top of page
    • May 30, 2022

Urgent need for precise public data on the use of pesticides across Europe - Joint Statement

Statement of 76 organisations on the state of play of the negotiations on the revision of EU rules on pesticides statistics



The undersigned organisations express their deep concerns about the direction the negotiations within trilogues are taking on the reform of the agriculture statistics regulation (SAIO). [1] We call upon the Member States to support the European Parliament’s proposals ensuring precise data on the use of pesticides are collected and published without further delay.


To ensure that European agriculture shifts away from pesticide-intensive practices, we need precise public data on what pesticides are used where, when, on which crops and in what quantities. Such data would indeed:

  • Allow to measure meaningfully the progress and identify which sectors or crops and in which regions are facing difficulties to transition to sustainable agriculture practices;

  • Enable the work of independent scientists and the medical community to connect the dots between exposure to specific pesticides or a cocktail thereof and harm to the environment and/or people;

  • Enable the work of the public authorities to check whether the data submitted for pesticides authorisations actually matches the reality of their use;

  • Enable public authorities to list more efficiently which pesticides end up in water and must therefore be monitored, so that they can take appropriate measures to protect, for example, residents of rural areas, and biodiversity;

  • Rebuild trust of EU citizens in national governments, the EU institutions, and their willingness to protect public health and the environment despite the weight of private interests such as the agrochemical lobbies

This trust of EU citizens is currently broken because it is obvious today that pesticide use and their risks for human health and the environment are out of control. Our legal system was meant to only allow pesticides that have i) no immediate or delayed harmful effect on human health ii) no unacceptable effects on plants and iii) no unacceptable effects on the environment. [2] Unfortunately, the way this authorisation system has been applied in practice raises very serious doubts as to the safety of the pesticides products on the EU market. [3] The evidence of unacceptable harm to biodiversity, [4] and to frontline workers - agriculture workers - is piling up. [5] This system does not even benefit economically the farmers themselves, [6] and alternatives to pesticide intensive agriculture exist and are feasible. [7]




[1] Proposal for a Regulation related to statistics on agriculture input and output (SAIO): https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2021/0020(COD)&l=en


[2] See Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009


[3] European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 450 – 480 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18 ; Impacts des produits phytopharmaceutiques sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques : résultats de l’expertise scientifique collective INRAE-Ifremer | INRAE INSTIT


[4] Goulson, D. Pesticides linked to bird declines. Nature 511, 295–296 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13642


[5] LeMonde, “Agriculteurs intoxiqués”: dans toute l’Europe, les maladies des pesticides abandonnés à leur sort, S. Horel, 17 February 2022 l


[6] Pesticides: a model that’s costing us dearly – Le Basic



Tags:

bottom of page