Pesticides undergo an assessment process before they’re licenced for use. However, the pesticide approvals process has some major gaps, including the following:
The process only looks into immediate, short-term, or lethal effects. Most assessments don’t consider long-term effects.
There’s not enough testing being done. When it comes to testing the impact of pesticides on wildlife, current tests don’t reflect real-world field conditions and are only tested on a small range of species. Furthermore, none of the tests consider food chain effects, such as how reducing seeds or insects might affect birds and other animals.
It is important to consider how pesticides may act when mixed together. Known as the ‘cocktail effect’, this is an area that needs more research, as evidence shows that they have really harmful results.
The government is slow to adapt to independent scientific studies which show possible harms associated with a chemical. Despite the UK’s hazard-based, precautionary approach, it remains all too often the case that scientists must bring extensive amounts of proof of harms before their warnings are considered and their recommendations are implemented.
There have been many examples of the government ignoring independent scientific studies to deem a substance to be ‘safe’. High profile examples include asbestos and cigarettes. However, even when looking just at pesticides, there is an obvious cycle – citizens and NGOs raise alarm bells about a particular pesticide. Government and industry defends the pesticide in question until the harms can no longer be ignored at which point it is banned.
Glyphosate came very close to being banned by the EU in 2017 and is very likely to, at some point, be consigned to the history books.