to the aphids main natural enemies, namely the Hymenoptera Aphidiidae, syrphids and ladybirds. In potatoes, all the fungicides and insecticides used during the growing period were assessed for the same auxiliaries as in cereals. The results were distributed to farmers in the form of easy-reference selectivity lists (Annex 2.5). The respect of these lists will be mandatory in the various quality specifications applicable to potatoes (Jansen 2005). The results of these two programmes indicate that provided avoiding certain products at specific times, it is perfectly possible to combine cost-effective, good quality production with effective crop protection and safeguarding useful insect fauna. A similar research programme is under way for field market garden crops such as carrots, peas, onions and beans (Jansen, 2005). Other studies are performed in vegetable fields by FUSAGX. The results showed that biodiversity in terms of family numbers was significantly higher in unsprayed crops. As expected, insecticides were very toxic on auxiliaries. Even fungicides, which showed a moderate acute toxicity, had negative effects on long-term parameters on both development and reproduction (Colignon et al., 2001); (Colignon et al., 2003). 1.2.2.31.2.2.31.2.2.31.2.2.3 BBBBEESEESEESEES

Since 1998, Walloon beekeepers and their associations report high bees’ mortalities, which may be related to the use of seed treatments and particularly imidacloprid and fipronil (Haubruge et al., 2004). Beekeepers consider than mortality under 10% is acceptable. Currently, mortality levels are respectively 16% in Wallonia and 22% in Flanders (Nguyen Bach et al., 2005). The substances with the highest risk per hectare of treated surface for bees are imidacloprid, 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin and methyl bromide. For methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin the high risk index are explained by the high application doses. High risk of imidacloprid (and also lindane, but absent in 2004, because it was prohibited in 2002) is mainly due to the low LD50 for bees, in combination with relatively high sales figures. Chlorpyrifos has also very low LD50 for bees, but since sales are relatively low, this risk becomes not directly apparent. The risk curve for bees (see higher, Figure 1-6) shows a recent decreasing trend between 1992 and 2002. The increase in 1996, and 1997, can mainly be explained by rising sales of lindane, chloropicrin and imidacloprid during that period (Claeys et al., 2005). However, surveys performed by “SPF matières premières” in 2000-2001 and CARI in 2003 and 2005 haven’t permit to link positively bees’ mortality and use of systemic insecticides. The situation in Belgium is very different from the French situation (described in Task 1). Indeed, in our country, the areas of sunflower crops are insignificant. In Belgium, imidacloprid is mostly used for seed treatments of maize, beet, winter barley and winter wheat (Haubruge, Thomé et al. 2004). Fipronil is mostly (84,8% of the use) used for seed


treatments of beet (Pissard, Van Bol et al. 2005). Among these crops, maize is the only crop with a pollen character. Decline of bees could be caused by their consumption of pollen coming from treated maize. Nevertheless, in Belgium, only 3 % of the maize crops are treated with imidacloprid. Bees’ mortality could also be caused by pollen and/or nectar consumption in crops such as colza or green manures following beets or cereals treated with imidacloprid. Indeed, in Belgium, about 80 % of beets seeds are treated with imidacloprid. However, in crop rotation, beet is frequently followed by a cereal and rarely by colza or green manure. Moreover, information concerning imidacloprid concentration in plants sowed after treated crops are very rare and little conclusive about the potential transfer of the insecticide (Haubruge et al., 2004). As a multitude of factors play a role in this problem, since 2004, FUSAGX and ULG perform an exploratory and multifactorial study about bees’ mortality in Wallonia. Concerning pesticides, several molecules were detected in beehives: carbofuran (insecticide), flusilazole (fungicide), trifloxystrobine (fungicide), methiocarbe sulfoxide (anti-slugs and insecticide) and imidacloprid (systemic insecticide). However, those residues were very small. Thus, the intermediate results of this study showed that imidacloprid and fipronil might not be responsible of this decline. Indeed, for FUSAGX and ULG this problem may come from a disease caused by the varroa (Nguyen Bach et al., 2005). Nevertheless, a recent study of CARI showed that the varroa is not involved in the colonies’ decline. For CARI, the observed symptoms of the recent bees’ decline are also different from all known bee diseases (Lefebvre & Bruneau, 2005). As there are many controversies concerning this subject, there is no certitude and researches must be continued. 1.2.31.2.31.2.31.2.3 VertebratesVertebratesVertebratesVertebrates

1.2.3.11.2.3.11.2.3.11.2.3.1 FFFFISHES ISHES ISHES ISHES

As bio-indicator, eel is particularly relevant because of its wide distribution, its high fat content, its benthic way of life and its place in the food chain. Because the eel stays at the same place during its growth phase, measurements in eel give an accurate picture of the pollution situation on those places. Measuring lipophil ppp in water and water floor is hampered by the small concentrations and difficult detection. Measuring in eel offer the analytical advantage that the fatty tissues content high concentrations of ppp accumulated through processes of bio-accumulation and bio-magnification (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). Since 1994, eels from Flemish territorial waters have been collected and the presence of different organochlorines (NB: currently most of the organochlorines are banned in Belgium) has been tested. These measures are compared with values from neighbouring countries. Especially the concentrations of lindane have been found very high in comparison with values from our neighbouring countries. The highest lindane concentration in eel in literatures is 171 ng/g fresh weight whereas, in Flanders, in 2002, on a number of locations, retrieved values were up to 2000 ng/g fresh weight). The main reason for these extreme high values in eel is that until 2002 lindane was still very common as a pesticide in Belgian agriculture (mainly for beet and corn). Only as from June 2002 the use of lindane is prohibited by law. In most other countries lindane has since long been banned. Following this prohibition, the concentrations of lindane in eel are expected to decrease significantly in Flanders starting from 2003. The continuation of the Flemish eel pollutant monitoring network will point out if this indeed will be the case. Between 1994 and 2003,


we can already speak of a positive trend of decrease for lindane (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). As in most of the other ‘developed’ countries, pesticides like DDT, dieldrin, HCB, … have been banned in Belgium, since the beginning of the 1970’s. Although banned, they are still being found in quite high concentrations in some small niches of our environment. This points out the extreme persistence of these pollutants (some of these niches are located in dead arms of the Scheldt where the sediments are not renewed for years) or, that illegal stocks are still being used. However, the real sources of these niches' concentrations remain unknown (Pussemier, personal commentary); (Maraite, personal commentary); (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). In the case of the sum of DDT (banned since 1974 in Belgium) and its derivatives, the highest average concentration detected in Flanders (680 ng/g fresh weight) is of the same order of magnitude as reported in international literatures (720 ng/g fresh weight). Between 1994 and 2003, we can speak of a more or less unchanged situation despite ban on DDT use (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). For the same period, the situation for dieldrine (banned since 1974 in Belgium) is also more or less unchanged but HCB (hexachlorobenzenes) (banned since 1974 in Belgium) contamination is decreasing. As at this moment there is no Belgian edibility norm, the values are compared with Dutch norms for edibility of fish from surface water (lindane: 200 ng/g, dieldrine: 100 ng/g, HCB: 100 ng/g, sum DDT's: 1000 ng/g fresh weight. For lindane, this standard is exceeded at 8 places on 42. For dieldrine, average concentrations retrieved on 8 locations exceed the standard. Neither the means for HCB, nor the means for sum DDT's exceed the standard (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005). According to Dembélé et al. (2000), fishes are also often exposed to organophosphates and carbamates. These ppp inhibit the acetyl cholinesterase and the measure of the remaining acetyl cholinesterase activity in carp brain, for instance, is a reliable diagnostic tool for chronic organophosphates and carbamates pollution. 1.2.3.21.2.3.21.2.3.21.2.3.2 BBBBIRDSIRDSIRDSIRDS

Chloropicrin, metamitron, 1,3-dichloropropene, metam-sodium and methyl bromide are the substances with the highest risk per hectare of treated surface for the birds. High risk-indices are the result of both high application doses and small LD50 for birds. Methyl bromide has particularly low lethal dose. In 2004, a reduction of 87 % of the risk index (in comparison with 1992) was reached because of the fall in sales of methyl bromide and chloropicrin (see higher, Figure 1-6) (Claeys et al., 2005).

1.2.3.2.11.2.3.2.11.2.3.2.11.2.3.2.1 SSSSONGBIRDSONGBIRDSONGBIRDSONGBIRDS Data on organochlorines in terrestrial animals are quite rare. Most of the available data are for terrestrial top-predators, like e.g. birds of prey. Concerning (smaller) terrestrial mammals (prey animals) such as songbirds and mice, for example, there are virtually no data available. However, they are the basis of several food chains in wild. Thus, monitoring pollution level of these small animals is very important. In 2001, a study around Antwerp searched for organochlorines in mice and songbirds. Organochlorines concentrations in tissues of songbirds were higher than in mice. As showed in table 2-11, the component with the highest concentration is DDE, the main metabolite of DDT. This product is very persistent and accumulates in high degree in biological tissues (Claeys et al., 2005).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----11: 11: 11: 11: Organochlorines in songbirds (median Organochlorines in songbirds (median Organochlorines in songbirds (median Organochlorines in songbirds (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys, Steurbaut et al. 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Data concerning songbirds and mice (not presented here) show that even small, not-carnivore animals, of which are assumed that they haven’t already too large bio-magnification or -accumulation, nevertheless considerably accumulate organochlorines. Moreover, in songbirds, higher concentrations were measured than expected on the basis of their position in the food chain (Claeys et al., 2005).

1.2.3.2.21.2.3.2.21.2.3.2.21.2.3.2.2 BBBBIRDS OF PREYIRDS OF PREYIRDS OF PREYIRDS OF PREY In the past, many studies about organochlorine pollution in birds of prey have been performed. In 1960s, as a result of environmental pollution with DDT, different species of birds of prey were virtually eradicated. In the aftermath of the decimating, several monitoring programmes were set up to prevent such a calamity in the future. Now, approximately 40 years later, the organochlorines in Europe, which were then responsible for the reduced reproduction success of the birds, are strictly regulated and most of the birds of prey populations are now rebuild. Nevertheless, recent data concerning organochlorines in birds of prey are always interesting, in the light of the high sensitivity of these animals for such pollutants. Several tissues of buzzards and sparrowhawks collected in Flanders in the period 2001-2003 were examined. Results are presented in tables 2-12 and 2-13 (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----12: 12: 12: 12: Organochlorines in buzzards (median Organochlorines in buzzards (median Organochlorines in buzzards (median Organochlorines in buzzards (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: hhhhexachlorobenzene; TN: transexachlorobenzene; TN: transexachlorobenzene; TN: transexachlorobenzene; TN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2005) 2005) 2005) 2005)

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----13: 13: 13: 13: Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median Organochlorines in sparrowhawks (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: transhexachlorobenzene; TN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Cnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Cnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Cnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeyslaeyslaeyslaeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

The results show that organochlorines concentrations can still up to now be high. The concentrations are dependent upon the tissues and the species. Concentrations are considerably (average 10x) higher in sparrowhawks than in buzzards. This can be explained


among others by the feeding pattern of these 2 birds. Sparrowhawks feed mainly on songbirds whereas the buzzards eat mainly mice (see higher) and other small mammals and insects but only occasionally songbirds. Thus, the major parts of the exposition to the persistent organic pollutants for these top-predators also occur through the feeding. The highest concentrations were found in fatty tissues. This tissue is a storage place. Some individuals especially show concentration orders of magnitude still higher than median that is presented here. Individuals differ for what concerns habitat, health condition, etc., which can strongly influence the pollution level of the bird. For these birds with exceptionally high concentrations, it is not excluded that they can still undergo disadvantageous impacts of the exposition to organochlorines. It is important to notice that there is no indication that the pollution, which is here measured in the birds of prey, is recent. It concerns a historical pollution, which might be retrieved for decades in our environment. Indeed, DDT concentrations of the same size magnitude were already measured in Flemish sparrowhakws and buzzards end 1990s and even in the years 70. Thus, in the last decade, there were no considerable decreasing in the organochlorine concentrations in Flemish birds of prey (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.3.31.2.3.31.2.3.31.2.3.3 FFFFOXESOXESOXESOXES

Recent data concerning organochlorines in foxes are very interesting but very rare. Foxes are interesting “bio-monitoring” animals because they live near the man, adapt rapidly to their habitat, they are mammals with developed metabolising processes (such as man), they live across the whole Europe... (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----14: 14: 14: 14: Organochlorines in foxes (median Organochlorines in foxes (median Organochlorines in foxes (median Organochlorines in foxes (median –––– ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) ( ng/g fat) (γγγγ----HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; HCH: lindane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; TN: transTN: transTN: transTN: trans----nonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeysnonachlore; OxC: metabolite oxychlordane) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Organochlorine concentrations in foxes (table 2-14) are much lower than expected on the basis of their position in the food chain. This indicates that foxes have specific metabolizing processes. Former experimentations with foxes and dogs also determined that they were capable of rapid metabolizing, which results in “special” profiles and low concentrations. Indeed, for organochlorines, we see low concentrations in the tissues of the fox, with exception of the metabolite OxC, of which the concentration is considerable. This indicates an active conversion of the pesticides precursors. This conversion or metabolizing of the organochlorines doesn’t mean however that these pollutants are harmless. Indeed, the formed metabolites have sometimes higher toxicity than the pollutants themselves. Until now, there are not yet studies concerning these metabolites in foxes. Therefore, conclusions can’t be drawn (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.3.41.2.3.41.2.3.41.2.3.4 HHHHEDGEHOGSEDGEHOGSEDGEHOGSEDGEHOGS

The hedgehog is a common mammal species in Flanders. A number of characteristics of his life style makes that these are possibly vulnerable for pollution. Hedgehogs stand at a relatively high level in the food chain and thus can accumulate organochlorines through their prey animals (among others insects, earthworms, snails and larvae). They live in high densities in (sub)-urbane areas which are frequently characterized by high levels of pollution. Moreover, hedgehogs are relatively long living and thus accumulation of organochlorines can result in chronic toxicological effects. Hedgehogs from Flanders and


Brussels were collected during the period 2002-2003. Four organochlorines were analysed: dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane and its metabolites (DDT's) (banned since 1974 in Belgium), hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH's) (lindane: banned since 2000 in EU), hexachlorobenzene (HCB) (banned since 1974 in Belgium) and chlordanes (banned since 1981 in Belgium). Results are showed in table 2-15 (Claeys et al., 2005). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----15: 15: 15: 15: Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima Organochlorines in livers and kidneys of 42 hedgehogs (mean, minima and maxima –––– ng/g fat) (Claeysng/g fat) (Claeysng/g fat) (Claeysng/g fat) (Claeys et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2005)2005)2005)2005)

Currently, there are no other (international) studies concerning organochlorines in hedgehogs. To give an idea of the degree of contamination and possible toxicity, the values are thus compared to concentrations in other terrestrial mammals. The average DDT concentrations in hedgehogs were similar to those in Dutch shrews sampled about 10 years ago. This indicates that DDT's are still present in important level in our terrestrial ecosystem. Hedgehogs and other insectivores are particularly sensitive for DDT-poisoning because earthworms and snails, important prey animals of the hedgehog, highly accumulate DDT. Nevertheless, DDT’s concentrations in hedgehogs were lower than the values, which are associated with mortality in shrews. We can conclude that hedgehogs accumulate considerable concentrations of organochlorines compared to other terrestrial mammals. Moreover, DDT values are particularly high in the light of the decreasing use (ban) of these molecules during the last decades (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.3.51.2.3.51.2.3.51.2.3.5 MMMMAMMALS IN GENERALAMMALS IN GENERALAMMALS IN GENERALAMMALS IN GENERAL

The risk index per hectare of treated surface for the mammals is mainly affected by the soil disinfectants (methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, metam-sodium and dazomet) because of their high use doses and high sales figures. Moreover, dazomet and 1,3-dichloropropene have also a low LD50 for mammals. The risk curve (see higher, Figure 1-6) shows a recent decreasing trend up to 2001. In 2002 and the next years, there is however a stagnation and even a light increase. This tendency is related to the variations in the sales figures of chloropicrin (Claeys et al., 2005). 1.2.41.2.41.2.41.2.4 AtmosphereAtmosphereAtmosphereAtmosphere The transfer of pesticides to the atmosphere leads to a contamination of all atmospheric phases: gaseous, aerosol particles, fog droplets or rainwater. As their vapor pressure is generally below 10 Pa (except for fumigants) which is the limit defined in Europe above which organic compounds are considered to be volatile compounds, these chemical products are considered as low volatile to semi-volatile. This means that when exposed to the atmosphere after field application to the soil or leaves’ surface, a fraction of them can volatilise and reach the atmosphere as a gas. Indeed, volatilization may represent a major dissipation pathway for pesticides applied to soils or crops, accounting for up to 90% of the application dose in some cases. On the day of application, pesticide volatilization rates


ranged from 0,1 gram per ha and per hour for prometton compound to 80 g/ha.h for fonofos, for example. In general, pesticides are volatilized from plant surfaces to a greater extent and faster than from the soil. Volatilization continues for from a few days to several weeks (or sometimes even more), occasionally displaying a diurnal cycle. The pesticides can also reach the atmosphere by other pathways: the droplets emitted from the nozzles can either evaporate before reaching the soil or the plant surface, or be transported at long distances by the wind during drift. Moreover, due to the wind erosion process, wind can remove soil particles with pesticide molecules fixed on them from the soil surface (figure 2-8) (Bedos et al., 2002a); (Bedos et al., 2002b).

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1----8888: Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the : Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the : Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the : Processes involved in the transfer of pesticides to the atmosphere (Bedosatmosphere (Bedosatmosphere (Bedosatmosphere (Bedos et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2002a2002a2002a2002a)))) These three processes result in highly variable amounts of pesticides. The total emissions of pesticides may range from several percent up to almost all the applied quantities. The fraction of pesticide going to the atmosphere depends on many factors linked to the product itself, to the soil or the crop, to meteorology (temperature, soil moisture, nature of the soil or the crop) and to the application technique. However, the complex interactions between these factors make it difficult to give an estimate of the amount of pesticide volatilized and the resulting concentrations in the atmosphere. These complex interactions in addition to analytical difficulties mean that the knowledge on the occurrence and the behaviour of pesticides in the atmosphere is still relatively poor compared to other atmospheric pollutants (Bedos et al., 2002a). There doesn’t exist complete and long-term Belgian study about this subject. But, even if not many data describing the occurrence of pesticides are available in Europe, studies of this type are performed in our neighbouring countries: France (Bedos et al., 2002a) and the Netherlands (Duyzer, 2003). In Belgium, the only measurements of this type are performed by the VMM since 1997. Each week, the VMM measures the amounts of the organochlorines, the organophosphophates, the organonitrogenous herbicides, the “acid herbicides” and the total herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA in rainwater in Flanders (VMM, 2004). Results show that, for endosulfan (figure 2-9) (organochlorine banned from 2006 onwards in EU) and lindane (organochlorine banned since 2000 in EU) (figure 2-10), the decreasing tendency of the past years continued in 2004 to sometimes hardly measurable values.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----9: 9: 9: 9: Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of lindane in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 (VMM, 2004)(VMM, 2004)(VMM, 2004)(VMM, 2004)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----10: 10: 10: 10: Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of endosulfan in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

Among the organophosphates, diazinon, dichlorvos and dimethoate remain the most frequently detected components. The recent decreasing trend of the period 2001/2002/2003 (figures 2-11 and 2-12) did unfortunately not continue in 2004.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----11: 11: 11: 11: Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of dichlorvos in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----12: 12: 12: 12: Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 Total amount of diazinon in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2002 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

Concerning the organonitrogenous herbicides, the situation was less favourable and there was no substantial reduction of the measured quantities. The amounts of atrazine, diuron and isoproturon remain high in 2004. There is also a continuous increase of metolachlor and propachlor since 2000. Among the “acid herbicides”, the amounts of MCPA showed a sudden increase in 2003-2004 with regard to 2002 (figure 2-13). 2,4-D, 2,4-DP and MCPP become also more frequently detected.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----13: 13: 13: 13: Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 Total amount of MCPA in rainwater in Flanders (µg/m2.year) from 1997 to 2004 (VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)(VMM, 2002)

The total herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, which have not been observed above the threshold of detection in 2003, reappear in 2004. The more or less regularity of the quantities of ppp detected in rainwater over the year, also during periods in which the use of ppp is not obvious, indicates that the sources become less clear (VMM, 2004). In France, monitoring of pesticides in the atmosphere started at the end of the 80’s. Comparisons with concentrations measured in Europe are also done. Most of the pesticides were observed in the different compartments: rainwater, fog and gas/particulate. The concentration for one compound is very variable. An important part of the variability might be due to the measurement conditions, especially the distance to the source. This contamination is observed throughout the year (continuous background presence of pesticides in the atmosphere), sometimes displaying a seasonal pattern. Measured concentrations in rainwater in France were very high, with maximum values reaching 60 µg/l. Concentrations in fog were much higher than in rainwater. Dubus et al. (2000) (cited by Bedos et al., 2002) recently carried out an overview about pesticides in rainwater across Europe. This shows that concentrations for rainwater mostly measured are: for lindane (based on 60 studies carried out in Europe, the USA and Canada) up to 813 ng/l with an average of a few tens of ng/l; for atrazine (more than 90 studies) up to 5000 ng/l (found in France) with an average concentration of a few 10 ng/l; for mecoprop (36 studies), a maximum of 60 000 ng/l was found in France. Dubus et al. also indicated that the most frequently monitored pesticides in rain were lindane, atrazine, MCPA, simazine, dichlorprop, isoproturon, mecoprop, DDT, terbuthylazine and aldrin, and the most frequently detected are lindane and its isomer. We can note that in the Paris area, triazines were detected in nearly 85% of the samples collected in spring and autumn in the air (Bedos et al., 2002a). 80 and 50 different pesticides molecules have been found in rain respectively in Europe (Bedos et al., 2002a) and in The Netherlands (Duyzer, 2003). As no legislation gives maximum concentration for exposure to pesticide in the atmospheric compartment, results concerning rainwater are compared with the EU


drinking water limit (0,1 µg/l for one compound, 0,5 µg/l for several). More than 60% of the French samples had concentrations of atrazine, alachlor and dinoterb higher than 0,1 µg/l (Bedos et al., 2002a). In the Netherlands, 17 of the 50 compounds exceeded the maximum permissible for surface water and 22 exceeded the standard for drinking water (Duyzer, 2003). In The Netherlands, the compounds with the highest concentrations in rain are the following (averaged over one month): captan (12 µg/l), metoxuron, chlorpropham, dimethoate, propachlor, chlorothalonil, dichlorvos, atrazine (with a maximum of 0,9 µg/l) (Bedos et al., 2002a). Regarding the gaseous and particulate phases, the measured concentrations in France range from not detected to 185 ng/m3. Pesticide concentrations in the atmosphere in Europe in the particulate or gaseous phase are not as well documented as in rainwater. In The Netherlands, Tas et al. (1996) (cited by Bedos et al., 2002) reported results obtained for two pesticides: 1,3- dichloropropene (8 µg/m3 just after treatment) and methyl isothiocyanate. Chevreuil et al. (1996) (cited by Bedos et al., 2002) concluded that the concentrations of lindane and atrazine in the gaseous phase in Paris were similar to the concentrations measured in other places in Europe (Bedos et al., 2002a). In France, very high values (2,6 µg/m3) have been measured locally around the treatment areas (Bedos et al., 2002a). Compounds which have been banned (DDT, aldrine and dieldrine) are also still present in the atmosphere in France. They have been detected in fog less often than locally used pesticides. But, when present, their concentrations can be as high as that of a pesticide used nearby. They were also detected in rainwater, aerosols and the gaseous phase. These observations were explained as long-range transport, post-application volatilization, or wind erosion (Bedos et al., 2002a). It is also striking that pesticides which could be expected to be not very volatile based on their physico-chemical characteristics are found in the atmosphere (Bedos et al., 2002a). As this knowledge relies only upon the compounds which are sought for, informations presented here are not really representative of the actual atmospheric contamination. Moreover, some measurements are only valid on a local scale. It is difficult to compare data since many factors are involved. A more complete interpretation would require a better knowledge of the proximity of the treatment area, the application dose, time lag between observations and application and the total amount of pesticides used on a regional scale (Bedos et al., 2002a). 1.2.51.2.51.2.51.2.5 SoilsSoilsSoilsSoils

There is no systematic monitoring of ppp in the soils in Belgium. However, most of pollutants transfer through the soil and their behaviour in soil conditions the potential pollution. To reduce the environmental impact of organic pollutants and pesticides, it is necessary to understand their transfer through the soil and the mechanisms affecting their fate in soils, among which the most important are their retention and their transformation. The pesticides degradation is due to the chemical degradation and the microbial degradation. The detoxification mechanisms mainly depend on the aptitude of soil microorganisms to degrade the different pollutants. However, other phenomena are responsible for the stabilization of the pollutants through the formation of non-extractable residues usually called "bound residues". The detoxification due to bound residues formation is effective to protect, for example, the water supply at short-term delay. Indeed, the bioavailability of the compounds is determined by several pesticides-, crop- and soil-


dependent factors, including percentage crop cover of soil area, sorption, leaching and degradation of the compound. Percentage crop cover is important when calculating the actual dose reaching the soil. Typically, herbicides are used when the crop is either absent or quite small, resulting in a high proportion of the herbicide reaching the bare soil. In contrast, fungicides and insecticides are generally used on dense crops and the exposure to the soil is much lower. The direct sorption of pesticides to soil decreases the available concentration of the pesticide in the soil water significantly, and the effects of a compound may differ substantially just for this reason. However, interrogations remain about the eventual liberation of the stored pollutants and the long-term consequences of their accumulation in soils (Barriuso, Calvet et al. 1996); (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996); (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). The mode of action of pesticides differs. In general, pesticides can be designed to affect specific processes in the target organisms or to affect general processes. To minimize the side-effects of pesticides, compounds that affect only specific processes in the target organisms are most suitable (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). In 1996, a study was carried out by the UCL concerning the transformation and degradation kinetics of the pesticides and the identification of their metabolites. Concerning the herbicides the results showed that in most cases the metabolites have a strong herbicide activity, sometimes as powerful as the parent herbicide. They also sometimes have an activity spectrum different from the parent herbicide. Thus, these metabolites take a great part and in the persistence of the herbicide activity. This can also explain some cases of residual phytotoxicity. Some herbicide active substances such as isoxaben and imazamethabenz-methyl 1 have an ideal degradation pattern resulting in final non-toxic metabolites without herbicide activity. The degradation of other active substances such as diflufenican, methabenzthiazuron and carbetamide, for example, end up in toxic metabolites which are irreversibly adsorbed on the soil organic matter (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996). Concerning the fungicides, some secondary metabolites (of the furalaxyl for example) can also have a fungicide activity. The degradation kinetics, in direct relation with the efficiency, depends on many factors (meteorological conditions, field, year…) (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996). Another study testing fenpropimorph, fungicide and thus being expected to affect non-target soil-inhabiting fungi showed that this compound had no immediate toxic effect. Nevertheless, during degradation of fenpropimorph a more bioavailable degradation product, fenpropimorphic acid, is formed. At the time of the appearance of fenpropimorphic acid, active saprotrophic fungi were substantially affected, indicating that the biological activity of the fungicide may be attributed to both the mother compound and metabolites, which may be more mobile in soil (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). Concerning the insecticides, some active substances such as carbofuran, carbosulfan, furathiocarb have secondary metabolites with high insecticide activity. On the other hand, chlorfenvinphos, for instance, have non-insecticide secondary metabolites. The degradation kinetics, in direct relation with the efficiency, depends also on many factors (meteorological, field, year…). Another main factor of the degradation is the field history: application of the same insecticide during many years leads to a quicker degradation and thus a lower efficiency. This is due to the microorganisms adaptation and is particularly marked for organosphosphorous and carbamates insecticides (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996).


Finally, the study showed that at the end of the crop, concentrations in pesticides and their metabolites are generally hardly to not detectable (Rouchaud, Roucourt et al. 1996). As little is known about the chronic effect of herbicides on the soil microbial community, with most studies focusing on acute impacts, a Belgian study investigated the effect of 20 years of atrazine and metolachlor application on the community structure, abundance and function of bacterial groups in the bulk soil of a maize monoculture. The results indicate that the long-term use of the herbicides atrazine and metolachlor resulted in an altered soil community structure, in particular for the methanotrophic bacteria. These observed changes did not cause a decreased community function (methane oxidation), probably because the total abundance of the methanotrophs in the soil system was preserved (Seghers, Verthe et al. 2003). In an other study, the effect of three phenyl urea herbicides (diuron, linuron, and chlorotoluron) on soil microbial communities was studied by using soil samples with a 10-year history of treatment. The results showed that the microbial community structures of the herbicide-treated and non-treated soils were significantly different. Moreover, the bacterial diversity seemed to decrease in soils treated with urea herbicides. In addition, enrichment cultures of the different soils in medium with the urea herbicides as the sole carbon and nitrogen source showed that there was no difference between treated and non-treated soils in the rate of transformation of diuron and chlorotoluron but that there was a strong difference in the case of linuron. In the enrichment cultures with linuron-treated soil, linuron disappeared completely after 1 week whereas no significant transformation was observed in cultures inoculated with non-treated soil even after 4 weeks. In conclusion, this study showed that both the structure and metabolic potential of soil microbial communities were clearly affected by a long-term application of urea herbicides (el Fantroussi, Verschuere et al. 1999). Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. (2001) have also reported that bacteria and fungi can be harmed by these compounds in high concentrations. Moreover, even if it would be expected that sulphonylurea herbicides do not harm microarthropods, Rebecchi et al. (2000) (cited by Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001) found that triasulfuron resulted in a decrease in some Collembolan species in agricultural soil. This effect was not explained, but shows that the complexity of side-effect measurement in general is problematic in environmental systems. The fungicide mancozeb has also been proved to exert a long-term inhibitory effect on aerobic dinitrogen fixers in natural soil. Indeed, the ammonium-oxidising group of nitrifiers was inhibited in the long term (3 months) in the soils investigated (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001). As said above, while much literature provides evidence for direct effects of pesticides on populations of a wide range of soil microorganisms, it offers few information on short-term or long-term changes of microbial diversity on a community scale. According to guidelines for the approval of pesticides, side-effects on soil microorganisms should be determined by studying functional parameters such as carbon or nitrogen mineralization. However, the microbial diversity may have been markedly changed following pesticide use despite unaltered metabolism, and such changes may affect soil fertility (Johnsen, Jacobsen et al. 2001).


1.2.61.2.61.2.61.2.6 Summary Summary Summary Summary Table 2-16 gives an overview of the monitored active substances (H: herbicide, F: fungicide, I: insecticide and SODE: soil disinfectant) which contaminate the invertebrates (Inv.), the useful arthropods (Us. arthr.), the bees, the earthworms (Earthw.), the fishes (Fi.), the birds (Bi.), the hedgehogs (Hedg.) and the atmosphere (Atm.) in Belgium. This summarizing table makes it clear that a great part of the problems concerns active substances from which the use is now forbidden or restricted. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----16:16:16:16: Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments Summary of the monitored active substances contaminating different compartments and the measures concerning these substances in Belgiumand the measures concerning these substances in Belgiumand the measures concerning these substances in Belgiumand the measures concerning these substances in Belgium

Active substancesActive substancesActive substancesActive substances TypesTypesTypesTypes

Inv.Inv.Inv.Inv.

Us. Us. Us. Us. arthr.arthr.arthr.arthr.

BeesBeesBeesBees EartEartEartEarthw.hw.hw.hw. Fi.Fi.Fi.Fi. Bi.Bi.Bi.Bi. Hedg.Hedg.Hedg.Hedg. Atm.Atm.Atm.Atm. MeasuresMeasuresMeasuresMeasures

Atrazine H + Banned since 2004

Diuron H +

Isoproturon H +

Lenacil H + +

MCPA H +

Metamitron H +

Metolachlor H + Banned since 2002

Propachlor H + 1,3 dichloropropene SODE + + Chloropicrin SODE + + + + +

Methyl bromide SODE + + + + + Banned since 2006

Fipronil I +? Imidacloprid I +? Dazomet F + +

Organophosphates +

Chlopyrifos I +

Diazinon I/SODE

+

Dichlorvos I + + + +

Dimethoate I + Use restrictions since 2004

Carbamates + Carbofuran I + + Metam-sodium SODE + Methiocarb I + Organochlorines

Chlordane I + Banned since 1981

DDT I + + + Banned since 1974

Dieldrine I + Banned since 1974

Endosulfan I + Banned since 2006

HCB I + + Banned since 1974

Lindane I + + + Banned since 2000


1.3 Review of application techniques and effects on the drift problem

The literature about spray drift is very abundant. In Belgium and particularly in Flanders, a very complete review of literature has been done in 2004 by the “Centrum voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek in Merelbeke”, “Departement voor Gewasbescherming, Universiteit Gent” and “Departement voor Agrotechniek en Economie, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven” (“Het belang van drift en haar reducerende maatregelen ter bescherming van het milieu in Vlaanderen”) (Nuyttens et al., 2004). 1.3.11.3.11.3.11.3.1 DriftDriftDriftDrift 1.3.1.11.3.1.11.3.1.11.3.1.1 DDDDEFINITION OF DRIFTEFINITION OF DRIFTEFINITION OF DRIFTEFINITION OF DRIFT

Pesticide spray drift can be defined as the physical movement of a pesticide through air at the time of application or soon thereafter, to any site other than that intended for application. Spray drift shall not include movement of pesticides to off-target sites caused by erosion, migration, volatility, or contaminated soil particles that are windblown after application (EPA, 1999). 1.3.1.21.3.1.21.3.1.21.3.1.2 IIIIMPACTS OF DRIFTMPACTS OF DRIFTMPACTS OF DRIFTMPACTS OF DRIFT

Spray drift can affect human health and the environment. For example, spray drift can result in pesticide exposures to farmworkers, other bystanders, and wildlife and its habitat. Drift can also contaminate surface waters and cause phytotoxicity or illegal pesticide residues in other crops. The proximity of individuals and sensitive sites to the pesticide application, the amounts of pesticide drift, and toxicity of the pesticide are important factors in determining the potential impacts from drift (EPA, 1999); (SPF Santé Publique, 2005). Drift is also undesirable for economic reasons. Indeed, drift reduces efficiency of the treatment with a lower rate of application on the intended target and increased costs due to losses. With these economic, environmental and health concerns, some changes in choice of equipment and packaging have been initiated (Matthews, 1995). 1.3.1.31.3.1.31.3.1.31.3.1.3 FFFFAAAACTORS INFLUENCING DRCTORS INFLUENCING DRCTORS INFLUENCING DRCTORS INFLUENCING DRIFTIFTIFTIFT

When pesticide solutions are sprayed by ground spray equipment or aircraft, droplets are produced by the nozzles of the equipment. Many of these droplets can be so small that they stay suspended in air and are carried by air currents until they contact a surface or drop to the ground. A number of factors influence drift, including weather conditions (relative wind speed, wind direction and temperature), topography, the crop or area being sprayed, application equipment and methods, and decisions by the applicator (EPA, 1999); (Meli et al., 2003).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----17: 17: 17: 17: InterInterInterInter----related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004)related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004)related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004)related factors affecting pesticide drift and deposition (Landers & Farooq, 2004) SprayerSprayerSprayerSprayer ApplicationApplicationApplicationApplication TargetTargetTargetTarget WeatherWeatherWeatherWeather OperatorOperatorOperatorOperator Design application

rate variety wind speed skill

Droplet size nozzle orientation

canopy structure

wind direction attitude

Fan size forward speed area temperature Air volume every row humidity Air velocity and direction

alternate row

Evaluating losses due to drift is difficult since accurate studies are expensive and variability is high. When considering research regarding spray drift measurement, it is important to realize the limitations of those studies. Differences in methodology, canopy characteristics, wind and other weather factors, and planting density may all significantly affect the results of drift studies (Stover et al., 2002).

1.3.1.3.11.3.1.3.11.3.1.3.11.3.1.3.1 EEEEXPERTISE OF APPLICATXPERTISE OF APPLICATXPERTISE OF APPLICATXPERTISE OF APPLICATORSORSORSORS In all discussion about spray drift risk, there seems to be universal agreement that the competence of the people who apply chemicals is the foundation of all further risk mitigation approaches. That competence implies an understanding of all important risk factors affecting spray drift and suggests a responsible and constructive attitude on the part of the operator (APVMA, 2005).

1.3.1.3.21.3.1.3.21.3.1.3.21.3.1.3.2 DDDDROPLET SIZEROPLET SIZEROPLET SIZEROPLET SIZE Spray droplet size is one of the most important factors in spray drift risk. Smaller droplets have greater potential for drifting off target (APVMA, 2005). Identification of a drift-prone droplet size threshold is attractive but somewhat arbitrary. Some researchers have suggested 100µm as the threshold for droplets with high drift potential, others have suggested 141µm (Spray Drift Task Force, 1997 cited by Stover et al., 2002), while still others indicate that droplets under 200µm are very prone to drift when wind speed exceeds 8 kilometres per hour (Zhu et al., 1994 cited by Stover et al.,). As mentioned in table 2-18 (BES, 2002), studies performed in wind tunnel indicated a strong non-linear increase in drift with decreased droplet size category threshold (Taylor et al., 2004). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----18: 18: 18: 18: Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet Distance covered falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind in function of droplet diameter (BES, 2002)diameter (BES, 2002)diameter (BES, 2002)diameter (BES, 2002)

Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter in µmin µmin µmin µm

Droplet calledDroplet calledDroplet calledDroplet called Time required to fall Time required to fall Time required to fall Time required to fall 3 m in still air3 m in still air3 m in still air3 m in still air

Distance covered Distance covered Distance covered Distance covered falling 3 m in falling 3 m in falling 3 m in falling 3 m in 4,8 kilometres per hour wind4,8 kilometres per hour wind4,8 kilometres per hour wind4,8 kilometres per hour wind

5 Fog 66 minutes 4,8 kilometres

100 Mist 10 seconds 125 metres

500 Light rain 1,5 seconds 2,1 metres

1000 Moderate rain 1 second 1,4 metres


1.3.1.3.31.3.1.3.31.3.1.3.31.3.1.3.3 WWWWIND SPEED AND DIRECTIND SPEED AND DIRECTIND SPEED AND DIRECTIND SPEED AND DIRECTIONIONIONION Wind speed and direction are the primary meteorological determinants of the amount of material that is moved off-target as well as the direction that the material moves. Though wind direction is not discussed in relation to the magnitude of drift from an application, if the consideration is to prevent drift to a specific location that is considered sensitive, then wind direction is the critical variable as the direction of air movement determines the direction in which material will drift. The fluctuation in wind direction can also be used as an indicator of the amount of atmospheric turbulence and, therefore, the amount of dilution of a cloud of fine droplets (Thistle, 2004). Wind speed influences the distance the droplets drift, but it does not have a big influence on droplet size (BES, 2002). According to APVMA (2005), a wind speed range of between 3 and 15 kilometres per hour is acceptable for most situations. Research into efficiency of herbicide applications in Oxfordshire (UK) (Harris et al., 1992 cited by (Skinner et al., 1997) also showed that in gentle wind (10,8-13 kilometres per hour) 87-93% of the spray was deposited on the target area, 2-3% on the soil outside the target area, 1-4% of this by drift up to 8 metres downwind and the remainder, up to 10% was lost by volatilisation or further spray drift. Laboratory studies indicate that wind speed as low as 4,8-8 kilometres per hour (3-5 mph) substantially deflected droplets <200 µm in diameter (figure 2-14). Smaller droplets were deflected more than larger droplets (Stover et al., 2002).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----14:14:14:14: Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 Effect of wind speed on spray droplet deflection. Droplets discharged at 44 mph (20 m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover m/s) at a target 1.6 ft (0.5 m) below at 20 C. Adapted from Zhu et al (1994) (Stover et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2002)2002)2002)2002)

1.3.1.3.41.3.1.3.41.3.1.3.41.3.1.3.4 HHHHUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUMIDITY AND TEMPERATUREUREUREURE

Temperature and relative humidity affect the likelihood of smaller droplets impinging on the target. At a relatively high temperature and low humidity, significant evaporation can occur before some spray droplets reach the target, reducing the size of droplets and increasing the influence of ambient air movement. This is especially important with droplets smaller than 70 microns. At 80% humidity, 30°C (86°F) and wind speeds of 18 kilometres per hour (11,2 mph) any 50 µm or smaller droplet will evaporate before it


travels 0,5 metres (1,6 ft). Even larger droplets evaporate to some extent as the temperature increases or the humidity decreases (Stover et al., 2002).

1.3.1.3.51.3.1.3.51.3.1.3.51.3.1.3.5 FFFFORMULATIONSORMULATIONSORMULATIONSORMULATIONS Dust formulations, very popular during the late 1940s and 1950s, caused high drift problems. Now, their uses are limited. The least drift-prone formulations of pesticides are pellets and granules. The use of these formulations is limited because they cannot be effectively applied to foliage. They are widely used to apply pesticide to the soil or in treating aquatic weeds (BES, 2002). A study showed also differences in potential drift among different formulations of a same active substance. Indeed, for instance, glyphosate formulations influenced droplets size distribution and thus drift (VanDyk, 1998).

1.3.1.3.61.3.1.3.61.3.1.3.61.3.1.3.6 HHHHEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEAEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEAEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEAEIGHT OF SPRAY RELEASESESESE Spray release height is one of the major factors affecting spray drift potential. Indeed, the amount of time that droplets remain airborne and exposed to wind currents depends on the height of the release (BES, 2002). Studies performed in wind tunnel showed that doubling the boom height increased airborne drift by a factor of three under some conditions (Taylor et al., 2004). The effect of sprayer boom height on spray drift was measured in the field. A drift reduction of around 50% was found when lowering boom height from 0.70 m to 0.50 m as well as lowering from 0.50 m to 0.30 m above crop canopy. Lowering further down will give even more drift reduction, up to 90% but also causes stripes in the application (van de Zande et al., 2004). Thus, the best is to use the lowest boom height that still offers sufficient overlap given the boom movement (Wolf, 2004). In practice, this parameter is controlled within relatively narrow limits. Aerial applicators seek a compromise between optimal spray placement and safety and generally maintain a release height between 1 and 3 metres. Applicators using ground boom equipment are constrained, in most cases, by nozzle design and placement that fixes release height to a narrow range in order to achieve uniform spray deposition (APVMA, 2005).

1.3.1.3.71.3.1.3.71.3.1.3.71.3.1.3.7 DDDDIRECTION OF RELEASEIRECTION OF RELEASEIRECTION OF RELEASEIRECTION OF RELEASE The correct orientation of the spray release and thus of the nozzles is crucial if pesticide is to be targeted correctly (Landers & Farooq, 2004). For example, in orchards, the applicator should ensure that spray droplets are contained within the canopy and not directly sprayed into the air above the canopy (figure 2-15) (CSIRO, 2002).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----15: 15: 15: 15: Nozzle position of the conventional airNozzle position of the conventional airNozzle position of the conventional airNozzle position of the conventional air----assisted sprayer assisted sprayer assisted sprayer assisted sprayer used for the pesticide sprayings used for the pesticide sprayings used for the pesticide sprayings used for the pesticide sprayings (Vercruysse(Vercruysse(Vercruysse(Vercruysse et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 1999)1999)1999)1999)

1.3.1.3.81.3.1.3.81.3.1.3.81.3.1.3.8 TTTTIME OF APPLICATIONIME OF APPLICATIONIME OF APPLICATIONIME OF APPLICATION

The time of day of application is important mainly in the way it relates to atmospheric conditions. Evening and night-time hours are frequently associated with stable air conditions. Stable conditions are often referred to as “inversions”. These are conditions where very little air mixing occurs. Because of the low dispersion conditions, pesticide droplets may remain in the air as a concentrated cloud and drift off target but remain concentrated. This scenario can result in a concentrated cloud of pesticide droplets landing downwind and possibly causing damage to non-targets. Thus, spray operations should particularly not be conducted during inversion conditions (APVMA, 2005); (BES, 2002); (Thistle, 2004).

1.3.1.3.91.3.1.3.91.3.1.3.91.3.1.3.9 SSSSTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPTAGE OF CROP DEVELOPMENTMENTMENTMENT, , , , CANOPY GEOMETRY AND CANOPY GEOMETRY AND CANOPY GEOMETRY AND CANOPY GEOMETRY AND DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY A crop is a complex target in which thickness, shape, and foliage density varies. Spray drift risk, particularly for ULV applications, can be substantially increased when a crop is too small to act as an adequate “trap” to capture small spray droplets. Dormant deciduous orchards also present a higher risk situation during spray or air-blast applications (APVMA, 2005). In a Belgian study performed in a semi-dwarf orchard, the highest downwind ground deposits were measured when the trees did not have full foliage (during blossom) (Vercruysse et al., 1999). According to (van de Zande et al., 2004), spraying trees without leaves increases spray drift 2 to 3 times compared to spraying trees with full foliage. In Belgium, many orchards have planting and pruning systems that result in a discontinuous leaf wall. Not spraying these gaps can result in a considerable drift quantity reduction (Jaeken et al.,) Trials in Italian vineyards indicated a considerable influence of the canopy characteristics on the amount of drift deposit assessed on the ground in the area adjacent to the vineyard sprayed. Vineyards featured by a narrower spacing and compact vegetation gave lower drift than vineyards featured by wider spacing and thinner canopy (Balsari and Marucco 2004). According to Stover et al. (2002), variability in deposition within the tree canopy appears to increase as tree canopy density increases.


1.3.1.3.101.3.1.3.101.3.1.3.101.3.1.3.10 NNNNUMBER OF APPLICATIONUMBER OF APPLICATIONUMBER OF APPLICATIONUMBER OF APPLICATIONSSSS Spray drift risks for some products may be acceptable for one or for a small number of applications, but where the residue effect is persistent, more applications may have an additive result that raises risk to an unacceptable level (APVMA, 2005). 1.3.21.3.21.3.21.3.2 Application techniqApplication techniqApplication techniqApplication techniques of plant protection products mostly used in ues of plant protection products mostly used in ues of plant protection products mostly used in ues of plant protection products mostly used in

Belgium and their effects on drift problemBelgium and their effects on drift problemBelgium and their effects on drift problemBelgium and their effects on drift problem

Apart from a few specialized application techniques such as dusting, a pesticide is formulated to be mixed with water and the diluted mixture pumped through one or more hydraulic nozzles (Matthews, 1995; Vancoillie, 2002). Drift is not only associated with outdoor applications. Indoors, some pesticides can move offsite in air currents created by ventilation systems and forced air heating and cooling systems (BES, 2002). Annexe 2.6 presents the percentages of drift reduction in function of the spraying technique (SPF, 2005). 1.3.2.11.3.2.11.3.2.11.3.2.1 IIIIMPACT OF THE APPLICAMPACT OF THE APPLICAMPACT OF THE APPLICAMPACT OF THE APPLICATION EQUIPMENT SPECITION EQUIPMENT SPECITION EQUIPMENT SPECITION EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS AND SETTINFICATIONS AND SETTINFICATIONS AND SETTINFICATIONS AND SETTINGSGSGSGS

1.3.2.1.11.3.2.1.11.3.2.1.11.3.2.1.1 SSSSPRAYER SPEEDPRAYER SPEEDPRAYER SPEEDPRAYER SPEED

A series of experiments with boom sprayer showed an increase in spray drift with increasing speed (van de Zande, Stallinga et al. 2004). On the whole, slower speeds are better. With a conventional boom-sprayer, there is really no concern below 6-8 kilometres per hour (10 mph) (Nuyttens et al., 2004) (figure 2-16). Another study showed that when the sprayer speed passes from 6 kilometres per hour to 10 kilometres per hour, the potential drift doubles (Panneton, 2001).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----16: 16: 16: 16: Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and Relative amounts of drift for 2 sprayer speeds (7,2 and 8 kilometres per ho8 kilometres per ho8 kilometres per ho8 kilometres per hour) and ur) and ur) and ur) and different distances from the application area (Nuyttensdifferent distances from the application area (Nuyttensdifferent distances from the application area (Nuyttensdifferent distances from the application area (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004))))

1.3.2.1.21.3.2.1.21.3.2.1.21.3.2.1.2 FFFFAN SPEED AN SPEED AN SPEED AN SPEED ((((AIRAIRAIRAIR----BLAST SPRAYERBLAST SPRAYERBLAST SPRAYERBLAST SPRAYER))))

Field trials conducted in an orchard indicated that reducing fan speed by 25%, resulted in considerably less drift, with coverage at 6,1m and 12,2m from the target row being 16% and 0,20% respectively (Landers & Farooq, 2004).


1.3.2.1.31.3.2.1.31.3.2.1.31.3.2.1.3 SSSSPRAY PRESSUREPRAY PRESSUREPRAY PRESSUREPRAY PRESSURE Spray pressure has a controversial effect on drift. Indeed, results obtained for different studies can strongly vary. Spray pressure influences not only droplet size but also droplet speed. A high pressure decreases the droplet size, as showed in table 2-19, (which increases spray drift) but also increases the droplet speed (which decreases spray drift). On the whole, a balance of these two opposite effects must be done and the effect of the spray pressure on spray drift is not very important compared to other factors (Lebeau, personal commentary, 2006). Table2Table2Table2Table2----19: 19: 19: 19: Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 Effect of spray pressure on the percentage of spray volume contained in droplets <191 µm in diamµm in diamµm in diamµm in diameter (VanDyk, 1998)eter (VanDyk, 1998)eter (VanDyk, 1998)eter (VanDyk, 1998)

Spay pressureSpay pressureSpay pressureSpay pressure % of volume in droplets <191µm% of volume in droplets <191µm% of volume in droplets <191µm% of volume in droplets <191µm

20 PSI / 1,36 bars 26 40 PSI / 2,72 bars 36 60 PSI / 4,08 bars 42

1.3.2.1.41.3.2.1.41.3.2.1.41.3.2.1.4 NNNNOZZLE TYPE OZZLE TYPE OZZLE TYPE OZZLE TYPE

Methodology to classify spray nozzles for driftability was developed based on laboratory measurements and spray drift model calculations (van de Zande et al.,). An increase in the size of the produced droplets reduces drift but according to references traditionally accepted, it should lead to a reduced efficiency. Nevertheless, according to recent studies, efficiency is not necessarily altered by an increase in the droplet size (ITV, et al., 2005).

� Nozzle categoriesNozzle categoriesNozzle categoriesNozzle categories In Belgium, a survey was carried out on basis of the data of the mandatory inspection of sprayers for the period 1999-2001. A sample of 2017 of these sprayers gives a good picture of the nozzles used on Belgian sprayers. Results (presented in table 2-20) show that there are two main classes of nozzles: flat fan nozzles (94,5%) and turbulence nozzles (5,5%). Turbulence nozzles are mostly used in fruits crops. The flat fan nozzles can be divided in 3 groups: standard flat fan nozzles (conventional nozzles), drift reducing flat fan nozzles: pre-orifice nozzles and air induced flat fan nozzles. Among those, the standard flat fan nozzles are by far the most popular (85,8%). Nozzles with drift reducing properties are not yet frequently used (drift reducing flat fan nozzles: 2,7%; air induced nozzle: 6%) (Nuyttens et al., 2004).


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----20: 20: 20: 20: The different nozzles groups and their partitioningThe different nozzles groups and their partitioningThe different nozzles groups and their partitioningThe different nozzles groups and their partitioning by mark ( by mark ( by mark ( by mark (NuyttensNuyttensNuyttensNuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004))))

Standard dopStandard dopStandard dopStandard dop BrandnameBrandnameBrandnameBrandname Flat fan (%)Flat fan (%)Flat fan (%)Flat fan (%) LowLowLowLow----drift (predrift (predrift (predrift (pre----

orifice) (%)orifice) (%)orifice) (%)orifice) (%) Air induction (%)Air induction (%)Air induction (%)Air induction (%)

Whirl chamber Whirl chamber Whirl chamber Whirl chamber (%)(%)(%)(%)

Agrotop - - 1.3 - Albuz 47.7 0.3 2.8 3.3 Delavan - 0.2 - - Hardi 19.5 0.3 0.6 1.6 Lechler 1.2 - 0.7 0.1 Lurmark 0.4 - - - Nozal 2.1 - 0.2 - Rex - - - 0.3 Tecnoma 0.3 - - - Teejet 14.7 1.9 0.3 0.3 total 85.5 2.7 6 5.5

� Drift potential of flat fan nozzlesDrift potential of flat fan nozzlesDrift potential of flat fan nozzlesDrift potential of flat fan nozzles (Wolf, 2004) (Wolf, 2004) (Wolf, 2004) (Wolf, 2004)

- Conventional: finest spray, reliable performance, can be drift prone, used at 1,4 to 4,1 bars (20 to 60 psi), >28 litres per ha (3 gpa).

- Pre-Orifice: reduce drift about 50%, reliable efficacy at low volumes, used at 2 to 4,1 bars (30 to 60 psi) or higher, > 47 litres per ha (5 gpa).

- Low-Pressure Air Induced: reduce drift about 50 to 70%, used at 2 to 4,1 bars (30 to 60 psi) or higher, > 47s litre per ha (5 gpa).

- High Pressure Air Induced: reduce drift 70 to 90%, used at 4,1 to 5,4 bars (60 to 80 psi) or higher, > 65 litres per ha (7 gpa).

1.3.2.21.3.2.21.3.2.21.3.2.2 AAAAERIAL SPRAYINGERIAL SPRAYINGERIAL SPRAYINGERIAL SPRAYING

In Belgium, aerial sprayings are sometimes used for treatment of colza crops. But, this type of application requires prior agreement of the Minister (AR 28/02/94) on advice of the “Comité d’agréation” and thus is rarely used (CRP, 2004).The potential for drift is greater for aerial applications due to higher heights of spray release, higher speeds of the aircraft and greater air turbulence in the wake of the aircraft that can shatter droplets into smaller droplets more drift prone (APVMA, 2005; ARS, 2006). 1.3.2.31.3.2.31.3.2.31.3.2.3 TTTTRADITIONAL BOOM SPRARADITIONAL BOOM SPRARADITIONAL BOOM SPRARADITIONAL BOOM SPRAYING YING YING YING

Spraying of the liquid is obtained by fragmentation of this liquid under pressure through nozzle. The droplets obtained are splashed by their own kinetic energy without help of auxiliary fluid. In relation to spray drift, this type of application has some advantages such as being able to keep spray release height low, operating at slower speeds that do no shatter droplets. However, it can also result in unacceptable amounts of spray drift. (APVMA, 2005). In Belgium, this application method is typically used for arable crops spraying. These sprayers represent 96% of the controlled sprayers (Nuyttens et al., 2004).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----17: 17: 17: 17: Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens Examples of traditional sprayers used in arable crops in Belgium (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., 2004), 2004), 2004), 2004)

Drift resulting of applications of around 300 litres/ha with a boom height of 0,5 metre varies predominantly with nozzle type, nozzle size and spray pressure (van de Zande et al.,). However, it seems that the potential drift of this application method does not exceed 10% of the total applied amount (Benoît et al., 2005) 1.3.2.41.3.2.41.3.2.41.3.2.4 UUUULTRALTRALTRALTRA----LLLLOWOWOWOW----VVVVOLUME SPRAYING OLUME SPRAYING OLUME SPRAYING OLUME SPRAYING (ULV)(ULV)(ULV)(ULV)

ULV pesticides formulated in low-volatile oil-based carriers are applied “straight from the can” at total application rates of 2-5 litres/ha. This low rate of carrier is achieved by generating small droplets (50-100 µm VMD). Such droplet sizes allow large numbers of droplets to be generated, thereby compensating for the low volume of carrier. The technology can be highly efficient. However, ULV application can have a significantly higher drift potential than conventional low of high volume application (CSIRO, 2002). According to (Pimentel et al., 1993), under ideal weather conditions, only 25% of the pesticide lands in the target area and 75% drifts off into the environment. This application technology is not very used in Belgium (Lebeau, personal commentary, 2006). 1.3.2.51.3.2.51.3.2.51.3.2.5 AAAAIR ASSISTED SPRAYINGIR ASSISTED SPRAYINGIR ASSISTED SPRAYINGIR ASSISTED SPRAYING

In airairairair----assisted boomsassisted boomsassisted boomsassisted booms, air is delivered from a fan to a sleeve mounted alongside the spray so that a jet or curtain of air entrains the droplets and projects them into the crop canopy. These were designed to provide better penetration of the crop canopy and control pests and diseases in the lower canopy.


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----18: 18: 18: 18: Examples of sprayers with airExamples of sprayers with airExamples of sprayers with airExamples of sprayers with air----assisted booms (Nuyttensassisted booms (Nuyttensassisted booms (Nuyttensassisted booms (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al.,,,, 2004)2004)2004)2004)

When there is sufficient foliage to filter the droplets from the airstream, their use also reduces downwind drift (Matthews, 1995) (figure 2-19).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----19: 19: 19: 19: Effects of nozzle types and airEffects of nozzle types and airEffects of nozzle types and airEffects of nozzle types and air----assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction assisted booms on the amount of drift reduction (Nuyttens (Nuyttens (Nuyttens (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., 2004), 2004), 2004), 2004)

On the contrary, this method should not be used if there are small plants or for a soil surface treatment (Matthews, 1995). Indeed, in this case, the air jet increases the risk of drift up to a 15-fold factor (Vancoillie, 2002); (Panneton, 2001). When done properly, air-assist can decrease drift even when fine sprays and lower water volumes are used (Wolf, 2004). AirAirAirAir----assisted sprayersassisted sprayersassisted sprayersassisted sprayers such as nebulizers and atomisers are used for localised treatments in horticulture and fruit arboriculture (orchards). Due to the height of traditional tree crops,


such as apples, air is used to project spray to the top of the canopy, which, could result in significant spray drift from above the trees (figure 2-20). These sprayers represent about 4% of the controlled Belgian sprayers (Nuyttens et al., 2004).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----20: 20: 20: 20: Examples of airExamples of airExamples of airExamples of air----assisted sprayers used in orchards in assisted sprayers used in orchards in assisted sprayers used in orchards in assisted sprayers used in orchards in Belgium (NuyttensBelgium (NuyttensBelgium (NuyttensBelgium (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004))))

Atomization is based on formation of very fine droplets, which are not only transported but also dispersed on high speed by an air jet. Micro-atomization is based on the active substances dispersion into small particles in suspension. These particles can be liquid or solid. Applied quantities of active substances are particularly light (Matthews, 1995; Vancoillie, 2002; CRP, 2004). The trend to using dwarf varieties and other changes in the planting of orchards has enabled development of other equipment. Some sprayers now use cross-flow fans close to the canopy (figure 2-21; top). Other manufacturers have designed “tunnel sprayers” (figure 1-21; middle and figure 2-22), in which a mobile canopy protects the tree from a crosswind during application. Spray which passes through the canopy is impacted on the tunnel and recycled (Vancoillie, 2002). When spraying an orchard in a full-leaf situation (LAI 1,5-2) and an average wind speed of 3 m/s with cross-flow fan sprayers, the spray-drift deposition on the soil at 4,5-5,5 m downwind of the last tree is 6,8 % of the application rate per surface area. Compared to this reference situation a tunnel sprayer can achieve a reduction in spray drift on the soil surface of 85-90 % and a cross-flow fan sprayer with reflection shields of 55% (van de Zande et al., 2004; Nuyttens et al., 2004). In Belgium, tunnel sprayers are very rarely used principally because protection against hail hampers their passage (Nuyttens et al., 2004; Lebeau, personal commentary, 2006).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----21: 21: 21: 21: Representation of used spraying Representation of used spraying Representation of used spraying Representation of used spraying systems and situations isystems and situations isystems and situations isystems and situations in orchard spraying (Top: n orchard spraying (Top: n orchard spraying (Top: n orchard spraying (Top: crosscrosscrosscross----flow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: crossflow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: crossflow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: crossflow sprayer spraying last tree row towards the field; Middle: tunnel sprayer; Bottom: cross----flow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zandeflow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zandeflow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zandeflow sprayer with a hedgerow planted on the edge of the field) (van de Zande et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004)2004)2004)2004)

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----22: 22: 22: 22: Examples Examples Examples Examples of tunnels spraof tunnels spraof tunnels spraof tunnels sprayers (Nuyttensyers (Nuyttensyers (Nuyttensyers (Nuyttens et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2004200420042004)))) 1.3.31.3.31.3.31.3.3 LegislationLegislationLegislationLegislation The European Directive 91/414/EEC, concerning the authorization procedure for plant protection products, requires the calculation of pesticide spray drift during application through the use of look-up tables based on Ganzelmeier tables (1995) or other models generally accepted. According to drift experiments conducted for a variety of ground application scenarios in different field and orchard crops, the Ganzelmeier tables give the 95th percentile distributions of percentage residue deposits relative to downwind distance from a crop row (Felsot, 2005) (Annexe 2.7).


2222 RRRREVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AEVIEW OF PESTICIDE AND BIOCIDE TOXICITY ND BIOCIDE TOXICITY ND BIOCIDE TOXICITY ND BIOCIDE TOXICITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN

BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

2.1 Acute pesticide exposure in Belgium (National Poison

Centre Belgium, 2004) The calls that reach the National Poison Centre of Belgium reflect exposure rather than poisoning (figure 2-23). Concerning pesticides there are two different ways of exposure: accidental and deliberate. Accidental ingestion (young children, pets, cattle), skin and eye contamination and inhalation are categorized under accidental exposure, whilst suicide by ingestion or injection is the most important example of deliberate exposure. In the year 2004 the National Poison Centre of Belgium received 51 692 calls. The total pesticide exposure was calculated as the total number of calls for product exposure with at least one agent type 25 ‘phytoagronomic’. Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison 23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison 23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison 23: Pesticide exposure in percentage for animals, adults and children (National Poison Centre Belgium, 2004)Centre Belgium, 2004)Centre Belgium, 2004)Centre Belgium, 2004)

If more light is shed on the human beings, about 56% are adults whereas the other 44% considers children. Two percent of the children are between 10 and 14 years old, 4% between 5 and 9, 28% can be placed in the category from 1 to 4 years old, 3% is younger than 1, and from 7% of them the age is not known. A distinction was also made between the different categories of pesticides, and the result was that 37% of the cases were caused by agricultural pesticides, 27% by biocides, 22% rodenticides, 8% were fertilizers and 6% were unknown. The most common exposure routes in order to adults exposure are oral contact, inhalation, skin contact and eye contact. Oral and inhalation contact concern more than 72%. The most common exposure routes in order to children exposure are oral contact, skin contact, inhalation, eye contact and ear and noise contact. Oral contact concerns more than 86%.

animals: 34%

adults: 36%

children: 30%


2.2 Chronic pesticide exposure: cancers and birth defects in Belgium

(Janssens et al., 2002) In order to analyze the influence of crop protection products on the health of the local population, both variables must first be described. A study conducted by Janssens et al. (2002) aimed primarily at studying the chronic diseases among growers and their neighbours (bystanders), because acute effects of crop protection products have been well studied before the approval for sale file is submitted to the government. The effects of residues of crop protection products among consumers are also extensively studied and described elsewhere in the literature (Dejonckheere & Steurbaut, 1996; Vereniging voor Kankerbestrijding, 1996; Leefmilieu en Kanker, 1997; Bonde et al., 1998; Genootschap Plantenproductie en Ecosfeer, 1999). Chronic diseases usually have a variety of causal factors and time between the exposure and the appearance of the disease frequently spans many years. Both factors make it difficult to establish how the person in question developed the disease. This is undoubtedly the case for syndromes in connection with crop protection products. The study by Janssens et al. (2002) therefore mainly took its bearings from the influence of the different types of crop protection products, more particularly those crop protection products applied in the fruit production, on the incidence of cancer, mainly those cancers for which a connection with crop protection products is suspected. The most common cancers in Belgium are lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer. There are also cancers that have a possible relation with crop protection products and that, as such, are already extensively described in literature. These include testicular cancer, lymphomas and sarcomas. A birth defect that, besides other causes, has a known connection with environmental factors is spina bifida. The most recent mortality figures with respect to cancer date from 1994. 2.2.12.2.12.2.12.2.1 Lung cancerLung cancerLung cancerLung cancer

Lung cancer gives the highest rate of mortality of all cancers, because recovery is possible in only 20 percent of the patients. It is the most common cancer in Belgium. In 1994, 3479 new cases of lung cancer by men and 617 by women were recorded; the real incidence is probably even higher. The smoking of cigarettes is one of the main causes of lung cancer. Other causal factors are described but their impact is still not sufficiently proved, and they are probably not particulary important compared to smoking. Crop protection products are repeatedly described as carcinogenic in literature (e.g. Mabuchi et al., 1979; Barthel, 1981; Wang et al., 1988; Brownson et al., 1993; Wesseling et al., 1999). However, other authors do not find this relation (e.g. McDuffle et al., 1990; Faustini et al., 1993; Figa-Talamanca et al., 1993; Cantor & Silbermann, 1999). If crop protection products are involved in the development of lung cancer, then it is possibly due to the direct inhalation of pesticides by the fruit-grower or his neighbour. The highest lung cancer mortality is found among men in the fruit growing districts. A relation between lung cancer by men and crop protection product use in growing regions is thus plausible. The study found no correlation with the incidence of lung cancer by women in fruit growing regions. For men on the other hand, a correlation is found and therefore, a correlation with acaricide use is also suggested, given the fact that these crop protection products are particularly used in the fruit sector. The observed difference between men and women might suggest that if there is indeed a causal relation, lung cancer is more likely to affect the fruit grower rather than his neighbours or bystanders. Yet, further research is recommended before any valid conclusion can be drawn. The report also showed that it is


impossible to deny that there is a correlation between crop protection products and lung cancer mortality for men. Further in depth research on this item is surely advisable. 2.2.22.2.22.2.22.2.2 Colorectal cancerColorectal cancerColorectal cancerColorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer affects men and women, mostly in the colon and in the rectum. Because of its frequent occurrence by both sexes and its relatively high death rate, colorectal cancer is an important cancer in Belgium. In 1994, 2028 new cases of colorectal cancer by men were recorded and 1983 cases by women. In various publications it is mentioned that there is a causal connection between crop protection products and colorectal cancer (e.g. Nagao & Sugimura, 1993; Soliman et al., 1997). However, other authors find no (e.g. Sathiakumar & Delzell, 1997; Cantor & Silbermann, 1999). Given that colorectal cancer is a frequent problem, this disease will also be prevalent in the fruit growing districts of the country. The medical literature is not clear as to the role of crop protection products in the emergence of colorectal cancer, but analysis of this relationship is justified by the fact that colorectal cancer is common in the fruit growing regions. The study conducted by Janssens et al. (2002) revealed that for male colorectal cancer there is a positive relation between the incidence of colorectal cancer and defoliant use, but not general pesticide use. The study concluded that the hypothesis that there is a correlation between colorectal cancer and an intense exposure to crop protection products, as used in fruit growing, cannot be defended. However, more research on the correlation with potato cultivation and the use of defoliants is necessary as a positive correlation was shown between male colorectal cancer and defoliants and potato cultivation. 2.2.32.2.32.2.32.2.3 Hormone dependent cancersHormone dependent cancersHormone dependent cancersHormone dependent cancers

Interference with the hormonal balance may lead to the emergence of hormone-dependent cancers. Certain chemical compounds, known as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC), are believed to have an adverse effect on humans. Crop protection products make up a large part of these EDC. Breast and prostate cancer are two notorious hormone-dependent cancers in Belgium. The most frequent cancer in women is breast cancer. In 1994, 4 911 new cancers were recorded, but the real figure is probably higher. Crop protection products may upset the hormonal balance, as sufficiently known for DDT. The incidence of prostate cancer has considerably increased in western countries, which may be partially ascribed to a better detection with tumour markers. In 1994, 2 739 new case were recorded in Belgium. In the study by Janssens et al. (2002) a relationship was found between defoliant use and the occurrence of breast cancer. For the incidence of prostate cancer a connection with defoliants and growth regulators was found. The data however reveal no relation with fruit production, neither between hormone dependent cancers and fruit growing nor between hormone dependent cancers and crop production products intensively used in fruit cultivation. It seems that the crop protection products for fruit growing available on the market are composed of chemical compounds without obvious hormone disturbing activity. 2.2.42.2.42.2.42.2.4 Testicular cancerTesticular cancerTesticular cancerTesticular cancer

Testicular cancer mainly affects young men and has increased in frequency the last decades. One of the possible factors possibly involved in the emergence of testicular cancer comes in the form of crop protection products (Reuber, 1980; Hayes et al., 1990; Fleming et al., 1999). In 1994, 117 new cases of testicular cancer were reported in Belgium. The


search for a correlation with environmental factors is made more difficult by this low number. Janssen et al. (2002) found a significant correlation between growth regulators and testicular cancer mortality. The relation with plant growth regulators is biologically unknown and therefore, further research is required. 2.2.52.2.52.2.52.2.5 Soft tissue sarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaSoft tissue sarcomassss

Different studies indicate the possible effect of crop protection products on the incidence of soft tissue sarcomas (Hardell & Sandstrom, 1979; Johnson et al., 1981; Sarma & Jacobs, 1982; Balarajan & Acheson, 1984; Greenwald et al., 1984; Smith et al., 1984; Kang et al., 1986; Wiklund & Holm, 1986; Lynge et al., 1987; Vineis et al., 1991; Kogevinas et al., 1995; Hoar et al., 1996). In the period 1985 to 1994, 668 deaths in Belgium were ascribed to soft tissue sarcomas. In the study by Janssens et al. (2002) exposure to crop protection products did not seem to have any appreciable influence on mortality due to soft tissue sarcomas based on the obtained data, so they concluded that the hypothesis that there is a correlation between soft tissue sarcomas and exposure to crop protection products in areas of intense use could not be defended based on the data used in the study. 2.2.62.2.62.2.62.2.6 Spina bifidaSpina bifidaSpina bifidaSpina bifida

Spina bifida is a rare defect of the neural tube, which forms between day 17 and day 20 of the pregnancy. Although the causal factors are not well known, folic acid deficiency in the diet is an important factor in developing countries (Rosano et al., 2000). For the developed countries in the West, folic acid deficiency cannot be excluded but geographical differences can hardly have a nutritional cause. The neural tube is extremely sensitive to toxic substances in the environment. Crop protection products, of which large quantities are used in fruit production, are candidates for neural tube defects (Sever, 1995; Blatter et al., 1996; Watkins et al., 1996; Brown & Susser, 1997; Dolk et al., 1998). In Belgium approximately 30 cases per year are expected. This value does not include the aborted cases of spina bifida. Janssens et al. (2002) did not substantiate the hypothesis that the modern crop protection products are a causal factor in the risk of spina bifida in Belgium. However, more research is recommended.


3333 PPPPESTICIDE AND ESTICIDE AND ESTICIDE AND ESTICIDE AND BBBBIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSEIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSEIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSEIOCIDE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN SSMENT IN SSMENT IN SSMENT IN BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

3.1 Uncertainties and special problems with regard to exposure

3.1.13.1.13.1.13.1.1 RelevRelevRelevRelevance of specific applicationsance of specific applicationsance of specific applicationsance of specific applications

In task 1, attention was drawn towards the use of insecticides in mosquito control programs, as to avoid vector-borne diseases. Figure 2-24 shows a geographical distribution of the number of deaths from vector-borne diseases.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----24: Deaths from vector24: Deaths from vector24: Deaths from vector24: Deaths from vector----borne diseases (WHO, 2006)borne diseases (WHO, 2006)borne diseases (WHO, 2006)borne diseases (WHO, 2006)

For Europe, the number of deaths from vector-borne diseases equals 0-1 VBD deaths/million. It can thus be concluded that this specific application of insecticides is not relevant for Belgium. This application will not be discussed further in this report.

3.1.23.1.23.1.23.1.2 Problems with availability of dataProblems with availability of dataProblems with availability of dataProblems with availability of data From task 1, it is furthermore clear that information on incidents and acute effects of pesticides and biocides PT18 can be retrieved from national pesticide poisoning surveillance programs. Such a program does actually not exist in Belgium. In the framework of the federal plan to reduce the impact of pesticides and biocides (PRP), the Federal Services for the Environment (FSE) authorized the Belgian Anti Poison Centre (BAPC) to carry out preliminary research to establish such a surveillance system. This includes the following tasks (Van Bol, pers. comm.):

� Overview of telephone calls to the BAPC over the last 3 years concerning the products involved;

� Detailed overview of the gathering of information by the BAPC on effects of pesticides/biocides in the neighbouring countries, in particular France, the Netherlands, U.K. and Germany. The situation in other countries might be added when useful information is available;


� Detailed proposal of classification of the products, involved in calls on pesticides/biocides. The classification will take into account any developments on European (Eurostat) and international (OESO, WHO, FAO...) level. The proposed classification could be based on a distinction between products for amateur use, professional agricultural and professional non-agricultural use. It should take into account the hazards of the product (class, risk phrases, …) ;

� Proposal for an index card of a telephone call, for urgent calls involving pesticides/biocides. The index card should contain detailled information distinguishing:

� calls from hospitals, (veterinary) doctors � calls resulting in advice of hospital admission or of contacting a doctor � lethal cases � cases resulting in serious poisoning of the animal

� A concrete test on minimally 20 useful cases to test the index card and to finalize the project in accordance with concrete experience ;

� Results of contacts with different stakeholders ; the problems with regard to chronic poisoning will be brought up during these contacts ;

� Proposal for follow-up program of poisonings linked to pesticides/biocides from 2007 onwards, based on the results of the project, other aspects of the PRP and the possible development of structures which are to be integrated on the level of acute medical assistance.

Sales figures give an indication of the use pattern of biocides and PT18 biocides. These figures are managed by the FSE. However, several bottle-necks exist:

� the reported sales figures are incomplete. This is amplified by the fact that, through the many consolidations of mainly biocide producing companies, a great share of the permit holders is located abroad. This hampers the effective reporting of sales figures;

� there is a significant time lag between the reporting and the processing of the sales figures, this is again mainly a problem for biocides;

� sales data are reported by volume of active substance sold. This does not allow for an accurate exposure assessment (see 3.4.3), since product type/formulation is not always known (this is certainly the case for biocides).

Currently, for biocides the incompleteness of the sales figures is dealt with as follows:

� if data are available for the previous year and the next year (e.g. 2001 and 2003), an average of these years is assumed for the in-between year (in this example 2002);

� if no data are available for a next year, the data of the previous year are used (e.g. data available for the year 2001 but not for the year 2002 ⇒ data 2002 ≈ data 2001).

Callebaut et al. (2004) suggested the following measures to deal with the lack of adequate sales figures for biocides:

� set a regular reporting of sales figures as a condition to maintain the authorization of the biocidal product in question. A possibility should be included to, whether or not temporarily, suspend the authorization if the sales figures are not reported (in good time);


� the Royal Decision of May 20031 states that the Federal Minister for the Environment can identify products for which each person, who sells that product to the user, should annually register the amount in weight or in volume of that product he has sold in Belgium during the past year. An identification of such products has not been carried out yet. An effective approach of this procedure is to identify the relevant products, based priority lists.

3.2 Exposure of the consumer at the Belgian level 3.2.13.2.13.2.13.2.1 Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for Uncertainties in the application of a risk assessment procedure for

consumersconsumersconsumersconsumers 3.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.13.2.1.1 RRRRESIDUE CONCENTRAESIDUE CONCENTRAESIDUE CONCENTRAESIDUE CONCENTRATION TION TION TION

In Belgium, lack of information about pesticide residue concentrations does not allow to assess precisely the exposure. Data used for estimating the exposure are MRLs, that are worst-case concentration levels. Estimation based on real exposure, as measured in national surveillance programs and distribution sector of previous year, could help to gain a better picture of residue concentration levels in foodstuffs in Belgium. This approach will be trustworthy if concentration levels are calculated with robust data and scientifically rigorous techniques. 3.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.23.2.1.2 AAAAMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMMOUNT OF FOOD CONSUMEDEDEDED

The GEMS/Food approach of estimating diet consumption has been really useful to calculate the dietary exposure. It provides an estimation in broad terms with food balance sheets. However, this diet database encompassed only 5 different food diets in the world. WHO is currently revising these Food Regional Diets, and by working on food consumption with a “cluster” approach will soon come up with a modified Food commodities list (WHO, 2005). This adaptation should allow greater accuracy in estimation, and therefore in risk assessment. A national database on food consumption of individuals would be really useful, as it could allow greater precision. Some countries do already have their own detailed specific diet surveys. In Belgium, a recent publication (May 2006) named “National food consumption survey in Belgium, 2004”2 has been released by the Scientific Institute of Public Health. The study contains informations on the consumption of foodstuffs by the Belgian population coupled with other factors such as gender, age, body weight, and height. 3.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.33.2.1.3 CCCCOCKTAILSOCKTAILSOCKTAILSOCKTAILS

As FASFC reported it, samples with multi-residues detected are getting more frequent in terms of quantity these last years. Moreover, the number of pesticides in multi-residue samples is also increasing. Nevertheless, this increase in positive samples has to be nuanced, because the analyzing techniques are improving continuously and the proper authorities search for more substances than they did a decade ago –because of the improved techniques. And the more substances that are looked for, the higher the chance that one or several of these are retrieved.

1 BG 11/07/2003

2 Available at http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/epifr/foodfr/table04.htm


Since interaction effects between pesticides have been proved (Hughes, 2002), special attention needs to be focused on multi-pesticide treatments supported by one commodity. However, if the residues are not detected in amounts above the NOAEL there are no interactions, because interaction effects are only relevant at dosis close to the NOAEL (Hughes et al., 2002). The surveillance in Belgium is not random but is targeted on products where previous experience or other information suggests that there are likely to be problems. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to assess the frequency with which residues, below or above legally enforcible maximum residue limits (MRLs) occur. It is even more difficult to assess the frequency of multiple residues occurring in the same product. A representative program of surveillance would be necessary to assess the frequency of residues, including multiple residues. Decisions about which pesticides are to be analyzed should be made by expert groups at intervals based on knowledge of products believed to be in use at the time in question. 3.2.1.43.2.1.43.2.1.43.2.1.4 PPPPROCESSING FACTROCESSING FACTROCESSING FACTROCESSING FACTOROROROR

Since many of the plants and plant products are processed before they reach the consumer or before being eaten, processing studies allow a better estimate to be made of consumer’s exposure to residues. Processing has to be considered into dietary intake estimate since not considering it may lead to an overestimation of the exposure To achieve a more realistic estimate of dietary intake, it is necessary to identify breakdown or reaction products generated by the process, to relate the levels of the residue in processed products to levels in the raw agricultural commodity, and to determine quantitative distribution of residues in the various intermediate and end products (Banasiak, 2005). Actions such as washing, trimming, peeling, milling, cooking, or juicing may all cause reduction in residue concentration (Tomerlin, 2000 ; Winter, 2001). A proper dietary exposure model will account for such reductions in residues, as well as for the occasional situation in which residues may increase as a result of processing. 3.2.23.2.23.2.23.2.2 Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring Analysis of the results from the Belgian official residue monitoring

program program program program In Belgium, the official instance responsible for the monitoring programs is the Federal Agency for the Security of the Food Chain (FASFC). Grocers, retailers, auctions, and consumer’s union are also leading some tests on targeted foodstuffs to ensure quality of the foodstuffs sold or react in case of pesticide residues concentration exceeding. 3.2.2.13.2.2.13.2.2.13.2.2.1 TTTTHE HE HE HE FFFFEDERAL EDERAL EDERAL EDERAL AAAAGENCY GENCY GENCY GENCY

3.2.2.1.13.2.2.1.13.2.2.1.13.2.2.1.1 OOOORIGINRIGINRIGINRIGIN

In 2000, grouping of all departments involved into the supervision of the food chain in Belgium led to the creation of a new entity known as the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. But a distinction had to be made as policies preparation and implementation are clearly separate sectors. Therefore the preparation of the policy for food safety and the imposition of its standards have been committed to the Federal Public Service for Public Health. The Food Agency rather verifies that legislation and standards are respected by all role-players within the food chain. Monitoring and controls, from the first to the last step of the food chain, supplying certificates and authorizations to carry out activities in the food chain, development of traceability and identification systems are the main tasks of FAFSC. Other assignments consist in providing scientific advices on risks


regarding food, preventing problems occurring in the food chain and also ensure contacts with general public. This work, achieved by experts, helps to guarantee the highest safety level for consumers.

3.2.2.1.23.2.2.1.23.2.2.1.23.2.2.1.2 AAAACTIVE WORKCTIVE WORKCTIVE WORKCTIVE WORK Working methods within the FAFSC are organized as a loop-system. Foodstuff controls are programmed by the Control Policy department which is also responsible for the integration and development of the control measures. Further on, practical application of controls is implemented by the Control department which organizes and plan the uptake of samples needed for residue tests. Analysis of samples are achieved in the Laboratory department that groups various official laboratories. If an offence is noticed through sample analysis, the General Services department of FAFSC is in charge of legal prosecution. Eventually, results from laboratories are provided to the Control Policy department which will be able to operate the risk assessment and report to UE the national data. Following an established plan based on risk assessment, controls are led in order to gather, data on residues sought to be found in vegetables, fruits, cereals, and processed products from local or imported foodstuffs, in different geographical places and along the complete food chain. For choosing which foodstuff and how many samples to collect and residues to test, the Control Policy department relies on previous identification of problematic residues based on previous controls in Belgium and Europe, toxicological data (ARfD, ADI), the analytical and budgetary possibilities as well as the importance of foodstuff in diets, RASFF messages, other information. Controls are carried out by both federal and independent certified laboratories. Depending of the residue concentration, exceeding of MRLs in samples can lead to a simple warning, an official report with a fine, and when the dietary intake calculations indicate a risk for the consumer (evaluated following document SANCO/3346/2001) then a national and international rapid alert is issued. Measures to protect consumers are therefore taken like tracing and calling back the foodstuffs for destruction. In addition to the annual co-ordinated program of Pesticide Residue Monitoring in Food of Plant Origin of the European Union, the FAFSC is also in the charge of the national programme of food controls.

3.2.2.1.33.2.2.1.33.2.2.1.33.2.2.1.3 FFFFRAMEWORK OF RAMEWORK OF RAMEWORK OF RAMEWORK OF FAFSCFAFSCFAFSCFAFSC On the 28th of February 1994 the transposition in a royal decree of the European directive 91/414 concerning pesticide storage, market, and uses laid the foundation of the Belgian legislative framework related to the pesticides. Royal decrees linked with the work of FASFC are defining pesticides spraying , MRLs thresholds , pre-harvest controls , foodstuff controls , and samples analysis . Belgian pesticides market encompasses around 1000 accepted pesticides (around 350 active substances) that are used in around 160 types of crops. 3.2.2.23.2.2.23.2.2.23.2.2.2 EU EU EU EU COCOCOCO----ORDINATED PROGRAMME ORDINATED PROGRAMME ORDINATED PROGRAMME ORDINATED PROGRAMME

Reports given back to the European Commission by the EU countries and others who have signed the European Economic Agreement (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) are containing two types of results. Firstly, some results provided by the countries are obtained through the EU co-ordinated follow-up enforcement. Secondly, others results are provided by national surveillance programmes. The FASFC is establishing the control programme in order to integrate the follow-up enforcement into the national surveillance programme.


3.2.2.2.13.2.2.2.13.2.2.2.13.2.2.2.1 DDDDATA FROM THE FOLLOWATA FROM THE FOLLOWATA FROM THE FOLLOWATA FROM THE FOLLOW----UP ENFUP ENFUP ENFUP ENFORCEMENTORCEMENTORCEMENTORCEMENT In the special EU co-ordinated programme for 2003 (EU, 2003), latest data available, eight commodities (cauliflower, sweet peppers, wheat, aubergines, rice, grapes, cucumber and peas) from the rolling programme, were analysed for 42 different pesticides by each of the EU-members. Commodities in this programme are not necessarily produced within the country but they can be bought in markets or shops. Although the total minimum number of samples recommended in the co-ordinated programme in the EU is constant (496 samples every year), this number has been greatly exceeded in all previous years. In 2003, around 8600 samples were analysed, but not every sample was analysed for all the 42 pesticides. With regard to the eight commodities investigated, about 65 % of the samples were noted without detectable residues, 32 % of the samples contained residues of pesticides at or below the MRL (national or EC-MRL), and 3.9 % above the MRL.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----25: Co25: Co25: Co25: Co----ordinated followordinated followordinated followordinated follow----up enforcement, % of sampup enforcement, % of sampup enforcement, % of sampup enforcement, % of samples exceeding national and EC MRLs for les exceeding national and EC MRLs for les exceeding national and EC MRLs for les exceeding national and EC MRLs for the 8 commodities, 2003the 8 commodities, 2003the 8 commodities, 2003the 8 commodities, 2003

Results for the 8 commodities as well as most often detected residues are given in the Tables 2-21 and 2-22.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----21: Overview of the European results21: Overview of the European results21: Overview of the European results21: Overview of the European results of the EU co of the EU co of the EU co of the EU co----ordinated programme in 2ordinated programme in 2ordinated programme in 2ordinated programme in 2003 (national or 003 (national or 003 (national or 003 (national or ECECECEC----MRLs)MRLs)MRLs)MRLs)

Samples with Samples with Samples with Samples with detected residuesdetected residuesdetected residuesdetected residues CommodityCommodityCommodityCommodity

≤ MRL≤ MRL≤ MRL≤ MRL MRL<MRL<MRL<MRL<

Grapes 57% 5% Peppers 34% 6% Cucumber 24% 3% Wheat 22% 0,3% Aubergines 18% 3%

5,7

3,9

32,7

0,90,7

0 0

0,30,811,1

2

2,22,6

4,3

3,6

9,5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

PO

R D B

LIE

FIN F S E

EL A

DK

UK I

IRL

NO

R

ICE L

% o

f sam

ple

s e

xceed

ing

MR

Ls


Rice 12% 0,2% Peas 19% 2% Cauliflower 17% 1%

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----22: Pesticides detected in overall22: Pesticides detected in overall22: Pesticides detected in overall22: Pesticides detected in overall Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for Europe (% of all samples analysed for the substance) for the the EU cothe the EU cothe the EU cothe the EU co----ordinated programme in 2003ordinated programme in 2003ordinated programme in 2003ordinated programme in 2003

PesticidePesticidePesticidePesticide % of samples% of samples% of samples% of samples PesticidePesticidePesticidePesticide % of samples% of samples% of samples% of samples

procymidone 11% methomyl 2.4%

maneb group 10% methamidophos 2%

iprodione 5.9% chlorpyriphos-methyl 1.8%

chlorpyriphos 5.5% cypermethrin 1.8%

endosulfan 5% malathion 1.8%

benomyl group 4.5% captan+folpet 1.6%

pirimiphos-methyl 3.9% 23 out of 42 pesticides < 1%

azoxystrobin 3.5%

The frequencies of MRL exceedings for single pesticide detections are all below 1%, except for methomyl, where 1,34% of all samples analysed exceeded MRL. For 12 substances no exceedings has been reported. If these figures are compared to previous year evaluations, the overall comparative picture on residues at or below the MRL is one where there has been little or no change in many pesticide/commodity combinations. Although some pesticide/commodity combinations have had a notable increase in the frequency of samples with residues, there have been a roughly similar number of cases where the frequency has had a notable decline. On all eight commodities as a whole, pesticides samples in 2003 have had a frequency of detection lower than in 2002 and similar to the average of previous years. However, data are not completely comparable given that commodities and pesticides evaluated were different in the various years. It should also be born in mind that comparison in time is difficult due to the fact that some MRLs have changed since 1999. For example, in the case of metalaxyl on peppers the MRL was reduced in 2000 to the limit of determination and the increase in the frequency of exceedings mentioned above should be seen in this context. Chronic exposure assessments demonstrate that the intake of pesticides remains clearly below the ADI and there is no concern of chronic toxicity. However, for the assessment of acute exposure, ARfD was exceeded in nine cases (EU, 2003).

3.2.2.2.23.2.2.2.23.2.2.2.23.2.2.2.2 DDDDATA FROM THE NATIONAATA FROM THE NATIONAATA FROM THE NATIONAATA FROM THE NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRL SURVEILLANCE PROGRL SURVEILLANCE PROGRL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMMESAMMESAMMESAMMES Results obtained by national surveillance programs from EU-members do not follow a same pattern in the overall. Considering the size of the population, less-populated countries did test less samples than highly-populated countries (figure 2-26).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----26: National surveillance programmes, comparison 26: National surveillance programmes, comparison 26: National surveillance programmes, comparison 26: National surveillance programmes, comparison of the number of samples taken by of the number of samples taken by of the number of samples taken by of the number of samples taken by 100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)100.000 habitants, 2003 (EU, 2003)

When the numbers of pesticides sought for and found is compared, the number of pesticides sought for in Belgium is below the mean value for European countries, whereas the amount of pesticides found is slightly above the mean value. Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 27: National surveillance programmes, number of pesticides sought for/found in 2003 (EU, 2003)2003)2003)2003) Belgium’s samples percentage of fresh fruit and vegetables above the MRLs reached 4,3%, EU average being 5,6%. The Netherlands, Portugal and Germany show a percentage of samples exceeding MRLs around or above 9%, and those from United Kingdom, Liechtenstein and Italy do not reach 2% of exceedings.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

LIE

ICE

NO

R

FIN DK

IRL S L A

NL

EL D I B E F

UK

POR

Num

ber

of sam

ple

s/1

00.0

00 h

ab.

3311 16

130

86 99

147

68 77 48101 80 81 85

47 45 22

246

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

D

NL I A F S E

NO

R

FIN UK

DK B

PO

R EL

IRL L

LIE

ICE

Nu

mb

er

of

pesti

cid

es


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----28: National 28: National 28: National 28: National Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding Surveillance Programmes, samples of fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)MRLs, 2003 (EU, 2003)

These results have to be carefully handled since analysis methods, number of pesticides sought for, test sensitivity and limits of quantification (LOQ) can differ from a country to another. 3.2.2.33.2.2.33.2.2.33.2.2.3 BBBBELGIAN NATIONAL SURVELGIAN NATIONAL SURVELGIAN NATIONAL SURVELGIAN NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMMEEILLANCE PROGRAMMEEILLANCE PROGRAMMEEILLANCE PROGRAMME

In 2004, an amount of 1766 samples of fruits, vegetables, cereals, and processed products were taken in various proportions by the FAFSC on the Belgian market (FASFC, 2004).

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 29: Proportion of samples taken in the national surveillance programme in Belgium, 2004 (FASFC, 2004)(FASFC, 2004)(FASFC, 2004)(FASFC, 2004)

The percentage of samples from Belgian origin reached 62%. As part of the national surveillance programme, analysis of these samples allowed to show that national or EU harmonized Maximum Residue Levels were exceeded in 77 samples of fruits and vegetables (4,8%). Exceeding was noticed in 4% of the imported products, and in 5,3% from Belgian products.

14,6

11,1

6,5 6,3 6,3

4,84,3 4,2

3,63,1

2,6 2,3 2,3 2,21,8

1,3 1

8,9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

NL P D F

FIN S E B A

IRL

DK

LIE EL L

NO

R IIC

E

UK

% o

f sam

ple

s M

RL

s<

31,0%

59,3%

0,4%9,3%

Fruits Vegetables Cereals Processed products


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----30: Comparison of the 30: Comparison of the 30: Comparison of the 30: Comparison of the number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings number of samples taken and the percentage of MRLs exceedings for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU for fruits and vegetables in Belgium, depending of their origin 2004 (Origin : BE = Belgium, EU = EU member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)member countries, OTHER = Third countries) (FASFC, 2004)

Relatively high percentages of MRL’s exceedings were found in stem vegetables (10,8%, mainly celery) and leafy vegetables (4,9%, mainly lettuce). Note that in this report exceedings were counted not taking into account the uncertainty on the analytical result. One exceedings was observed for processed products, and none for cereals. For fruits and vegetables, the percentage of exceedings in 2004 (4,8%) is higher than in 2003 (4,3%). However, the number of samples analysed is noticeably higher than in the previous years).

FiFiFiFigure 2gure 2gure 2gure 2----31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of 31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of 31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of 31: Evolution of the percentage of samples with MRLs exceedings and the total number of samples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetablessamples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetablessamples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetablessamples tested for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in fruits and vegetables

No residues were found in 54% of the samples of fruits and vegetables and 84% of the samples of processed products. Out of a list of 181 different pesticide residues sought in fruit and vegetables, a total of 61 were found at least once during the monitoring programme of 2004. The ten most frequently found pesticide residues, in decreasing order of frequency (found/sought) are: chlorpropham, orthophenyl-phenol, bromide ion, chlormequat, propamocarb, dithiocarbamates, iprodione, imazalil (table 2-23). Most of these are found by single residue methods, which are only carried out when the presence of residues is expected

1,6

6,7

5,3

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

BE EU OTHER

Nu

mb

er o

f sa

mp

les

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

MR

Ls

exce

edin

g (

%)

4,84,3

5,4

4,1

0

400

800

1200

1600

2001 2002 2003 2004

Nu

mb

er o

f sa

mp

les

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

MR

Ls

exce

edin

gs

(%)


(chloropham, orthophenyl-phenol and chlormequat for example). When counted in absolute number of findings, the ten most frequently found pesticide residues, in decreasing order of number of findings, are: iprodione, dithiocarbamates,bromide ion, chlorpropham, tolyfluanid, imazalil, procymidone and propamocarb.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)23: Most often found pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables in Belgium (FASFC)

Fruit and VegetablesFruit and VegetablesFruit and VegetablesFruit and Vegetables

2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004

CHLORMEQUAT CHLORMEQUAT CHLORPROPHAM CHLORPROPHAM

PROPAMOCARB BROMIDE ION PROCHLORAZ ORTHOPHENYL-PHENOL

BROMIDE ION IMAZALIL BROMIDE ION BROMIDE

IMAZALIL ETEPHON CHLORMEQUAT CHLORMEQUAT

PROCHLORAZ PROPAMOCARB IMAZALIL PROPAMOCARB

CHLORPROPHAM DITHIOCARBAMATES DITHIOCARBAMATES DITHIOCARBAMATES

DITHIOCARBAMATES CHLORPROPHAM PROPAMOCARB IPRIDIONE

IPRIDIONE CARBENDAZIM IPRIDIONE IMAZALIL

THIABENDAZOLE THIABENDAZOLE CYPRODINIL PROCHLORAZ

CARBENDAZIM IPRIDIONE CARBENDAZIM ETEPHON

Note that orthophenyl-phenol is not registered in Belgium. Its presence in the food chain is mostly due to citrus post-harvest treatment done in foreign countries. In cereals, out of 29 pesticide residues sought for, bromide ion, dichlorvos, malathion, clorpyriphos-methyl, pirimiphos-methyl, pirimiphos-ethyl and lindane were detected (table 2-24). Residues of lindane were found only once in 2004 and contamination must have occurred accidentaly.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)24: Pesticides found in Cereals in Belgium (FAFSC)

CerealsCerealsCerealsCereals

2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004

BROMIDE ION DICHLORVOS MALATHION PIRIMIPHOS-ETHYL

DICHLORVOS CLORPYRIPHOS-METHYL BROMIDE ION

PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL

MALATHION PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL LINDANE

PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL MALATHION

When observing the number of samples containing multi-residues, it appears that this number has increased these last years (figure 2-32).


Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----32: Number of samples containing multi32: Number of samples containing multi32: Number of samples containing multi32: Number of samples containing multi----residues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgiumresidues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgiumresidues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgiumresidues, from 2001 to 2004 in Belgium

3.2.33.2.33.2.33.2.3 Non official residue monitoringNon official residue monitoringNon official residue monitoringNon official residue monitoring 3.2.3.13.2.3.13.2.3.13.2.3.1 TTTTEST EST EST EST AAAACHATSCHATSCHATSCHATS/T/T/T/TEST EST EST EST AAAAANKOOPANKOOPANKOOPANKOOP

Leader of consumer’s union in Belgium, Test Achats/Testaankoop (2002) did investigate the quality of the food chain in 2002. The article released after targeted foodstuff tests showed that:

� 20 out of 29 lettuce samples tested did present detectable pesticide residues. On these 20 samples, 16 were containing more than one pesticide residue. Only one sample with propamocarb residue exceeded the MRL. Analysis of 4 lettuces coming from organic farming showed that no pesticide residues were found.

� 13 out of 28 grapes samples tested contained pesticide residues. 8 of these 13

samples were presenting multi-residue. But more striking is the fact that 9 samples exceeded the MRL. Pesticides which were exceeding MRL are cyprodinil, pyrimethanil, and etephon. One organic grape sample was showing the highest concentration of cyprodinil residues. Most of these grapes were coming from Italy, where MRL are lower than in Belgium.

3.2.3.23.2.3.23.2.3.23.2.3.2 DDDDELHAIZEELHAIZEELHAIZEELHAIZE

Within the framework of this project, information were gathered in the distribution sector by contacting Delhaize. The pesticide monitoring implemented by the Quality department follows two main orientation and samples are taken mostly on fresh fruits and vegetables. Random sampling occur twice a month and around 25 samples are taken in the fruits and vegetables central storing place. Targeted sampling are done when the Quality department come across any alert, given by the FASFC or by other international instances. Targeted sampling can also be decided on the basis of the EU coordinated program. Samples are analyzed by Phytolab for a large scope of pesticides. Global results were given for 2004 and 2005. In 2004, 14 out of the 290 samples (5,8%) were detected with an exceeding of MRL, whereas MRL exceeding occurred in 16 of the

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2001 2002 2003 2004

Nu

mb

er

of

sam

ple

s

2 residues

3 residues

4 residues

5 residues

6 residues

7 residues

8 residues


246 samples (7,3%) in 2005. These figure are higher than those obtain by the FASFC, but it can be explained by the fact that targeted sampling do encounter more MRL exceeding. Exceeding concerned mainly celery, grape, lettuce, citrus and beans. In case of MRL exceeding, process followed by Delhaize is to report the FASFC of the exceeding, as well as the supplier of the foodstuff. In some cases, if these MRL exceeding are repeated over the years, Delhaize end up changing supplier in order to ensure food safety for consumers. If more than 3 different pesticides are found in one sample, the commodity and its origin are noted and followed carefully in the next monitorings. 3.2.3.33.2.3.33.2.3.33.2.3.3 OOOOTHERSTHERSTHERSTHERS

Although not available with more precise figures for the moment, monitoring led by the large-scale distribution between 1995 and 2001 reported that 12% and 49% of the samples originated from organic and conventional sector respectively, were above the detection limit (Pussemier et al., 2006). No other information were taken about other sources of data. However, non official controls (retailers, auctions, etc) are to be taken into account in further studies. Data they may provide could be useful for a complete analysis of contaminations in the food chain. 3.2.3.43.2.3.43.2.3.43.2.3.4 RRRREVIEW OF THE SITUATIEVIEW OF THE SITUATIEVIEW OF THE SITUATIEVIEW OF THE SITUATION OF RISK ASSESSMENON OF RISK ASSESSMENON OF RISK ASSESSMENON OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CONSUMERST FOR CONSUMERST FOR CONSUMERST FOR CONSUMERS

3.2.3.4.13.2.3.4.13.2.3.4.13.2.3.4.1 RRRRISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENTISK ASSESSMENT

MRLs exceeding do not necessarily mean that toxicological endpoints are surpassed since they are not a toxicological limit sensu sticto. Indeed exceeded MRLs are rather strong indicators of violations of good agricultural practices (Nasreddine et al., 2002). If the residue level in food exceeds the MRL, the theoretical maximum daily intakes and the ADI have to be taken into account in order to assess clearly the risk for the consumer. More detailed risk assessment will be achieved in task 3.

3.2.3.4.23.2.3.4.23.2.3.4.23.2.3.4.2 IIIIN N N N EEEEUROPEUROPEUROPEUROPE Risk assessment has been made by Nasreddine et al. (2002) for Europe, with figures obtained from the program of monitoring entitled ‘Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union’ in 1996. Lettuce was the crop with the highest number of positive results, with residue levels exceeding the MRLs more frequently than in any of the other investigated crop. Even though, this residue concentration intake, when compared to ADI by application of the average consumption of lettuce, was equal to 11,5% of the ADI. When others MRLs limits were not complied, the pesticide exposure did not reached 1% of the ADI. In 1997, there was no exceeding of the ADI. In 1998, the highest residue exposure, for methidathion group, reached 10% of the ADI, whereas in 1999 all the pesticide exposures ranged between 0,43% and 1,4%.

3.2.3.4.33.2.3.4.33.2.3.4.33.2.3.4.3 IIIIN N N N BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM In Belgium, a comparable exercise can be done with the latest figure from the surveillance program of 2004 (FASFC, 2004). The pesticide-commodity combination were chosen among the combinations that had the highest exceeding of MRLs observed. The table 2-25 indicates that intakes did not reached the ADI in the cases where most of the MRLs exceeding were observed. Consumption has been calculated with figures from GEMS/Food. The sum of pesticides from maneb group were found above the MRLs in 5 samples out of 166. Nevertheless, the highest residue concentration reached 13 mg of active substance/kg food stuff, leading to comparison of the Estimated Intake with the ADI. For maneb group and lettuce, the ratio is a slightly under 10%.


Even though not exhaustive, this table shows that dietary exposure of highest exceeding are far from reaching the ADI value. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity25: Example of risk assessment for some commodity----pesticidespesticidespesticidespesticides in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : in Belgium, 2004 (Sources : 1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)1FASFC, 2EU, 3WHO)

CommodityCommodityCommodityCommodity PesticidePesticidePesticidePesticide Highest Highest Highest Highest

concentrationconcentrationconcentrationconcentration (mg/kg)

MRLMRLMRLMRL (mg/kg)

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated IntakeIntakeIntakeIntake

(mg/kg b.w./day)

ADI ADI ADI ADI (mg/kg b.w./

day)

% of % of % of % of ADIADIADIADI

Lettuce maneb group

13 5 4,88E-03 0,05 9,75

Strawberries methiocarb 0,15 0,05 5,50E-05 0,02 0,28

Carrots chlormequat 0,23 0,05 2,03E-05 0,05 0,04

3.2.3.4.43.2.3.4.43.2.3.4.43.2.3.4.4 OOOOTHERTHERTHERTHER

Similar study was led by Winter (1992) is USA. The comparison was made between the Theoretical Maximum Residue Concentration (TMRC) and the ADI for 35 selected pesticides that were subject to EPA tolerance decision from 1988 to 1991. Albeit based on worst case approach, the ADI was exceeded only for one pesticide, and for 23 of the 35 pesticides studies TMRCs were accounting for less than 5% of the ADI.

3.2.3.4.53.2.3.4.53.2.3.4.53.2.3.4.5 CCCCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS Nasreddine et al. (2002) concluded in their study that, based on scientific criteria, the risks related to the presence of pesticides residues in food are considered minimal. Even though requiring further analysis, situation seem to be similar for Belgium. Besides, not even an alert of acute poisoning was given during last years surveillance controls. When analyzing results obtained during EU monitoring of pesticide residues, few cases of exceeding the MRLs are noted. Taking into account ADI parameters, it is unlikely that a consumer would be exposed to levels exceeding MRLs all his life. But a small proportion of pesticides groups are likely to give rise to acute effects via the food chain, namely some groups of insecticides, a few fungicides and certain herbicides. Although many molluscicides and rotenticides have the potential to be acutely toxic they are unlikely to represent a hazard via food (Mars, 2000 ; Harris et al., 2000). In fact, risk assessments preformed in the EU, using the ARfD, shows that there is no reason for having concerns over the presence of pesticide residues in food in the European Union (Nasreddine et al., 2002). However, one should keep in mind that risk assessment is a continually evolving process. New information on contaminants, their implicated health effects, the reduction of uncertainties and the variability of the individuals and of the target groups, as well as their occurrence in food are all factors that should be continuously studied and monitored (Kuhnlein and Chan, 2000). Deeper risk assessment will be done in task 3. 3.2.3.53.2.3.53.2.3.53.2.3.5 EEEENVIRONMENTAL PESTICINVIRONMENTAL PESTICINVIRONMENTAL PESTICINVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDES IN FOODSTUFF IN DES IN FOODSTUFF IN DES IN FOODSTUFF IN DES IN FOODSTUFF IN BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

3.2.3.5.13.2.3.5.13.2.3.5.13.2.3.5.1 IIIINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION

It is important to make a distinction between the main streams of foodstuffs production that are good under control thanks to the monitoring programs applied by the public authorities (e.g. main agricultural crops and animal products such as cereals, fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs) and some other parallel streams that are much less


controlled (e.g. home-produced food, fish products, etc). In the latter case there can be some specific problems with environmental pesticides and other contaminants. Indeed, although not anymore a priority in the monitoring programs, banned pesticides such as organochlorines can still be found in the food chain. There are several studies carried out in order to detect the presence of these pesticides in the environment. Often found with other chemical compounds (PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals) organochlorines and their metabolites are still able to contaminate living organisms nowadays. Results tend to indicate that these accumulated pesticides have to be taken into account in the risk assessment for consumers.

3.2.3.5.23.2.3.5.23.2.3.5.23.2.3.5.2 WWWWELL CONTROLLED FOODSELL CONTROLLED FOODSELL CONTROLLED FOODSELL CONTROLLED FOODSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFS

3.2.3.5.2.13.2.3.5.2.13.2.3.5.2.13.2.3.5.2.1 Residues in milkResidues in milkResidues in milkResidues in milk

Even though hexachlorocyclohexanes were technically banned in 2003 in the European Union, residues can still be found into the food chain. The EFSA journal published a study in which different HCH isomers; α, β, and γ (also known as lindane); were sought for in different countries of Europe (EFSA, 2005). Because of the lipophilic properties and persistence in the environment, β-HCH followed by α-HCH and to a lesser extent γ-HCH may give rise to bioaccumulation and biomagnification through the food chain. HCHs are rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, pass the placenta and are transferred into milk. The toxicity of the isomers varies, γ-HCH being the most acutely neurotoxic followed by α-HCH. β-HCH penetrates less readily into the central nervous system, is more persistent and tends to accumulate in the body over time. Data from European countries, which banned the production and use of technical HCH at an early stage, indicate a permanent decline of HCH exposure to humans. Market basket studies performed between 1994 and 2003 in the Czech Republic indicate a significant decline of approximately 60 % for the average daily intake of HCH isomers. Human milk monitoring programmes in various countries revealed a corresponding decline of β-HCH levels up to 80 % since the 1980s. In current human milk samples α- and γ-HCH are only found occasionally. Considering the decreasing concentration of HCHs in breast milk in some European countries, current human exposure through food in the European Union is likely to be very low, in the lower range of 1-10 ng/kg b.w./day. In contrast, human milk samples from some East European and developing countries with a more recent use of technical HCH show higher levels, indicating a higher exposure. Recent controls done in Belgium indicate that organochlorine residues in milk exceed the limit in less than 1% of the samples tested (table 2-26). In both cases, the exceeding involved lindane. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----26: Control of OC resid26: Control of OC resid26: Control of OC resid26: Control of OC residues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)ues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)ues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)ues in Belgium (FASFC, 2005)

2001 2002 2003 2004

number of samples tested 190 176 175 173

number of samples above the limit 0 0 1 1

3.2.3.5.2.23.2.3.5.2.23.2.3.5.2.23.2.3.5.2.2 Residues in fishesResidues in fishesResidues in fishesResidues in fishes

In a study carried out by Hites et al. (2004), over two metric tons of farmed and wild salmon from around the world have been analysed for organochlorine contaminants (DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane,…). Salmon are relatively fatty carnivorous fish that feed high in the food


web, and they bioaccumulate contaminants such as pesticides. Results showed that concentrations of these contaminants were significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild. Indeed, out of the 14 organochlorines contaminants sought for, 13 were found in a significantly higher concentration in farmed salmon. European-raised salmon have significantly greater contaminant loads than those raised in North and South America, indicating the need for further investigation into the sources of contamination. The human health effects due to diet exposure to organochlorines are a function of contaminant toxicity, concentration in fish tissues, and fish consumption rates. Although risk/benefit computation is difficult, risk analysis indicates that consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption.

3.2.3.5.33.2.3.5.33.2.3.5.33.2.3.5.3 LLLLESS CONTROLLED FOODSESS CONTROLLED FOODSESS CONTROLLED FOODSESS CONTROLLED FOODSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFS

3.2.3.5.3.13.2.3.5.3.13.2.3.5.3.13.2.3.5.3.1 Contaminated eggs from free range hensContaminated eggs from free range hensContaminated eggs from free range hensContaminated eggs from free range hens

In Belgium, eggs from private owners and commercial farms were analysed and compared on their pesticide residues concentration (Van Overmeire et al., 2005). Because organochlorinated compounds such as DDT and metabolites can accumulate in the environment, it is still possible that some residues enter the food chain. Analysis showed that eggs from private owners, compared to eggs from commercial farms, were far more contaminated. Results for most organochlorine pesticides were well below the Belgian tolerated levels. Only for the sum of DDT, DDE and DDD some high exceedings, up to 10 times the tolerated level, were observed for eggs coming from private owners. DDT, and more particularly, the main compound in the technical pesticide product, was found in all PO eggs. Figures obtained through analysis of private owners eggs can be compared with other form another study of Viera et al. (2001), on eggs from Brazil that were sampled in the vicinity of places where DDT had been used 7 and 9 years before the sampling. It appears from soil analysis that the problem was coming from the sheltered area were hens from private owners were living. Even though used before DDT was banned, still some residues bio-accumulated in the soil were responsible for the eggs contamination.

3.2.3.5.3.23.2.3.5.3.23.2.3.5.3.23.2.3.5.3.2 Wild eelsWild eelsWild eelsWild eels

In a survey carried out between 1994 and 2001, the Institute for Forestry and Game Management showed interesting results about OCs residue in wild eels (Goemans, 2003). Eels were chosen because they can be considered as bio-indicator. Samples were taken in public waters, in 263 locations of the Flemish region. In Belgium there is no norms linked with OC residue levels in eels, therefore the study was based on tolerance levels used in the USA, Canada, and in The Netherlands. Results tend to indicate that lindane residue level exceeded the norm in 4,2% of all samples. The highest concentration reached 790 ng/g fat. Dieldrin residues were found in a concentration above the norm in 1,5% of the total number of samples. These samples with exceeding were not located in the same place, which show a certain heterogeneity in the geographical location of the environmental contamination.

3.2.3.5.43.2.3.5.43.2.3.5.43.2.3.5.4 BBBBIOMARKER OF PESTICIDIOMARKER OF PESTICIDIOMARKER OF PESTICIDIOMARKER OF PESTICIDE CONTE CONTE CONTE CONTAMINATIONAMINATIONAMINATIONAMINATION

3.2.3.5.4.13.2.3.5.4.13.2.3.5.4.13.2.3.5.4.1 Umbilical cordsUmbilical cordsUmbilical cordsUmbilical cords

The Centre for Environment and Health released in 2005 the results of a 4-year monitoring program of chemical contaminants in the Flemish part of Belgium. Concerning pesticides, ppDDE concentrations were measured in cells of woman umbilical cords in different part of


northern Belgium. The table 2-27 shows the results obtained during the study, numbers in bold being significantly higher or lower of the mean value for the overall study. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----27: Average concentrations of ppDDE27: Average concentrations of ppDDE27: Average concentrations of ppDDE27: Average concentrations of ppDDE given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005) given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005) given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005) given by area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005)

Area ppDDE concentration (ng/g fat)

Antwerpen city 112

Gent city 71

Orchards region 76

Rural area 175

Harbours 105

Albertkanaal zone 140

Incinerator area 181

Surprisingly, ppDDE residue concentrations were significantly lower than the mean value in orchards area. In rural areas, ppDDE residue concentrations were found higher than the mean value. In industrial areas, sampling uptakes did not allow to confirm statistically the results obtained but ppDDE residue concentrations were found above the mean concentration in the area of the Albertkanaal, and in an incinerator area (Milieu en Gezondheid, 2005).

3.2.3.5.53.2.3.5.53.2.3.5.53.2.3.5.5 CCCCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS Organochlorines and their metabolites can be considered as environmental contaminants (EFSA, 2005). Living organisms at the top of the food chain generally reflects overall contaminants level in the environment. Indeed, by biomagnification , organochlorines concentrations of living organisms at the top of the food chain reflect contaminant levels in both the surrounding environment and in organisms below them in the food chain. Soil, water sediments, and living organisms are therefore uncontrolled sources of contamination. It has been noticed that the presence of organochlorines is not homogeneous within the countries and that concentration levels are decreasing (EFSA, 2005). Consumer of such foodstuffs, mostly animal products, are therefore encountering some risks if their intake is important. In addition, organochlorines are not the only environmental contaminants, as they are often found along with other chemical contaminants such as dioxins, PCBs or heavy metals. Cocktail’s effects are not yet sufficiently investigated to assess that no risks are to be expected. It would be interesting to study the various sources of contamination. Indeed it is probable that industrial uses of OC lasted longer after OC were banned. 3.2.3.63.2.3.63.2.3.63.2.3.6 IIIIDENTIFICATION OF THEDENTIFICATION OF THEDENTIFICATION OF THEDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST RELEVANT POINT MOST RELEVANT POINT MOST RELEVANT POINT MOST RELEVANT POINTS WITH REGARDS TO FOS WITH REGARDS TO FOS WITH REGARDS TO FOS WITH REGARDS TO FOOD SAFETYOD SAFETYOD SAFETYOD SAFETY

3.2.3.6.13.2.3.6.13.2.3.6.13.2.3.6.1 BBBBELGIUM WITHIN ELGIUM WITHIN ELGIUM WITHIN ELGIUM WITHIN EEEEUROPEUROPEUROPEUROPE

In the overall situation, Belgium results from food controls are close the average obtained for Europe. For the follow-up enforcement concerning the 8 commodities, 3.9% of MRLs exceeding were observed in Belgium whereas the European average is 3.2%. This figure is lower than the previous years average in Europe (EU, 2003). For the national surveillance programs, the percentage of samples exceeding MRLs for fruits, vegetables, and cereals have increased from 3% in 1996 to 5.5% in 2003. This can be linked to the increasing of pesticides sought for. Belgium’s samples percentage (4,3%) of fresh fruit and vegetables above the MRLs is below EU average (5,6%). Belgium did take around 11 samples per 100.000 habitants, which is close to Europe average 10.3 %.


Resulting from follow up enforcement and national surveillance program, the percentage of samples tested containing more than one residue reached 12.1% in Belgium, the European average standing at 20.5%.

3.2.3.6.23.2.3.6.23.2.3.6.23.2.3.6.2 SSSSITUATION IN ITUATION IN ITUATION IN ITUATION IN BBBBELGIUMELGIUMELGIUMELGIUM

3.2.3.6.2.13.2.3.6.2.13.2.3.6.2.13.2.3.6.2.1 Pesticides foundPesticides foundPesticides foundPesticides found

The most often found active substances reported by FASFC in the national surveillance programme in 2002, 2003 and 2004 are for fruits and vegetables samples : chlorpropham, bromide ion, chlormequat, imazalil, orthophenyl-phenol and dithiocarbamates. For cereals samples, pirimiphos-methyl, malathion, pirimiphos-ethyl dichlorvos (in 2002), bromide ion (in 2003), and lindane (2004) were the main pesticides found between 2002 and 2004.

3.2.3.6.2.23.2.3.6.2.23.2.3.6.2.23.2.3.6.2.2 Pesticides found Pesticides found Pesticides found Pesticides found ---- MRLs exceedings MRLs exceedings MRLs exceedings MRLs exceedings

Between 2001 and 2004, the number of MRLs exceedings varied for dithiocarbamates (30), bromide ion (18), chlormequat (17), propamocarb (14), carbendazim (13), toclophos-methyl (13), ipridione (8), chlorpyrifos (7), methomyl (7), dimethoate (6, all in 2003), and imalazil (5 whose 4 in 2002). However, after further analysis of these MRLs exceedings, risks of acute poisoning were not encountered.

3.2.3.6.2.33.2.3.6.2.33.2.3.6.2.33.2.3.6.2.3 Commodities Commodities Commodities Commodities

In 2004, group of commodities with high percentage of detected residues in the samples were citrus fruits (90%), mushrooms (89%), leaf vegetables (66%), potatoes (62%), berries (55%), stone fruits (53%), seed fruits (46%), and stem vegetables (40%). Table X shows the percentage of MRL exceedings of every commodity groups for 2003 and 2004 (FASFC). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 28: Number of samples tested and percentage of MRLs exceedings of commodity groups in 2222003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)003 and 2004 in Belgium (FASFC, 2003 ; FASFC, 2004)

Commodity groups Number

of samples 2003

% of MRL exceedings

2003

Number of samples 2004

% of MRL exceedings

2004

stem vegetables 68 10 92 11

berries and small fruits 109 11 130 5

leafy vegetables 278 5 318 9

root vegetables 41 7 57 4

citrus fruits 43 5 69 3

stone fruits 38 5 51 2

Brassica vegetables 58 0 99 6

fruiting vegetables 184 2 236 4

seed fruits 97 2 205 2

potatoes 141 1 151 3

mushrooms 10 0 9 0

The higher percentage of MRLs exceedings concerned stem vegetables, followed by berries and small fruits, leafy vegetables, and root vegetables. These results show that the percentage of detected residues in the samples cannot be associated to a high percentage of MRLs exceedings, as for mushrooms none of the samples was exceeding MRLs whereas pesticides residues were detected in 90% of the samples tested.


As shown by the results obtained by the European follow-up enforcement, grapes and peppers had the highest percentages of MRLs exceedings, grapes having also the highest percentage of samples with detected residue. Active substances like procymidone and those from the maneb group were detected in respectively 11 % and 10 % of the samples. Contamination in grapes were also highlighted by Test Achats : 9 of the 28 samples tested were exceeding MRLs.

3.2.3.6.2.43.2.3.6.2.43.2.3.6.2.43.2.3.6.2.4 MRLs exceeding MRLs exceeding MRLs exceeding MRLs exceeding

These lasts years, the FASFC came across two main problems in the Belgian food chain and by precaution several products from plants origin had to be phased out from the food chain. In 1999, a problem concerning chlormequat residues in pears triggered temporarily the interdiction of chlormequat use. Residue concentrations were measured above national MRL. Fresh pears, processed pears as well as pears in babyfood were contaminated. Belgian authorities explained these exceedances by the unexpected effect made by the two applications that happened before the interruption of chlormequat uses. EU countries were notified through the RASFF (EU, 1991). A second problem occurred with chlorpyriphos in October 2005. Pre-harvest controls of residue concentration in carrot fields in the West Flanders and Limburg pointed out a potential risk for the consumer. The FASFC doubted that these abnormally high concentrations could decrease below the MRL once harvested. Controls were motivated by apparent problems linked to crop growth. Detailed tests issued that around 400 ha spread in more or less 80 exploitations were affected by the contamination. The pesticide involved is admitted for use in Belgium since the 80’s. Precaution measures taken by the FASFC, before obtaining results form further analysis, led to the interdiction for farmers to sell the contaminated carrots. Some carrots already harvested and sold in markets were not called back because public health was not threatened by any danger of acute poisoning (FASFC, 2005a ; FASFC, 2005b).

3.3 Pesticide exposure at farm level in Belgium 3.3.13.3.13.3.13.3.1 Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide Belgian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide

useuseuseuse This part is mainly based on a survey, financed by the Belgian Science Policy performed in 2002-2003 by the University of Ghent (UGent), the University of Louvain-la-Neuve (UCL) and the Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), about knowledges and practices concerning ppp manipulation and application in Belgian fruits, vegetables and “fields” crops in the frame of the scientific support plan for a sustainable development policy. For fruits, 100 growers from Flanders were asked. For vegetables, 114 growers from Flanders were asked. For field crops, a hundred farmers belonging to the category ‘field crops’ or ‘mixed farming’ from the Walloon Brabant Province were interrogated. These farming types account for more than 80% of the pesticides applied in the Belgian agriculture. The results of this survey are presented and discussed in two reports (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).


3.3.1.13.3.1.13.3.1.13.3.1.1 FFFFARMERSARMERSARMERSARMERS’ ’ ’ ’ TRAINING AND FORMATITRAINING AND FORMATITRAINING AND FORMATITRAINING AND FORMATIONONONON

The level of study and choice of additional training may have a favourable influence on the farmer’s decisions and actions. Indeed, the best trained farmers are often more opened to progress and more able to benefit of the advance in knowledges and techniques. The training they received may also affect the farmers’ decision-making process (economical considerations, crop selection,…). About 25% of the farmers do not have an official certificate of upper secondary education (figure 3-1). About 50% of them have agricultural training. In addition, 59% of the surveyed farmers have received additional agricultural training (e.g. through evening classes). Of these, 64% are qualified as specially accredited users of plant protection products (i.e. able to use annex 10 products). It is important to note that training level is not significantly linked to the farmer’s age. ‘Young’ farmers are not necessarily better trained than ‘older’ farmers.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----33: 33: 33: 33: Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower Survey of the education received by farmers (PE: primary education; L SE: lower secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main secondary education; U SE (A): upper secondary education with as main subject agricultural subject agricultural subject agricultural subject agricultural sciencesciencesciencesciences; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college s; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college s; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college s; U SE (NA): upper secondary education; UC: university college; UC (A): university college with as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marotwith as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marotwith as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marotwith as main discipline agricultural sciences; UN: university) (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003200320032003))))

As can be seen in figure 2-33, regardless of the speculation, most of the farmers have an agricultural superior secondary school diploma (Marot et al., 2003). However, according to INS statistics (table 2-29), which represent the national average, in 2003, most of the farmers (58,1%) had only a practical agricultural formation. Still to INS, only 20,8% of the farmers had a complete agricultural formation. Thus, their knowledge and their know-how are above all drawn from their practical experiment and the knowledge transmitted by their predecessors (generally, parents) (INS, 2003). The difference between the INS statistics and the survey can be explained by survey samples not completely representative of the Belgian agriculture for different reasons.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PE L SE U SE (A) U SE (NA) UC UC (A) UN

%

fruit grow ing

vegetable grow ing

field crops


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----29: 29: 29: 29: Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)Formation level of farmers in Belgium, Wallonia and Flanders (INS, 2003)

Results of the survey show also that 37,8% of the crops fields farmers, 43% of the fruits growers and 49% of the vegetables growers have a diploma of “specially accredited users of plant protection products” (i.e. able to use the annex 10 products). This qualification includes among others courses of botany, pests reconnaissance, fight against weeds and pests, toxicology, legislation concerning pesticides, etc (Marot et al., 2003). Thus, concerning use of ppp, these farmers are supposed to be well informed of the good practices and aware of the different dangers.

It is also important to note that, contrary to expectations, training level is not significantly linked to the farmer’s age. "Young" farmers are not necessarily better trained than "older" farmers (Maraite et al., 2004). 3.3.1.23.3.1.23.3.1.23.3.1.2 FFFFARMERSARMERSARMERSARMERS’ ’ ’ ’ KNOWLEDGES CONCERNINKNOWLEDGES CONCERNINKNOWLEDGES CONCERNINKNOWLEDGES CONCERNING PPPG PPPG PPPG PPP

During the cultivation season, farmers have to make choices regarding production methods (cultivation method, crop varieties, crop protection products, fertilising) that determine farm management and yield. In addition, farm management also depends on external factors such as climatic conditions, economic context, etc. However, farmers do not stand alone when making these decisions. They are influenced by other people who have an impact on their decisions regarding pesticide management. The hypothesis is that the extent to which farmers display an environmentally friendly approach depends upon their social situation, their farming system, their choice of crop variety and their agricultural area.

3.3.1.2.13.3.1.2.13.3.1.2.13.3.1.2.1 DDDDANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOANGER PICTOGRAMS KNOWLEDGE LEVELWLEDGE LEVELWLEDGE LEVELWLEDGE LEVEL The knowledge of pictogram by vegetables and fruits growers is quite high (respectively 77% and 64%). On the other hand, the knowledge of field crops farmers is slight (only 13%). This poor knowledge is quite surprising in the light of the formation level of most of these farmers. Thus, the fields crops farmers, despite reading (82% of the farmers regularly read the pesticide notices) and a good understanding of the indications on the labels (88% say that the security indications on the labels are well written and easy to understand), do not have a good knowledge of the pictograms. They take only the information from the labels that they require for spraying (rate, mixture, etc). Finally, the statistical analysis showed that knowledge of the pictograms does not have any significant influence on the farmers’ practices regarding crop protection products (); (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.2.23.3.1.2.23.3.1.2.23.3.1.2.2 AAAAWARENESS OF THE DANGWARENESS OF THE DANGWARENESS OF THE DANGWARENESS OF THE DANGERS FOR HEALTH AND EERS FOR HEALTH AND EERS FOR HEALTH AND EERS FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENT To get an idea to which extent farmers consider pesticide use as a risk to human and environmental health, farmers were asked to assess the risk of pesticide use for 15 different environmental and human health categories. The risk level was graded from -- to


++, with -- being a very low risk and ++ being a very high risk. The results are represented in table 3-1.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----30: 30: 30: 30: Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to Impact of pesticide use assessed by farmers for different categories with respect to human health and environmental human health and environmental human health and environmental human health and environmental risk (risk (risk (risk (--------: very low risk; : very low risk; : very low risk; : very low risk; ----: low risk; 0: low risk; 0: low risk; 0: low risk; 0: moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: : moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: : moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: : moderate risk; +: high risk; ++: very high risk) (Marotvery high risk) (Marotvery high risk) (Marotvery high risk) (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

Risk assessmentRisk assessmentRisk assessmentRisk assessment CategoryCategoryCategoryCategory Fruit growerFruit growerFruit growerFruit grower Vegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable grower Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

Human health: consumer -- + -- operator ++ ++ + farm worker 0 + + bystander - -- -- Environment: soil 0 - 0 surface water 0 0 0 groundwater - - 0 air - 0 0 water organisms 0 0 0 birds - - 0 earthworms 0 + 0 mammals - - 0 bees 0 0 0 beneficial arthropods 0 -- 0

3.3.1.2.33.3.1.2.33.3.1.2.33.3.1.2.3 HHHHEALTHEALTHEALTHEALTH

As we can see in table 2-30, for what concerns health, the farmers make a distinction between their personnel (operators and farm workers) and other people (consumers and bystanders). The farmers are aware that the operators and the farm workers are exposed during spraying to a higher risk than the consumers and bystanders. Many farmers rely on their own experience: 27% of the fields crops farmers, around 25% of the fruits growers and 44% of the vegetables growers reported that they felt unwell after a crop treatment (stomach problems, headaches, eyes and nose irritations). Nevertheless, 80% of the fields crops farmers say that they also stop the treatment when, for example, a group of cyclist passes (Marot et al., 2003).

3.3.1.2.43.3.1.2.43.3.1.2.43.3.1.2.4 EEEENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENT For what concerns environment (table 2-30), the farmers do not seem to accord a great importance to the risk of ppp use. Moreover, the fields crops farmers do not make significant distinctions between pesticide toxicity on the different categories. Usually, they place the categories in the moderate risk class. Independence test conducted on these different environmental categories show that there is a significant link between the risks accorded to different environmental categories by fields crops farmers. All the categories related to water quality (soil, surface water, groundwater, water organisms) have a risk assessment grade that evolves in a same manner. For example, if the farmer accords a high grade to one of these categories, he will give a same grade to all other related categories. The same occurs with the categories related to fauna (birds, earthworms, mammals, bees, beneficial arthropods). Awareness-rising campaigns, carried out the past few years, targeting farmers about water quality have seemed to bear fruit.


Table 2-31 summarizes the environmental concerns of the surveyed farmers. It shows that river pollution by pesticides is one of the most important concerns, followed by nitrate pollution. Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----31:31:31:31: Farmers’ environmental Farmers’ environmental Farmers’ environmental Farmers’ environmental concern (Marotconcern (Marotconcern (Marotconcern (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

Concern (% farmers)Concern (% farmers)Concern (% farmers)Concern (% farmers) Fruit and vegetable Fruit and vegetable Fruit and vegetable Fruit and vegetable

growinggrowinggrowinggrowing Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops Aspect under consideAspect under consideAspect under consideAspect under considerationrationrationration

lowlowlowlow averageaverageaverageaverage highhighhighhigh lowlowlowlow averageaverageaverageaverage highhighhighhigh Nitrate pollution 30 36 25 22 57 21 Loss in quality of the landscape 31 36 34 32 40 28 Damage to animals and plant species

30 26 44 37 26 37

Surface water pollution by pesticides

16 29 54 11 19 70

It is also interesting to note that the majority of the farmers are aware that their actions may pose a threat to the environment (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). However, they are not willing to accept income loss because of the need for environment protection. Many of them are convinced that there are other sources of pollution that have a more considerable impact on the environment. They estimate that the population must trust them. For more efforts, the society must pay to compensate for their gain loss (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----32:32:32:32: Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables Environmental attitudes of the fruits and vegetables growers (Marotgrowers (Marotgrowers (Marotgrowers (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003200320032003))))

QuestionsQuestionsQuestionsQuestions Fruit cultureFruit cultureFruit cultureFruit culture Vegetable Vegetable Vegetable Vegetable cultureculturecultureculture

In your practices as a producer Your practices involve risks for the environment Yes Yes The authorities bother you with environmental problems, but there are bigger problems concerning the environment elsewhere

Yes Yes

There are inconveniences, but you have to be profitable

No Yes

To reduce the possible risks in agriculture The people can thrust the farmers Yes Yes ‘More soft systems’ exist, but there is a lack of technical background

Neutral Neutral

There are solutions available, but they have to be financed by the community

Yes Neutral

You would accept a loss of income for the protection of the environment

No No

You use pesticides because You are conscious of the economical necessity of treating the plants with pesticides

Yes Yes

You don’t want to take risks Yes Totally yes You are encouraged to apply pesticides Neutral neutral To protect the crops You often apply on a systematic basis Neutral Neutral You apply when a threshold of use is reached Totally yes Yes You use broad-spectrum products no Yes


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----33: 33: 33: 33: EnvEnvEnvEnvironmental attitudes of the fields crops ironmental attitudes of the fields crops ironmental attitudes of the fields crops ironmental attitudes of the fields crops farmers (Marotfarmers (Marotfarmers (Marotfarmers (Marot et al.et al.et al.et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

You areYou areYou areYou are totally totally totally totally disagreedisagreedisagreedisagree

disagreedisagreedisagreedisagree are are are are neutralneutralneutralneutral

agreeagreeagreeagree totally totally totally totally agreeagreeagreeagree

In your practices as a producer Your practices involve risks for the environment

15 12 10 47 16

The authorities bother you with environmental problems, but there are bigger problems concerning the environment elsewhere

0 1 5 31 63

There are inconveniences, but you have to be profitable

1 4 7 28 60

To reduce the possible risks in agriculture The people can thrust the farmers 0 14 21 42 23 ‘More soft systems’ exist, but there is a lack of technical background

3 16 23 43 15

There are solutions available, but they have to be financed by the community

5 9 8 30 48

You would accept a loss of income for the protection of the environment

55 20 14 10 1

You use pesticides because You are conscious of the economical necessity of treating the plants with pesticides

0 2 1 23 74

You don’t want to take risks 3 9 14 41 33 You are encouraged to apply pesticides 53 28 8 9 2 To protect the crops You often apply on a systematic basis 22 22 10 32 14 You use broad-spectrum products 4 18 12 38 28

3.3.1.33.3.1.33.3.1.33.3.1.3 FFFFARMERSARMERSARMERSARMERS’ ’ ’ ’ ATTITUDES AND PRACTIATTITUDES AND PRACTIATTITUDES AND PRACTIATTITUDES AND PRACTICES CONCERNING PPP UCES CONCERNING PPP UCES CONCERNING PPP UCES CONCERNING PPP UTILISATION TILISATION TILISATION TILISATION

3.3.1.3.13.3.1.3.13.3.1.3.13.3.1.3.1 FFFFACTORS CONSIDERED ONACTORS CONSIDERED ONACTORS CONSIDERED ONACTORS CONSIDERED ON DECIDING TO APPLY P DECIDING TO APPLY P DECIDING TO APPLY P DECIDING TO APPLY PESTICIDES ESTICIDES ESTICIDES ESTICIDES

The main element considered when farmers decide to spray their crops is the price of the crop protection products (table 2-34). Other product characteristics considered as being important are: mixture guidelines, the spectrum of activity and the effectiveness of the product. It is interesting to note that when farmers choose crop protection products, they do not consider user toxicity, environmental impact, pre-harvest interval or the control of resistance occurrence as being decisive. So farmers tend to consider economic factors as being more important than environmental and health effects when applying pesticides.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides34: Determinant factors when choosing pesticides

% farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers Determinant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factor Fruit growerFruit growerFruit growerFruit grower Vegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable grower Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

Price 17 18 28 User toxicity 7 4 5 Mixture guidelines 15 11 12 Phytotoxicity 5 4 6 Environmental impact 6 2 4 Spectrum of activity 9 8 14 Effectiveness 12 20 12 Pre-harvest interval 6 12 3 Control of resistance occurrence 4 1 3 Duration of action 2 3 10 Other 0 0 3 No response 16 18 2

3.3.1.3.23.3.1.3.23.3.1.3.23.3.1.3.2 CCCCHOICE OF CROP VARIETHOICE OF CROP VARIETHOICE OF CROP VARIETHOICE OF CROP VARIETYYYY For example, choosing a wheat variety with good resistance to fungal diseases will require, depending on the climate, less fungicide treatment. For 65% of the farmers, the choice of variety depends primarily on potential yield. Only 14% of the farmers give priority to varieties that resist diseases. The majority of the farmers still decide upon their production techniques according to yield (prestige of a high yield) rather than financial results. The choice of a resistant variety is a part of ”philosophy” of income optimization and input reduction (Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.33.3.1.3.33.3.1.3.33.3.1.3.3 AAAALTERNATIVE METHODS TLTERNATIVE METHODS TLTERNATIVE METHODS TLTERNATIVE METHODS TO PPP USEO PPP USEO PPP USEO PPP USE The alternative methods (fake sowing, mechanical weeding, thermal weeding…) allow reduced pesticide use. However, only 20% of the fruits and vegetables growers and 18% of the fields crops farmers have used once at least these alternative methods. 31% of the fields crops farmers think that there is a lack of information on these practices. Among the fields crops farmers who have used these methods, about 60% are satisfied (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.43.3.1.3.43.3.1.3.43.3.1.3.4 SSSSPRAYING DECISION PRAYING DECISION PRAYING DECISION PRAYING DECISION (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004; INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005) In selecting a plant protection product and type of treatment, the farmer will be influenced by the product characteristics (see below) as well as by advertisements, sales representatives, official organs, etc. The economic aspect and the fear of bad harvest are the main motives that lead the farmers to make treatments on their crops. The farmer’s crop treatment decision is rarely taken alone. The farmers are influenced by other people who have an impact on their decisions regarding pesticide management. The hypothesis is that the extent to which farmers display an environmentally friendly approach depends upon their social situation, their farming system, their choice of crop variety and their agricultural area. 75% of the fields crops farmers make this decision with the help of an outsider, such as a company representative or neighbour. Under some potatoes cultivation contracts, the representative (pesticide manufacturer’s sales representative or processor’s representative) even makes alone the decision on treatment.


The survey shows that, regardless of the crops, the farmers regularly consult two principal sources: the company sales representative and the decision support system. The company sales representative is the most important information source. However, the company representatives’ recommendations are driven by commercial considerations and therefore cannot be seen as objective. Farmers regularly consult the crop-specific decision support systems published in newspapers or available by fax or on the Internet (depending on the crop). However, they do not follow their recommendations strictly. The company representatives’ advice is seen as more important. For example, only 33% of the farmers planting potatoes and 57% of the farmers planting sugar beet follow the recommendations of decision support system on when and how to spray their fields. These services are viewed as a source of information rather than a tool for deciding on treatment specifications. The use of decision support systems for winter wheat and sugar beet is related to the type of training a farmer has had (agricultural/not agricultural). If the farmers have had agricultural training they are more likely to use the decision support systems. It is important to note that the official services are not a primary information source: 15% of the farmers call on them for potato and sugar beet crops. In most cases, when the farmers call on these services, it is for specific problems. However, the indirect impact that these services have on the farmers via articles in agricultural newspapers and through company representatives should not be underestimated. In fact, the company representatives regularly call on the official services (or their publications) to help them solve crop problems. The official services are also involved in the implementation of the decision support system. A statistical analysis reveals that, when farmers use an information source for one crop, they use this source for all the crops on their farms. Finally, it is important to note that there is no relation between the decision-making method (farmer alone or with outside help) and the use of plant protection products (number of fungicide treatments, type of products).

3.3.1.3.53.3.1.3.53.3.1.3.53.3.1.3.5 CCCCHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCTHOICE OF THE PRODUCT The main element considered when farmers decide to spray their crops is the price of the crop protection products (Table 2-35). Other product characteristics considered as being important are: mixture guidelines, the spectrum of activity and the effectiveness of the product. It is interesting to note that when farmers choose crop protection products, they do not consider user toxicity, environmental impact, pre-harvest interval or the control of resistance occurrence as being decisive. So farmers tend to consider economic factors as being more important than environmental and health effects when applying pesticides (Marot et al., 2003). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----35:35:35:35: Determinant factors when choosing Determinant factors when choosing Determinant factors when choosing Determinant factors when choosing pesticides (Marotpesticides (Marotpesticides (Marotpesticides (Marot et al. et al. et al. et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

% farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers Determinant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factorDeterminant factor Fruit growerFruit growerFruit growerFruit grower Vegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable growerVegetable grower Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

Price 17 18 28 User toxicity 7 4 5 Mixture guidelines 15 11 12 Phytotoxicity 5 4 6 Environmental impact 6 2 4


Spectrum of activity 9 8 14 Effectiveness 12 20 12 Pre-harvest interval 6 12 3 Control of resistance occurrence 4 1 3 Duration of action 2 3 10 Other 0 0 3 No response 16 18 2

3.3.1.3.63.3.1.3.63.3.1.3.63.3.1.3.6 PPPPROTECTION EQUIPMENT ROTECTION EQUIPMENT ROTECTION EQUIPMENT ROTECTION EQUIPMENT AND ACCAND ACCAND ACCAND ACCESSORIESESSORIESESSORIESESSORIES

Individual protective equipment reduces the risk of intoxication orally and via the skin. Wearing gloves, overalls and boots, may reduce skin penetration while masks reduce oral penetration. As showed in table 2-36, although they are aware that there are risks for the health of the applicators and farm workers and although 27% of them reported that they felt unwell after spraying, half of the fields crops farmers do not wear any protective accessories when they handle pesticides. Those farmers who do take protective measures, all wear gloves as a minimum means of protection. By comparison, only 13% of the fruits growers and 11% of the vegetables growers do not wear any protective accessories while respectively a quarter and half of these reported that they felt unwell after spraying. Of those farmers who do use individual protective devices, the most wear gloves as the minimum and some also wear other protection (mask or overalls). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----36: 36: 36: 36: The The The The use of personal protective equipment during mixing, use of personal protective equipment during mixing, use of personal protective equipment during mixing, use of personal protective equipment during mixing, loading and application loading and application loading and application loading and application activities (Marotactivities (Marotactivities (Marotactivities (Marot et al. et al. et al. et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

% farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers PPEPPEPPEPPE Fruit growingFruit growingFruit growingFruit growing Vegetable growingVegetable growingVegetable growingVegetable growing Field cropsField cropsField cropsField crops

none 13 11 50 boots 36 77 6 coverall 22 37 17 gloves 75 68 49 mask 57 37 20 goggles 14 4 10 Of those who use gloves, only 12% replace them regularly (five utilizations maximum). After pesticide application, 13% of the farmers do not wash their hands and about 80% do not wash their bodies. Although most of the farmers read the label before using a new ppp, they do not really follow the security advices of this label. The most common excuses mentioned for not wearing protective clothes are: there is no risk when applying pesticides, it is a habit, while others attribute it to a lack of time or the discomfort experienced when wearing protective equipment (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.73.3.1.3.73.3.1.3.73.3.1.3.7 SSSSPRAYING EQUIPMENTPRAYING EQUIPMENTPRAYING EQUIPMENTPRAYING EQUIPMENT The state of the spraying equipment is very important not only for the treatment efficiency but also for the environmental impacts. The equipment must be sufficient and in good state in order to allow a homogenous distribution of the mixture, an accurate control of the released amount and to prevent leaks in the environment.


In Belgium, a law (23 August 2001) imposes that the technical condition of each agricultural sprayer must be controlled every 3 years. This could explain the relative good state of the Belgians sprayers. The spraying equipment of the surveyed fields crops farmers is good, with 70% having a wash can, an annex tank and a hopper (accessories strongly recommended but not compulsory) (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

3.3.1.3.83.3.1.3.83.3.1.3.83.3.1.3.8 TTTTREATMENT OF THE TANKREATMENT OF THE TANKREATMENT OF THE TANKREATMENT OF THE TANK BOTTOM RESIDUE BOTTOM RESIDUE BOTTOM RESIDUE BOTTOM RESIDUE Inappropriate treatment of the tank bottom residue after spraying is the most important source of point pollution. Good crop protection practice involves diluting the residue and redistributing it on the treated field. This practice, which is beneficial for the environment requires the farmers to have an annex tank on their sprayers or or to return to the farm to dilute the remaining spray. If 16% of the farmers admit to dropping the residue that accumulates at the bottom of the tank onto a dirt road or at the filling site, 80% of the farmers say that they dilute the tank bottom residue, and redistribute it on the treated crop. This last percentage seems abnormally high in the light of the percentage of sprayers having an annex tank (70%) (table 2-37). Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----37: 37: 37: 37: Treatment of tank bottom residues Treatment of tank bottom residues Treatment of tank bottom residues Treatment of tank bottom residues (Marot(Marot(Marot(Marot et al. et al. et al. et al., , , , 2003)2003)2003)2003)

Treatment of tank bottom residuesTreatment of tank bottom residuesTreatment of tank bottom residuesTreatment of tank bottom residues % farmers% farmers% farmers% farmers Dilute and redistribute residue on the field 80 Empty elsewhere 1 Empty on a dirt road 9 Empty at the filling site 7 Storage in tank 1 Phytobac 2

Indeed, statistical analysis shows a significant link between the spraying equipment and the treatment of the tank bottom residue. So, of the farmers who have an annex tank on their sprayer, 91% dilute and redistribute the residue on the field. This conclusion is of a primary importance for future sensitization policies (Marot et al., 2003; Maraite et al., 2004). 3.3.1.43.3.1.43.3.1.43.3.1.4 RRRREASONS OF THE GAP BEEASONS OF THE GAP BEEASONS OF THE GAP BEEASONS OF THE GAP BETWEEN KNOWLETWEEN KNOWLETWEEN KNOWLETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICEDGE AND PRACTICEDGE AND PRACTICEDGE AND PRACTICE

3.3.1.4.13.3.1.4.13.3.1.4.13.3.1.4.1 DDDDIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES UITS AND VEGETABLES UITS AND VEGETABLES UITS AND VEGETABLES GROWERS AND FIELDS CGROWERS AND FIELDS CGROWERS AND FIELDS CGROWERS AND FIELDS CROPS ROPS ROPS ROPS

FARMERSFARMERSFARMERSFARMERS From the survey, it can be concluded that fruits and vegetables growers are quite well informed about the use of pesticides and the possible impacts on the environment and the health. Still, the impact on the environment is less important in the decision taking concerning pesticide use. When treating the crops, their own health and economical advantages are the main concerns of the growers. On the other hand, the fields crops farmers are generally less aware of the impacts of ppp use on the health and the environment (Maraite et al., 2004). We can also conclude that a gap definitively exists between the farmers’ awareness of potential health and environmental hazards from the use of pesticides and their management practices.


3.3.1.4.23.3.1.4.23.3.1.4.23.3.1.4.2 "O"O"O"OVERUSEVERUSEVERUSEVERUSE" " " " OF THE PESTICIDES ANOF THE PESTICIDES ANOF THE PESTICIDES ANOF THE PESTICIDES AND POOR RECOURSE TO PD POOR RECOURSE TO PD POOR RECOURSE TO PD POOR RECOURSE TO PESTICIDES SPARING ESTICIDES SPARING ESTICIDES SPARING ESTICIDES SPARING

PRACTICES PRACTICES PRACTICES PRACTICES A variation is often noted between the dose of pesticides recommended by an expert in crop protection and that observed among the farmers, who frequently resort to systematic treatments. Such "an overuse" (higher than "the optimal one"), which would thus represent a "waste", is not in conformity with the postulate of rationality of the agents. The economists thus sought to understand the reasons of the poor use of the more pesticides sparing practices in the countries which tried to promote these practices. This research highlighted the role of certain characteristics of the pesticides sparing practices (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005):

- they generate indirect costs: increased working time, purchase of specific services (analyses, advices,...);

- they require more knowledge (formation and experiment) than the conventional cultivation methods, which are generally based on well established routines;

- they are (or at least are regarded as) riskier.

3.3.1.4.2.13.3.1.4.2.13.3.1.4.2.13.3.1.4.2.1 Economic reasonsEconomic reasonsEconomic reasonsEconomic reasons

� Aversion to the riskAversion to the riskAversion to the riskAversion to the risk The question of the risk is taken into account via the definition of a "aversion to the risk", which leads the farmer to not choose in order to maximize its hope of income, but to insure himself against a risk of fall of its income or its production below a critical point. This behaviour can concern individual preferences, but it is often related to particular constraints (refunding of loans, need for ensuring the feeding of the herd,...). The farmers with an aversion to the risk have thus tendency to use the pesticides beyond the level which would make it possible to obtain the maximum average margin in order to insure themselves against the risk. They are all the more inclined with this additional use since the price of the product to be protected is high (market gardening, arboriculture, vine growing...) (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005). The pesticides sparing practices can generate "objective" risks, such as those related, for example, to the errors of diagnosis. On the other hand, the increase in productive risks, which would be related to an increase in the yields variability, is much debated. Indeed, the effect appears to depend on the situations: crop type, adoption of farming systems which reduce the phytosanitary risks... The subjective dimension of the risk must also be taken into account: they are the risks perceived by the farmer, who can over-estimate the phytosanitary risks and thus those related to a less use of pesticides. In practice, it is difficult to separate what concern a possible aversion to the risk (not modifiable individual preference) and a too pessimistic or too dubious appreciation of the possible benefit of the new technique (that can be corrected by an adequate information) (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005). 97% of the surveyed fields crops farmers are convinced that crop treatment is an economic necessity (Maraite et al., 2004).

� Direct and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practicDirect and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practicDirect and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practicDirect and indirect costs of the pesticides sparing practiceseseses These costs correspond in particular to:

- the purchase of data or elaborate advices, specific material (material of trapping,...), analyses services (of sheets or ground,...);

- the time devoted to the formation, the acquisition of generic information, the observation of the fields and the processing of these data, but also to the technical interventions (a mechanical weeding takes more time than an herbicide spraying)


while the opportunity cost of work can be high, in particular in exploitations comprising breeding or pluri-activity (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).

Indeed, the surveyed fruits and vegetables growers who had not changed their practices for more pesticides sparing practices (such as those imposed by the EUREPGAP label) say that those practices are too costly in money, time and labour (Marot et al., 2003).

� Low relative price of the pesticidesLow relative price of the pesticidesLow relative price of the pesticidesLow relative price of the pesticides The refinement of the micro-economic models makes it possible to better account for the factors determining the decisions of use of the pesticides, among which the low relative price of the pesticides remains dominating (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).

� External factorsExternal factorsExternal factorsExternal factors The dependence to the pesticides can also be increased by factors external to the sector of agricultural production (Marot et al., 2003; INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005):

- the requirements of the consumers and/or the distribution sector for what concerns aspect and conservation of fresh vegetables or fruits, for example, tend to induce the use of pesticides. Indeed, some of the surveyed fruits and vegetables growers who had not changed their practices for more pesticides sparing practices (such as those imposed by the EUREPGAP label) say that they fear for the external quality of their products;

- the preponderance of a sector of crop protection advices depending on the pesticides sales tends to support the use of pesticides. The loss of interest of the authorities for the individual follow-up of the producers leads to a strengthened role of the pesticide sales sector in the crop protection advices;

- the fact that the distribution of seeds, pesticides and fertilizers, and the collection of the harvests are often provided by the same companies strengthens the preceding point. The reservation of these companies to distribute rustic or resistant varieties is often cited as a brake on the diffusion of the pesticides sparing practices.

Some recent studies analyze the role of the association “phytosanitary advice / sale of pesticides” on the use of these inputs: they confirm the effect of increase in use. But there also has to be mentioned that, although there is a direct link between advice and increased use, the industry also provides for a good distribution of the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and encourages the farmers to follow the GAP (Phytofar, 2006). More studies seek to evaluate the assent of the consumers to pay for products guaranteed without residues of pesticides. However these potentially important roles of the agro-supply, the agricultural products transformers and the consumers on the use of pesticides remain still little studied in the economic literature (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).

3.3.1.4.2.23.3.1.4.2.23.3.1.4.2.23.3.1.4.2.2 Non economic reasonsNon economic reasonsNon economic reasonsNon economic reasons

� « Philosophy » and values« Philosophy » and values« Philosophy » and values« Philosophy » and values

It was shown that some farmers adopt more respectful techniques of the environment although they are less profitable. These particular choices are linked to those of the consumers who buy "ecological" products, more expensive than the standard products. However, very few farmers are ready to sacrifice a part of their income to adopt practices in conformity with their values or their sensitivity (INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005).


� Sociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factors Sociocultural factors can also explain the difficulties in adoption of alternative production systems (OECD, 2003; Maraite et al., 2004; INRA & CEMAGREF, 2005):

- difficulty in accepting a certain redefinition of the farmer job (gardener of the nature) and, thus, in accepting a new professional identity resting on the acquisition of new competences;

- tradition: farmers’ reluctance to change from “tried and true” chemicals and practices;

- fidelity to the individual values and to a liberal conception of the farmer job which involves a rejection of the attempts at organization, controls, regulation of their activity by third persons;

- worship of the "clean field" (without weeds nor diseases) and of the yield in order to impress the other farmers and to give proof of serious and competences;

- isolation, which is a brake on conversion to practices where the mutualisation of information, even of the risk taking, is an important factor;

- rejection of the ideology which sometimes accompanies promotion of new practices or new systems ("ecologist" or "environmentalist" ideas, considered as illegitimate in the socio-technique world of the farmer).

� Lack of information concerning these alternative methodsLack of information concerning these alternative methodsLack of information concerning these alternative methodsLack of information concerning these alternative methods

From the survey, it can be concluded that there is a lack of information about some of these alternative methods (Marot et al., 2003).

3.3.1.4.33.3.1.4.33.3.1.4.33.3.1.4.3 NNNNONONONON----COMPLYING AND WRONG COMPLYING AND WRONG COMPLYING AND WRONG COMPLYING AND WRONG PRACTICESPRACTICESPRACTICESPRACTICES

1.4.4.3.1.1.4.4.3.1.1.4.4.3.1.1.4.4.3.1. EEEECONOMIC REASONSCONOMIC REASONSCONOMIC REASONSCONOMIC REASONS

Economic priorities are often the cause of non-compliance, leading farmers to (OECD, 2003):

- use pesticides in ways or on crops for which they are not authorized if they cost less than pesticides that are authorized for the crops or if farmers in neighbouring countries are allowed to use them;

- use unauthorized products or too many applications of authorized products if there seems to be no other way to save the crop or secure the yield;

- try to avoid the expense of protective equipment, proper cleaning and evacuation of pesticide residues in spray equipment, and proper storage of pesticide products.

Indeed, the surveyed farmers recognized that they not always follow the rules principally because of economic reasons (Marot et al., 2003).

1.4.4.3.2.1.4.4.3.2.1.4.4.3.2.1.4.4.3.2. NNNNON ECONOMIC REASONSON ECONOMIC REASONSON ECONOMIC REASONSON ECONOMIC REASONS

� Sociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factorsSociocultural factors The farmers tend to have reluctance to change from “tried and true” chemicals and practices. Moreover, as familiarity breeds contempt, the long-time experience with farm chemicals can leads to ignoring hazard warnings (OECD, 2003). Indeed, most (34%) of the surveyed fields crops farmers who do not use any protective accessories say it is a habit (Maraite et al., 2004).

� LabelsLabelsLabelsLabels The increasing complexity of risk assessment leads to a corresponding increase in the quantity of information put on pesticide labels, including both hazard/risk warnings and


complex use restrictions that may be unclear to users. Now, some labels seem to be written for enforcement purposes or to record all results of complex risk assessments, rather than for helping the user. However, most of the surveyed farmers said that they read the pesticide notices (82%) and that the security indications on the labels are well written and easy to understand (88%). But some farmers said that they have difficulty reading the information anyway. For some farmers thus, there could be a “label fatigue”, especially when seeing a new and different (and sometimes overly complicated) label on an old and familiar chemical (OECD, 2003; Maraite et al., 2004).

� Lack of timeLack of timeLack of timeLack of time Lack of time is often cited by the farmers as a reason of non-application of the good phytosanitairy practices such as good cleaning and evacuation of the tank bottom residue, wearing of protective equipment... Indeed, for instance, 17% of the farmers who do not use any protective accessories say it is due to a lack of time (Maraite et al., 2004). Concerning the decision support systems, according to some farmers, the usefulness of these systems is restricted because the time to carry out the treatment is too short (Maraite et al., 2004).

� DiscomfortDiscomfortDiscomfortDiscomfort Some of the farmers who do not use any protective accessories say it is due to the discomfort of this equipment and to the practical difficulty of changing clothes before and after the treatment (Marot et al., 2003; OECD, 2003).

� Failing in the enforcement systemFailing in the enforcement systemFailing in the enforcement systemFailing in the enforcement system Weak enforcement can contribute importantly to non-compliance. However, controlling the use of pesticides is a difficult and resource-demanding task. There is a general failure to create a clear, strong, universally accepted motivation to comply (OECD, 2003).

� Failing in comFailing in comFailing in comFailing in communication, education and trainingmunication, education and trainingmunication, education and trainingmunication, education and training Insufficient communication, education and training contribute importantly to non-compliance, as some farmers do not receive (OECD, 2003; Maraite et al., 2004):

- the information, education and on-going training they need to appreciate the hazards of pesticides (for example, it is important to note that 12% of the surveyed fields crops farmers say it is not necessary to use protective accessories), to understand the laws, and to keep abreast of changes in pesticide authorisations and restrictions, in agricultural practice, and in pesticide application technology;

- sufficient advance notice of upcoming changes; - sufficient explanation for the conflicting risk evaluations and pesticide approvals

made by different countries. Different surveys have been conducted among field crop, fruit and vegetable producers. The purpose of these surveys was to gain insight into the knowledge, the attitudes and the practices of Belgian farmers with respect to pesticide use. In the following section, some important results of the survey into the field crop farmers’, fruit growers’ and vegetable growers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pesticide use, made within the framework of the project ‘Development of awareness tools for the sustainable use of pesticides’ and conducted by the University of Ghent (UGent), the


University of Louvain-la-Neuve (UCL) and the Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), are briefly discussed (Maraite et al., 2004; Claeys et al., 2004). The field crop survey results are based on the study of a hundred farmers belonging to the category ‘field crops’ or ‘mixed farming’. These farming types account for more than 80% of the pesticides applied in the Belgian agriculture. The survey showed that, regardless of the crops grown, the farmers regularly consult two main information sources: the company sales representative (90% of the farmers consult him more than once a season) and the decision support system (considered as an information source and not as a tool for reducing pesticide applications). The farmers differentiate between their personal and personnel’s health (operator and farm worker) and the other people’s health (consumers and bystanders). The farmers are aware that the operators and farm workers are exposed to a higher risk than bystanders and consumers are. The same survey was also carried out among fruit and vegetable growers. It was decided to conduct the survey based on the percentage of the total surface for fruit or vegetable culture in each province. Between January and December 2003, surveys were passed around on several meetings of the growers. This resulted in 100 surveys for fruit culture and 114 surveys for the vegetable culture. It can be concluded that fruit and vegetable growers are quite well informed about the use of pesticides and their possible environmental impacts. However, the environmental impact is not the most important factor in the decision process regarding pesticide use. The economical advantages and their personal health are the farmers’ main concerns. Further information, on environmental and human impacts related to pesticide use, is still necessary. Therefore, the growers’ main information suppliers (e.g. auctions, personal advisers) must be involved in this informing process.

3.4 Biocides exposure at the Belgian level 3.4.13.4.13.4.13.4.1 Selection of relevant active substancesSelection of relevant active substancesSelection of relevant active substancesSelection of relevant active substances To adequately assess the risks which are represented by the use of PT18 biocides, complete and reliable data are needed on the use of the PT18 products and the effects of these products. The Federal Services for the Environment (FSE) manage the authorization of biocides in Belgium. The FSE evaluates the request for commercialisation of a biocidal product. After consultation of the Higher Health Council, the Federal Minister for the Environment decides whether or not the product can be commercialized. A list of authorized biocides, which is actualised bimonthly, can be retrieved from the website of the FSE (https://portal.health.fgov.be/portal/page?_pageid=56,512605&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&_menu=menu_5_2). Once a year, the permit holders report sales data of their products to the FSE, expressed as volume of active substance sold. These data are indicative for the use of PT18 products. Furthermore, the effects of PT18 products are provoked by the active substances and the additives (e.g. solvents) of the product. It can thus be concluded that the determination of special problems and uncertainties within the Belgian context of biocide use will initially focus on active substances rather than products.


From the list of authorized biocides valid from the period 22/11/2005 until 16/01/2006, 39 different active substances were identified for PT18 biocides (see Annex 2.8). However, within the given timeframe it is not possible to assess all of these PT18 active substances with regard to special problems and uncertainties. A pragmatic selection of active substances, which are most relevant for Belgium, is needed. It was decided to rely on the expert judgement of the Steering Committee to identify the active substances that are most relevant for Belgium. The Steering Committee was asked to indicate 5 to 10 active substances from the list, given in annex 2.8. This resulted in a selection of 11 active substances, which are presented in table 2-38. Consequently, for the partim biocides this report will focus solely on these active substances.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----38: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT1838: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT1838: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT1838: Selection of most relevant active substances of PT18

2(1-methylethoxyphynyl)N-methylcarbamate or Propoxur Deltamethrin Allethrin Dichlorvos

Methyl bromide Permethrin

Chlorpyrifos Piperonyl butoxide

Cypermethrin Pyrethrins

Tetrachlorvinphos

A brief description of each of the active substances, listed in table 2-38, is given hereafter. Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Allethrin (Kamrin, 2000) Allethrin is a nonsystemic insecticide that is used almost exclusively in homes and gardens for control of flies and mosquitoes, and in combination with other pesticides to control flying or crawling insects. Another structural form, the d-trans-isomer of allethrin, is more toxic to insects and is used to control crawling insects in homes and restaurants. It is often used to control parasites living within animal systems. It is available as mosquito coils, mats, oil formulations, and as an aerosol spray. Allethrin is a pyrethroid, a synthetic compound that duplicates the activity of the pyrethrin plant. It has stomach and respiratory action and paralyses insects before killing them. Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000)Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000)Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000)Chlorpyrifos (Kamrin, 2000) Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide. It is effective in controlling cockroaches, grubs, flea beetles, flies, termites, fire ants, and lice. It is used as an insecticide on lawns and ornamental plants. It is also used directly on sheep and turkeys, for horse site treatment, dog kennels, domestic dwellings, farm buildings, storage bins, and commercial establishments. Chlorpyrifos acts on pests primarily as a contact poison, with some action as a stomach poison. It is available as granules, wettable powder, dustable powder, and emulsifiable concentrate. Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Cypermethrin (Kamrin, 2000) Cypermethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide used for crack, crevice, and spot treatment to control insect pests in stores, warehouses, industrial buildings, houses, apartment buildings, greenhouses, laboratories, and on ships, railcars, buses, trucks, and aircraft. It may also be used in non-food areas in schools, nursing homes, hospitals,


restaurants, and hotels, in food processing plants, and as a barrier treatment insect repellent for horses. Technical cypermethrin is a mixture of eight different isomers, each of which may have its own chemical and biological properties. It is available as an emulsifiable concentrate or wettable powder. DeltamethrinDeltamethrinDeltamethrinDeltamethrin Deltamethrin is a pyrethoid compound used against indoor crawling and flying insects and pests of stored grain and timber. It acts as a non-systemic insecticide with contact and stomach action. Fast-acting (Tomlin, 1994). Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000)Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000)Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000)Dichlorvos (Kamrin, 2000) Dichlorvos is an organophosphate compound used to control household, public health, and stored product insects. Dichlorvos is used to treat a variety of parasitic worm infections in dogs, and humans. It acts against insects as both a contact and a stomach poison. It is used as a fumigant and has been used to make pet collars and pest strips. It is available as an aerosol and soluble concentrate. Methyl bromideMethyl bromideMethyl bromideMethyl bromide Methyl bromide is a soil and space fumigant. As a space fumigant it is listed in Annex III of Regulation (EC) N° 2032/2003, which contains active substances that were not notified nor indicated by the Member States. The placing on the Member States’ market of these active substances – and thus methyl bromide - is prohibited from 01/09/2006 onwards. Methyl bromide is included in the third stage of the review programme of Directive 91/414/EEC and is currently under evaluation. It is foreseen that the conclusions of the peer review will be available from EFSA by the end of 2006. On that basis, the Commission will have to propose a decision on the substance in 6 months time (Pitton, pers. comm.). Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000)Permethrin (Kamrin, 2000) Permethrin is a broad-spectrum synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, used in greenhouses, home gardens, and for termite control. It also controls ectoparasites, biting flies, and cockroaches. It may cause a mite build-up by reducing mite predator populations. Permethrin is the active substance which is most used in insecticides and products to control other arthopods, including products used to treated domestic animals. Permethrin is available in dusts, emulsifiable concentrates, smokes, ultra-low volume (ULV), and wettable powder formulations. Piperonyl butoxidePiperonyl butoxidePiperonyl butoxidePiperonyl butoxide Piperonylbutoxide is used as a synergist for pyrethrins and related insecticides in storehouses of agricultural products (Tomlin, 1994; Verschueren, 1983). Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000)Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000)Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000)Propoxur (Kamrin, 2000) Propoxur is a nonsystemic insecticide. It is used on a variety of pests such as chewing and sucking insects, ants, cockroaches, crickets, flies and mosquitoes in private or public facilities and grounds. It has contact and stomach action that is long-acting when it is in direct contact with the target pest.


Propoxur is available in several types of formulations and products, including emulsifiable concentrates, wettable powders, baits, aerosols, fumigants, granules, and oilsprays. Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994)Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994)Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994)Pyrethrins (Tomlin, 1994) The term pyrethrins is used collectively for the six insecticidal constituents present in extracts of the flowers Pyrethrum cinerariaefolium and other species. They comprise esters of the natural stereoisomers of chrysanthemic acid (pyrethrin I, cinerin I, and jasmolin I), and the corresponding esters of pyrethric acid (pyrethrin II, cinerin II and jasmolin II). The ratio of pyrethrin:cinerin:jasmolin is generally 71:21:7; most commercial extracts contain 20-25% pyrethrins. Pyrethrins are used to control a wide range of insects and mites in public health and on domestic animals. Control of chewing and sucking insects and spider mites on house plants. It acts as a non-systemic insecticide with contact action and has some acaricidal activity. Normally combined with synergists, e.g. piperonyl butoxide, which inhibits detoxification. TetrachlorvinphosTetrachlorvinphosTetrachlorvinphosTetrachlorvinphos Tetrachlorvinphos is a non-systemic insecticide and acaricide with contact and stomach action. It acts as a cholinesterase inhibitor (Tomlin, 1994). Tetrachlorvinphos is listed in Annex III of Regulation (EC) N° 2032/2003, which contains active substances that were not notified nor indicated by the Member States. The placing on the Member States’ market of these active substances – and thus tetrachlorvinphos - is prohibited from 01/09/2006 onwards.

3.4.23.4.23.4.23.4.2 Assessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect dataAssessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect dataAssessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect dataAssessment of uncertainty and completeness of effect data

The Technical Guidance Document in support of the Directive 98/8/EC concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market - Guidance on Data Requirements for Active Substances and Biocidal Products (Anonymous, 2000) makes a distinction between environmental effect data and human health effect data. With regard to environmental effect data, the following exposure routes are being considered: • aquatic environment; • sewage treatment plants; • sediment; • terrestrial environment; • air; • marine environment; • secondary poisoning. As stated in the technical guidance document, the environmental risk characterisation involves the comparison of predicted environmental concentration (PEC) and predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) values for the relevant environmental compartments as well as for non-target organisms (European Commission, 2003). For each of the products involved in this study, the relevant environmental compartments were identified in Annex 2.9, based on the instructions for use of the product. This revealed that products containing allethrin, methyl bromide, propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos are solely used indoors. Consequently, terrestrial effects of these active substances are deemed less relevant in the context of this report. Furthermore, Annex 2.9 shows that products containing the active substances methyl bromide and tetrachlorvinfos solely end up in indoor air when used indoors.


Consequently, the aquatic environment - including STP, marine and sediment – are deemed less relevant in the context of this report. The authorisation of a biocidal product by the FSE requires a thorough dossier on toxicological and ecotoxicological data. An analogous procedure is in place for the placing of plant protection products (PPP) on the Belgian market. All active substances listed in Table are ingredients of PT18 biocides as well as PPP that are currently authorized in Belgium, except for allethrin, methyl bromide, permethrin and tetrachlorvinphos. As such, it can be assumed that the availability of toxicological and ecotoxicological data is sufficient for impact evaluation for those substances that are also authorized as plant protection products. For the active substances allethrin, methyl bromide, permethrin and tetrachlorvinphos a consultation of the most relevant literature databases showed that several data are still lacking.

3.4.33.4.33.4.33.4.3 Uncertainties to identify anUncertainties to identify anUncertainties to identify anUncertainties to identify and quantify exposure routes for biocidesd quantify exposure routes for biocidesd quantify exposure routes for biocidesd quantify exposure routes for biocides The exposure routes largely influence the magnitude of the environmental and health impact of biocidal products. These routes furthermore determine the priority parameters to carry out a risk assessment (e.g. inhalation, dermal, … see further task 3). The determination of the ‘most likely’ exposure routes depends on several criteria. A first step is to determine whether the product is used indoors or outdoors. Subsequently, the formulation type of the product will determine its most likely exposure route(s). The active substances, listed in Table 3-1, occur in 104 products of PT18. An overview of these 104 products is given in annex 2.9. The formulation type, application device and treatment type of each product listed in annex 2.9, were determined from : • the instructions for use, which are available from the minutes of the advice of the

Higher Health Council in the framework of the authorisation procedure. Available electronic formats of these minutes were provided to Ecolas by the FSE (Nijs, pers. comm.; Degloire, pers. comm.);

• and/or from the product label, which was provided by the permit holder or retrieved from the internet.

Several bottlenecks exist to retrieve this information from the FSE and the permit holder: • Data from the FSE : specific information on exposure has to be provided in the

authorisation dossier to allow for a human exposure assessment (Annex 2.10). Information on how to use the product allows for an identification of the application device. However, consultation the of authorisation dossiers is not evident since the dossiers are not available in an electronic format. The applicant submits 3 hard copies of the dossier, an electronical format is not requested and is almost never submitted by the applicant;

• Data from the permit holder : sometimes the application device to be used can be derived from the instructions for use on the label ; some permit holders provide a picture of the product in their (on line) catalogue, which allows for an identification of the application device (e.g. electrical evaporation device). However, this is not always the case.

For several products no information from the authorisation dossier nor a product label was available. For shampoos and products to be poured (on) it was assumed that they are


marketed in synthetic bottles. For powders it was assumed that they are marketed in a canister. The different combinations of formulation types, application device and treatment type of the products listed in Annex 2.9 are listed in table 2-39. ‘Professional use only’ is indicated in bold. bold. bold. bold. The product ‘Tectonik Pour on (4505B)’ is not covered by the formulation types, mentioned in table 2-39, since it occurs in several formulation types which could not be identified.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----33339: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products9: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products9: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products9: Formulation types, together with application device and treatment type, authorized in Belgium for selected products

FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type

aerosol aerosol sprayer Flying insects, in and around the residence

aerosol aerosol sprayer Ectoparasites on domestic animals

aerosol aerosol sprayer Crawling insects, local application in cracks and crevices

aerosol "one shot" aerosol sprayer Flying and crawling insects, no animals or persons present during application

aerosol trigger

bait bait box Cockroaches

cardboard platelet electrical evaporator Mosquitos

collar collar Ectoparasites on cats and dogs

concentrated suspension trigger

concentrated suspension in micro-capsules

spraying device producing coarse droplets

gel spraygun Cockroaches and crickets

pastepastepastepaste spraygunspraygunspraygunspraygun Cockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and cricketsCockroaches and crickets

liquid trigger Crawling insects

liquid electrical evaporator mosquitos

liquid to be dilutedliquid to be dilutedliquid to be dilutedliquid to be diluted pulverisation or thermopulverisation or thermopulverisation or thermopulverisation or thermo----nebulation nebulation nebulation nebulation devicedevicedevicedevice Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry Flying and crawling insects, especially in poultry unitsunitsunitsunits

liquified gas liquified gas liquified gas liquified gas (1)(1)(1)(1) fumigation device fumigation device fumigation device fumigation device (1)(1)(1)(1) Crawling insects Crawling insects Crawling insects Crawling insects (1)(1)(1)(1)


FormulationFormulationFormulationFormulation Application deviceApplication deviceApplication deviceApplication device Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type

plastic platelet plastic platelet Ants in and around the residence

powder sprinkler can Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Ants in and around the residence

powder powder distributor Wasp nests

product for hot or cold product for hot or cold product for hot or cold product for hot or cold evaporationevaporationevaporationevaporation suitable nebulisation devicesuitable nebulisation devicesuitable nebulisation devicesuitable nebulisation device Flying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insectsFlying and crawling insects

ready to use solution synthetic bottle

Ectoparasites on cats and dogs Ants in and around the residence Flying and crawling insects

ready to use solution low pressure spraying device producing coarse droplets

Flying an crawling insects, local application in cracks and crevices

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution brush brush brush brush Lacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insects

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution sprayersprayersprayersprayer Lacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insectsLacquer against crawling insects

ready tready tready tready to use solutiono use solutiono use solutiono use solution triggertriggertriggertrigger Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on Flying and crawling insects, local application directly on walls and objectswalls and objectswalls and objectswalls and objects

ready to use solution trigger Ectoparasites at sleep and resting places of animals

ready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solutionready to use solution misting or surface sprayingmisting or surface sprayingmisting or surface sprayingmisting or surface spraying Flying and crawling Flying and crawling Flying and crawling Flying and crawling insectsinsectsinsectsinsects

ready to use stick stick Ants in and around the residence

tablet electrical evaporator mosquitos (1) solely products containing methyl bromide

HealthHealthHealthHealth and environmental effect and environmental effect and environmental effect and environmental effects of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)s of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)s of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI)s of pesticides and type 18 biocides (HEEPEBI) 90

A consideration of the formulation types listed in Figure 3-2 resulted in a stepwise procedure to identify the most likely exposure routes of the relevant PT18 products. This procedure is depicted in figure 2-34.

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2----34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes34: Stepwise procedure to identify most likely exposure routes

Sprays, gases and formulations where the active substances are released through evaporation will result in the presence of active substances in the air, from which men and non-target animals can be exposed through inhalation and/or dermal contact. All other formulations also enable oral exposure of man and non-target animals if they are not sealed from the environment. When used indoors, the active substances can end up in domestic wastewater either through cleaning activities or through rinsing of pets after application of e.g. insecticidal shampoos. As such, the active substances end up in the sewage system which either directly or indirectly enters the surface water. Formulations which are used outdoors and which do not end up in the air may be sealed from their environment, as is the case for bait boxes. For those formulations, no exposure to man or non-target animals is to be expected. If such protective casing is not present, the active substances can be dispersed in the soil and can leach to the groundwater. Such formulations additionaly enable oral exposure of man and non-target animals.


The indoor/outdoor use and the most likely exposure routes of each product listed in Annex 2.9, were determined from: • the instructions for use, which are available from the minutes of the advice of the

Higher Health Council in the framework of the authorisation procedure. Available electronic formats of these minutes were provided to Ecolas by the FSE (Nijs, pers. comm.; Degloire, pers. comm.);

• and/or from the product label, which was provided by the permit holder or retrieved from the internet.

However, for several products no information from the authorisation dossier nor a product label was available. For these products, the most likely exposure routes were determined by expert judgement. The most likely exposure routes for each product listed in Annex 2.9 are also given in that annex. From Annex 2.9 it is clear that for the products Chlorpyrifos gel, Empire 2000 and Insectivor vrac, ‘professional use only’ was suggested by the permit holder. However, these products were not classified as such by the FSE. Once a year, the permit holders report sales data of their products to the FSE, expressed as volume of active substance(s) sold. From Figure it is clear that these data do not allow for an identification of exposure routes. Data are needed on a product level, specifying the formulation type. It can be concluded that there is a need for a review of the reporting format with regard to sales figures of biocides in general. The following issues should be borne in mind: • data reporting on a product level is needed. However, this brings about the issue of

confidentiality. A product-level reporting system is already in place for plant protection products (PPP). Experiences with/lessons learned from this reporting system should be exchanged between the competent authorities;

• the data format for the reporting of sales figures should include information on the formulation type and volume of the (active) substances. This information is needed to quantify the impact of the product (see further task 3).

Furthermore, knowledge of ‘volumes of active substances sold’ does not allow for an identification of the products that are on the market. Inquiries with the permit holders revealed that several products from the list of authorized biocides used in this study, are no longer on the market (see Annex 2.9). It concerns Agrichem Deltamethrin SC (4399B), Chlorpyrifos paste (1700B), Mafu electrical evaporation device against mosquitos (4399B), Pedigree Care flea collar (3605B), Scalibor shampoo (1400B) and Whiskas Care flea collar (3705B). It can be concluded that reporting on a product level is essential to get an up to date insight on the human exposure potential. Once the exposure routes are identified, quantification of each of these routes is needed in order to enable a risk assessment of the product (see also futher Task 3). The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) has launched an initiative to establish environmental emission scenario documents for biocides (EUBEES), which are to be used as a basis for risk assessment. The available documents can be found on the ECB website (http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/). The documents related to PT18 biocides are discussed hereafter.


van der Poel and Bakker (2001) developed environmental emission scenarios for all 23 product types of the Biocidal Products Directive (EU Directive 98/8/EC). With regard to PT18 biocides, they proposed a scenario for insecticides used in empty spaces and spaces with stocks. They assume that fumigation will be applied. When fugimantia/aerosols are used outdoors, the objects to be treated will be covered. As such, the application can be regarded in the same way as fumigants/aerosols used indoors. According to the authors, this on its turn can be regarded in the same way as fumigants/aerosols used within fumigation installations. The proposed emission scenario is the one that is used in USES 3.0 (RIVM, VROM, VWS, 1999 cited by van der Poel and Bakker, 2001) and which is described by Luttik et al. (1995):

Elocal = emission

disinret*subst

T

)F(1*)F(1Q −−

Where: • Elocal: local emission to air during episode of fogging of buildings, silos, etc. (kg.d-1) • Qsubst: amount used (kg) • Fret: fraction of retention in goods, being 0,02 (expert estimation) • Fdisin: fraction of disintegration, being 0,001 (expert estimation) • Temission: number of emission days for fogging, being 1 day (default value) Although fumigation of stocks and spaces is an indoor application, it is relevant for the environment since the fumigant can enter the air after degassing the space. The bulk of the fumigations of stocks and spaces are carried out using methyl bromide. However, Regulation (EC)N°2037/2000 severely restricts the use of methyl bromide for fumigation, since it is an ozone depleting substance. Furthermore, Regulation (EC)N°2032/2003 prohibits the marketing of methyl bromide for biocidal applications from 01/09/2006 onwards. The FSE launched several initiatives to anticipate this situation. A study on alternatives to methyl bromide used in mills and quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) was carried out (Callebaut & Vanhaecke, 2005) and a stakeholder workshop was organised to identify further policy options. Regional and federal government authorities attended a demonstration of a heat treatment technique in a Dutch mill and an Eco2QPS Treatment® at the Port of Rotterdam. Research is ongoing towards a low-emission fumigation method for QPS applications (RAZEM® ), where methyl bromide can be recaptured and properly eliminated (Ruelle, pers. comm.). Baumann et al. (2000) gathered and reviewed environmental emission scenarios for biocides, in the framework of the EUBEES project. For the PT18 biocides they also refer to Luttik et al. (1995). It can be concluded that although environmental emission scenario documents exist for several biocidal product types, the available information for PT18 biocides is rather scarce. However, from the use pattern of PT18 substances it is clear that these products are merely used indoors. Consequently it can be concluded that the need for a further elaboration of environmental emission scenarios for PT18 biocides is less relevant than the need for an elaboration of accurate human exposure scenarios. Furthermore, it should be noticed that the development of environmental emission scenarios is on the European agenda. In April 2005, the European Chemicals Bureau (Joint Research Center – Ispra) launched a call for proposals on the ‘Development of environmental emission scenarios for active substances used in biocidal products’. However, the project was not assigned to anyone. In January


2006, the European Commission (DG ENV) assigned a related study to AEA – Technology (U.K.). The scope of this study is three-fold: • to establish an overview document of available emission scenarios prepared by

Member States and industry for the following product types: - PT2: industrial areas, air-conditioning, chemical toilets, and hospital waste ; - PT3: veterinary hygiene biocidal products ; - PT4: food and feed area ;

• to prepare draft ESDs for the products and uses concerned; • to provide a framework for discussion and agreement on new emission scenarios

developed by Member States and industry. Callebaut et al. (2004) reviewed existing indicators which evaluate exposure, effect or both aspects and this in the framework of selecting an indicator which evaluates the risk of biocides for the environment and for human health. A feasibility analysis put forward the Swedish Risk Indicator for the Environment and for Human Health as an impact indicator for biocides. The environmental as well as human health exposure is quantified by means of the quantity of the product sold, expressed as tonnes/year. Since this Swedish indicator was originally developed for PPP, it is not fully apt to calculate the impact of biocidal products. Subsequently a working group ‘Indicators’, chaired by professor Goeyens, was set up in the framework of the PRP in order to gather all existing information on indicators and to establish an impact indicator for biocides. The impact indicator proposed by Callebaut et al. (2004) was modified, taking into account specific biocidal characteristics such as indoor/outdoor use, formulation type, …. However, this work is still ongoing (Nijs, pers. comm.). The European Chemicals Bureau issued Technical Notes for Guidance (TnG) on human exposure to biocides (http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/). This report was funded by the European Commission, DG-Environment. It builds upon the concepts developed in the 1998 report of the Biocides Steering Group on human exposure assessment. The section on PT18 biocides is discussed hereafter. The types of treatment that are distinguished by the TnG are given in 2-40.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)40: Treatment types according to TnG (Anonymous, 2002)

Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type ProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionals NonNonNonNon----professionalsprofessionalsprofessionalsprofessionals

Space treatment – to knock down flying insects X X

Nest and harbourage (crack and crevice) treatments

X X

Broadcast treatment – to cover a horizontal surface

X

Blanket treatment – to cover a horizontal and/or vertical surface

X

Band treatment – to cover insect access routes along floor-wall junctions etc.

X X(1)


Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type ProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionalsProfessionals NonNonNonNon----professionalsprofessionalsprofessionalsprofessionals

Injection – to treat sub-soil to protect foundations from termites

X

Fumigation – to treat stacked commodities or feight containers

X

(1) spot and band treatment The frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals per treatment method are given in table 2-41. Daily use is anticipated.

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of professionals (Anonymous, 2002)

Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type Frequency, duration and/or quantityFrequency, duration and/or quantityFrequency, duration and/or quantityFrequency, duration and/or quantity

Unspecific task 40 minutes duration, range 3 to 150 minutes Blanket spraying (biting insects) 32 minutes duration, range 3 to 105 minutes

Band spraying and dusting (crawling insects)

48 minutes duration, range 10 to 120 minutes

Wasp nest eradication 3 minutes Aerosol space spraying 6 second discharge per location, 1 g per second

emitted Stack fumigation and pyrotechnic treatments

2 hours (user remote from point of use)

Termite treatments (surface spray, sub-soil injection at 6 bar)

4 hours, range 1 to 11.5 hours

Waste-tip treatment 40 minutes Controlled droplet applicators (CDA) and fogging

40 minutes

Lacquer application 20 minutes Bait caulking 10 minutes, in place for 2 weeks Soil injection 4 hours, range 1 to 11.5 hours Professional operators wear disposable and non-disposable protective gloves, as well as a work uniform and coveralls. Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) is nearly always available if needed. Washing facilities are often found on pest controllers’ vans (Anonymous, 2002). Secondary exposure from professional application of PT18 biocides may occur: • adults, children: inhalation, skin contact immediate after application (acute); • adults, infants: inhalation, ingestion post application (chronic); • fumigation: bystanders. The frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non-professionals per treatment method are given in table 2-42. Different information sources are mentioned.


Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2----41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non41: Frequency, duration and quantity of exposure of non----professionals (Anonymous, 2002)professionals (Anonymous, 2002)professionals (Anonymous, 2002)professionals (Anonymous, 2002)

Treatment typeTreatment typeTreatment typeTreatment type FFFFrequency, duration and/or quantityrequency, duration and/or quantityrequency, duration and/or quantityrequency, duration and/or quantity

HSL (1997HSL (1997HSL (1997HSL (1997----2001)2001)2001)2001)

Air-space aerosol spray indoors 4 uses daily, 6 sec discharge, 90 sec exposure per event

Air-space trigger spray indoors 4 uses daily, 6 sec discharge, 90 sec exposure per event

Pumped sprayer indoors 4 uses daily, 6 sec discharge, 90 sec exposure per event

Surface aerosol spray indoors 1 use per week, 7 min

Surface trigger spray indoors 1 use per week, 7 min

Surface dusting crack and crevice 1 use per week, 7 min

Surface dusting broadcast 1 per month, 7 min; 11 min vacuuming up

Plug-in vaporisers and smoke coils 1 per day, 2 to 8 hours

Vapour strips, mats, mothballs Continuous

ECETOCECETOCECETOCECETOC

Spot treatment Total exposure 5 min, released at 100 cm height(1) Air space treatment Total exposure 1 min, released at 180 cm height(1) Crack and crevice treatment Total exposure 10 min, released at 25 cm height(1)

General band/blanket treatment Total exposure 10 min, released at 75 cm height(1) CONSEXPO

Aerosol sprays 1 min discharge Trigger sprays 5 min discharge for spot uses, 10 min discharge for

blanket uses, 10 min discharge for surface dusting cracks and crevices

INDUSTRY DATAINDUSTRY DATAINDUSTRY DATAINDUSTRY DATA

Aerosol can applications 2 min continuous spraying Vaporising devices Evaporation rate 2 to 6 mg/hour (1) treatment persisting for 2 weeks Users may wear gloves, though this should not be assumed (Anonymous, 2002). Secondary exposure from non-professional application of PT18 biocides may occur: • adults and children: exposure during and immediate post application – inhalation

(acute); • adults, children and infants: inhaling vapour from vaporisers – inhalation (acute); • adults, children and infants: contact with treated bed-nets – dermal (chronic) ; • infants: skin contact and ingestion of residues – dermal, ingested (chronic). Next to the Technical Notes for Guidance (TnG) on human exposure to biocides (http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides), several documents on this issue are in preparation (Steurbaut, pers. comm.) It can be concluded that guidance with regard to the quantification of human exposure to biocides is not straightforward. Specific bottlenecks will be revealed in task 3, where the quantification of the biocidal impact will be elaborated.


4444 RRRREFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCES

APVMA (2005). Operating principles and proposed registration requirements in relation to spray drift risk, Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority

ARS (2006). Research Project: development of pesticide application technologies for spray-drift management and targeted spraying, Agricultural Research Service, United States Departement of Agriculture.

BALARAJAN, R. & ACHESON, E.D. (1984). Soft tissue sarcomas in agriculture and forestry workers. Journal of Epidemiology and Municipality Health, 38: 113-116.

Balsari, P. and P. Marucco (2004). Sprayer Adjustment and Vine Canopy Parameters Affecting Spray Drift: The Italian Experience. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, DEIAFA – University of Turin,.

Banasiak, U. (2005). Processing factors for pesticide residues in food and feed. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Berlin, Germany. Paper presented at the 4th Fresenius Conference « Food Safety and Dietary Risk Assessment. December 2005, Mainz (Germany).

Barriuso, E., R. Calvet, et al. (1996). Les pesticides et les polluants organiques des sols: transformations et dissipation. Forum "Le sol, un patrimoine menacé?" Paris.

BARTHEL, E. (1981). Increased risk of lung cancer in pesticide-exposed male agricultural workers. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 8: 1027-1040.

Bedos, C., P. Cellier, et al. (2002a). "Occurrence of pesticides in the atmosphere in France." Agronomie 22: 35-49.

Bedos, C., P. Cellier, et al. (2002b). "Mass transfer of pesticides into the atmosphere by volatilization from soils and plants: overview." Agronomie 22: 21-33.

Belgaqua and Phytofar (2002). Livre Vert, Belgaqua - Phytofar: 38.

Benoît, M., B. Bonicelli, et al. (2005). Expertise scientifique collective "Pesticides, agriculture et environnement": Chapitre 2: Connaissance de l'utilisation des pesticides, INRA and CEMAGREF.

BES (2002). Pesticide Spray Drift, Bullseye Environmental Services.

BLATTER, B.M., ROELEVELD, N., ZIETHUIS, G.A., MULLAART, R.A., GABREELS, F.J. (1996). Spina bifida and parental occupation. Epidemiology, 7: 188-193.

BONDE, J.P., COMHAIRE, F., OMBELET, W. (1998). Environmental influences on speramtogenesis and sperm quality. In Andrology in the nineties, Middle East Fertility Society Journal 3, Suppl. 1.

BROWN, A.S. & SUSSER, E.S. (1997). Sex differences in rpevalence of congenital neural defects after periconceptional famine exposure. Epidemiology, 8: 55-58.

BROWNSON, R.C., ALAVANJA, M.C., CHANG, J.C. (1993). Occupational risk for lung cancer among smoking women: a case-control study in Missouri (United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 4: 138-151.

Calabrese E.J. (2004). Hormesis: a revolution in toxicology, risk assessment and medicine. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 5 (Special issue), 37-40


Callebaut, K., Nysten, K. and Vanheacke, P. (2004). Study on the impact of biocides. Final report of a study assigned by the Directorate-General Environment. 03/08018/PV.

CANTOR, K.P. & SILBERMAN, W. (1999). Mortality among aerial applicators and flight instructors: follow-up from 1965-1988. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36: 239-247.

Carter (2000). "Herbicide movement in soils: principles, pathways and processes." Weed Research 40(1): 113-122.

CLAEYS, S., STEURBAUT, W., MAROT, J., GODFRIAUX, J., MARAITE, H. (2004). Land- en tuinbouwers versus bestrijdingsmiddelen : kennis, houding en gedrag. Resultaten van een enquête in fruit-, groente- en akkerteelt (2002-2003). 67p.

Claeys, S., W. Steurbaut, et al. (2005). MIRA : Milieu- en natuurrapport Vlaanderen, Achtergronddocument 2005, Verspreiding van bestrijdingsmiddelen, Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij.

Colignon, P., E. Haubruge, et al. (2003). "Effets de la réduction de doses de formulations d'insecticides et de fongicides sur l'insecte auxiliaire non ciblé Episyrphus balteatus (Diptera: Syrphidae)." Phytoprotection 84: 141-148.

Colignon, P., P. Hastir, et al. (2001). "Effects of insecticide treatmenst on insect density and diversity in vegetable open fields." Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent 66(2a): 403-411.

CRP (2004). Guide de bonne pratique phytosanitaire - Partie générale - 2004, Comité régional PHYTO, Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Direction du Développement et de la Vulgarisation.

CSIRO (2002). Primary industries standing commitee spray drift management - Principles, strategies and supporting information - PIS (SCARM) Report 82, CSIRO PUBLISHING.

Debongnie, P., S. Beernaerts, et al. (2003). "Groundwaters contaminations by pesticides in the Walloon Region."

Degloire (pers. comm.). Mieke Degloire - Expert ecotoxicology. FOD Volksgezondheid, veiligheid van de voedselketen en leefmilieu, Directoraat generaal Leefmilieu - dienst Risicobeheersing. tel.: +32(0)2/524.95.81; [email protected].

DEJONCKHEERE, W. & STEURBAUT, W. (1996). Pesticiden: Gebruik en milieurisico’s. Monografie Stichting Leefmilieu, Uitgeverij Pelckmans, Kapellen.

Delloye, F. (2005). Présentation : Les pesticides dans les eaux souterraines. Le point des observations en Wallonie, DGRNE.

Delloye, F. (2005a). "L'atrazine dans les eaux potabilisables." Etats des nappes d'eau souterrainne de la Wallonie, from http://environnement.wallonie.be/de/eso/atlas/#3.2a.

Delloye, F. (2005b). "Les pesticides dans les eaux potabilisables." Etat des nappes d'eau souterraine de la Wallonie, from http://environnement.wallonie.be/de/eso/atlas/#3.2b.

Delloye, F. (2005c). Communication personnelle.

Dembélé, K., E. Haubruge, et al. (2000). "Concentration effects of selected insecticides on brain acetylcholinesterase in the common carp (Cyprinus caprio L.)." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 45: 49-54.

DGRNE. (2005). "Tableau de bord de l'environnement walllon 2005." from http://mrw.wallonie.be/dgrne/eew/download.asp.


DGRNE-Division-eau (2005). Question importante: les pollutions par les phytopharmaceutiques - Constat de l'état des lieux.

DOLK, H., VRIJHEID, M., ARMSTRONG, B., ABRAMSKY, L., BIANCHI, F., GARNE, E., NELEN, V., ROBERT, E., SCOTT, J.E.S., STONE, D., TENCONI, R. (1998). Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet, 352352352352: 423-427.

Duyzer, J. (2003). "Pesticide concentrations in air and precipitation in the Netherlands " J. Environ. Monit. Aug;5(4): 77-80.

el Fantroussi, S., L. Verschuere, et al. (1999). "Effect of Phenylurea Herbicides on Soil Microbial Communities Estimated by Analysis of 16S rRNA Gene Fingerprints and Community-Level Physiological Profiles." Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65(3): 982-988.

EPA (1999). Spray Drift of Pesticides, Environmental Protection Agency, USA Government.

EU (2003). Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Commission staff working document. Commission of the European Communities. 75p.

EU (2004). Commission européenne. Rapport général sur les résultats d’une série de missions effectuées dans l’ensemble des Etats membres de 1998 à 2003 dans le domaine des systèmes de contrôle de la mise sur le marché des produits phytopharmaceutiques et des résidus présents dans les denrées alimentaires d’origine végétale. Direction générale santé et protection des consommateurs. DG(SANCO)/9507/2003. 28 p.

FASFC. (2003). Pesticide residue monitoring in Fruits, Vegetables and Cereals in Belgium. Report concerning Directives 90/642/EEC, 86/362/EEC and commission recommendation 2002/663/EG. Federal Agency for the Security of the Food Chain.

FASFC. (2004). Pesticide residue monitoring in food of plant origin. Report of monitoring results concerning Directives 90/642/EEC, 76/895/EEC and commission recommendation 2004/74/EC. Federal Agency for the Security of the Food Chain.

FASFC. (2005a). Plusieurs parcelles de carottes présentent des teneurs trop élevées en un pesticide. Communiqué de presse du: 14-10-2005

FASFC. (2005b). L'Agence alimentaire poursuit son enquête sur les carottes traitées. Communiqué de presse du: 20-10-2005

FAUSTINI, A., FORASTIERE, F., DI BETTA, L., MAGLIOLA, E.M., PERCUCCI, C.A. (1993). A cohort study of mortality among farmers and agricultural workers. Med. Lav., 84: 31-41.

Felsot, A. S. (2005). Evaluation and mitigation of spray drift. Proc. International Workshop on Crop Protection Chemistry in Latin America; Harmonized Approaches for Environmental Assessment and Regulation, San Jose, Costa Rica.

FIGATALAMANCA, I., MEARELLI, I., VALENTE, P., BASCHERINI, S. (1993). Cancer mortality in a cohort of rural licensed pesticide users in the province of Rome. International Journal of Epidemiology, 22: 579-583.

FLEMING, L., BEAN, J.A., RUDOLPH, M., HAMILTON, K. (1999). Cancer incidence in a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators in Florida. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 41: 279-288.

Ganzelmeier, H., D. Rautmann, et al. (1995). "Studies on the spray drift of plant protection products. Results of a test programme carried out through the Federal Republic of


Germany." Mitteilungen aus de Biologischen Bundesansalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Berlin-Dahlem 305.

GENOOTSCHAP PLANTENPRODUCTIE EN ECOSFEER WERKGROEP PLANTENBESCHERMING (1999). Neveneffecten van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen op mens en milieu in perspectief geplaatst. Coda, Tervuren.

Goemans, G. and C. Belpaire (2004). The eel pollutant monitoring network in Flanders, Belgium. Results of 10 years monitoring. Organohalogen compounds - Biotic: levels, trends,effects, Institute for Forestry and Game Management, Hoeilaart. 66.

Goemans, G., Belpaire, C., Raemaeckers, M., Guns, M. (2003). Het Vlaamse palingpolluentenmeetnet, 1994-2001 : gehalten aan polychloorbifenylen, organochloorpesticiden en zware metalen in paling. Wetenschappelijke Instelling van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Ontwerprapport. IBW.Wb.V.R.2003.99. 56p. + bijlagen

GREENWALD, P., KOVASZNAY, B., COLLINS, D.N. (1984). Sarcomas of soft tissue after military service. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73: 1107-1109.

Guillaume, P. (2005). Problématique 'Pesticides' - Espaces publics. Contamination des eaux par les pesticides : état de la situation. Eau secours, Aquawal.

Hamilton, D., Ambrus, A., Dieterle, R., Felsot, A., Harris, C., Petersen, B., Racke, K., Wong, S.-S., Gonzalez, R., Tanaka, K., Earl, M., Roberts, G., Bhula, R. (2004). Pesticide residues in food—acute dietary exposure. Pest Manag Sci 60:311–339

HARDELL, L. & SANDSTROM, A. (1979). Case-control study – soft-tissue sarcomas and exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and chlorophenols. British Journal of Cancer; 39: 711-717.

Harris C.A., Mascall J.R., Warren S.F.P., Crossley S.J. (2000). Summary report of the international conference on pesticide residues variability and acute dietary ris assessment. Food Addit. Contam. 17:481-486

Haubruge, E., J. Thomé, et al. (2004). "Projet de subvention: Evaluation des facteurs de risque liés au dépérissement des abeilles en Wallonie et leur implication sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles."

HAYES, H.M., TARONE, R.M., CASEY, H.W., HUXSOLL, D.L. (1990). Excess of seminomas observed in Vietnam service U.S. military working dogs. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 82: 1042-1046.

HOAR, S.K., BLAIR, A., HOLMES, F.F., BOYSEN, C.D., HOOVER, R., HOOVER, R., FRAUMENI, J.F. (1986). Agricultural herbicide use and risk of lymphoma and soft-tissue sarcoma. JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association, 256: 1141-1147.

Holvoet, K., K. Hamonts, et al. (2004). Poster : Partitioning and Dynamics of Pesticides in Surface Waters, Biomath - VIT.

INRA and CEMAGREF (2005). Pesticides, agriculture et environnement: Réduire l'utilisation des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnementaux - Expertise scientifique collective, Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche, Ministère de l'écologie et du développement durable.

INS (2003). "Recensement agricole belge."

ITV, ARVALIS, et al. (2005). "Amélioration de l'application des produits phytopharmaceutiques au niveau environnement: étude des facteurs permettant de limiter la dérive." Appel à projet ADAR.


Jaeken, P., F. Vercruysse, et al. "Target detection technology in orchard spraying: drift and overall pesticide reduction potential." Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent 64/3b: 803-812.

Jansen, J., N. Viatour, et al. "Listes de sélectivité des produits de protection des plantes à l’égard des arthropodes utiles en culture de pommes de terre."

Jansen, J.-P. (2005). "Plant Protection Products that are safe for useful arthropods." CRA-W News 6: 4.

JANSSENS, J., VAN HECKE, E., BRUCKERS, L. (2002). Crop protection products, birth defects & (childhood) cancer. A research project of the Province of Limburg and the Limburgs Universitair Centrum. Diepenbeek, Belgium, 127p.

Johnsen, K., C. Jacobsen, et al. (2001). "Pesticide effects on bacterial diversity in agricultural soils - a review." Biology and Fertility of Soils 33(6): 443-453.

JOHNSON, F.E., KUGLER, M.A., BROWN, S.M. (1981). Soft tissue sarcomas and chlorinated phenols (letter). Lancet, 2: 40.

Kamrin, M.A. (2000). Pesticide Profiles. Toxicity, Environmental Impact, and Fate. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton – New York. ISBN 0-8493-2179-4.

KANG, H.K., WEATHERBEE, L., BRESLIN, P.P., LEE, Y., SHEPARD, B.M. (1986). Soft tissue sarcomas and military service in Vietnam: a case comparison group analysis of hospital patients. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 28: 1215-1218.

KOGEVINAS, M., KAUPPINEN, T., WINKELMANN, T., BECHER, H., BERTAZZI, P.H., BEUNO-DE-MESQUITA, H.B., COGGON, D., GREEN, L., JOHNSON, E., LITTORIN, M., LYNGE, E., MARLOW, D.A., MATHEWS, J.D., NEUBURGER, M., BENN, Y-T., PANNETT, B., PEARCE, N., SARACCI, R. (1995). Soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in workers exposed to phenoxy herbicides, chlorophenols and dioxins: two nested case-control studies. Epidemiology, 6: 396-402.

Kuhnlein H.V., Chan H.M. (2000). Environment and contaminants in traditional food systems of Northern Indigenous peoples. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 20, 596-626.

Landers, A. and M. Farooq (2004). Reducing Drift and Improving Deposition in Vineyards. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, USA.

LEEFMILIEU EN KANKER (1997). Vereniging voor Kankerbestrijding, Brussel.

Lefebvre, M. and E. Bruneau (2005). État des lieux du phénomène de dépérissement des ruchers en Région wallonne, Convention entre la Région wallonne (DGRNE) et le CARI.

LYNGE, E., STORM, H.H., JENSEN, O.M. (1987). The evaluation of trends in soft tissue sarcoma according to diagnostic criteria and consumption of phenoxy herbicides. Cancer, 60: 1896-1901.

MABUCHI, K., LILIENFELD, A.M., SNELL, L.M. (1979). Lung cancer among pesticide workers exposed to inorganic arsenicals. Archives of Environmental Health, 34: 312-318.

MARAITE, H., STEURBAUT, W., DEBOGNIE, P. (2004). Development of awareness tools for a substainable use of pesticides. Final report Scientific Support Plan for a Sustainable Development Policy (SPSD II) - Part 1 Sustainable production and consumption patterns, Belgian Science Policy, Brussels, Belgium, 105p.

Maraite, H., W. Steurbaut, et al. (2004). FINAL REPORT: DEVELOPMENT OF AWARENESS TOOLS FOR A SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDES, Belgian Science Policy, Universiteit Gent, UCL, CERVA-CODA.


Marot, J., J. Godfriaux, et al. (2003). Agriculteurs et pesticides: connaissances, attitudes et pratiques: Résultats d'une enquête menée en fruiticulture, maraîchage et grandes cultures (2002-2003), SPP-Politique Scientifique, Universiteit Gent, UCL, CERVA-CODA.

Mars T.C. (2000). The health significance of pesticide variability in individual commodity items. Food Addit. Contam. 17: 487-490

Matthews, G. A. (1995). Application Technology. Pesticides - developments, impacts, and controls. Cambridge, The Royal Society of Chemistry: 180.

MCDUFFLE, H.H., KLAASEN, D.J., DOSMAN, J.A. (1990). Is pesticide use related to risk of primary lung cancer in Saskatchewan? Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32: 996-1002.

Meli, S. M., A. Renda, et al. (2003). "Studies on pesticide spray drift in a Mediterranean citrus area." Agronomie 23 ( 667-672 ).

MIRA (2003). Report on the environment and nature in Flanders in pocket-size: MIRA-T 2003 themes. Pocket Edition. Mechelen, Belgium, Flemish Environment Agency (VMM): 83.

NAGAO, M. & SUGIMURA, T. (1993). Carcinogenic factors in food with relevance to colon-cancer development. Mutation Research, 290: 43-51.

Nasredrinne L. and Parent-Massin D. (2002). Food contamination by metals and pesticides in the European Union. Should we worry ? Toxicology letters 127:29-41

Nguyen Bach, K., J. Widart, et al. (2005). "Abeilles wallonnes en danger: doit-on incriminer uniquement les pesticides?"

Nijs (pers. comm.). [email protected].

Nuyttens, D., B. Sonck, et al. (2004). Literatuustudie: Het belang van drift en haar reducerende maatregelen ter bescherming van het milieu in Vlaanderen, Departement voor Mechanisatie - Arbeid - Gebouwen - Dierenwelzijn en Milieubeveiliging Centrum voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek Merelbeke, Departement voor Gewasbescherming Universiteit Gent, Departement voor Agrotechniek en -Economie Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

OECD (2003). Report of the OECD Pesticide Risk Reduction Steering Group Seminar on Compliance and Risk Reduction, Paris.

Panneton, B. (2001). Impacts des techniques de pulvérisation en agroenvironnement. Colloque en Agroenvironnement « L’agriculture et l'environnement en harmonie ».

Phytoweb (2005).

Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, et al. (1993). Assessment of environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. The pesticide question: environment, economics and ethics. D. P. H. Lehman. New-York, Chapman and Hall: 47-84.

Pissard, A., V. Van Bol, et al. (2005). Calcul d'indicateurs de risques liés à l'utilisation de produits phytosanitaires. Etude préliminaire: détermination du niveau d'utilisation de pesticides en Région Wallonne, CERVA/CODA/VAR.

Pitton (pers. comm). Patrizia Pitton - DG SANCO Unit E3 - Plant Protection Products Sector. Rue Froissart 101, B - 1040 Brussels. Office F101- 4/82. tel. +32 2 2987622; fax. +32 2 2965963; e-mail: [email protected].

Pussemier, L., P. Debongnie, et al. (2001). Réduction des emissions de produits phytosanitaires vers les eaux superficielles par concertation avec les agriculteurs - Projet pilote pour le bassin du Nil (Walhain-St-Paul) : Rapport final, Ministère des Classes


Moyennes et de l'Agriculture - Centre d'Etude et de Recherches Vétérinaires et Agrochimiques: 62.

Renwick( A.G. (2002). Pesticide residue analysis an dits relation to hazard characterization (ADI/ARfD) and intake estimations (NEDI/NESTI). Pest Manag Sci 58 :1073-1082

REUBER, M.D. (1980). Carcinogenicity and toxicity of methoxychlor. Environmental Health Perspectives, 36: 205-219.

ROSANO, A., BOTTO, L.D., BOTTING, B., MASTROIACOVO, P. (2000). Infant mortality and congenital anomalies from 1950 to 1994: an international perspective. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54: 660-666.

Rouchaud, J., P. Roucourt, et al. (1996). Détection et suivi des pesticides et de leurs métabolites dans le sol et la plante. Bilan et gestion des effets secondaires de la lutte phytosanitaire. A. Copin, J.-P. Honnay, H. Maraite, R. Deleu and J. Rouchaud. Bruxelles, Institut pour l'encouragement de la Recherche Scientifique dans l'Industrie et l'Agriculture.

Rung, J., B. Schiffers, et al. (2005). Rapport intermédiaire n°2 : Evaluation de l'impact de certains pesticides d'origine non agricole sur les eaux superficielles et identification des pesticides et produits de dégradation considérés comme pertinents dans la problématique des substances dangereuses, Aquapôle - DGRNE - FUSAGx.

SARMA, R. & JACOBS, J. (1982). Thoracic soft tissue sarcoma in Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange. New England Journal of Medicine, 306: 1109.

SATHIAKUMAR, N. & DELZELL, E. (1997). A review of epidemiological studies of triazine herbicides and cancer. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 27: 599-612.

Seghers, D., K. Verthe, et al. (2003). "Effect of long-term herbicide applications on the bacterial community structure and function in an agricultural soil." FEMS Microbiology Ecology 46(2): 139-146.

SEVER, L.E. (1995). Looking for causes of neural-tube defects – where does the environment fit in. Environmental Health Perspectives, 103: 165-171 Suppl.

Skinner, J., K. Lewis, et al. (1997). "An overview of the environmental impact of agriculture in the UK." Journal of Environmental Management 50: 111-128.

SMITH, A.H., PEARCE, N.E., FISHER, D.O., GILES, H.J., TEAGUE, C.A., HOWARD, J.K. (1984). Soft tissue sarcoma and exposure to phenoxyherbicides and chlorophenols in New Zeeland. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73: 1111-1117.

SOLIMAN, A.S., SMITH, M.A., COOPER, S.P., ISMAIL, K., KHALED, K., ISMAIL, S., MCPHERSON, R.S., SEIFELDIN, I.A., BONDY, M.L. (1997). Serum organochlorine pesticide levels in patients with colorectal cancer in Egypt. Archives of Environmental Health, 52: 409-415.

SPF, S. P. (2005). Mesures de réduction de la contamination des eaux superficielles par les produits phytopharmaceutiques, Direction générale Animaux, Végétaux et Alimentation, Service Pesticides et Engrais.

SPGE. Site internet, Société Publique de la Gestion de l'Eau.

Stover E. , Scotto D. , et al. (2002). Spray Applications to Citrus: Overview of Factors Influencing Spraying Efficacy and Off-target Deposition. Institute of food and agricultural sciences, University of Florida.

Taylor, W. A., A. R. Womac, et al. (2004). An Attempt to Relate Drop Size to Drift Risk. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii.


Tests achats. (2002). Des résidus très assidus. Le magazine des consommateurs, 452:40-43

Thistle, H. W. (2004). Meteorological Concepts in the Drift of Pesticide. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Washington State University.

Tomlin, C. (1994). The Pesticide Manual – 10th Edition. The British Crop Protection Council and The Royal Society of Chemistry. ISBN 0-948404-79-5.

Travis, K.Z., Hamilton, D., Davies, L., O’Mullane, M. and Mueller, U. (2004). Acute intake. In Pesticide residues in food and drinking water : Human exposure and risks. Ed. David Hamilton and Stephen Crossley. 167-212

Van Bol (pers. comm.). tel. + 32 (0)2 524 72 75; fax + 32 (0)2 524 72 99; e-mail : [email protected].

van de Zande, J. C., H. Stallinga, et al. (2004). Effect of Sprayer Speed on Spray Drift. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii.

van de Zande, J. C., J. M. G. P. Michielsen, et al. (2004). Hedgerow Filtration and Barrier Vegetation. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii.

van der Poel, P., and Bakker, J. (2001). Emission Scenario Documents for Biocides. Emission scenarios for all 23 product types of the Biocidal Products Directive (EU Directive 98/8/EC). RIVM Report 601450009.

Van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Hanot, V., De Temmerman, L., Hoenig, M. and Goeyens, L. (2005). Chemical contamination in eggs of free-range hens in Belgium. Food contaminants (submitted).

Vancoillie, P. (2002). Travailler en sécurité avec les produits dangereux en agriculture et horticulture belges, PREVENTAGRI Formation.

VanDyk, J. (1998). Factors influencing drift potential. Weed Management. Iowa state University.

Vercruysse, F., W. Steurbaut, et al. (1999). "Off target ground deposits from spraying a semi-dwarf orchard." Crop Protection 18(9): 565-570.

VERENIGING VOOR KANKERBESTRIJDING (1996). Vlaamse Studiedag ‘Gewasbeschermings-middelen en gezondheid’, Houthalen.

Verschueren, K. (1983). Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals – 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold – New York. ISBN 0-442-28802-6.

Vieira, E.R., Torres, J., Malm, O. (2001). DDT environmental persistence from its use in a vector control program: a case study. Environmental Research Section A 86:174-182

VINEIS, P., FAGGIANO, F., TEDESCHI, M., CICCONE, G. (1991). Incidence rates of lymphomas and soft-tissue sarcomas and environmental measurements of phenoxy herbicides. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 83: 362-363.

VMM (2002). Bestrijdingsmiddelen in het regenwater in Vlaanderen. Luchtkwaliteit in het Vlaamse Gewest Jaarverslag VLAAMSE MILIEUMAATSCHAPPIJ, Afdeling Meetnetten en Onderzoek: 163-166.

VMM (2004). Bestrijdingsmiddelen in het regenwater in Vlaanderen. Luchtkwaliteit in het Vlaamse Gewest Jaarverslag immissiemeetnetten Kalenderjaar 2004 en meteorologisch


jaar 2004-2005, VLAAMSE MILIEUMAATSCHAPPIJ, Afdeling Meetnetten en Onderzoek: 72-74.

WANG, X.Q., GAO, P.Y., LIN, Y.Z., CHEN, C.M. (1988). Studies on hexachlorocyclohexane and DDT contents in human cerumen and their relationships to cancer mortality. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 1: 138-151.

WATKINS, M.L., SCANLON, K.S., MULINARE, J., KHOURY, M.J. (1996). Is maternal obesity a risk factor for anencephaly and spina bifida? Epidemiology, 8: 507-512.

WESSELING, C. ANTICH, D., HOGSTEDT, C., RODRIGUEZ, A.C., AHLBOM, A. (1999). Geographical differences of cancer incidence in Costa Rica in relation to environmental and occupational pesticide exposure. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28: 365-374.

WHO (2006). On line information (http://www.who.int/en/).

WHO. (2005). WHO GEMS/Food Consumption Cluster Diets. Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Foodborne Diseases. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. Paper presented at the 4Th Fresenius Conference « Food Safety and Dietary Risk Assessment. December 2005, Mainz (Germany) WIKLUND, K. & HOLM, L. (1986). Soft tissue sarcoma risk in Swedish agricultural and forestry workers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 76: 229-234.

Winter, C.K. (1992). Pesticide tolerances and their relevance as safety standards. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15, 137.

Winter, C.K. (2001). Pesticide Residues in the Food Supply. Food Toxicology Ed. William Helferich and Carl K. Winter. CRC press, Boca Raton, Florida. 163-185

Wolf, T. M. (2004). Nozzle Selection Guidelines for Optimum Efficacy and Least Drift. International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Haw