Sustainable pesticides installed in homes close to crops

Sustainable pesticides installed in homes close to crops

The association Generations futures, which campaigns against the excessive use of pesticides, announced to have found them inside houses located very close to agricultural activities, in particular near vineyards. In itself, there is nothing surprising but some are notorious endocrine disruptors, three of which are prohibited. The method is not scientific and does not quantify the risk. It is above all a call to better legislate.

Armed with vacuum cleaners fitted with a filter, 22 volunteers cleaned up their homes to collect dust samples. All live very close (less than 200 m) to crops, cereals, vines or orchards. The experience is at the initiative of the association Generations Futures, which fights the intensive use of pesticides. The measurements were taken in summer, during the peak season for using phytosanitary products, and, for 5 outbreaks, repeated in winter.

Armed with vacuum cleaners fitted with a filter, 22 volunteers cleaned up their homes to collect dust samples. All live very close (less than 200 m) to crops, cereals, vines or orchards. The experience is at the initiative of the association Generations Futures, which fights the intensive use of pesticides. The measurements were taken in summer, during the peak season for using phytosanitary products, and, for 5 outbreaks, repeated in winter.

These results, which do not forget to take into account other possible sources, are set out in a press release and in a table. Not surprisingly, in all the households studied, pesticides conventionally used in agriculture were found – with greater exposure for viticulture (in variety) and orchards (in quantities) and lower for cereals.

On the other hand, more surprisingly, each house contained between 8 and 30 different pesticides. The presence of three prohibited pesticides, permethrin, Diuron and metolachlor, in most of the homes studied, is also more curious. They were identified in, respectively, 100%, 91% and 55% of them. The association underlines the importance, in quantity, of pesticides considered as potential endocrine disruptors. In fact, they represent on average 17.3 mg for 17.6 mg of pesticides quantified per kilogram of dust. Logically, the measurements made in winter show a drastic drop in the quantities found but not a complete disappearance.

A more symbolic than scientific study

If these results are spectacular, they are however to be taken in hindsight. As the study itself points out, the sample is small. A larger survey is needed to clarify the values, especially since they vary enormously from one dwelling to another. The table often shows a ratio of around 500 between the maximums and minimums of measured concentrations. There is also a lack of measurements made in dwellings located further from agricultural areas which would allow a comparison. Cosmetic products, for example, are also a good source of potential endocrine disruptors. Finally, the presence of a pesticide does not imply a certain danger and we cannot conclude anything about this risk.

This study shows, however, that European legislation on endocrine disruptors is long overdue. Promised for December 2013 but postponed to 2017, an exploitable definition of the endocrine disruptor is still missing. Only that of the World Health Organization (WHO) – explained on the ANSES website – is used, but it does not indicate what is dangerous and what is not in agricultural or industrial uses. A molecule can indeed have effects mimicking, inhibiting or modifying those of a hormone (this is the definition of an endocrine disruptor) but in very high doses, that it is impossible to meet daily life. On the other hand, long exposure to a product, to the doses encountered, or to several of them with a “cocktail effect” is difficult to assess.