Docstoc

Health Risks Associated with the Use of Pest Control Products

Document Sample
Health Risks Associated with the Use of Pest Control Products Powered By Docstoc
					Health Risks
Associated with the Use
of Pest Control Products




                    1
Missions of the CPP



      Created by a Ministerial decree of 30 July 1996, the Committee for
      Prevention and Precaution (CPP) is composed of eminent
      scientists specialized in the fields of environment and health.

      Its funding and its secretariat come from the Ministry of the
      Environment      (Department      of     Economic Studies and
      Environmental Assessment). The Committee has enacted ethical
      rules to govern its internal operations.

      Its work and its recommendations to the Minister have a three-fold
      mission:

      - to help ground the policies of the Ministry of the Environment in
      the precautionary and prevention principles;

      - to monitor, warn about and offer expertise for health problems
      associated with environmental disturbances;

      - to link research and scientific knowledge with regulatory action.



      The CPP may examine subjects referred to it by the Minister or on
      its own motion.




                                        2
Composition of the CPP
President
Alain Grimfeld, Professor of Medicine, Paris

Members
Dr. Denis BARD (vice president), ENSP, Rennes

Mr. Paul-Henry BOURRELIER, engineer, retired from the Corps des Mines, Paris

Madame Sylvaine CORDIER, epidemiologist, INSERM, Rennes

Prof. William DAB, Holder of the Chair of Hygiene and Safety at CNAM, Paris

Prof. Bernard FESTY, Professor Emeritus, Hygiene and Public Health, Paris

Prof. Jacques FONTAN, Professor Emeritus, Atmospheric Pollution, Toulouse

Prof. J. Marie HAGUENOER, Professor of Toxicology in Environmental Health, Lille

Prof. Armand LATTES, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Toulouse

Mr. Ari RABL, Engineer, Economist, Ecole des Mines, Paris

Prof. Martine REMOND-GOUILLOUD, Professor of Law, Paris

Prof. Alfred SPIRA, epidemiologist, INSERM, Villejuif

Mr. Jacques VARET, Director of Strategic Planning, BRGM, Orléans

Professor Paule VASSEUR, Professor of Toxicology, Metz

Dr. Philippe VERGER, Research Director, Food Safety, INRA, Paris

Mr. Eric VINDIMIAN, Ecological Toxicologist, Ineris, Verneuil en Halatte

Prof. Denis ZMIROU, epidemiologist, Nancy



Permanent Secretariat

Madame Geneviève Baumont (MATE D4E)




                                               3
Speakers


Mr. Pierre Balland, President of Corpen

Madame Isabelle Baldi, UFR Public Health, Bordeaux

Mr. Enrique Barriuso, INRA

Madame Catherine Bastien Ventura, MATE

Dr. Henri Bonan, IGS

Mr. Bernard Delmotte, Caisse Centrale de la Mutualité Sociale Agricole (Agriculture Social
Security Fund)

Mr. Bernard Declercq, DGCCRF

Mr. Roger Jeannot, chemist, BRGM

Dr. Pierre Lebailly, Centre François Baclesse, University of Caen

Madame Martine Ledrans, Institut national de Veille Sanitaire (National Institute of Health
Surveillance), Paris

Mr. Christophe Mouvet, hydrogeologist, BRGM

Mr. Luc Multigner, INSERM

Mr. Eric Picque, Institut Pasteur de Lille

Mr. Jean Louis Prime, IGE

Mr. André Rico, President of the Poisons Committee, Paris

Mr. Jean Louis River, INRA

Mr. Michel Robert, INRA

Prof. Charles Sultan, CHU Montpellier

Invited Speakers who did not appear: Mr. Hervé DURING, Assistant Director of Plant Quality
and Protection.




                                               4
MISSIONS OF THE CPP ............................................................................................................... 2


1 THE REFERRAL........................................................................................................................ 7


2 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 9


3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................10

3.1 Surveillance of pesticides in environmental media and in the food chain............................10

3.2 Knowledge of exposure ........................................................................................................10

3.3 Knowledge of health effects .................................................................................................10

3.4 Organizing the research .......................................................................................................10

3.5 Principles relative to the use and official approval of pesticides..........................................11

3.6 Conditions of pesticide use in agriculture ............................................................................11

3.7 Monitoring, standards, and expertise of the government .....................................................11

3.8 Transparency........................................................................................................................11


4 RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................12

4.1 Surveillance of pesticides in environmental media and in the food chain............................12
   4.1.1 Improve strategies for surveillance of environmental media ................................................12
   4.1.2 Improve knowledge of the sources and reservoirs of pesticides ..........................................12
   4.1.3 Improve the accuracy of transfer models ...........................................................................12
   4.1.4 Consider the decay and transformation products................................................................13
   4.1.5 Monitor environmental media and accumulation sites over the long term .............................13
   4.1.6 Develop biosurveillance....................................................................................................13
   4.1.7 Identify effect biomarkers in environmental media ..............................................................13

4.2 Knowledge of exposure ........................................................................................................13
   4.2.1 Improve access to available data ......................................................................................13
   4.2.2 Estimate population exposure ...........................................................................................14

4.3 Knowledge of health effects .................................................................................................15
   4.3.1 Encourage epidemiologic and toxicological studies ............................................................15
   4.3.2 Develop knowledge of the health effects of formulants and adjuvants included in pesticide
   formulations .............................................................................................................................15
   4.3.3 Develop more effective procedures for three tasks involved in toxicological evaluations of
   pesticides: characterizing the effect of some pesticide mixtures, establishing more rigorous dose-
   response relations, improving the models for transposing data from experimental animals to
   humans ...................................................................................................................................15

4.4 Organizing the research. ......................................................................................................16

4.5 Principles relative to the use and official approval of pesticides..........................................17
   4.5.1 Separate risk assessment from risk management ..............................................................18
   4.5.2 Comparisons ...................................................................................................................18
                                                                      5
   4.5.3 Applications for official approval ........................................................................................18

4.6 Conditions of pesticide use in agriculture ............................................................................18
   4.6.1 Identify and list incidents and accidents .............................................................................19
   4.6.2 Observe and monitor real agricultural practices..................................................................19
   4.6.3 Analyze in detail the risks associated with airplane crop dusting or spraying methods ..........19
   4.6.4 Assess the efficacy of prevention measures applicable to environmental media and humans 19

4.7 Monitoring, standards and expertise of the government ......................................................19
   4.7.1 Regulatory Measures and Controls ...................................................................................19
   4.7.2 Financial Measures ..........................................................................................................20

4.8 Transparency........................................................................................................................20
   4.8.1 Centralize the data...........................................................................................................20
   4.8.2 Inform users and specific populations ................................................................................20
   4.8.3 Traceability of the substances used...................................................................................21


5 GENERAL DATA......................................................................................................................22

5.1 Context.................................................................................................................................22

5.2 Exposed Populations............................................................................................................23
   5.2.1 Exposure measurements..................................................................................................23
   5.2.2 Farmers and others exposed occupationally ......................................................................24
   5.2.3 General population...........................................................................................................24

5.3. Health effects.......................................................................................................................26
   5.3.1 Carcinogenesis................................................................................................................26
   5.3.2 Effects on Reproduction and Development ........................................................................27
   5.3.3 Neurological and neurobehavioral effects ..........................................................................28

5.4 Environmental Impact...........................................................................................................29
   5.4.1. Pollution of Water Resources ...........................................................................................29
   5.4.2 Ecotoxicity.......................................................................................................................30

5.5 Research Needed..................................................................................................................32


APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................33
  Appendix 1 Surveillance of food and water contamination by pest control products.......................33
  Appendix 2. Industrial Data: Quantities of Active Substances Sold in France in 2000 ....................36
  Appendix 3: Active Substances Suspected to be Endocrine Disrupters *......................................39
  Appendix 4: List of Active Ingredients Evaluated by IARC ...........................................................39
  Appendix 5 Active substances sought by LCSQA .......................................................................40
  Appendix 6 Combinations of pesticides and products to be tested in 2001 (EEC) .........................40


BIBLIOGRAPHY AND INTERNET SITES .....................................................................................41

To contact us: ............................................................................................................................47




                                                                      6
1 The Referral

On 19 July 2000, the Minister of Land Use Planning and the Environment (MATE) requested the
Committee's opinion about the health effects associated with phytosanitary or pest control products
and their metabolites in soils and other environmental media subject to human contact. In particular,
the Minister asked the following questions:

1. Can residual quantities of pesticides or their metabolites, especially in food, cause long-term
   harmful health effects because of the repeated exposure, even to low doses?

2. Must cumulative exposure to several types of residues be considered?

3. Is adequate attention paid to the presence of products from the metabolism of pesticides,
   especially in food?

4. Is it appropriate to consider the particular vulnerability of some portions of the population (for
   example, children)?

5. Is the presence of pesticides in the air, in rainwater, and in drinking water an additional risk factor?

Since then, the CPP has examined the question of pesticide use and the health threats that result
from it. Its investigation took place at the same time as the work of other bodies. This CPP opinion is
thus part of – and in line with – other work commissioned by the government on this subject and
recent decisions related to it. In particular, we note the decisions released to the press during the
National Council of Health Safety meeting on 15 October 2001 to create an agency (observatory) to
monitor pesticide residues; to ban the pesticides of the triazine family, while allowing current stocks to
be used up for the next 2 years; to ban sodium arsenite immediately; to create a one-stop information
office; to set up a procedure to monitor products closely and to implement European directives about
drinking water.

The CPP first considered the questions referred to it and concluded that the health problems caused
by pesticide use in agriculture and in other settings justify the application of the precautionary
principle; this conclusion oriented the formulation of the Committee's analysis and recommendations.

All the criteria that mandate the application of this principle are found in this case:

1°       All of the information collected by the CPP, including that compiled by the National Council of
Health Safety, concerning both the toxicological properties of pesticides and their metabolites and
exposure due to direct and indirect (transfer by natural media) food contamination indicates the strong
likelihood of a serious collective risk.

2°     The question of the health effects of pesticides is complex, and the current uncertainties are
considerable.

3°      Measures financially proportional to the effects feared should be implemented.

In compliance with the precautionary p  rinciple, the recommendations of the CPP involve general
measures related to pesticide use in agriculture and the promotion of both knowledge and
transparency about the data concerning these substances – data obtained by surveillance of the
environment and the food chain and by research.

The CPP has focused on the protection of human health, which may be directly threatened by
pesticide use in agriculture. It also calls attention, however, to the damage from the slow degradation
of the quality of natural e nvironmental media (soils and water tables, in particular) caused by the
accumulation of pesticides and products derived from them. This damage in turn alters ecosystems,

                                                      7
causing their degradation and the disappearance of species. The reduction in biological diversity that
is one result of this damage deserves particular study.

The household use of pest control products also deserves the attention of the government. The CPP
did not have the time to study this question or its corresponding exposures specifically, but some of
the data collected and the recommendations (for example, those relative to official approval and
transparency) can serve as a basis for this analysis.




                                                  8
2 Definitions
Several terms are used to designate pesticides for agricultural use: phytosanitary products, according
to the firms that manufacture and sell them, plant protection products, according to European
regulations, agropharmaceutical products according to some agronomists. While all of these denote
the same concept, they can all equally well designate the active substance responsible for the
intended action as well as the commercial product (or preparation) that includes the active substance
and is sold to the user.

In accordance with the definitions in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
marketing of plant protection products, we use the following definitions herein:

                     :
Active substances The substances or microorganisms, including viruses, that have a general or
specific action against harmful organisms or on plants, parts of plants or plant products;

Preparations: mixtures or solutions intended for use as plant protection products and composed of
two or more substances (called formulants), at least one of which is an active substance;

Plant protection products: active substanc es and preparations containing one or more active
substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user, intended to:

            •   Protect plants or plant products against all harmful organisms or prevent the action of
                such organisms, unless these substances or preparations are otherwise defined
                below;

            •   Influence the life processes of plants, other than as a nutrient, (e.g., growth
                regulators);

            •   Preserve plant products, unless these substances or products are subject to special
                Council or Commission provisions on preservatives;

            •   Destroy undesired plants; or

            •   Destroy parts of plants, check or prevent undesired growth of plants.

Since the decree dated 23 December 1999, products used in gardening are sold separately from
products for professional use and are labeled "use authorized in gardens".

Biocides

Products previously designated as "pesticides for non-agricultural use" are now called "biocidal
products". According to the definitions in Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the marketing of biocidal products, these are "active
substances and preparations containing one or more active substances, put up in the form in which
they are supplied to the user, intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or
otherwise exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism by chemical or biological means.”

Biocidal products include pesticides that are not intended for plant protection: household insecticides,
wood preservatives, antiparasite products (acaricides, anti-flea products) etc.




                                                   9
3 Summary of recommendations
Knowledge of risks

3.1 Surveillance of pesticides in environmental media and in the
food chain

Improve and develop the overall strategy of surveillance and, in particular, the measurement of
pesticides and their transformation products (metabolites and other); diffuse and standardize these
methods; and generalize the quality assurance of the measurements;

Set up surveillance and alert systems to monitor the environmental fate of these substances and their
transformation products: sources, flow rate, transfer into plants, and long-term accumulation in
different environmental media, etc;

Reinforce environmental biosurveillance to serve as an early warning system based upon the use of
integrative biological compartments and effect or exposure biomarkers.

3.2 Knowledge of exposure

Measure population exposure, including with biomarkers, while focusing on the populations at highest
risk, either because of their exposure, or because of a particular sensitivity (e.g., workers, nearby
residents, women who are or may become pregnant, children).

3.3 Knowledge of health effects

Encourage epidemiologic, toxicological and biological studies to improve knowledge of the health
impact of pesticides – both active substances alone and the mixtures and various formulations with
which they come;

Develop more effective procedures for three tasks involved in toxicological assessment of pesticides:
characterizing the effect of some pesticide mixtures, establishing more rigorous dose-response
relations, improving the models for transposition of data from experimental animals to humans.

3.4 Organizing the research
Reinforce research on the environmental fate of pesticides and their health effects: this must become
a priority for the government, which needs to create a significant, interdisciplinary and inter-institutional
program to bring together the skills of specialists in different environmental media by building a
permanent research network in this domain.

Develop tools to improve the relevance of surveillance systems;

Conduct studies to follow diseases in local populations and in workers exposed to these products.




                                                    10
Risk management

3.5 Principles relative to the use and official approval of pesticides
Assign official decision-making power to approve or order withdrawal of these products to the
Ministries of Health (as for any health question) and of the Environment;

Have the risks assessed by a pluralist, independent, reinforced and coordinated group of experts;

Examine the justifications for use of new pesticides and of the most questionable of the old ones by
comparing them with alternative solutions;

Consider the complete life cycle of these products during the approval process, taking into account the
types of damage induced and its costs (water treatment, remediation of environmental media, etc.);
also consider the possible incidents and accidents associated with use of the products.

3.6 Conditions of pesticide use in agriculture

Develop and diffuse strategies to limit the overall use and quantities employed of pesticides; economic
inducements for this can be recommended; propose taxes likely to contribute significantly to a
reduction in overall use of pest control products;

Set up tools for observing agricultural uses and practices (including pesticide waste management);

Assess the efficacy of measures to prevent risks to humans and environmental media as part of post-
approval follow-up.

3.7 Monitoring, standards, and expertise of the government
Improve coordination of water and plant and animal food product sampling;

Vigorously support a proposition at the European level to replace the current nearly meaningless water
standards of 0.1 and 0.5 µg/l by scientifically determined permissible concentration levels;

Coordinate and improve financing for food product inspection;

3.8 Transparency

Inventory and validate all the existing data about pesticides in the environment and make them public;

Centralize all the inspection and monitoring data within a single office, accessible to the public,
including the applications for official approval of pesticides;

Inform consumers and make them – as stakeholders – participants in the risk management process;

Guarantee the traceability of active substances.




                                                   11
4 Recommendations
Knowledge of risks

4.1 Surveillance of pesticides in environmental media and in the
food chain
            Improve and develop the overall strategy of surveillance and, in
            particular, the measurements of pesticides and their transformation
            products (metabolites and other); diffuse and standardize these
            methods; and generalize the quality assurance of the measurements;

            Set up surveillance and alert systems to monitor the environmental
            fate of these substances and their transformation products: sources,
            flow rate, transfer into plants, and long-term accumulation in different
            environmental media, etc;

            Reinforce environmental biosurveillance to serve as an early warning
            system based upon the use of integrative biological compartments
            and effect or exposure biomarkers.

4.1.1 Improve strategies for surveillance of environmental media

The environmental media contaminated by pesticides are the vectors of exposure for human
populations; the strategies used to monitor and sample these media should be thoroughly examined.
High priority should be given to the development of new methods with greater sensitivity and validity
and to the standardization of these protocols and their dissemination to many laboratories. Quality
assurance and quality control procedures must be developed: they are necessary for a high-quality
surveillance of pesticide residues in the environment and in food. These developments should result in
systematizing procedures for interlaboratory comparisons and quality assurance for French
laboratories, both within France and with foreign laboratories. This recommendation concerns not only
the molecules used directly but also the formulants, the pesticide residues and their decay products,
because these products too can be toxic. They are, however, difficult to measure because they are
very numerous and not well known.

4.1.2 Improve knowledge of the sources and reservoirs of pesticides

Specific knowledge about the use of active substances and formulants is essential for assessing
population exposure to pesticides. The CPP recommends the implementation of a data collection
program that should be exceedingly useful for risk assessments and epidemiologic studies. Relevant
data should include the locations and quantities of pesticides used by all types of consumers (farmers,
SNCF, EDF, local governments, pest control companies, and household users) as well as the
quantities transferred into various natural compartments. This information should be collected on
relevant epidemiologic and geographic (local and regional) bases. Moreover, measurements in various
species, at both population and individual levels, should improve knowledge of the overall effects on
ecosystems.

4.1.3 Improve the accuracy of transfer models

Estimating exposure involves determining with more precision than now available the quantities
deposited on the plots treated and the fraction transferred to the adjoining environment; this varies
with the methods of application. More elaborate models, validated in the field, must be developed to
define accurately the risks of transfer of the active – and other – substances to environmental media
and populations on different scales (workers, neighborhood, region, continent). These models must
focus especially on the food and water chains, the major exposure vectors for most pesticides.


                                                 12
4.1.4 Consider the decay and transformation products

Pesticides can break down through by diverse physicochemical or biological pathways into other
possibly (or certainly) dangerous substances (metabolites). Because some of these decay products
are very poorly documented, they may be neglected in risk assessments. Research into the
mechanisms by which these products are formed and into their physicochemical and toxicological
properties must be improved.

4.1.5 Monitor environmental media and accumulation sites over the long term

Special attention must be paid to the identification and long-term surveillance of natural media and of
sites that present risks of accumulation or bioaccumulation of pesticides and their decay products;
these sites include some types of soil, nonsaturated areas and confined groundwater.

4.1.6 Develop biosurveillance

Environmental biosurveillance must be reinforced to serve as an early warning system based upon the
use of integrative biological compartments and effect or exposure biomarkers.

Ecosystems are sensitive to the pesticides emitted into the environment; nonetheless, we know too
few of the relevant mechanisms. The global indicators too often found by research make further
research all the more necessary. Measurement within a biological compartment of a natural
environmental medium has the advantage of taking into account many phenomena that characterize
the negative effects of some substances, including persistence, bioaccumulation and biomagnification.
Moreover, the capacity of living things to integrate various pollution peaks may provide information
about the real presence in the environment of substances emitted only episodically. This research
should focus on the meaning of the indicators measured in terms of exposure, but also on their
possible alert value for risks to humans or the environment, or both.

4.1.7 Identify effect biomarkers in environmental media

The metabolism of wild species, like that of humans, is modified when they are subjected to a toxic
stress; these metabolic changes may be a signature of toxic substances in bioavailable
concentrations. The case of the inhibition of acetylcholine-esterase by organophosphates and
                                                                               e
carbamates is probably the best-known example of such a signature. It would b useful to develop
experimentally our knowledge of these mechanisms and of their meaning in terms of the risks
associated with pesticide residues in the environment.

4.2 Knowledge of exposure
            Measure population exposure, including with biomarkers, while
            focusing on the populations at highest risk, either because of their
            exposure, or because of a particular sensitivity (e.g., workers, nearby
            residents, women who are or may become pregnant, children).

4.2.1 Improve access to available data

Manufacturers oppose increased transparency in the form of more open access to data about the use
of substances, on the grounds that these are trade secrets that must be protected from the
competition. This argument has created an obstacle in all discussions, including at the level of the
European Community and the OECD. The protection of trade secrets pertains to patent issues and
cannot be used to oppose transparency related to data necessary for evaluation and knowledge of
public health risks.

Various institutions have produced large amounts of general information useful for estimating the
exposure of diverse populations. This information involves general environmental health risk
assessment - not only for the risk associated with pest control products. Examples include the INCA
survey, which studied the dietary intake of a representative sample of the French population aged from

                                                  13
3 to 65 years, the representative surveys of children's food intake commissioned by large
agribusinesses, and the decennial INSEE surveys on the time budget of the French.

These surveys, however, are either inaccessible to researchers or require the purchase of the raw
data, which must be reformatted and reanalyzed on each occasion, thereby wasting resources and
inducing errors. The CPP requests an exhaustive inventory of these data of general interest and their
accessibility in an easily used format.

4.2.2 Estimate population exposure

             Measure population exposure, including with biomarkers, while
             focusing on the populations at highest risk, either because of their
             exposure, or because of a particular sensitivity (e.g., women who are
             or may become pregnant, children).

Because the only means of integrating all of the local or diffuse sources of exposure to which
populations are subjected is biometrology, this tool must become accessible to those responsible for
public health and to researchers.

4.2.2.1 Workers, their families, local residents

Special attention must be paid to some categories of population – those who have contact with
pesticides sufficiently frequent and intense that they are likely to have a risk higher than that of the
general population. Workers form a large social category very particularly concerned. None of the
following trades is covered by the system of medical insurance in agriculture (Mutualité Social
Agricole, that is, the Agriculture Social Security Fund): farm operators, seasonal farm workers,
horticulturists, floriculturists, wood workers and exterminators. The system does nonetheless make it
possible to monitor the health status of the individuals it does cover.

The efficacy – and reality – of protective measures in the field must also be studied.

Finally, the families of these workers must be considered, for substantial exposure is possible through
living with someone who is exposed. Similarly, another group that may be substantially exposed is the
population that lives very near farms.

To support studies on this subject, improvements are also necessary in the collection of incidents and
the toxicovigilance associated with pesticides.

4.2.2.2 Women who are or may become pregnant

Some pesticides, formulants or adjuvants may be responsible for adverse effects during exposure to
pregnant women at particular stages of pregnancy. These particular phases must not be neglected in
assessing the risks associated with pesticides. These particular exposure situations must be studied,
and specific information about them should be provided to those concerned.



4.2.2.3 Children

In principle, children are considered a sub-population at risk within the general population. They may,
because of their metabolism, their size and their growth, be particularly sensitive to toxic substances.
Another reason to study their exposure specifically is that they have different space-time budgets than
adults.

4.2.2.4 Measure exposure to biocides inside dwellings

Many products are used to treat gardens and interior spaces. To the extent that these pesticide
products are the same as those considered in this referral, direct contaminations of consumers
through the use of these products inside or their transfer from gardens should be taken into account.
                                                   14
This type of exposure should be studied for risk assessment purposes or documented in epidemiologic
studies.

4.3 Knowledge of health effects
              Encourage epidemiologic, toxicological and biological studies to
              improve knowledge of the health impact of pesticides - both the active
              substances alone and the mixtures and various formulations with
              which they come;

              Establish the dose-response relation in more detail during
              toxicological studies of pesticides; Help improve the models for
              transposing data from experimental animals to humans.

4.3.1 Encourage epidemiologic and toxicological studies

An examination of the literature reveals the dangers that have been associated with (massive) use of
the pest control products most frequently mentioned:

•   Cancers

•   Neurological and neurobehavioral effects

•   Reproductive effects (endocrine disruption, in particular)

•   Developmental anomalies

Toxicological and epidemiologic research in these domains should be encouraged at an (inter)national
level.

4.3.2 Develop knowledge of the health effects of formulants and adjuvants included in
pesticide formulations

Pesticides are composed essentially of active substances that cause its biocidal action; these,
individually, have been the object of risk assessments. Nonetheless, formulants and adjuvants are
added to modify the physicochemical properties of the mixtures and to amplify their effects. We lack
sufficiently complete data about these products to assess the risks they engender. This gap must be
filled in.

4.3.3 Develop more effective procedures for three tasks involved in toxicological evaluations of
pesticides: characterizing the effect of some pesticide mixtures, establishing more rigorous
dose -response relations, improving the models for transposing data from experimental
animals to humans

Characterize the effect of some pesticide mixtures

One of the problems encountered in risk assessments based on toxicological data is that studies of
the effects of toxic substance mixtures are often lacking. By default, the effect of different molecules is
considered to be additive. This has certainly not been proven to be the case at all times, and the effect
could also be synergistic or antagonistic. Commercial products on the market should undergo the
same testing as the active substances, in compliance with the regulations for preparations, which need
to be applied more strictly. Although no experiment could be designed to study in detail all the possible
combinations of pesticides (molecules, formulants and adjuvants), studies of specific interactions
could assess the combined effect of some molecules to which populations are exposed
simultaneously. Moreover, as some of the workers involved have requested, some extemporaneous
mixture should also be studied. The choice of mixtures to test should be based on their frequency of
use in situations for which ergonomic, epidemiologic or biological studies indicate a risk associated
with this type of combined exposure.

                                                    15
Establish more rigorous dose-response relations

The highest dose observed for which no adverse effect is observed (no observed adverse effect level,
NOAEL) is considered of major importance in regulatory decision-making about new substances. This
concept suggests, often falsely, that there is always an effect threshold and that it is equivalent to the
NOAEL value. In truth, it depends largely on the doses used and the number of animals. Moreover,
any threshold that might exist could be used for risk assessment only if its distribution were known.
Misunderstanding this notion leads to the often incorrect idea that some exposures carry no risk.

Clarification of the meaning of this parameter is needed, as are alternatives based on a statistical
approach that models the dose-effect relation. In particular, statistical power (the capacity to show
that an effect exists) must be specified clearly for each different toxicological test. Similarly, the
possibility that there is no threshold and the consequences of this in terms of extrapolation towards
(very) low doses must be systematically discussed, especially, but not only, for non-genotoxic
carcinogens.

Improve the models for transposition of data from animals to humans

Toxicity studies most often use safety factors, sometimes called uncertainty factors, which are applied
arbitrarily to data from animal experiments to take into account our ignorance about the real effects in
humans. To improve these extrapolations, toxicokinetic models must be developed and our knowledge
about the mechanisms of toxicity improved. The toxicological approach to pesticides should be aligned
with that to drugs; both sets of agents have in common their design for a clearly identified biological
action and for simultaneously minimizing side effects. The specificity of pesticides as poisons emitted
into the environment must not be neglected, but it cannot prevent them from being the object of
applications for approval as detailed as those for drugs.

4.4 Organizing the research.
             Reinforce research on the environmental fate of pesticides and their
             health effects: this must become a priority for the government, which
             needs to create a significant, interdisciplinary and inter-institutional
             program to bring together the skills of specialists in the different
             environmental media by building a permanent research network in
             this domain.

             Develop tools to improve the relevance of surveillance systems.

             Conduct studies to follow diseases in local populations and in workers
             exposed to these products.

The government must treat research on the environmental fate of pesticides and their health effects as
                 1
a high priority. The Ministries concerned (Environment, Health and Agriculture) should initiate a
significant, interdisciplinary research program involving several public research agencies (a non-
                                          N
exhaustive list includes CNRS, INRA, I SERM, BRGM, the Institute Pasteur, and INERIS). They
should combine the skills necessary for knowledge that is specific to the subject and integrated in
terms of the different environmental media (surface and underground water, air, soils, food) with the
scientific and operational approaches essential to the assessment of environmental and health risks:
earth sciences, metrology, biology and medicine (more specifically, toxicology, epidemiology, and
experimental biology). In association with European research programs, it should aim to construct a
permanent research network in this field, including the consolidation of personnel, to enable progress
in fundamental knowledge and at the same time provide a better basis for policies of surveillance,



1
  The research programs "Environment - Health" and "Assessment and Management of the Risks
Related to Pesticide use", launched by the Ministry of Land Use Planning and the Environment
(MATE) (D4E SRP) in 1999 prefigure those that ought to be developed in this domain.
                                                   16
prevention and precaution (implemented by various decentralized departmental administrative
agencies, discussed below).
Researchers must examine the entire pesticide cycle in its relation with the environment and with
humans, from the phases preceding official approval, through the long-term environment fate of these
substances, considering the molecules marketed and their decay products. In particular, the amount in
tons discharged into the environment, by type of substance, must be clearly established, both
statistically and cartographically. Paired physicochemical models, supported by field and laboratory
data, must be developed for the various environmental media concerned (surface and underground
water, air, soils) to provide a better basis for surveillance policies. In particular, the risks of human
exposure must be studied – the direct exposure of farmers and other related occupations, exposure
through food, and indirect and delayed exposure after transit through and possibly modification in
various environmental media (with special attention to the "cocktails" of (by-) products).
Necessary research includes metrological work to make surveillance systems more relevant, and
modeling, to improve forecasting systems that can be used in the practical implementation of
prevention and precaution policies. It would be useful to have available continuously updated lists of
the formulations used in different geographic areas (cf. above) and of the diseases of the local
populations and workers exposed to these products (this presupposes, for optimal effectiveness, the
use of the existing databases and their reinforcement to analyze correlations and thus provide the
foundations for epidemiologic studies).

The Committee includes recommendations for more specific, urgent studies aimed at prevention. They
must be accompanied by the development of a research set -up that will require a strong and lasting
commitment and should aim to implement real precautionary measures.

Finally, the committee observed that other chemicals, used in applications other than agriculture
(transportation, homes, industry, health, food, etc.) were likely to combine their health effects with
those of pesticides. This is especially true for the set of substances that act as endocrine disrupters
and are found in products as diverse as paints, fuels, and drugs. The research to be undertaken must
focus in priority on identifying the most active molecules (listed in appendix 3) and on bringing together
scientific and medical teams even more diverse than for pesticides, including civilian and military
research, to approach a much broader range of exposures and environmental media, including urban
areas.




Risk management
4.5 Principles relative to the use and official approval of pesticides
             Assign official decision-making power to approve or order withdrawal
             of these products to the Ministries of Health (as for any health
             question) and of the Environment;

             Have the risks assessed by a pluralist, independent, reinforced and
             coordinated group of experts;

             Examine the justifications for use of new pesticides and of the most
             questionable of the old ones by comparing them with alternative
             solutions;

             Consider the complete life cycle of these products during the approval
             process, taking into account the types of damage induced and its
             costs (water treatment, remediation of environmental media, etc.);
             also consider the possible incidents and accidents associated with
             use of the products.


                                                   17
4.5.1 Separate risk assessment from risk management

The current actors are essentially grouped around the Directorate-General of Food (DGAI) in the
Ministry of Agriculture and the joint scientific structure, INRA/DGAI. This arrangement does not appear
to provide sufficient guarantees of the independence that should be expected in relation to the actors
in agriculture. The CPP stresses the need to transfer to the Ministries of the Environment and of
Health the power to decide to authorize the use of these substances and to assign the expert
evaluations to an independent agency. We note nonetheless the paucity of toxicologists and
ecotoxicologists and even epidemiologists who could serve as experts. It is possible that not enough
students are being trained in these disciplines.

4.5.2 Comparisons

The justifications for use of new pesticides and of the most questionable of the old ones must be
examined by comparing them with alternative solutions.

This general principle of comparison, inherent in the application of the precautionary principle, must be
envisaged on two levels: at the most global level, the comparison must be between use of pesticides,
of GMOs, of "organic" agriculture, or acceptance of less productive agriculture. We know that positions
about these choices also and perhaps especially depend on many other aspects (job consequences,
ethical and ideological considerations, etc.), and moreover that the assessment of health effects
involves a high degree of scientific uncertainty. Nonetheless the health aspects must not be either
ignored or invoked in a biased fashion. Rather than awaiting decisive consequences, the CPP
therefore recommends that the health consequences be considered as part of the debate on these
choices, with the data updated as knowledge progresses.

At a more applied level, official approval of the marketing or withdrawal of a given pesticide should not
be ordered without an examination of the comparative risks of the consequences and the risks of the
alternative or substitute solutions. For example, the replacement for patent or profit reasons of some
easily detected products by molecules effective at very low levels and thus difficult to identify could
have the perverse effect of masking the risks.

4.5.3 Applications for official approval

The methods that make it possible to seek the newer compounds at realistic concentrations in diverse
environmental media (air, water, soils, plants and food) must be included in the applications seeking
official authorization and must be made public. The benefit/risk ratio should also be discussed during
the official approval procedure for new compounds and should be accessible to the public. The
feasibility and cost of the surveillance must also be considered. The objective of the strategies chosen
and the sampling procedures should be clearly and explicitly specified. Current regulatory standards
should be reexamined on the basis of risk assessments conducted for each compound marketed,
rather than relying on outdated analytic capacities or purely political decisions.

These ratios, when considered as part of the official approval process, should also take into account
the life cycle of the products, bearing in mind the types and costs of water treatment and of
remediation of the environmental media and the potential incidents and accidents associated with
product use.

4.6 Conditions of pesticide use in agriculture
             Develop and diffuse strategies to limit the overall use and quantities
             employed of pesticides; economic inducements for this should be
             recommended;

             Set up tools for observing agricultural uses and practices (including
             pesticide waste management);



                                                   18
             Analyze in detail the risks associated with airplane crop dusting or
             spraying methods;

             Assess the efficacy of measures to prevent risks to humans and
             environmental media as part of post-approval follow-up.

4.6.1 Identify and list incidents and accidents

The risks related to food intake, to cutaneous exposure and to inhalation may be associated with short
exposures to products highly contaminated either incidentally or accidentally or may follow spills or
dumping, mishandling, waste management failures, etc. No formal system seems to exist to collect
and treat information about these events.

4.6.2 Observe and monitor real agricultural practices

The presence of pesticides in the environment depends on the practices that farmers and related
workers really implement. Regular recommendations are issued about the period of treatment, the
methods of application, the doses and the areas not to be treated. For adequate post-approval follow-
up, compliance with, and the efficacy of, these recommendations must be assessed systematically, as
must the practices related to the disposal of waste or surplus quantities. Water quality sampling
practices should be better correlated with pesticide application periods.

Application methods should be studied, to optimize and diminish the quantities discharged, especially
those transported outside of the plots treated (because of weather, size of aerosol particles, etc.). The
analysis of farmers' activities could show the need for supplemental knowledge (for example, of
extemporaneous mixtures).

4.6.3 Analyze in detail the risks associated with airplane crop dusting or spraying methods

Airplane crop dusting is regulated by a decree from 1975; it requires, among other things, 24-h
advance notice to the authorities and onsite markings. Deeper analysis of the risks associated with
these methods will help us understand their impact in residential areas (adequate information?),
assess their importance in pesticide pollution of the air, and study the drifts and potential incidents.
The results of this analysis should be accessible to the populations concerned.

4.6.4 Assess the efficacy of prevention measures applicable to environmental media and
humans

Good agricultural practices include the use of grass strips as a buffer zone for pesticide-treated areas.
The reality of these practices must be assessed rigorously as a function of weather situations, crops,
and regions.

Moreover, as part of a post-approval follow-up, the efficacy of prevention measures such as safety and
operating instructions should be assessed, both by ergonomic field studies and bio-indicator menus .

4.7 Monitoring, standards and expertise of the government
4.7.1 Regulatory Measures and Controls

Regulatory standards should be set according to the toxicity data; this is the case for food from plants
                                                                             g/l
and animals but not for water: the maximum limits of 0.1 µg/l and 0.5 µ were set long ago at a
European level, based on other considerations; they have been maintained even though newer
scientific data has rendered them even more obsolete. Accordingly, today these limits are totally
incomprehensible.

The scientific validity of the standard (0.1 µg/litre) should be reconsidered. This standard makes the
regulations both unclear and difficult to manage. A simple rule adjusted to the risks would be more
understandable and would limit the dangerous trend of manufacturers towards producing chemicals
that are ever more powerful at very low active doses.
                                                   19
The CPP recommends that steps be taken in the relevant European bodies to enact a complete
reform of this aberrant regulatory base.

Moreover the resources available for monitoring should be assigned according to the importance of
exposures and of risks: this implies reinforcing the funds available for food inspection, because it
represents 80 to 90% of exposure. Currently, the implementation of regulatory controls is dispersed
within different governmental agencies, thereby making a comprehensive estimate difficult. To the
extent that the agencies responsible for monitoring and inspection continue to report to different
ministries depending on whether water, plants or animal products are involved, every effort must be
made to intensify their cooperation -- in sampling, analyses, alerts, assessments and actions.

4.7.2 Financial Measures
To supplement the voluntary actions aimed at reducing pollution from pest control products, the
French government introduced, effective 1 January 2000, the "polluter-pays" principle to various farm-
related pollutions, by creating a "pollution tax" (TGAP) and applying it to pest control products.
This tax is applied to a large number of substances classified as dangerous that are components of
commercial products. The tax varies (from 0.38 € to 1.68 € per kg of active ingredient) according to the
toxicity and ecotoxicity of the substances, in accordance with the criteria established in the Labor
Code. Products containing no substances classified as dangerous are not taxed (cf. appendix for the
details of calculating the tax base).
The French Planning Commission (Commissariat Général au Plan) has observed that at the current
tax rate, it is unlikely that this tax will contribute significantly to reducing overall use of pest control
products. In view of the elements of risk discussed above, a debate is necessary on the method of
calculation, the base, and the amount of this tax and its allocation to funding surveillance

4.8 Transparency
             Inventory and validate all of the existing data on pesticides in the
             environment and make them public;

             Centralize all of the inspection and monitoring data within a single
             office, accessible to the public;

             Inform consumers and make them – as stakeholders – participants in
             the risk management process;

             Guarantee the traceability of active substances.

4.8.1 Centralize the data

As the National Committee for Health Safety stressed on 15 October 2001, information about
inspection and monitoring information should be accessible from a single office, linked to an agency
that is neither judge nor party, where all the results are centralized and made public in directly usable
form. This system must, of course, be based on an inventory of the existing validated data about
pesticides in the environment.

4.8.2 Inform users and specific populations

Reflection is needed about the best way to provide citizens with information about the pesticides in
their environment and to have them participate in the debates about risks and risk acceptability, with a
particular effort towards some specific populations (pesticide appliers, because of their presumably
very high exposure levels, women who are or may become pregnant, because special sensitivity is
possible). They should receive information about pesticide measurements in the environment and on
foodstuffs from producers, importers and distributors of products they use at the time of purchase.
Accordingly they can play a regulating role by choosing the least contaminated products and become
sensitized to the need to wash fruits, vegetables, and salads, for example.


                                                    20
4.8.3 Traceability of the substances used

The follow-up and identification of all pesticide substances is required for the development of a
                                                                   o
transparent data set that will enable human exposure routes t be identified. Manufacturers and
importers should be required to monitor and report the fate of the products within the manufacturing
and distribution processes. It will thus be possible to improve the documentation of the use of active
substances by type of crop and by region, to rationalize the monitoring campaigns and to provide
information for epidemiologic surveillance.




                                                 21
5 General Data
In making the preceding recommendations, the CPP relied on many works. For the sake if
transparency for a less informed public, we summarize here the different data.

5.1 Context
   The risks associated with pesticide exposure have become a source of worry to the French.
   Moreover, France does not rank well on the European Union list of regulatory values, tons used,
   and levels in food. Problems of residues in vegetables, fruits, and wine sometimes appear abruptly
   when our neighbors refuse the importation of French products because their analytic techniques
   or policies are better developed than ours.

   Overall, pesticide use in France is around the European mean, relative to the surface area
   devoted to agriculture and taking crop types into account.

   The testimony of researchers and experts before the CPP showed that environmental media (air,
   surface and underground water, soils) and food products can be contaminated at variable levels.

   The available data do not make it possible to draw up an exact table of the use of these products
   at each administrative level.




                                             Humans

           soils,                                                Food
                                                                                    Flora
           air,
                               Exposure                         chain               and
           water                                                                   Fauna

                                   Crop          and     Food,
                                  livestock farming      Habitation



     Intercompartmental transfers and
    transformations                                                        Crop and livestock
                                                                          farming




                                               Pesticides


Figure 1 Modes of pesticide exposure for humans and environmental media

   Pesticide use occurs not only in farming but also in a variety of other settings, including industry,
   local government, and households.

   The pest control products currently used in France are manufactured from approximately 900
   different active molecules. They are marketed as roughly 9000 preparations that combine active
   molecules and substances called "formulants" or adjuvants. These figures do not include active
   molecules that are no longer marketed or were found in products imported into France in 2000.
   The UIPP (the French plant protection industrial association) reports gross sales of 12.3 billion F
                                                  22
    to farmers, and the UJP (another industrial association, selling pest control products for gardens
    and green spaces, with sales in tons less than 10% of that of the UIPP) 2.4 billion F. Data about
    the use of various active molecules are not publicly available except by very broad categories
    (figure 2).




   120 000



   100 000



    80 000
                                                                      Insecticides - Acaricides
                                                                      Fungicides
    60 000                                                            Herbicides
                                                                      Diverse
                                                                      Total
    40 000



    20 000



         0
          90

          91

          92

          93

          94

          95

          96

          97

          98

          99

          00
        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        20




Figure 2. The quantity of active substances sold in France from 1990 to 2000 based upon
(voluntary) reports by members of the UIPP (Plant Protection Industrial Association)(in tons)

5.2 Exposed populations
The great variety of products makes it difficult to assess population exposure, for farmers, other
occupationally-exposed users or the general population.

5.2.1 Exposure measurements

The diversity of products and practices and the changes in active substances cause considerable
methodological difficulties that limit the interpretations of epidemiologic studies about long-term
pesticide exposure and its effects. Moreover, measurements of these exposures can be influenced by
exceptional and even accidental situations.

It is difficult to dissociate the effects individual to each active ingredient; the products are often used in
mixtures and the formulations can also contain other toxic products.

Diverse tools are available to estimate these exposures: i) laboratory tools, such as direct assays for
pesticides or their metabolites in biological compartments or tests for early effects (e.g., genotoxic); ii)
predictive models, especially applied to occupational exposures and taking into account application
methods and the use of protective gear; and iii) the reconstruction of past exposure by means of an
activity-exposure matrix, ideally constructed by crop type and region. Th ese tools have been
developed in France, notably by teams at Caen (Dr Pierre Lebailly, GRECAN, Université de Caen)
and Bordeaux (Dr Isabelle Baldi, LSTE, Université de Bordeaux).
                                                     23
The use of chemical measurements in biological samples such as blood and urine media (exposure
biomarkers) to assess the pesticide burden of the general population is unfortunately restricted by
current legislation that regulates the taking of physical samples "without direct individual benefit."

5.2.2 Farmers and others exposed occupationally

Farmers are an especially exposed population, a sentinel for observation of possible pesticide effects.
Nonetheless, because the systematic surveillance underway at the MSA (Agricultural Social Security
Fund) involves only acute or subacute toxic features in its own members, it does not consider a
considerable portion of persons who may be especially exposed (independent farmers, seasonal
workers, lumberjacks, floriculturists, etc.), and cannot systematically identify chronic effects.

Farmers' occupational exposure to pesticides is very complex and varies greatly according to type of
farm. It is most often seasonal and involves the successive use of different chemical products
throughout the season and often also during a single day, because different products are used on one
or several types of crops.

Exposure reconstruction is also complicated by the changes in agricultural practices over time. For
example, a study conducted in collaboration with various farm organizations in Basse-Normandy found
that more than 15 herbicidal molecules belonging to 10 chemical families were used for growing corn
(the simplest crop from the point of view of the pesticide treatment) - some transiently (bromofenoxim
from 1978 to 1981), others by a minority of farmers (dicamba) and others almost universally (e.g.,
atrazine, dinoterb).

Methods of application depend on the crop and the product. Exposure is essentially respiratory, to a
lesser extent cutaneous, and only secondarily oral (eating, smoking).

The approval process takes into account the manufacturers' recommendations for protective gear in
determining the acceptability of risks. Nonetheless, ergonomic studies of farm work make it clear that
the number of treatments exceeds that anticipated by the approvals and that the use of protective
equipment varies according to the type of production (it is rare in large-scale farms and very frequent
in arboriculture). Because users (occupational or not) often find the recommended protective
equipment bothersome, it is not always used as foreseen by the dose calculations. This is especially
true in tropical countries (e.g., the West Indies) and in greenhouses (horticulture).

5.2.3 General population

The exposure of the general population – to food, water, air, suspended particles, and dust – must be
analyzed. The Committee's hearings showed that pesticides contaminated not only local air and water
but also those relatively far from the treatment site.

Water safety monitoring is carried out in a fixed inter-ministerial framework. Responsible for monitoring
drinking water, the DDASS (the social and health affairs agency) in each department relies on the
SIRIS method to select the pollutants to test for; this method takes into account usage within the
department and toxic properties, documented for example in "Agritox". The limitations of SIRIS include
the absence of assessments for some old pesticide products and the absence or failure to seek some
metabolites. Moreover, the ecotoxicity and toxicity data for the active substances considered are
sometimes quite summary.

A decree by the Directorate-General of Health on the analysis of metabolites is under development to
transpose the European directive into French law. The directive does not, however, specify the
metabolites to be sought.

Pesticide residues in general water supplies (and surface water) are regulated by decree 89-3 dated 3
January 1989, as modified. "Pesticides and related products" must comply with the maximum
acceptable concentrations (MAC) indicated in decree 89-3 (for the total substances measured: 0.5
µg/l; for any individual substance: 0.1 µg/l - with the exception of the following substances: aldrin,
dieldrin 0.03 µg/l, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide 0.03 µg/l).



                                                   24
The regulatory maximum allowable concentration of pesticides in water (0.1 µg/l for most compounds,
with an overall limit of 0.5 µg/l) is not based on risk analyses but results from policy decisions. The
                      g/l
quality limit of 0.5 µ for the total substances measured is essentially meaningless, since no list of
substances to be sought (and added together) has been decreed. Directive 98-83 provides some
response to this criticism by indicating that testing should be performed for items that are "probably
present". At the same time, some products of recognized toxicity (such as paraquat) are detectable
only at levels substantially above 0.1 µg/l; the analysis for some molecules is inadequate and the
methods for others not standardized. This raises the question of whether the sale and use of products
whose residual concentrations are difficult to measure should be approved.

Moreover, the drinking water of a portion of the French population comes from boreholes or private
wells. Neither the prevalence of this practice, nor the pesticide content of these waters has been
sufficiently documented.

Furthermore, although surveillance is continuous in large cities, in smaller population clusters, water is
not always analyzed according to a sampling calendar related to the application season; this defect
lessens the representativeness and the relevance of the measurements.

xx

Moreover, studies show that some particularly volatile pesticides can contaminate air far from the point
of application. Several studies are underway in this domain. Presentations at ADEME showed that
                                                                                         3
some pesticides in some regions were detected at concentrations on the order of ng/m in all samples;
                                                      3
this was the case, for example, for lindane (20 ng/m ). Pesticides are found in the air even outside of
application periods; they can be released from the soil or volatilized from the plants that were treated.
Moreover, nonvolatile compounds (isoproturon) have been found in rainwater; this may be explained
by wind erosion or by the transportation over long distances of products emitted during application. We
clearly do not know enough about the effects of pesticide transfers in the air.

The products used locally are too rarely recorded, although these data would be useful for estimating
population exposure for a given geographic area: sales figures are available at a national but not local
level.

Compliance with recommendations for use is particularly difficult to verify for the household use of pest
control products. Furthermore, use, storage, and fumes all differ between multiple dwellings and
houses. The companies involved in treatment of buildings and green spaces must provide users with
adequate information. Exposure to products for household use cannot be quantified with the current
data, and we cannot sure that these amounts are negligible.

5.2.4 Exposure from foodstuffs

General population

Figures from WHO indicate that by far the most important vehicle of pesticide exposure is
contaminated food. Risk assessments attribute 90% of exposure to food compared with 10% to water.
These figures should be confirmed.

Appendix 1 reports the surveillance methods for pest control product contamination of food in France
and the standards applied.

Fewer samples are generally used for food inspection than for water monitoring.

Between 4000 and 5000 plant analyses are performed annually in France by the DGCCRF
(Directorate-General of Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud, in the Ministry of Finance). Their
                                                            n
figures indicate that half of these are planned as part of a inspection program, while the other half
follow specific alerts. Seven to eight vegetables are systematically monitored; in addition, each year a
less common product family is subject to an analysis campaign.

The methods of regulatory surveillance of food contamination raise questions about the scale of the
surveillance, the strategies used (type of sampling) and the molecules sought (see appendix 1).
                                                   25
Laboratories look for 210 of the 600-700 molecules most commonly used. To test for more would
require investment in other analytic equipment.

The overall results reveal that at least one of the pesticides tested for was found in 50% of the
                                                                                 2
products; in different years, 5 to 8% exceeded the maximum residue limits (MRLs ) often because of
now banned organochlorines (persistence of molecules such as: bromide, procymidone,
benzimidazole; the rest contained pesticides but at levels below the tolerances.

Thirty percent of the products analyzed come from foreign countries, 20% from Spain (reinforced
surveillance). Last year, there were two alerts last year: the level of methamidophos (a systemic
product) exceeded the MRL in bell peppers from Spain; and that of chlormequat (forbidden in France)
in pears from Belgium. This systemic pesticide, present not just on the surface of the fruit but
throughout its flesh, could be dangerous if babies were fed these as stewed pears. Both products
have a low tolerable daily intake (TDI).

Babies and toddlers

French regulations (article 6 of the decree of 1 July 1976) state that "processed products (of food
intended for babies and small children) must have better guarantees against contaminants than the
corresponding items of current consumption".

EEC directives 99/39 and 99/50, concerning food for babies and toddlers, must be transposed into
French law, as they already have been in the other member states. They limit the level of residues of
substances with a TDI less than 0.005 mg/kg/day to a value of 0.01 mg/kg. Practices throughout the
European Community are not homogenous when the TDI is above this value.

The High Council for Public Health (Conseil Supérieur d'Hygiène Publique de France, CSHPF) studied
the problem of setting MRLs for pest control products in baby food during the session of its food and
nutrition branch on 8 October 1996.

It pointed out the diversity of standards from one country to another: in Belgium, no pesticide residues
                                                                          n
are authorized in food explicitly intended for babies and toddlers. I the US, in 1996, a discussion
began about reducing the standards for this type of food by a factor of ten, in the absence of
regulations in some countries. The Council then assessed the exposure of this population to pesticide
residues. Its conclusion underlined the difficulties in estimating daily intake from the data furnished to it
and the lack of toxicological data about pesticide residues in very young laboratory animals. It
proposed that a MRL be set specific for processed food intended for babies and toddlers and ruled out
the possibility of special MRLs for crops specifically intended for baby food. It suggested that the MRL
should equal the toxicologically acceptable level (TAL) when the latter is less than 10 ppb. Finally, this
group proposed an immediate review of agricultural practices for products with a MRL less than or
equal to the TAL, but with a provisional MRL higher than the TAL, due to agricultural practices. They
proposed setting the MRL for forbidden active substances at the limit of quantification of the most
effective analytic quantification method.




5.3. Health effects

5.3.1 Carcinogenesis
Despite an above-average life expectancy due to low mortality rates for cardiovascular disease and
cancer in general, farmers have an elevated risk of mortality and incidence for some types of cancer.


2
  The MRL for food, that is, the tolerance, is based upon the tolerable daily intake (TDI) and the
estimated quantity of each food consumed daily. The TDI is deduced from the long-term no observed
effect level (NOEL), which is assessed from findings in animal experiments, multiplied by safety
factors of 25, 100, 200 or more, depending on the toxic properties of the substance. The MRL lists are
set by decree and regularly revised.
                                                    26
These are generally infrequent, even rare, cancers, such as cancer of the lips, ovary, and brain, as
well as most cancers of the hematopoietic system (leukemia, myeloma, lymphoma), skin melanoma
and soft-tissue sarcoma. Cancers of the prostate and the stomach, both much more frequent, may
also be concerned (Blair et al., 1985). The increased risk ranges from 1.1 to 7 according to the study,
the tumor site and the way exposure was measured. A meta-analysis by Acquavella et al. (1998) of
data from 37 studies of farmers confirmed only the excess of lip cancer; this result involved only
exposure to general farming activity. This study contradicts numerous articles, published in particular
by Blair's team at the National Cancer Institute in the USA, that take pesticide use specifically into
account (Blair et al., 1991). These studies have frequently found significant associations between
pesticide use and some tumor sites. Some of these associations may involve other risk factors present
in farm settings, including smoking (for lip cancer), sunlight (lip cancer, melanoma), food (cancers of
the prostate and the stomach), and viruses (lymphoma, prostate cancer, myeloma, etc.). Studies
implicating specific product classes are rare.

Geographic correlation (or ecological) studies have suggested possible associations between
environmental exposures and cancer risk by examining, at the level of administrative departments, the
simultaneous variations in land use (percentages of different crops) and cancer mortality. These
studies have been performed in France on several occasions, by Viel et al. (1998) in particular. They
suggest an association between land use and cancer mortality (brain, blood and bladder tumors).
Because of the many associations tested and the inherent limitations of this type of survey, however,
these results alone cannot provide proof of a relation between some kinds of agricultural pollution and
cancer deaths.

Studies of children exposed to pesticides before birth or during childhood have observed an increased
cancer risk. Exposure can result from the parents' farm work (cohorts of farmers' children) or
contamination of the household or food. According to a recent review by Zahm et al. (1998), children's
exposure to pesticides has been associated most often with brain tumors and leukemia, with
increased risk values often higher than those observed for occupational pesticide exposure. There is
nonetheless no consensus about the existence of an increased risk of cancer; the reasons include the
uncertainties associated with the determination of pesticide exposure and the lack of experimental
data about the underlying biological mechanisms.

Most epidemiologic studies conducted since 1996 have not confirmed earlier observations that linked
the risk of breast cancer to the presence of organochlorine insecticides, either in breast tissue or
serum. The available studies have mainly examined DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and its
metabolite DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichlorethylene) and, more recently, dieldrin. Studies in populations
from different places (Europe, North America, Latin America) have reached discordant results: studies
in Europe and North America have not found any role for DDE, but populations in countries with more
recent DDT use have had increased risks of breast cancer related to high serum DDE levels
(Snedeker, 2001). One possible explanation for these contradictory observations is the difference in
the estrogen activity of various congeners during exposure that is principally alimentary (which is the
case in developed countries) compared with that resulting from agricultural use
5.3.2 Effects on Reproduction and Development
After the consequences of dibromochloropropane (DBCP) use were discovered, pesticides were
identified as agents likely to damage the male fertility process, via testicular toxicity. This nematicide,
used from 1960 through 1970 in numerous tropical and subtropical countries, led to tens of thousands
of documented cases of sterility due to occupational exposure (Slutsky et al., 1999). Harmful effects to
male fertility have also been documented from occupational exposure to other molecules from such
diverse chemical families as chlordecone (Cohn et al. 1978), carbaryl (Wyrobek et al., 1981),
dibromoethane (Schrader et al., 1988) and 2,4-D (Lerda et al., 1991).

Effects on male fertility can be measured by laboratory tests of various sperm parameters. The
intrinsic difficulties of this approach (since the sperm can be obtained only by masturbation) have
resulted in an almost total lack of population-based studies. Recently, a study of greenhouse workers
in Denmark found an inverse relation between the sperm concentration and either the intensity of
exposure or the number of years in greenhouse work (Abell et al., 2000). For this reason, researchers
have begun two newer types of studies. Some look for past pesticide exposure in the men of couples
consulting for infertility. These case-control studies (Bigelow et al., 1998; Oliva et al., 2001) have found
that pesticide exposure is a significant risk factor for sperm characteristics below the thresholds

                                                    27
considered as borderline for adequate reproductive capacity. Other studies measure the time to
pregnancy (TTP) in couples in which the man was exposed to pesticides. One such survey in the
Netherlands showed that the TTP was higher in couples who had tried to conceive during the pesticide
spraying season and when the father had used pesticides (de Cock et al., 1995). This contradicts a
European multicenter study that did not find evidence that paternal pesticide exposure affected TTP
(Thonneau et al., 1999).

Although the available studies have methodological problems, the results nonetheless suggest that
paternal occupational exposure to pesticides affects the risk of intrauterine mortality and reduces fetal
growth (Arbuckle et al., 1998). In developing countries, the stillbirth rate is also higher.

An increase in some categories of congenital malformations, such as anomalies of the central nervous
system or cleft lips and/or palates, has been observed to be associated with parental pesticide
exposure, but there is currently no convincing proof that this association is causal. Nonetheless
studies conducted in Andalusia (Spain) (ecological study) (Garcia-Rodriguez et al., 1996) and in
Denmark (Weidner et al., 1998) have shown an association between pesticide use, in particular by the
mother, and the risk of cryptorchidism, one possible expression of endoc rine disruption. These studies
require confirmation.

Some pesticides, in particular DDT, may act as "endocrine disrupters". Recent years have seen
extensive interest in the hypothesis that various harmful effects might be due to exposure to some
environmental contaminants able to imitate the action of endogenous hormones. More specific debate
today focuses on the possibility that exposure, including in utero, to substances with estrogenic
properties might be a cause of a wide variety of adverse effects, including cancer of the breast,
prostate and testes, damage to human reproductive functions, malformations of the male genital
        3
system, endometriosis, fertility problems, sexual behavior modifications, and learning delays as well
as adverse effects on the immune system and thyroid function. Although the hypothesis is plausible
from a biological point of view, there is so far no irrefutable proof that environmental exposure to
endocrine disrupters might cause human reproductive disorders.
5.3.3 Neurological and neurobehavioral effects
Neurotoxicity is precisely the mechanism of action for some pesticides (inhibition of
acetylcholinesterase activity). The acute effects of high doses in humans (farmers) have now been
well documented, due in particular to accidental and intentional (attempted suicide) poisoning. These
cases provide information about the potential neurotoxicity of some products, principally
organophosphates and carbamates, but also the older organochlorines (DDT, etc.), which can cause
epileptiform convulsions, pyrethroids (paresthesia, convulsions at massive doses) and urea derivatives
(polyneuropathy, central nervous disorders, etc.).

Our knowledge about the chronic effects of low-dose exposures repeated over a long period remains
incomplete. The principal chronic effects studied have been peripheral neuropathies and
neurodegenerative (such as Parkinson disease) and neurobehavioral disorders. Some 20 studies of
Parkinson disease have not led to any current consensus. An epidemiologic survey in the Gironde
(France) showed evidence that the pesticide exposure of vineyard workers affected their performance
on neurobehavioral tests (Baldi et al., 2001).

Many studies have confirmed that in utero exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and to other
organochlorine products in food can lead to psychomotor developmental delay in children.
Nonetheless, no epidemiologic study that we know of has examined the consequences of in utero
exposure to other classes of pesticides.




3
  including cryptorchidism (undescended testicles), hypospadias (abnormality of the location of the
urethral opening on the penis), and micropenis.
                                                  28
5.4 Environmental Impact
5.4.1. Pollution of Water Resources

At the request of MATE, the French Institute for the Environment (IFEN) has since 1998 synthesized
the available data about the pesticide pollution of water. The last synthesis, of data from 1998 - 1999,
was published in July 2001. The principal conclusions of these successive syntheses are that
generalized contamination by some substances has polluted surface and coastal waters, but touched
underground water less.

For example, the map of stream w     ater quality, drawn up by IFEN from data collected as part of the
National Basins Network, shows that for 1998-1999 pesticide contamination affected 94% of the
measurement points, so that they were incompatible with the risk-free development of aquatic life and
with use as untreated potable water. We note that nearly 10% of these points revealed water sources
                                                                          4
that could neither maintain a biological balance nor produce potable water if they were wanted for this
purpose.

The first synthesis involving networks specifically used for potable water used DDASS data for 1993-
1995 and found that pesticides were responsible for a quarter of all cases in which water was
unsatisfactory for drinking.

No changes have been demonstrated since the compilation of these syntheses. At the initiative of the
IFEN, a study is underway to attempt to define a method to identify trends.

Note that the data collected by IFEN from various existing networks can provide only a partial
representation of the real state of contamination, mainly because of the lack of methods available for
routine analyses with the desired thresholds and acceptable costs. This is a problem for both the
active substances and their metabolites.




4
  Without prior authorization by the Ministry of Health and based upon thresholds of 2 µg/l by
substance and 5 µg/l for total pesticides in the raw water (draft decree about waters intended for
human consumption)
                                                  29
Treatment            Transport
                                   Rain
          Volatilization
        Photodegradation                     Dry deposits




                              Runoff
                                         Erosion / transport Adsorption
       Degradation                                           Desorption
GROUND Adsorption                        Subsurface
       Desorption Infiltration             runoff
                                        and drainage                   SURFACE WATER
 Non-
 saturated                 UNDERGROUND WATER
 Zone


                                                                                 SEDIMENT


        Figure 3 : Mechanisms for transfer and transformation of pesticides in
        environmental media (from Corpen)


 5.4.2 Ecotoxicity

 Compared with the importance of toxicity to humans, toxicity to environmental species is often less
 important in the official approval process, and ecotoxicologists are underrepresented on the toxicity
 assessment committee. The impact on pollinating species, the auxiliaries of agriculture, and on soil
 microflora and microfauna has been studied only for new active molecules, in compliance with
 European directive 91/914.

 Formulations are tested for their acute toxicity in mammals; they should also be tested for toxicity to
 other species, but rarely are. The long-term consequences of the toxicity and ecotoxicity of these
 treatments are thus not considered at their true value. The trials performed so far aim only to guard
 against short -term effects; effects on the environmental population dynamics over a longer period are
 neither considered nor studied.

 While the assessment of active substances has become relatively more thorough since the EC
 Directive of 1991, this is not the case for formulations. The question of their interactions is almost
 entirely obscured, and the standardized trials to assess the active substances are not always
 performed with the formulated products. The effects of interactions between components of
 formulations, and molecules resulting from successive treatments of the same crops <ou plots of
 land??> are not known, because of the lack of onsite studies that sufficiently assess and consider the
 problem.

 The cumulative use of pesticides slowly and progressively degrades the biodiversity of farm soils,
 which come to resemble the artificial systems developed with intensive agriculture more than natural
 terrestrial ecosystems. Continuous intensification of the production system has long been the rule in
 agriculture and leads to this process of degradation of terrestrial life.

 We note the unmistakable inadequacy of the biosurveillance of land (microorganisms and invertebrate
 macrofauna) and aquatic (benthic invertebrates, fish) ecosystems. A clear correlation has nonetheless
 been shown, for example, between acetylcholinesterase activity in fish and organophosphate
 applications in coastal areas.

                                                   30
Aquatic species have been studied more than soil invertebrates. The effects on birds are difficult to
assess. INRA has not mobilized research teams on these themes, perhaps because these questions
involve research topics little valued in France.

The "ecotoxicologists" group of the toxic substance committee that studies the fate of products in the
                                                                                           5
air and in soil to calculate the foreseeable risks of environmental contamination (PEC ) has little
information about these questions, because they lack data, models and adequate tools. For example,
the same soil may vary between its unsaturated and saturated areas, with, in particular, biotopes that
can be very different. Because these variations are sometimes very substantial, standardization can
be quite difficult. Major efforts in modeling are required. It was also noted that file access for the
environmental component of the official approval procedure was extremely difficult.




5
    PEC: Predicted Environmental Concentration
                                                 31
5.5 Research Needed

Because the research set-up to be constructed requires a strong and lasting commitment and should
aim to implement real precautionary measures, more specific studies are urgently needed for seve ral
particularly sensitive points related to more short -term prevention.

        -   The interactions between products must be better studied, not only because of the low
            doses involved but also because the synergy may be substantial. While some aspects of
            the physicochemical reactions between some products are known, their toxicity and
            ecotoxicity often are not. More in-depth research on the toxicology associated with
            extemporaneous mixtures (a very frequent, albeit illegal practice) is particularly needed for
            agricultural occupations. It must begin with the most common mixtures and application
            methods actually used by farmers.

        -   Some categories require closer monitoring; it must be assumed on principle that some
            populations (children, women who are or may become pregnant) may be particularly at
            risk for a given exposure level, or that some people may be especially sensitive because
            of a specific genetic profile.

        -   The first studies must start from a group of products selected according to their toxicity
            and seek the analytic techniques that will allow them to be assayed. There is otherwise a
            risk that for reasons of analytic difficulty or cost, results might not be available for the most
            toxic compounds.

        -   To select the most urgent subjects, one might cross a product's use, in tons, and its
            toxicity with data about the environmental media (for example, soil fragility or groundwater
            vulnerability).

        -   Once a general overview of the cycle has been obtained, these emergency studies should
            make it possible to use some of the initial toxicity indicators to quantify the risks.

        -   To generalize these approaches, there must be available at the same time on-going
            monitoring of the formulations used in different areas (cf. collection and recording, on a
            geographic base, of the quantity and types of products mentioned above) and of the
            diseases of the local populations and the workers concerned by exposure to these
            products (this supposes the availability of a disease registry more specific than the current
            one), to make it possible to establish correlations and to have a foundation available for
            real epidemiologic studies.

Finally, the committee observed that the health effects of other chemicals, used in applications other
than agriculture (transportation, homes, industry, health, food, etc.), are likely to combine with those of
pesticides. This is especially true for the entire set of substances that act as endocrine disrupters,
found in products as diverse as paints, fuels, and estrogens. Without awaiting a new referral on this
much broader subject, the CPP recommends now that immediate research be undertaken on this
subject, to be treated in association with but also independently of pesticides, especially in urban
areas. This work must aim in priority to identify the most active molecules (those listed in appendix 3,
such as nonylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol) and their environmental fate all the way through to human
exposure. This research, like that for the present referral, will require that scientific and medical teams
work together better; these teams should be still more diverse than those for pesticides, should include
civilian and military research, and should concern much broader approaches to exposure and
environmental media, including households.




                                                    32
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Surveillance of food and water contamination by pest control products



The following information comes primarily from the document "Appraisal of the Procedures for
Surveillance of Water and Food Contamination by Pest Control Products," part of a study conducted
by the laboratory for environmental health of the National School of Public Health (Ecole Nationale de
la Santé publique) (Feb 2001).

The official approval applications for pesticides must include a proposed maximum residue limit (MRL)
compatible with consumer health. The theoretical maximum daily intake (TMDI), that is, the maximum
quantity of residue that an individual is likely to ingest in food daily, must therefore be calculated. This
information is obtained by crossing two types of information: the residue concentrations by crop (in
mg/kg), and the percentage of that foodstuff in the daily diet (in g/day)

xx

MRLs are currently defined at national, European and international (Codex alimentarius) levels, but
these do not have the same regulatory value. European directives prevail over French law, and any
MRL adopted at the European level must be transposed into French law. A European MRL that went
into effect on 3 March 1999 concerns 66 compounds.

When there is no European MRL, member states may set a national MRL in their regulations until a
harmonized MRL or a quantification limit is set for Europe. Accordingly, French regulations have their
own MRLs, to supplement the European MRLs. Nonetheless, establishing these MRL is gradually
becoming a Community rather than a national responsibility. The primacy of the European MRLs
sometimes leads states to publish MRLs for uses that have not been officially approved.

For plant foodstuffs, the decrees of 5 August 1992, as modified, and of 10 February 1989, as modified,
enact the MRLs and the principal provisions related to the circulation of foodstuffs. They include one
basic ban: it is "forbidden to hold for sale, to put on sale, to sell or to deliver for consideration or free of
charge the products or parts of products of plant origin from the groups listed in appendix 1 that
contain pesticide residues at concentrations exceeding those set herein". Pesticide residues are
defined as "the residue of pesticides, as well as the products of their metabolism, decay or reaction".

France has 476 officially approved active substances. Among them, approximately 250 active
substances with an MRL are used for fruits and vegetables, 80 for potatoes, roughly 200 for grains,
130 for other products (soy, tea...), (cf. appendix 1 for the list of MRLs in plant products).

The orders of magnitude of the MRLs vary substantially, from 0.01 mg/kg to 70 mg/kg, with roughly a
quarter of the values less than 0.05 mg/kg and half ranging from 0.05 to 0.5 mg/kg. In all, 98% of the
MRLs are less than 5 mg/kg. The highest MRLs are 70 mg/kg for biphenyl in citrus fruits, 50 mg/kg for
glyphosate in mushrooms, and 50 mg/kg for sulfur in fruits and vegetables.

The French pesticide list is more complete than that established by the European directive. It furnishes
MRLs for 62 active substances, including organophosphates, pyrethroids and organochlorines,
including PCB. That is, although organochlorines have not been used in France for more than 20
years, they may still be detected throughout the food chain, being both persistent and
bioaccumulative.

The definition of good agricultural practices is not appropriate for some of the MRLs for plant
foodstuffs. That is, even when these practices are followed, residue concentrations measured at
harvest are sometimes higher than the MRLs. A study by CREDOC in September 1994 indicated that
seven pesticides (of 167 studied) may be used at levels exceeding 200% of the TDI. These are

                                                      33
aminotriazole, demeton-s-methyl      sulfone,   oxydemeton-methyl,     captane,   cyhexatin-azocyclotin,
omethoate and phosphamidon.

Animal foods (i.e., food of animal origin) and processed products do not have their own specific MRLs;
these are set instead for the fresh products at harvest. Most products harvested are processed in
some way, at a domestic level or on an industrial scale. This processing is supposed to reduce the
quantity of residues (except in particular cases) but can also result in the formation of residues more
toxic or dangerous than the initial pesticide.

No maximum levels of pesticide residues are set for fish or shellfish. There are no MRLs for
hydrophilic and/or lipophobic pesticides, and therefore no testing for them is carried out.

Procedures for monitoring compliance with MRLs

The units authorized to monitor pesticide contamination of food and water belong to several agencies:
for plant foods, the Directorate-General of Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud (DGCCRF) and
the regional departments of plant protection of the Directorate-General of Food (DGAl/SRPV); for food
of animal origin, the departmental veterinary sections of the Directorate-General of Food (DGAl/SVD),

The DGCCRF is responsible for carrying out several surveillance plans, both European and national.
Its total activity concerning pesticide residues in food plants in 1998 involved 4058 samples. Globally,
one inspection in five is performed at the producers' premises; the others are performed at the time of
sale, in wholesale markets, in supermarkets, and at smaller retailers.

The French monitoring plans call for sampling both French (2/3 of the samples) and imported (1/3)
products. Diverse foodstuffs are tested; ten principal foods supplying a major portion of the diet have
been identified. Contamination in these foods is examined yearly (1867 samples in 1999). In
additional, ten products from crops of lesser importance as well as "regional initiatives"' represent 20%
of the samples. For example, 472 samples of artichokes, leeks, spinach and turnips were tested in
1999 by the DGCCRF in Rennes. The ten principal foodstuffs covered 68% of vegetable consumption
(lettuce, potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, endives, cabbage) and 71% of fruits (apples, citrus fruits,
peaches and bananas).

The fraud department of the DGCCRF carries out inspections to prevent the sale of food with residues
of specific active substances. Their analyses therefore involve authorized substances (verification of
the actual concentration relative to the MRL) as well as those that are banned (to verify that they are
indeed not used): 28% of the analyses are thus conducted on active substances that are not
approved, such as residues of the organochlorine family. The DGCCRF analyzes only 161 active
substances of the 476 approved. Two thirds of the active substances approved are therefore not
sought in the analyses.

The method for constituting the sample is strictly defined in the decree dated 25 February 1982. The
basic samples must come from diverse points of the lot, must be taken in sufficient quantity (in weight)
and must not be (highly) deteriorated. Depending on the weight of the lot (<50 kg, 50-500 kg, >500
kg), the inspector takes samples from 3, 5 or 10 different points. These basic samples are mixed to
obtain an overall sample that can then be used as is for the analyses, or reduced by the method of
quartering and rejecting opposite quarters. The samples thus prepared are the laboratory samples.

The interpretation of the results by food type lets us know the number of residues found in a single
sample: a maximum of nine residues were present in single samples in 1998, of both lettuces and
grapes.

Fewer samples are generally used for food inspection than for water monitoring.

The results reveal an enormous heterogeneity in levels according to food type, which is certainly
correlated to different growing practices, but also for the same foods, between the median and mean
concentrations. A list should be drawn up of substances to be monitored in priority. Several criteria can
be used to construct this list: frequency of detection in pest control products, concentrations
measured, variability of results, density of information by pesticide-food pair, danger of pesticide.

                                                   34
The mission of verifying that farmers' various uses of pesticides result in levels compatible with French
regulations belongs to the DGAL and the agencies responsible for plant protection (SRPV).
Accordingly, SRPV analyzes residues for surveys to determine the residue concentrations in food at
harvest and also in part with an eye to official approval of new substances (official experiments). They
also function as advisors to farmers: if the limits are exceeded, they seek the correlations between
these instances of overuse and the production system and then suggest modifications to agricultural
practices, including new regulations if needed, to ensure that health standards are met. The SRPV
therefore functions simultaneously as judge and as party in the same case.

Producers, if they choose to participate, agree to furnish to SRPV a list of the treatments carried out
on their plots (formulations, treatment dates, number of passes on each date). The SRPV determines
what active substances to look for from these lists and tries to perform an adequate number of
analyses for each substance chosen.

The results of the analyses are compared to any MRLs. Exceeding the MRL is often due to a failure to
comply with good agricultural practices, in particular for the time until harvest and the quantity of active
substance used




                                                    35
    Appendix 2. Industrial Data: Quantities of Active Substances Sold in France in 2000



                                INSECTICIDES - ACARICIDES                                         Tons

Carbamates: aldicarb, benfuracarb, carbaryl,          carbofuran,   fenoxycarb,   formetanate,    976
furathiocarbe, methomyl, pirimicarb, thiofanox

Organochlorines: endosulfan, lindane                                                              194

Organophosphate pesticides: acephate, azinphos-methyl, chlorfenvinphos, chlormephos,              1287
chlorpyrifos-ethyl, chlorpyrifos-methyl, diazinon, dichlofenthion, dichlorvos, dimethoate,
disulfoton, ethion, ethoprophos, fenitrothion, fenthion, fonofos, formothion, heptenophos,
isofenphos, malathion, methamidophos, methidathion, mevinphos, omethoate, oxydemeton
methyl, all ethyl and methyl parathions, phosalone, phorate, phosmet, phoxim, pirimiphos
methyl, quinalphos, sulfotep, temephos, terbufos, thiometon, vamidothion

Pyrethroids: alphamethrin, beta cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin,   193
esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, lambdacyhalothrin, permethrin, tau-fluvalinate, tefluthrin,
tralomethrin, zetacypermethrin

Diverse Insecticides: abamectin, acrinathrin, amitraz, bacillus thuringiensis, buprofezin,        367
cyromazine, diflubenzuron, fipronil, flufenoxuron, imidacloprid, lufenuron, tebufenozide,
triazamate, triflumuron

Acaricides: azocyclotin, b  romopropylate, clofentezine, dicofol, fenazaquin, fenbutatin-oxide,    86
fenpyroximate, propargite, pyridaben, tebufenpyrad, tetradifon

Total INSECTICIDES - ACARICIDES                                                                   3103




                                         FUNGICIDES                                               Tons

Carbamates: benomyl, carbendazim, diethofencarb, HCl, mancozeb, maneb, propamocarb,               6893
propineb, thiabendazole, thiophanate-methyl, thiram, zinc metiram, zineb, ziram,

Benezene derivatives: chlorothalonil, quintozene                                                  891

Dicarboximides: captane, folpet, iprodione, procymidone, vinclozolin                              3663

Amines, amides: benalaxyl, carboxin, cymoxanil, flutolanil, mepronil, metalaxyl, ofurace,         649
oxadixyl, triforine

Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitors (SBI): bitertanol, bromuconazole, cyproconazole,                   2423
difenoconazole, diniconazole, dimethomorph, epoxiconazole, fenbuconazole, fenpropimorph,
fluquinconazole, flusilazole, flutriafol, hexaconazole, metconazole, myclobutanil, penconazole,
propiconazole, tebuconazole, tetraconazole, triadimefon, triadimenol, triticonazole, tridemorph

Copper: copper formulations, copper sulfate, copper oxychloride and copper oxyquinolate           5053
copper

Sulfur formulations                                                                               26307




                                                     36
Diverse fungicides anilazine, azoxystrobin, bupirimate, cyprodinil, dichlofluanid, dinocap,            6955
dithianon, doguadine, famoxadone, fenarimol, fenpiclonil, fenpropidin, fentin acetate, fentin
hydroxide, fluazinam, fludioxonil, fosetyl-Al, guazatine triacetate, hymexazol, imazalil, kresoxim-
methyl, nuarimol, oxyquinoline, pencycuron, prochloraz, pyrazophos, pyrifenox, pyrimethanil,
quinoxyfen, sodium arsenite, spiroxamine, tolclofos-methyl, triazoxide, tolylfluanid

Total Fungicides                                                                                       52834




                                            HERBICIDES                                                 Tons

Benzonitriles: bromoxynil, chlorthiamid, dichlobenil, ioxynil                                          537

Diphenyl ethers: bifenox, fluoroglycofen ethyl, fomesafen, oxyfluorfen                                 191

Phenoxyalkanoic acids: 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, 2,4-MCPA, 2,4-MCPB, dichlorprop, mecoprop,                       2396
mecoprop-p

Carbamates: asulam,         carbetamide,     desmedipham,      EPTC,      molinate,   phenmedipham,    996
prosulfocarb, triallate

Urea substitutes: chlortoluron, diuron,              isoproturon,    linuron,   methabenzthiazuron,    5,033
metobromuron, metoxuron, monolinuron

Diazines: bentazone, bromacil, chloridazon, lenacil, norflurazon, pyridate                             712

Triazines: atrazine, cyanazine, prometryne, simazine, terbuthylazine, terbutryn                        3024

Triazinones: hexazinone, metamitron, metribuzin                                                        643

Amides and Chloroacetamides: acetochlor, alachlor, dimethenamid,                        metazachlor,   4765
metolachlor, napropamide, propachlor, propanil, propyzamide, tebutam

Toluidines: benfluralin, butralin, oryzalin, pendimethalin, trifluralin                                1675

Picolinic acid derivatives: clopyralid, fluroxypyr, picloram, triclopyr                                430

Sulfonylureas: amidosulfuron, bensulfuron, chlorsulfuron, cinosulfuron, flazasulfuron,                  72
flupyrsulfuron methyl, metsulfuron methyl, nicosulfuron, prosulfuron, rimsulfuron, thifensulfuron
methyl, triasulfuron, tribenuron methyl, triflusulfuron methyl

Aryloxyphenoxy and amino propionates: diclofop-methyl, fenoxaprop ethyl, flamprop                      256
isopropyl, fluazifop-p-butyl, haloxyfop ethoxyethyl, propaquizafop, quizalofop ethyl, quizalofop
ethyl (isomer D)

Diverse herbicides and pest control agents: aclonifen, aminotriazole, benoxacor,                       10115
carfentrazone, clethodim, clodinafop-propargyl, clomazone, cycloxydim, dicamba, diflufenican,
dimefuron, diquat, DNOC, ethofumesate, flurochloridone, flurtamone, glufosinate ammonium,
glyphosate, isoxaben, isoxaflutole, metosulam, sulcotrione, dalapon, cloquintocet-mexyl,
fenclorim, flufenacet, flumioxazin, imazamethabenz, imazaquin, naptalam, oxadiazon, paraquat,
pretilachlor, quinclorac, quinmerac, sulfosate, thiocyanate ammonium

Total Herbicides                                                                                       30845




                                                          37
                                     OTHER PRODUCTS                                               Tons

Nematicides: dichloropropene, metam-sodium                                                        979

Rodenticides: bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, difethialone                                          1

Molluscicides : mercaptodimethur, metaldehyde, thiodicarb                                         369

Growth substances ANA, chlormequat chloride, chlorpropham, choline chloride, ethephon,            3184
maleic hydrazide, mepiquat chloride, paclobutrazol, prohexadione-calcium, trinexapac ethyl

Diverse products: fatty alcohols, fatty amine ethoxylates, calcium chloride, oils, nonylphenol,   3379
anthraquinone

Total Other products                                                                              7912

                                                                                       TOTAL      94694




                                                     38
        Appendix 3: Active Substances Suspected to be Endocrine Disrupters *



                           Insecticides                                 Herbicides                      Fungicides

   Aldicarb (116-06-3)             Fenvalerate (51630-58-1)           2,4-D (94-75-7)            Benomyl (17804-35-2)

    Aldrin (309-00-2)             Esfenvalerate (66230-04-4)         2,4,5-T (93-76-5)          Mancozeb (8018-01-7)

   Allethrin (584-79-2)               Lindane (58-89-9)            Alachlor (15972-60-8)            Maneb (12427-38-2)

  Beta-HCB (118-74-1)                Heptachlor (76-44-8)         Aminotriazole (61-82-5)           Metiram (9006-42-2)

    Carbaryl (63-25-2)          Heptachlor-epoxide (1024-57-3)      Atrazine (1912-24-9)            Quintozene (82-68-8)

 Chlordane (12789-03-6)              Malathion (121-75-5)         Metolachlor (51218-45-2)      Vinclozolin (50471-44-8)
    and metabolites

 Chlordecone (143-50-0)             Methomyl (16752-77-5)         Metribuzin (21087-64-9)           Zineb (12122-67-7)

 Chlorpyrifos(2921-88-2)            Methoxychlor (72-43-5)          Nitrofen (1836-75-5)              Ziram (137-30-4)

Cypermethrin (52315-07-8)             Mirex (2385-85-5)             Simazine (122-34-9)

     DBCP (96-12-8)                  Parathion (56-38-2)           Trifluralin (1582-09-8)

   DDT (50-29-3) and               Permethrin (52645-53-1)
     metabolites

    Dicofol (115-32-2)                    Pyrethroids                                      Others

    Dieldrin (60-57-1)              Toxaphene (8001-35-2)                   Nonylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol

  Endosulfan (115-29-7)                                                       Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)

                     •     The numbers between parentheses are the CAS numbers of the active substances.



        Appendix 4: List of Active Ingredients Evaluated by IARC



                                Active substances (alone or in a mixture) assessed by IARC

        Group 2A : Formaldehyde

        Group 2B: amitrole (or aminotriazole), dichlorvos

        Group 3: aldicarb, atrazine, piperonyl butoxide, captane, carbaryl, chlorpropham, deltamethrin, dicofol,
        maleic hydrazide acid, malathion, maneb, parathion-methyl, parathion, permethrin, piperonyl butoxide,
        picloram, quintozene, simazine, superoxide hydrogen, thiram, trichlorfon, trifluralin, zineb, ziram,




                                                             39
Appendix 5 Active Substances Sought by LCSQA



  Substances to be monitored in priority nationally             Substances tested for without the need
                                                                 for development of special analytic
                                                                             techniques

          Alachlor                        Folpet                               Carbaryl

          Atrazine                  Glyphosate and its                         Diazinon
                                    metabolite AMPA

       Chlorothalonil                   Isoproturon                           Oxadiazon

    Chlorphyrifos ethyl             Kresoxim-methyl                        Parathion-methyl

         Dichlorvos                      Lindane                              Permethrin

        Diflufenican                    Malathion                           Terbuthylazine

          Diuron                        Metolachlor

       Epoxiconazole                   Tebuconazole                 Substances tested selectively

        Endosulfan                       Trifluralin                         Deltamethrin

      Fenpropimorph                                                         Tau-fluvalinate



Appendix 6 Combinations of Pesticides and Products to be tested in 2001 (EEC)

Combinations of pesticides and products to be monitored during 2001, as planned in point 1 of the
RECOMMENDATION OF EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY, No 174/01/COL, on 8 June 2001
concerning a coordinated surveillance program for 2001 aimed at verifying compliance with the
maximum pesticide residue limits in and on grains and some products of plant origin, including fruits
and vegetables

 Group A               Group B               Group C              Group D            Group E
Acephate               Diazinon             Chlorphyrifos-        Azinphos-methyl    Aldicarb
Benomyl group          Metalaxyl            methyl                Captane            Bromopropylate
Chlorpyrifos           Methidathion         Deltamethrin          Chlorothalonil     Cypermethrin
Iprodione              Thiabendazole        Endosulfan            Dichlofluanid      Methiocarb
Methamidophos                               Imazalil              Dicofol            Methomyl
                       Triazophos
                                            Lambda-               Dimethoate         Monocrotophos
                                            cyhalothrin           Disulfoton         Parathion
                                            Maneb group           Folpet
                                                                                     Tolylfluanid
                                            Mecarbam              Malathion
                                            Permethrin            Omethoate
                                            Pirimiphos-methyl     Oxydemeton-
                                                                  methyl 0
                                            Vinclozolin
                                                                  Phorate
                                                                  Procymidone
                                                                  Propyzamide
                                                                  Thiometon
                                                                  Azoxystrobin


                                                       40
Bibliography and Internet Sites
Abell A, Ernst E, Bonde JP. Semen quality and sexual hormones in greenhouse workers. Scand J
Work Environ Health. 2000 ;26:492-500.

Acquavella et al. Cancer among farmers : a meta-analysis. Ann. Epidemiol., 1998, 8:64-74.

Actes du colloque " L'utilisation des pesticides est elle socialement acceptable ? " organisé par l'UIPP,

Ansell PE, Bennet V, Bull D, Jackson MB, Pike LA, Pike MC, Chilvers CED, Dudley NE, Gough MH,
Griffiths DM, Redman C, Keiding N, Giwercman A, Carlsen E, Skakkebaek NE. Importance of
empirical evidence (commentary) Br Med J. 1994, 309: 22.

Arbuckle TE., Sever LE. Pesticide exposures and fetal death : a review of the epidemiologic litterature
Crit Rev in Toxicol, 1998,28:229-270.

Association de Coordination Technique Agricole, Index phytosanitaire ACTA 1999. 35ème ed. 1999,
Paris

Baldi. I, Filleul. L, Brahim. M-B et al. Neuropsychologic effects of long-term exposure to pesticides :
results from the French Phytoner study. Environ Health Perspect, 2001,109:839-844.

Ballay. D, : Principaux constats et recommandations relatifs aux pesticides formulés par l'insistance
d'évaluation de la politique de préservation de la ressource en eau destinée à la consommation
humaine

Betarbet. R., et al., Chronic systemic pesticide exposure reproduces features of Parkinson's disease.
Nature Neuroscience, 2000. 3(n°12): p. 1301-1306
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v3/n12/pdf/nn1200_1301.pdf

Bigelow, P.L., Jarrell, J., Young, M.R. et al. Association of semen quality and occupational factors:
comparison of case-control analysis and analysis of continuous variables. Fertil. Steril., 1998, 69, 11-
18.

Bilan des Modalités de Surveillance de la Contamination par les Phytosanitaires de l'Eau et des
Denrées Alimentaires ENSP

Blair et al. Cancer among farmers : a review. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health, 1985, 11:397-407.

Blair et al. Cancer among farmers. Occup. Med., 1991, 6:335-354.

British Crop Protection Council, The Pesticide Manual - Twelfth edition. Clive Tomlin ed. 2001

Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer, Monographies du CIRC sur l'Evaluation des Risques
de Cancérogénicité pour l'Homme,. http://193.51.164.11

Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer, Rapport biennal 1998-1999,.. 2000: Lyon
http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/GENERAL/BIEN_REPORTS/FRA/B_FRAtab.PDF

ChemFinder.Com - Database and Internet Searching,. http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com/

Cohn, W., Boylan, J.J., Blanke, R.V. et al. Treatment of chlordecone (Kepone) toxicity with
cholestyramine. Results of a controlled clinical trial. N. Engl. J. Med., 1978, 298: 243-248.

Comité national de sécurité sanitaire : " Pesticides et Santé ". Point presse du 15 octobre 2OO1

                                                   41
Conseil National de l'Evaluation. " La politique de préservation de la ressource en eau destinée à la
consommation humaine ". Rapport d'instance d'évaluation présidée par Franck Villey-Desmeserets,
24 octobre 2001.

CREDOC, AFSSA, and Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche, Enquête individuelle et nationale sur
les consommations alimentaires. TEC & DOC ed. 2000. 158 pages.
http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/basedoc/Inca-résumé.pdf - http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/basedoc/Rapinca.pdf

CSHPF (Conseil supérieur d'hygiène publique de France ), Section de l'alimentation et de la nutrition.
Compte rendu de la séance du 8 octobre 1996. " Fixation de limites maximales de résidus de produits
phytosanitaires dans les aliments pour nourrissons et enfants en bas âge ". Rapporteur M. Periquet.
Dossier n°960090

de Cock J, Westveer K, Heederik D, te Velde E, van Kooij R.Time to pregnancy and occupational
exposure to pesticides in fruit growers in The Netherlands. Occup Environ Med. 1994 ;51:693-9.

Directive 91/414/CEE du Conseil, du 15 juillet 1991, concernant la mise sur le marché des produits
phytopharmaceutiques

Eau & Rivières de Bretagne, Pollution des eaux bretonnes - Cinq mesures indispensables pour Eau &
Rivières de Bretagne,.. 2000 http://assoc.wanadoo.fr/erb/actu14.htm

Extension Toxicology Network, Movement of                pesticides    in   the   environment,..   1993
http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/tibs/movement.htm

Falcy. M, Mur. J-M, and Pillière. F, Les perturbateurs endocriniens. Travail et Sécurité, 2000
http://www.inrs.fr/dossiers/pointsur8.html#Pour%20en%20savoir%20plus

Garcia-Rodriguez J, Garcia-Martin M, Nogueras -Ocana M, de Dios Luna-del-Castillo J, Espigares
Garcia M, Olea N, Lardelli-Claret P. Exposure to pesticides and cryptorchidism: geographical evidence
of a possible association. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:1090-5.

Giasson. B, and Lee. V, A new link between pesticides and Parkinson's disease. Nature
Neuroscience,                2000.               3(n°12):      p.           1227-1228
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v3/n12/pdf/nn1200_1227.pdf

Groupe Régional d'Etude sur le CANcer-EA1772 MATE Impact des pesticides en matière de cancer
chez les exploitants agricoles.

Haut Comité de la Santé Publique, " Politique publique et pollution atmosphérique et santé. Poursuivre
la réduction des risques ". Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité. Editions ENSP, Collection Avis et
Rapports, juillet 2000 ; 275 pages.

INSERM :Programme d'aide aux projets exceptionnels (APEX) appel aux propositions 2001-11-23

Inspection Générale de l'Environnement : Rapport sur la présence de pesticides dans les eaux de
consommation humaine en Guadeloupe.

Institut National de Recherche Agronomique, AGRITOX : http://www.inra.fr/agritox/

Jensen TK, Jouannet P, Keiding L, McLaclan JA, Meyer O, Muller J, Rajpert -De Meyts E, Scheike T,
Sharpe R, Sumpter J, Skakkebaek N. Male reproductive health and environmental xenooestrogens.
Environ Health Prospect. 1996, 104 suppl.4 : 741.

Jouany. J.-M, Dabène. E, and Classements des substances actives phytosanitaires en vue de la
surveillance de la qualité des eaux à l'échelle nationale,.. 1994, Comité de liaison " Eaux - Produits
antiparasitaires "



                                                   42
Laboratoire d'étude et de Recherche en Environnement et Santé, Bilan des modalités de surveillance
de la contamination par les produits phytosanitaires de l'eau et des denrées alimentaires,.. 2001. p.
21-44

Lerda, D. and Rizzi, R. Study of reproductive function in persons occupationally exposed to 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Mutat. Res.,1991, 262, 47-50

Liboiron. G., Les herbicides,. http://www.unites.uqam.ca/sts/documents/travaux/gen/herbicides.html

Marlière. F, Mesure des pesticides dans l'atmosphère,.. 2000, Institut National de l'Environnement
Industriel et des Risques

Mémoire ENSP. K. Blot Détermination des paramètres permettant d'identifier les produits
phytosanitaire susceptibles d'avoir les impacts sur la santé publique les plus importants en France..

Mémoire ENSP. Bilan des modalités de surveillance de la contamination par les produits
phytosanitaires de l'eau et des denrées alimentaires, Laboratoire d'étude et de recherche en
environnement et santé de l'Ecole Nationale de la Santé publique (fev 2001).

Oliva, A., Spira, A., Multigner, L. Contribution of environmental factors to the risk of male infertility.
Human Reproduction, 2001,16 : 1768-1776.
Pomiculture et effets sur la santé : une étude écologique géographique en Corrèze. Institut de Veille
Sanitaire. Octobre 2000. 49 pages.

Produits antiparasitaires (PA). 6 Cadre réglementaire. Editions Législatives, 2000 ; 7 pages.

Programme de recherche MATE" Evaluation et réduction des risques liés à l'utilisation des pesticides
". Appel à propositions de recherche 1999, projets de recherche retenus. MATE, D4E-SRP. Catherine
Bastien Ventura.

Réseau International Santé Environnement. Actes des cinquièmes Rencontres Santé Environnement.
Les 19 et 20 mai 2000 château de Bierville. BRISE décembre 2000 ; Tome 4 numéro spécial :142
pages.

Revue :Effets retardés des pesticides sur la santé :état des connaissances épidémiologiques

Rico. A, Les phytosanitaires - Homologations. Ecole Vétérinaire de Toulouse.

Rico. A, Pollutions et pratiques agricoles. Deux concepts : dose journalière admissible et
chimiodéfense. Compte rendu de l'Académie Sciences de la vie, Paris de manière générale :

Rico. A, Système de chimio-défense. Compte rendu de l'Académie de Sciences : Sciences de la vie.
Février 2001.

Ritter. L., Solomon. K R, and Forget. J, Persistent Organic Pollutants : An Assessment Report on
DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endrin, Chlordane, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene, Mirex, Toxaphene,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dioxins, and Furans,... 1995,
IPCS.http://irptc.unep.ch/pops/newlayout/infpopsalt.htm

Rousse. C, Rouge. M, and Dechariaux. H, La réglementation sur les produits chimiques,.. 2001, DGS
/ SD7B

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Etude de la Commission Royale sur les effets à long
terme des produits chimiques dans l'environnement.

Schrader, S.M., Turner, T.W. and Ratcliffe, J.M. The effects of ethylene dibromide on semen quality: a
comparison of short -term and chronic exposure. Reprod. Toxicol., 1988, 24:191-198.

Sharpe, RM, NE Skakkebaek, 1993. Lancet. 341:1392-1395.
                                                   43
Slutsky, M., Levin, J.L. and Levy, B.S. Azoospermia and oligospermia among a large cohort of DBCP
applicators in 12 countries. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health, 1999, 5:116-122.

Snedeker SM, Pesticides and breast cancer risk : a review of DDT, DDE, and dieldrin. Environ Health
Perspect, 2001, 109 (suppl1): 35-47.

Thonneau P, Abell A, Larsen SB, Bonde JP, Joffe M, Clavert A, Ducot B, Multigner L, Danscher G.
Effects of pesticide exposure on time to pregnancy: results of a multicenter study in France and
Denmark. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 ;150:157-63.

Van der Werf. H.M.G., Assessing the impact on the environment, in Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. 1996. p. 81-96 http://www.inra.fr/dpenv/hayowc31.htm#3

Viel et al. Brain cancer mortality among French farmers: the vineyard pesticide hypothesis. Arch.
Environ. Health. 1998,53:65-70.

Weidner IS, Moller H, Jensen TK, Skakkebaek NE. Cryptorchidism and hypospadias in sons of
gardeners and farmers. Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106:793-6.

Wyrobek, A.J., Watchmaker, G., Gordon, L. et al. Sperm shape abnormalities in carbaryl-exposed
employees. Environ. Health Perspect.,1981, 40: 255-265.

Zahm et al. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect., 1998, 106 : 893-908.




                                                44
                                       SITES INTERNET

Ministère de l'Agriculture français et la base de données e-phy établie par le Ministère de l'Agriculture
français est disponible sur Internet à l'adresse http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/e-phy/actu/accueil.asp

L'Agence de Protection Environnementale américaine (US EPA) : http://www.epa.gov/iris/

La base de données du PAN recense les données établies par différentes sources officielles que sont
l'US EPA, l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS), le Programme National de Toxicologie
américain (NTP), les Institutions Nationales de la Santé (NIH, américain), le Centre International de la
Recherche sur le Cancer (CIRC), l'Union Européenne (UE) et l'Etat de Californie. La base de données
est accessible via l'adresse Internet http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ ou http://data.pesticideinfo.org

Pour les effets cancérigènes, le PAN a lui-même créé ses catégories, la signification des catégories
est disponible sur Internet à :
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/documentation3/ref_toxicity3.html#IARCCarcinogens

Les publications de l'OMS renseignent sur la toxicité et la cancérogénicité de produits chimiques. La
liste de ces        publications est    consultable     sur    Internet  à   l'adresse    suivante   :
http://www.who.int/dsa/cat98/chemtox8.htm

La base de données ITER est accessible gratuitement sur Internet à l'adresse http://www.tera.org/iter/.
Elle recense les données sur environ 500 substances chimiques évaluées par plusieurs organisations
internationales

L'identification des pesticides parmi tous les agents évalués par le CIRC a pu être réalisée grâce au
site Internet http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com/ ou http://www.chemfinder.com

Autres sites consultés
Allanou. R, Hansen. R-G, and van der Bilt. Y, Public Availibility of Data on EU High Production Volume
Chemicals,.. 1999, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer
Protection, European Chemicals Bureau :
http://ecb.ei.jrc.it/cgi-bin/reframer.pl?A=EX&B=/wwwecb/existing-chemicals/datavail.htm


http://www.inra.fr/dpenv/hayowc31.htm#3

http://www.unites.uqam.ca/sts/documents/travaux/gen/herbicides. html

Association de Coordination Technique Agricole IPCS. http://irptc.unep.ch/pops/newlayout/infpopsalt.
htm

Extension Toxicology Network, http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/tibs/movement.htm

Nature Neuroscience, http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v3/n12/pdf/nn 1200_1227.pdf

Travail et Sécurité, 2000 http://www.inrs.fr/dossiers/pointsur8.html#Pour%20en%20savoir%20plus

Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer, Monographies du CIRC sur l'Evaluation des Risques
de Cancérogénicité pour l'Homme,. http://193.51.164.11

                                                   45
Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer, Rapport biennal 1998-1999,.. 2000: Lyon
http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/GENERAL/BIEN_REPORTS/FRA/B_FRAtab PDF

Union des Industries de la Protection des Plantes, http://www.uipp.org/opinions/opinions.htm#b2

http://www.uipp.org/publications/tout_le_monde.htm

CREDOC, AFSSA, and Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche,

http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/basedoc/Inca-résumé.pdf - http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/basedoc/Rapinca.pdf

Laboratoire Central de Surveillance de la Qualité de l'Air,
http://www.ineris.fr/connaitre/domaines/chroniques/lcsqa/lcsqa.htm

Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Chemicals Bureau http://ecb.ei.jrc.it/cgi-
bin/reframer.pl?A=EX&B=/wwwecb/existing-chemicals/datavail.htm

Miller. T.L., The EXtension TOXicology NETwork,. http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/

Ministère de l'Agriculture, e-PHY : le catalogue officiel des produits phytopharmaceutiques sur
Internet,.. 2001 http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/e-phy/actu/accueil.asp

Mutualité Sociale Agricole du département de la Vienne, Phytosanitaires - Un réseau national de
toxicovigilance,.. 2001 http://www.msa86.fr/prevention/toxovig.htm

Organisation Mondiale de la Santé, World Health Organization Publications 1991-2001. Chemical
toxicology, carcinogenicity,.. 2001 http://www.who.int/dsa/cat98/chemtox8.htm

Pesticide Action Network, Carcinogenicity,
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/documentation3/ref_toxicity3.html#IARCCarcinogens

Pesticide Action Network, Pesticide Action Network Pesticide Database,. http://data.pesticideinfo.org/

Mutualité Sociale Agricole du département de la Vienne, http://www.msa86.fr/prevention/toxovig.htm

INSEE Première, 2001. N° 790 http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP790.pdf

Eau & Rivières de Bretagne, http://assoc.wanadoo. fr/erb/actu14.htm

Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment and Concurrent Technologies Corporation, ITER -
International Toxicity Estimates for Risk,. http://www.tera.org/iter/about

Union des Industries de la Protection des Plantes, Santé des bébés, des consommateurs et produits
phytosanitaires. Tout le monde en parle, 1999 http://www.uipp.org/publications/tout_le_monde.htm

US Environmental Protection            Agency,     Integrated    Risk    Information     System,..    2001
http://www.epa.gov/iris/

Laboratoire Central de Surveillance de la Qualité de l'Air, Métrologie de la qualité de l'air - Mise au
point de méthodes de mesure - étude des nouveaux polluants,.. 2001
http://www.ineris.fr/connaitre/domaines/chroniques/lcsqa/lcsqa.htm




                                                    46
             To contact us:


Comité de la Prévention et de la Précaution

                Pièce 5423

           20 avenue de Segur

               75007 Paris

genevieve.baumont@environnement.gouv.fr




                    47

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:36
posted:8/11/2011
language:English
pages:47