Living in Europe, malaria and DDT are a distant worry. People often fail to realise how deadly the disease is and that pesticides are used as one of the most effective tools for destroying the carrier of malaria – the mosquito.

It takes one bite

Malaria was only identified as a cause of death only at the end of the 18th century. People died suddenly and very painfully not knowing what was it that was killing them. It appeared as if they were dying from fever and the only association made at the time was the connection to the “bad air” (MAL – bad, ARIA –air) as the disease hit mainly in hot and humid parts of the world.

In 1897 the link between the mosquito, the parasite that it carries, and the cycle of bite – infection was made. When a person is bitten by a mosquito he is infected with the parasite Plasmodium that finds home in the liver where it multiplies. If not treated it infects red blood cells and prohibits the transmission of blood to vital organs, causing a very painful death. All it takes is just that one bite; once infected, the parasite stays in your body forever.

No cure, only prevention

Understanding the behaviour of malaria paved the way for medical and chemical innovation and modern ways of prevention. Regrettably a cure is yet to be discovered. The most effective management of the disease is prevention; attention is focused on preventing mosquitoes the opportunity to bite humans.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two main approaches for reducing the level of malaria transmission. They are called the vector control measures.

The first is the long lasting insecticide treated bed nets (LLINs) that create a protective barrier against mosquitoes. They play an important role, particularly when you are asleep as the mosquitoes- like burglars – work best at night. How does it work? You hang the net above your bed, tuck it under the mattress so there will be no way in for the mosquito to enter and have a good night sleep. Your work is done. The net is made with holes too small for mosquitoes to pass, but the real magic is an insecticide that coats the material, keeping the mosquitoes away and ensuring the long term effectiveness of the net.

The other suggested way of reducing malaria’s spread is Indoor Residual Spraying. These three letters IRS save the lives of millions. WHO approved 12 insecticides for use in IRS including DDT. Insecticides are sprayed on house walls to prevent settling of the mosquito. The substance repels the insect from a room, irritating it enough to find an alternative location for a feed. However if both of those actions fail and the mosquito is still there flying around like a superman the long-term contact with DDT should result shortly in his death. Once sprayed, DDT remains effective up to 12 months.

Better safe than sorry

The use of DDT is a controversial topic, but what is often forgotten is the fact that IRS involves spraying with very low quantities. To give you an example it’s 2 grams* of the active substance per meter square. That’s how little you need to use to make it 100% effective. The total amount of DDT used for fighting malaria is merely a fraction of what was used once in agriculture sprays.

The indiscriminate spraying of DDT posed unnecessary risk to humans and the environment. However, this mistake of the past should not cost lives today. DDT used in negligible doses saves lives and limits the spread of disease. Continued calls to ban the use of DDT are irresponsible and threaten the health and wellbeing of millions.

DDT causes minimal or close to zero possibility of contaminating the wider environment, because the substance does not escape to the wildlife. Many “green” groups in Africa have recognised that malaria and poverty are far worse than the quantities of DDT in the environment and now they are full supporters of responsible use of the substance for IRS.

Join

There are many ways that one can contribute and help in fighting malaria. You can donate a bed net, you can organise an event, there are tweets you can follow to raise awareness. There are plenty of ways to participate in this important cause. The aim is to eradicate the disease by 2015. Ambitious but not impossible!!!

http://www.malarianomore.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pacPN6AW_Yc

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/

___

*Correction: on first publication (12:49 CET 21.04.2011) this article incorrectly stated that the active ingredient of DDT is applied at 0.02g/m²

This week in Germany, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) released the findings of a survey studying consumer knowledge about pesticides – the result – people don’t know much about pesticides. In the very same week ‘green’ activists Greenpeace Germany embarrassed themselves by publishing false claims about pesticide levels in food. A member of the public can be forgiven for missing the point about pesticides – but Greenpeace?

The BfRs representative population study included several revelations about the German public’s knowledge of pesticides and their use (a level of knowledge most likely found across Europe). One of the most significant findings – at least in terms of public perception of the safety of pesticides – is that 70 percent of those surveyed assumed that pesticide residues are not permitted in food at all. This is incorrect – pesticide residues in Europe are highly regulated and permitted at safe levels, up to Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs). The media, pro-organic and anti-pesticide pressure groups often exploit this misunderstanding, reporting on the discovery of pesticide residues in food as sensationalist and misleading ‘shock’ stories – enter Greenpeace.

In the very same week that the BfR established that consumer knowledge on pesticides residues is very limited, Greenpeace have been caught red-handed exploiting this lack of knowledge (or perhaps highlighting their own). Greenpeace issued a press release claiming illegal levels of pesticides are to be found in red-currants. The information was in fact false, and the German The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety issued a statement – indeed the fruit was perfectly safe.

Top selling German newspaper, BILD, picked-up on the story and decided to grace it’s ‘loser of the day’ column with the current Director of Greenpeace Germany, Brigitte Behrens. The BILD has a daily readership of ca. 12 million – ouch! Clipping and translation below:

The full BfR representative population study (in German) can be downloaded (pdf) directly here.

—

Update: 04.08.2010

The BfR have continued their investigation of false claims by Greenpeace, and published statistics based on true Accepted Daily Intake criteria. You can view the press release (English) via this link.

Everyone has heard of Malaria, a disease that is estimated to claim between one and three million lives every year. Young children account for 90% of the deaths, the majority of victims are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Malaria is caused by a tiny single-celled parasite called Plasmodium which is transmitted to humans through the bites of infected mosquitoes. Malaria is not necessarily deadly in every case of infection, but if not treated the disease can quickly become life threatening. There are a number of Malaria medicines available, although in some parts of the world parasites have developed resistance to them (this has been attributed to misuse of malaria drugs), and for the parts of the world most effected by malaria, drugs for treatment are not readily available, or just too expensive.
 

Prevention better than cure

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) one of the main objectives of malaria control is to significantly reduce the rate and number of cases of both parasite infection and clinical malaria. This is achieved by controlling the malaria-bearing mosquito – basically preventing contact between infected mosquitoes and human beings.

The indoor spraying of insecticide is reported by the WHO to be the most effective means of rapidly reducing mosquito density. A practice known as ‘indoor residual spraying’ can protect a living space for three to six months. The WHO claims that the highly controversial DDT offers a longer term solution, offering up to 12 months of protection – although it’s ongoing effectiveness has been called into question.

Another favoured preventative measure is the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (mosquito nets). Fine-mesh nets treated with insecticide offer personal or group protection and typically remain effective for three – five years.
 

A closer look at the pesticides

Yes, pesticides – because an insecticide is a type of pesticide. Let’s take a look at those most commonly used in mosquito prevention – permethrin and deltamethrin.

Permethrin is a synthetic chemical and commonly used as both insecticide and insect repellent. It’s effective because it functions as a neurotoxin (it does unpleasant things to insect nerve cells). Permethrin is a favourable deterrent to insects because it is not known to rapidly harm most mammals or birds, and is poorly absorbed by the skin. On the down-side, it is toxic to cats.  Permethrin is an effective agent in the battle against malaria, albeit one perhaps better suited to dog-lovers.

Deltamethrin is also a neurotoxin, and while it is used for insecticidal nets, it is also a widely used household insecticide for dealing with pests including bedbugs, cockroaches, ticks and fleas. Deltamethrin of one of the safest groups of pesticides, with mammalian exposure considered to be safe.

Pesticides save lives

Pesticides save lives, something you won’t read every day, but fact non-the-less. The Red Cross reports growing scientific evidence to demonstrate that combining mosquito net distribution with follow-on support and training at household level increases net usage rates and significantly reduces incidence of malaria.

It’s World Malaria Day on the 25th of April, which means I’m a little early with this post (hey, it’s the weekend… I’ve got plans) but in perfect time to share a few links if you feel like learning more about malaria, World Malaria Day, and how you can help efforts to eradicate a disease that takes a life every 30 seconds.

For your consideration

> World Malaria Day 2010 (coordinating body official site) follow @malariaday2010 on twitter

> World Health Organisation (WHO) hub for malaria

> International Medical Corps (NGO) fact sheet on malaria

> Malaria No More (NGO) follow @MalariaNoMore on twitter

> Office of the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy for Malaria follow @Malaria_Envoy on twitter

This list is not exhaustive, so please feel free to drop links and info in the comments section below.

In ‘Food for Thought: Organic Grub Worth Buying?’ we hear that as US organic sales increase, so do consumer questions about what ‘organic‘ actually means. Answers to this same question in the UK met with surprise early this year, as a report explained that organic does not mean ‘pesticide free’ – perhaps as shocking to some as an earlier report published by the UK Food Standards Agency, claiming that organic food ‘has no health benefits‘ over conventionally grown produce. Essentially this is good news for the consumer – you can receive the same health benefits from conventionally grown (and mostly cheaper) fruits and vegetables.

 

Organic pesticides

It is true that organic farmers, faced with the loss of their crops, often use ‘conventional’ pesticides, but there are more tools in the organic farmers toolbox, so called ‘organic’ pesticides (sometimes referred to as ‘green’ or ‘ecological’ pesticides). Organic pesticides are claimed to be naturally derived rather than synthetically produced, but this does not tell us anything about their relative safety or impact on the environment. We must also remind ourselves that the most toxic substances known are found in nature: in other words, natural does not always equal safe. Steve Savage, who keeps a blog at eatdrinkbetter.com last week posted ‘The “Pesticide From Hell” (oh, by the the way, its “Organic”)‘, an interesting article on one the oldest and still most used ‘organic’ pesticides – Sulphur (sulfur). Steve points out that sulphur compounds must be used in considerably higher quantities than effective and highly targeted ‘manufactured’ crop protection products; in addition to being one of the most common causes of pesticide user health complaints, there is also an association with bird mortality. Copper sulphate, another commonly use organic pesticide, combines copper and sulphur in a form that is permanently destructive of soil if overused. In terms of the regulation of use of crop protection measures, in the European Union organic pesticides are subject to the same strict regulations as conventional products.
 

Overlooked

The fact that organic farming often makes use of pesticides (of the organic and conventional varieties) is largely overlooked or poorly communicated – reinforcing misconceptions about crop production and crop protection. Recent media coverage of organic agriculture does suggest that the public is beginning to question their understanding of the term ‘organic’. The current economic crisis will have no doubt contributed; with less disposable income it is perhaps no surprise that consumers pass on some of the more expensive items on their shopping list. Rightly or wrongly, organic is often considered something of a ‘niche market’ – with products being more expensive than their conventionally grown alternatives they are unlikely to feature in a ‘recession diet‘.
 

Unsustainable

The reality of agriculture is that pests must be managed to avoid devastating loss to crops, something independent of the ideology of farmer or consumer. Whilst some loss is indeed expected, without crop protection measures a loss of over 40% yield is possible – this is unsustainable.
 

An ecological way

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a good practice approach to crop protection. IPM is an integrated strategy for crop management, designed to solve ecological problems when applied in agriculture. Performed in three main stages: prevention, observation, and intervention IPM combines pesticide use with biological and sophisticated management techniques to manage pest populations in an ecological way. IPM can be used by both conventional and organic agriculture.

In the video below, Professor Sir Gordon Conway of the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, explains Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and how it helps farmers. He goes on to tell us how pesticides can be used in conjunction with natural enemy controls, such as parasites and other predators, to help protect farmers’ crops from losses.

Fresh water is a renewable resource, but our supply of clean fresh water is decreasing – a problem aggravated by a steadily increasing demand for food as the worlds population grows.

The availability of fresh water

The Food and Agriculture Organisaton of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that by 2025, 1,800 million people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity. 2025 may appear a distant horizon, but trends are already worrying – you may not immediately associate Europe with water scarcity, but, in 60 percent of European cities with populations greater than 100,000 people, groundwater is already being used at a faster rate than it can be replenished.

We’ve had several big water shortage stories in Europe over the last few years. In 2008 Barcelona had to ship water into the city as regional reservoirs were down to quarter of their usual levels. There are even concerns in the UK (a location often considered to receive more than it’s fair share of rain), leading hydrologists are warning of major water shortage that could leave the country unable to produce enough food to feed a growing population.

UNESCO calculates that to ensure our basic needs, we all need 20 to 50 litres of water free from harmful contaminants each and every day. This includes not only water for drinking and bathing, but also the water used to grow our food. Per head, farmed cattle consume around 4,000 cubic meters of water during their life, with cereals requiring in the region of 1.5 cubic meters to yield 1kg of crop. Agriculture consumes a staggering 69% of global fresh water (pdf) for the irrigation of crops, and it is estimated that between 15-35% of this fresh water extraction is unsustainable.

Global Environment Outlook estimate that the developed world will see water consumption demands rise an additional 18% by the year 2050 (ca. 40% in the developing world). The contribution of irrigation to world crop production is expected to increase in coming decades – the irrigated area in developing countries is expected to increase by 40 million hectares (20%) by 2030. This is less than half of the increase over the last 35 years (99 million hectares), although the reasons for this slowdown are themselves a cause for concern, namely the increasing scarcity of areas suitable for irrigation and the rising cost of irrigation.
 

More crop per drop

The FAO notes the essential role agriculture has in resolving global water problems (a statement of the obvious when the numbers are considered), stating that agriculture must achieve more ‘crop per drop‘, through improving the efficiency of rain-fed production, and the modernisation of irrigation technology. Producing more ‘crop per drop’ is a pressing requirement, as water resources dwindle and population grows – we have also to consider the inconvenience of climate change and the impact of shifting patterns of rainfall and drought.

The sizeable impact of agriculture on fresh water usage confirms the crop protection industry as a stakeholder in the challenge presented by our requirements for fresh water. This challenge extends from the production of more ‘crop per drop’ to include the sustainable use of plant protection products – to avoid the unnecessary pollution of waterways.

The crop protection industry has of course developed crop strains that are stress-tolerant and drought-tolerant, improving yields in dry climates and reducing water use; but this blog is about pesticides, so that will remain our focus.
 

Optimising water use

CropLife International upholds the optimisation of agricultural productivity as a key contributor to improving fresh water management. Optimising the yields from existing crop production would enable farmers to grow more food with similar water volumes. CropLife describe the need for effective dissemination of agronomic knowledge, and allowing for farmer access to inputs including good quality seed and crop protection to reduce pre- and post-harvest losses to pests and disease. Simply put, irrigating crops that will be lost to pests or disease is inefficient water management.

Plant protection products (pesticides) also offer scope to increase water efficiency in agriculture. Improving crop yield (or rather reducing crop loss) is one contribution to more sustainable fresh water management, another is reducing the water required to grow a crop. CropLife International explain that herbicide use with biotech crops enables conservation tillage, this improves soil water retention, reducing water loss through evaporation, and in-turn protecting against soil erosion. These particular qualities offer valuable solutions for areas that currently experience drought conditions, or due to climate change might expect to in the coming years. The Director General of the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) has said “Climate change is predicted to make water an increasing concern across southern Europe where most of our fruits and vegetables are grown utilizing intensive irrigation.”
 

Water quality

Pesticides and other plant technologies offer solutions that support an optimised volume use of fresh water resources for agriculture – but not without potential risk. Pesticides are frequently cited as a contributor to water pollution. The responsible and sustainable use of pesticides is high on the European agenda, industry backed initiatives and a comprehensive legislative framework provide the backdrop for improving the sustainability of European agricultural practices.
 

Frameworks for sustainability

The EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides provides a framework to regulate the use-phase of pesticides at EU level, setting rules for the use of pesticides and encouraging sustainable practices in the European Community – in order to reduce risks to human health and the environment. This of course includes measures targeted at avoiding the contamination of fresh water. In addition to this, the European Water Framework Directive describes a set of objectives addressing both water quality and water scarcity issues. Europe is well covered.

The European Commission has also supported crop protection industry initiatives for preventing the pollution of water sources. One example is the TOPPS program (Train Operators to Prevent Pollution from Point Sources). This LIFE funded project focused on raising the awareness of farmers of the need to adopt sustainable practices when using crop protection products, to prevent avoidable pollution of water sources. Other industry initiatives include the ‘Safe Use Initiative’, coordinated by the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), this example of training and best practice looks towards providing for best practices for all stages of the use of pesticides, including their transportation, storage, preparation for use, application, post application, and preventative measures – essentials for worker health and safety and avoiding negative environmental impact.
 

The challenge

As population grows, so will demand for food; agriculture is already the largest consumer of fresh water and this is unlikely to change. Agriculture will need to find ways to produce more food, with less water – more ‘crop per drop’. To complicate matters, climate change will present an increase in drought conditions and a rise in extreme weather events – we need to find ways to cope with the extremes of water availability – we might expect more drought conditions and more flood events.

Advancements in agricultural technology (and better use of the technologies we already have) offer scope for sustainable solutions to fresh water use – a solution that allows us to grow the food we need, ensure the continued availability of fresh water and avoid unnecessary environmental impact.

—

This post is considerably longer than planned, if you are still with me at this point, I thank you. As always, comments are encouraged. I’ve linked quite a few resources from this post – hopefully all of them informative and useful, if you think I’ve missed something important, please let me know in the comments.

French activists MDRGF (Movement for Rights and Respect for Future Generations) are preparing for their annual ‘Week without pesticides’ (20th-30th March). Since its debut in 2006, this event has seen some growth in popularity across France and a handful of other European countries.

The ‘Week without pesticides’ aims to educate the public on health and environmental risks of pesticide use, and prove that viable alternatives to chemical treatments exist. You can follow the activities of the ‘Week without pesticides’ at their campaign website.

Providing information to the general public on the realities of modern agriculture is an important and challenging task (there are indications that the general public has limited knowledge of modern agriculture). Without all of the information, how are we expected to make informed decisions – the right decisions?

One reality is that most weeks are ‘without pesticides’. Pesticides are used only when they are needed to fight pests and diseases – they are not applied on a daily basis or without good cause. The impact of reducing pesticide use to zero would be dramatic – Europe would suffer an approximate loss of 50% of food crop from pests and diseases without the intervention of pesticides. CropLife America state that up to 40% of the world’s potential crop production is already lost annually because of the effects of weeds, pests and disease – these crop losses would be doubled if existing pesticide use was abandoned. Pesticides are even used in organic agriculture, so the bio sector would also suffer considerably.

CropLife America estimate that crop protection products preserve upwards of $45 billion of produce worldwide each year. Failure to protect our crops would have enormous implications on the global economy, and would seriously impact on food security. Earth will be home to an estimated 9 billion people (around 2 billion more than today) by the year 2050. We are already struggling to feed 7 billion – can we feed 9 billion without effective crop protection measures? The FAO estimates that, even with improved food distribution, food production will need to increase 70% by 2050 to cope with a 40% increase in world population.

European agriculture must find a sustainable way to feed a growing population, adapt to climate change, limit greenhouse gas emissions, minimise impact on the natural environment, continue to operate within strict European guidelines, and produce food which is affordable.

Faced with the challenge of improving agricultural production, modern agriculture looks to technology for sustainable solutions. One solution is maximising food production on the existing agricultural land-base – this is considered beneficial as it limits expansion of the agricultural footprint, reducing the need for deforestation and the destruction of natural habitats. It is pesticides that allow us to maximise yield and avoid the geographic expansion of agricultural land.

If we want to produce more food on the existing agricultural land-base and ensure food remains affordable, it seems pesticides will have an important role to play – if this is indeed the case, focus should continue to be on ensuring their safe and sustainable use.

Food production, food cost, food security, health and the environment (to name a few) are all influenced by crop protection – they are themes which concern all of us. The ‘Week without pesticides’ is an opportunity to join the debate on these important issues – issues plural, because it’s not just about crop protection, it’s not that easy.

MDRGF and WWF France have recruited singing garden gnomes (’Les Pestes Acides‘) as part of their ‘Week without pesticides’ information campaign. Innovation may have overtaken information in this video, but I do see good Eurovision Song Contest potential - enjoy!

If you didn’t know it already, we use Twitter, and we now have more than 700 followers – for this we would like to say a big thank you to all.

If you don’t use Twitter, you might not be aware of how useful it can be as a resource for information and good ideas. Here’s a collection of pesticide information from tweets from us, and tweets we’ve re-tweeted from the past few days. Enjoy!

—

Via @cropprotection

News of the EU’s ‘REAL Fake’ competition to raise awareness of the dangers and problems associated with counterfeit and fake products – recognised as a great opportunity for EU agricultural schools to explore counterfeit pesticide issues.

Read more: http://bit.ly/an1svn

—

Via @pdjmoo

Germany: New sensing technology from bats and insects helps farmers reduce fertilizer and pesticide use – impressive.

Read more: http://ow.ly/1bQ0D

—

Via @ThePhoenixSun

An article exploring the health implications of pesticide drift, and the problems of regulating drift.

Read more: http://bit.ly/9xFbmx

—

Via @pesticideinfo

Food organisations form working groups to tackle impact of pesticides legislation – a response to the UK consultation for the Sustainable Use Directive.

Read more: http://bit.ly/9F4Zqk

—

Via @pesticideinfo

Food Scare Over Toxic Cowpeas Spreads in China – reporting on the detection of harmful chemical residues on Chinese produce.

Read more: http://bit.ly/cZUcmO

—

Via @TheAngryindian & @GMWatch

Is WWF the only international green group to be picketed by its peers? An article describing critism of WWF for their involvement in spy production in Latin America.

Read more: http://bit.ly/c2wXPF

—

Via @cropprotection

Pesticide red tape may prove ‘a blight on potato sector’. UK concern over the potential impact of new pesticide legislation on potato yeilds.

http://bit.ly/ci5RuK

—

Via @pesticideinfo

Colony Collapse Disorder: the real crisis ahead, ‘agricultural collapse disorder…’. A view that bee Colony Collapse Disorder is infact casued by the nature of bee farming.

Read more: http://bit.ly/bzGcJg

—

Via @canadaguy

Children in Latin American countries found exposed to DDT – a legacy of anit-malaria pesticide use.

Read more: http://www.enn.com/health/article/41028

—

Via @pesticideinfo

Tomatoes that taste like Holland, farming with scorpions, & at least one goodreason why you should not taste pesticides. Actually the previous post on this blog – when you’re done here, why not have a read.

Read more: http://bit.ly/aDuR1Y

—

Via @HealthandEnv

NGO facing legal challenge after apparently discovering unacceptable pesticide levels in wine.

http://bit.ly/dcUiVS

—

Via @scgardeningnews

Cultural controls are best, but if you must spray, use less toxic insecticides. Some basic advice on home and garden pesticide use.

Read more: http://bit.ly/LpNYO

—

Some of our followers…

An independent review published by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) concludes that there are no differences in nutrition content or other health benefits between food produced using organic methods and that grown using scientific agriculture (read the FSA’s new release here). It will come as no surprise to anyone that the report has sparked a heated debate in the press and the blogosphere! Please find below a small selection of press articles and blog posts from across the divide discussing the report. Do feel free to comment or to recommend further articles by clicking on the tab above.

Press
Organic food is not healthier, says FSA (The Guardian)
Don’t write off organic food (The Daily Telegraph)
Organic food ‘no healthier than conventional’ (The Independent)
Organic has no health benefits (BBC)
Les bénéfices du «bio» en question (Le Figaro)
Il biologico? Fa bene solo a chi lo produce (La Stampa)

Blogs
Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed (Huffington Post)
News Report: Organic food no healthier, but is that all that matters… (Daily Cup of Yoga)
Organic Isn’t Healthier, But People Will Keep Buying (Humblement)
Organic Food Trash? Or Just Trashing Organic Food? (Unbossed)
Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed (Civil Eats)
Will you still shop organic after the publication of the FSA findings? (Ooffoo)
Joanna Blythman: Please Read the Data Appendices About Organic Food Before Conjuring ‘Cancerous Conspiracies’: Part 1 (Holford Watch)
Organic no better says FSA (Grow organic food)