Environmental Performance Index 2008 [BETA]

Pesticide Regulation
Objective: Ecosystem Vitality
Policy Category: Productive Natural Resources
Policy Subcategory: Agriculture

Pesticides are a significant source of toxics in the environment, affecting both human and ecosystem health. Although newer pest control agents are often less toxic than earlier ones, pesticide-related problems remain, including the persistent use and mismanagement of toxic agents which persist in the environment beyond their intended usage as crop protection agents. Widespread use of agricultural chemicals can expose farm workers to acute levels of pesticide and the general population to low levels of pesticide residues on food. Acute exposure to pesticides has been linked to increases in headaches, fatigue, insomnia, dizziness, hand tremors, and other neurological symptoms. Pesticides also damage ecosystem health by killing beneficial insects, pollinators, and fauna

Given the lack of pesticide use and impact data the EPI measures Pesticide Regulation, a policy variable that tracks government attention to the issue. The Pesticide Regulation indicator is based on national participation in the Rotterdam Convention, which controls trade restriction and regulations for toxic chemicals, and the Stockholm convention, which bans the use of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). POPs are toxic pollutants that bioaccumulate and move long distances in the environment. Accordingly the Pesticide Regulation indicator also considers national efforts to ban the 9 POPs which are relevant to agriculture: Aldrin, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene, Mirex, and Toxaphene.

The two treaties and nine pollutants create a total of 11 measures, each assigned two points, for a total possible target score of 22. Countries receive the full 22 points if they have signed both conventions and submitted a national implementation plan, as well as banning the 9 POPs. If countries have only signed the convention, but submitted no implementation plan, they receive a score of “1” for that measure, and if they are not party to the convention they receive a score of “0”. A banned pesticide receives a score of “2,” a restricted pesticide a score of “1,” and a pesticide with no regulation receives a “0”.


Comments
Kelly Porter Franklin (Jun 10, 2008): I’m a researcher for the Agent Orange Association of Canada. I can’t easily see why Canada scored 100%. Our Pest Management Regulatory Agency recently hired a firm named CanTox to assess the effects of decades of herbicide spraying at CFB Gagetown, a program that was concealed from Canadians for 50 years. CanTox concluded that no harm could befall a bystander unless you were closer than 800 meters to the midline of the sprayplane’s path. We’re talking weapons-grade, stripe-around-the barrel Agent Orange here. This conclusion was accepted by the PMRA and Health Canada. The man who heads the PMRA, a Mr. Aucoin, has been writing letters to the editor across Canada extolling the virtues of 2,4-D recently, right after the PMRA re-registered it. Are these the actions of a regulatory agency or pesticide salesmen? I could go on but you get the “drift.” Kelly Porter Franklin 2619 Randle Road Nanaimo, BC, Canada V9S 3X3 (250) 760-0170
Charts on this website require the Flash plugin, version 8 or higher. Free download (easy to install).