Suitability of pesticide risk indicators for Less Developed Countries: A comparison

Abstract

Pesticide risk indicators provide simple support in the assessment of environmental and health risks from pesticide use, and can therefore inform policies to foster a sustainable interaction of agriculture with the environment. For their relative simplicity, indicators may be particularly useful under conditions of limited data availability and resources, such as in Less Developed Countries (LDCs). However, indicator complexity can vary significantly, in particular between those that rely on an exposure-toxicity ratio (ETR) and those that do not. In addition, pesticide risk indicators are usually developed for Western contexts, which might cause incorrect estimation in LDCs. This study investigated the appropriateness of seven pesticide risk indicators for use in LDCs, with reference to smallholding agriculture in Colombia. Seven farm-level indicators, among which 3 relied on an ETR (POCER, EPRIP, PIRI) and 4 on a non-ETR approach (EIQ, PestScreen, OHRI, Dosemeci et al., 2002), were calculated and then compared by means of the Spearman rank correlation test. Indicators were also compared with respect to key indicator char-acteristics, i.e. user friendliness and ability to represent the system under study. The comparison of the indicators in terms of the total environmental risk suggests that the indicators not relying on an ETR approach cannot be used as a reliable proxy for more complex, i.e. ETR, indicators. ETR indicators, when user-friendly, show a comparative advantage over non-ETR in best combining the need for a relatively simple tool to be used in contexts of limited data availability and resources, and for a reliable estimation of environmental risk. Non-ETR indicators remain useful and accessible tools to discriminate between different pesticides prior to application. Concerning the human health risk, simple algorithms seem more appropriate for assessing human health risk in LDCs. However, further research on health risk indicators and their validation under LDC conditions is needed.

Comparison of four commercial enzymatic assay kits for the analysis of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides in vegetables

“…However, extensive use of pesticides has caused many toxicological and environmental problems such as unbalancing the equilibrium of ecological systems, contamination of farm products, leading to adverse effects on human health (Bempah, Donkor, Yeboah, Dubey, & Osei-Fosu, 2011;Feola, Rahn, & Binder, 2011;Panuwet et al, 2012;Pasmavathip, Prabhavathi, & Reddy, 2000;Wang, Zhang, Li, & Xing, 2002). Organophosphate and carbamate (OP/C) insecticides have been heavily used during the past decades because of their high efficacy on numerous pests (Liu, 2005;Wang et al, 2012).…”

Pesticide Drift: Seeking Reliable Environmental Indicators of Exposure Assessment

“…In the last few years, the risk assessment approach has also been frequently used for ranking pesticides in terms of the hazard they pose to the environment according to risk indicators. Pesticide risk indicators are regarded as useful tools in minimising the off-site impact of pesticides and can greatly assist in decision making and policy formulation (Reus et al 2002;Finizio and Villa 2002;Feola et al 2011). In general, the purpose of risk indicators is to simplify a complex system so as to make it easily accessible to the users, in the form of a diagnostic or decision aid tool (Girardin et al 2008).…”

“…A generally acknowledged feature of risk indicators is simplicity. This feature makes them acceptable, easily usable even with a sparse amount of data, quick to calculate, and easy to communicate, although at the expense of a more realistic representation of pesticide impact (Van der Werf 1996;Feola et al 2011). Risk indicators are developed by giving scores to a set of physical-chemical properties of the substances under consideration, and these scores are combined through an appropriate algorithm to obtain a synthetic number (an index) for comparative purposes.…”

Predictive quality of 26 pesticide risk indicators and one flow model: A multisite assessment for water contamination

“…Although those indicators have been developed to describe the evolution of pesticide use intensity, they are often used as main indicators to address the environmental effects due to pesticide spraying in environmental assessment method (Eckert et al, 2000;Vilain et al, 2008). Pesticide risk indicators (Levitan, 2000) addressing complementary variables such as active ingredient properties, crop management data and pedoclimatic variables are more elaborate and were reviewed by several authors (Maud et al, 2001;Reus et al, 2002;Feola et al, 2011;Keichinger et al, 2013). However, these reviews have remained mainly descriptive, without providing thorough assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the indicators.…”

“…However, only one active ingredient (MCPA) was monitored. In the absence of measured data, outputs of indicators were compared between them (Maud et al, 2001;Reus et al, 2002;Feola et al, 2011), as recommended by Bockstaller and Girardin (2003). The paucity of references is therefore explained by the lack of measure datasets adapted to pesticide measurement in water with the comparison of indicator outputs.…”