3.1.2 Prior Informed Consent: pesticides

Prior Informed Consent (PIC) is a convention that was finalised by 50 Governments at a Diplomatic Conference in Rotterdam in September 1998.

This ‘Rotterdam Convention’ creates legally binding obligations for countries to implement PIC procedures. It was initially built on a voluntary PIC code of conduct, initiated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and FAO.

The Convention entered into force on 24 February 2004 with two major objectives:

to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm;
to contribute to the environmentally sound use of those hazardous chemicals, by facilitating information exchange about their characteristics, by providing for a national decision-making process on their import and export and by disseminating these decisions to Parties.

Box 1 - Endocrine Disruptors (ED) and Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHP): impacts on cocoa

Approvals for substances may be withdrawn within the EU and elsewhere based on several indicators, including ‘Endocrine disruption’ (ED). The current definition in the EU of an ED is "an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations".

The UK Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) report on the possible impact of hazard-based assessments included reference to the EC 1107/2009 stricture: “substances regarded as having endocrine disrupting properties that may be harmful to humans or non-target organisms cannot be authorised”. Several observers have pointed-out that no definition was included during the adoption of these regulations.

ED effects are disputed among scientists and a functional definition of the term has been agreed in the EU. A public consultation was launched in 2014 (all stakeholders were encouraged to take part) and resolved in 2016.

Dictionary definitions of ‘disrupt’ are wide ranging: from causing “confusion or disorder” to alteration or interruption of a process. It could be argued that, since an animal's endocrine functions are signalling mechanisms and are known to be influenced by a wide range of naturally occurring and permitted synthetic substances, any attempt to assess ED on a hazard rather than a risk basis is untenable.

The removal of smallholder farmers’ exposure to HHP (clearly definable by toxicity class) resulting from the 91/414/EEC and 396/2005/EC processes has been beneficial, but further reduction of active ingredients’ (AI) diversity could be deleterious to cocoa productivity (which could have environmental consequences, since farmers would need to cultivate more land to obtain the same yields).

Every effort should be made to inform the relevant authorities of the potential consequences for crop production and farmer livelihoods before any decisions are made on the status of 'strategic AI' (e.g. as in Appendix 3A), without suitable alternatives having been identified.

Whereas pesticide registration constitutes sovereign national decisions, categorisation of substances as ED in consumer countries may eventually result in the reduction of MRLs to the default 0.01 mg/kg for cocoa and other food crops: a consequence described in one African country as ‘banned by the market’.

There has been much speculation on the potential consequences of further withdrawal of AI to cocoa and other imported commodity crops and initial approaches have been similar to that taken with HHP, i.e. identify the substances under threat and ask what the alternative pest management measures would be.

We here suggest that:

For sustainable pest management of a given pest, more than 2 modes of action (MoA) are needed, with competing AI and products within each MoA (here used in its broadest sense to include proven-effective, biological control).
Restriction of AI to only 1-2 MoA could become a significant problem for management of key cocoa pests and proposed changes have to be taken in the round. For example, withdrawing all organophosphorous (OP) insecticides and most pyrethroids on suspected ED problems, together with pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides (NNI) for bee toxicity could result in serious difficulties with mirids and other key insect pests. This may already be an issue for control of storage pests (see chapter 8).
If an AI is to be banned, 2-3 years are needed for disposal of old stocks of products containing that AI. If AI withdrawal removes a whole MoA and there are not at least 2 alternatives, at least 5 years will be needed (probably more) for the necessary research, development and registration of substitutes.
To summarise: a ‘precautionary approach’ should also apply to our ability to protect crops.

Section 7.3 shows some of the new hazard labelling signs to be included on pesticide labels. In this process, a new hazard category “Serious health hazard” has been added, meaning:

May be fatal if swallowed or enters airways
Causes damage to organs or may cause damage to organs
May damage fertility or the unborn child
Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child
May cause cancer or suspected of causing cancer
May cause or suspected of causing genetic defects
May cause allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled

The pictogram will be used for everyday substances such as turpentine, petrol and lamp oil and presumably could, once defined, include ED pesticide substances (even if only suspected). Would the use of such signs on pesticide products give the user sufficient prior informed consent? In household situations, the answer is clearly thought to be yes.

With pressure on global agriculture to increase production, developing countries frequently provide a market for older, cheaper and more hazardous pesticides. They often include generic compounds from producers in expanding economies, which seek less controlled markets.

Furthermore, in some countries, locally-produced generic products are actively promoted in the interests of industrial development and low prices for farmers.

PIC is a process which identifies and shares government decisions to ban or severely restrict pesticides, and includes dissemination of decisions to importing countries where information may be difficult to obtain. While promoting shared responsibility between importers and exporters, the exporting countries must ensure their industries comply with importing country decisions.

Pesticides currently in the PIC Convention include (amongst other substances): 2,4,5-T, aldrin, captafol, chlorobenzilate, chlordane, chlordimeform, DDT, dieldrin, dinoseb, 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB), endosulfan, fluoroacetamide, HCH (lindane), heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mercury compounds, and certain formulations of parathion, methamidophos, monocrotophos, and phosphamidon.

Other pesticides will be included in the PIC Convention if they:

have been banned or severely restricted on the basis of a science-based risk/hazard evaluation in two regions;
are “severely hazardous pesticide formulations” which cause health or environmental problems under conditions of use in developing countries. These may be included following a verified incident in a developing country.