lable at ScienceDirect

Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1579e1585

Contents lists avai

Crop Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/cropro

Variation in pesticide hazard from arable crop production in Great Britainfrom 1992 to 2008: An extended time-series analysis

Paul Cross*, Gareth Edwards-JonesSchool of the Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 March 2011Received in revised form2 August 2011Accepted 4 August 2011

Keywords:PesticidesHazardRiskArable cropsEIQPesticide useEnvironmental impactEnvironmental impact quotient

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: afs202@bangor.ac.uk (P. Cross).

1 See (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri14:EN:HTML).

0261-2194/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2011.08.003

a b s t r a c t

Efforts to assess reductions in the hazard posed by pesticides in arable systems present complex prob-lems to policy makers both nationally and at a European level. Attempts to monitor changes in hazardrely to a large extent on the quality of the surveillance and the indices used to collate multi-faceted data.This study is an update on previous work using the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) to evaluatechanges in pesticide hazard following the introduction of the European Directive 91/414/EEC. Findingsfrom the study suggest that pesticide hazard has decreased during the study period 1992e2008 althoughreduction was not even across all crop types or time periods, with limited change in the past six years.This study is proposed as baseline for further monitoring of the effectiveness of the new Europeanregulations 1107/2009 ‘the placing of plant protection products on the market’ to further reduce theimpact of pesticides on non-target organisms.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Increasing concern over the past thirty years regarding the non-target impact of pesticides has driven policy and science to developan array of tools to improve the monitoring of pesticides (Stenrødet al., 2008). Reducing the levels of hazard in the wider environ-ment and limiting, where possible, human exposure to pesticideshas driven policy makers to focus on aspects other than pesticideusage alone. For instance, full knowledge of the inherent toxico-logical properties, environmental fate and mobility are importantconsiderations for the effective management of hazard.

In 1992 the European Commission launched Directive 91/4141

aimed at promoting uniform, cross-European rules to ensure thesafety of all plant protectionproducts (Verro et al., 2008). All productsclassed as sufficiently safe are placed in the Annex 1 list. Products onthis list can be granted authorisation for use in all member states. To

Serv.do?uri¼CELEX:31991L04

All rights reserved.

date approximately 250 products have been included on Annex 1while 74% of the products have either been removed from themarketor have failed to gain EU approval (Balderacchi and Trevisan, 2010).The new regulations (EC) No 1107/20092 in conjunction with theMember States Directive 2009/128/EC (Sustainable Use Directive forPlant Protection Products) are due to replace Directives 91/414/EECand 79/117/EEC although the success or otherwise of 91/414/EEClacks evaluation. It might be expected that such a reduction in thenumber of apparently harmful substances would result in a decreasein the pesticides’ environmental impact.

There are a number of indices that can measure aspects ofa pesticide’s toxicity and provide a measure of the hazard inherentto a substance (Ioriatti et al., 2011; Labite et al., 2011). Each indexpossesses particular merits as they cover the many aspects ofpesticide related hazard and employ different methods to assessthe hazard (Cross and Edwards-Jones, 2006a; Stenrød et al., 2008).These indices function by combining a range of observable toxi-cological data relating to a target pesticide into a single score.

2 See (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:L:2009:309:0001:0050:EN:PDF).

Table 1Scoring scheme for the Environmental Impact Quotient variables.

Key to EIQ categories Score

Acute dermal toxicityLD50 mg/kg

>2000 1200e2000 30e199 5

Chronic toxicityreproductive, teratogenic,mutagenic,carcinogenic

none 1little 1possible 3definite 5

Bee toxicity relatively non-toxic 1moderately toxic 3highly toxic 5

Fish toxicity96 h LC50

>10 ppm 11e10 ppm 3<1 ppm 5

Bird toxicity8day LC50

>1000 ppm 1101e1000 ppm 31e100 ppm 5

Beneficial toxicity low impact 1moderate impact 3severe impact 5post-emergent herbicide 3

Plant surface half-life (days) 0e14 115e28 3>28 5pre-emergent herbicide 1post-emergent herbicide 3

Leaching & runoff potential small 1medium 3large 5

Systemicity non-systemic 1systemic 3herbicide 1

Source: adapted from (Levitan, 1997; Gallivan et al. 2001).

Fig. 1. The Environmental Impact Quotient formula by Kovach et al. (1992) for calcu-lating the hazard posed by individual pesticides. Components can be used individuallyfor assessing the hazard of a particular recipient group or they can be summed anddivided by three to give the overall pesticide risk. C ¼ chronic toxicity, F ¼ fish toxicity,DT ¼ dermal toxicity, R ¼ surface loss potential S ¼ soil half-life, D ¼ bird toxicity,P ¼ plant surface half-life, Z ¼ bee toxicity, Sy ¼ systemicity, B ¼ beneficial arthropodtoxicity, L ¼ leaching potential.

P. Cross, G. Edwards-Jones / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1579e15851580

Notwithstanding the apparent differences in methodology, ‘riskindices’3 do allow transparent comparisons of trend changes inpesticide hazard over time or between crops. Indices also providethe relevant tools to evaluate the relative success or failure of policyinitiatives that are either ongoing such as the Voluntary Initiative inthe UK, completed such as European Union Directive 91/414/EEC orat the point of starting, such as European Union Regulation (EC)1107/2009.

One such index is the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)(Kovach et al., 1992), which has been repeatedly employed tomonitor environmental pesticides in a range of agricultural andhorticultural contexts (Bues et al., 2004; Gallivan et al., 2001; Kleteret al., 2007).

This paper assessed changes in pesticide hazard in the UK forfour arable crops between 1992 and 2008 as an extension of thework completed by Cross and Edwards-Jones (2006a). The timeperiod corresponds with the fulfilment of Directive 91/414/EEC andthe revocation of 320 pesticides in 2003 and monitors changes inpesticide hazard for the five years that followed up to 2008. This isan appropriate time to set a baseline rating for pesticide hazard inthe UK as regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with UKadoption of Directive 2009/128/EC can then be evaluated againstthe 2008 pre-regulation date.

3 Note that generally "risk" is defined as the probability of an eventmultiplied by themagnitude of the outcome of that event. As such none of the so-called "risk indices"reported in the literature for pesticides are strictly indices of risk, because noneincorporate either an estimate of probability of an event or an estimate of magnitude.Rather they aremore correctly indices of ‘consequences of hazard’, where a hazard is ‘aproperty or situation that in particular circumstances may cause harm’ and conse-quences are ‘the adverse effects of realising a hazard,which cause the quality of humanhealth or the environment to be impaired in the short or longer term’.

2. Methodology

2.1. Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)

A pesticide’s inherent toxicity is summarised by the EIQ rating(scoring scheme is provided in Table 1), which is an aggregatedscore of the potential hazard to three non-target groups; field-worker, consumer and environment. The EIQ rating for a pesticideis derived by calculating the mean aggregated score for EIQfield-

worker, EIQconsumer and EIQenvironment (Fig. 1). A more detailedexplanation of the data required to calculate the EIQ and the EI canbe found in Cross and Edwards-Jones, (2006a,b); Kovach et al.,(1992).

Only pesticide usage for fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,molluscicides and growth regulator were considered in this study.Usage that included seed treatment, repellents and soil sterilantswere excluded from the study.

2.2. Environmental impact

The EIQ score for a pesticide merely indicates the innate toxicityof the substance irrespective of the quantity used. A more usefulway of characterising the pesticide’s impact on different non-targetend points is to include ameasure of quantity of active ingredient ofeach pesticide used in the UK. By multiplying the quantity ofa pesticide used by its EIQ score we can obtain a more usefulcomparator expressed as the environmental impact (EI) of thepesticide. Changes in pesticide usage need to be viewed in thecontext of changes of crop yields and changes in crop area. Toaddress this, the EI per spray hectare of each crop is calculated andconsidered alongside changes in areas of grown crop.4

The four crops included in this study were the same as thosereported in a previous paper by Cross and Edwards-Jones (2006a)namely, wheat, spring and winter barley and oilseed rape. Thesecrops dominate the arable landscape in terms of area of the UK andin 2002 they comprised an area of 3.53 m ha out of a total UK arablearea of 4.5 m ha. Unlike barley, analysis for wheat relates to theentire wheat crop grown and is not disaggregated into spring andwinter crops. This difference in reporting on barley reflects thetreatise of the two crops in the pesticide usage survey reports.

2.3. Input data

Scores for EIQ variables were obtained from the followingsources; pre-existing calculations of pesticide EIQ scores in the UK

4 Spray area as defined by the authors of the various pesticide usage surveys is“the gross area treated with a pesticide, including all repeat applications.”

P. Cross, G. Edwards-Jones / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1579e1585 1581

from the study by Cross and Edwards-Jones (2006a); the IntegratedPest Management Program at Cornell University (http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/), the Extension ToxicologyNetwork (EXTOXNET) accessed on the 15th June 2011; and the UKPesticide Guides (Whitehead, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006).

Pesticide usage data was gathered for the four study crops(wheat, spring and winter barley and oilseed rape) from the bi-annual pesticide usage survey reports published by the Depart-ment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (Davis et al.,1993; Garthwaite et al., 1995, 2003, 2004, 2006; Thomas et al.,1997; Garthwaite and Thomas, 1999, 2001).

3. Results

Pesticide use, EIQ ratings and EI ratings declined between 1992and 2008, but the degree of change varied with crop. Yields appearto be unaffected by reduced pesticide use, having increased atdiffering rates over the same period (Fig. 2).

3.1. Arable crop production

The combined mean yield (t ha�1) for the four crops increasedby 14% from 5.20 t/ha�1 in 1992 to 5.94 t ha�1 between 1992 and2008. The largest increase was for wheat (21%) from 6.82 t ha�1 to8.28 t ha�1 (Fig. 2, Table 2).

3.2. Pesticide use

The quantity of pesticides used on target crops, as measured bykilogrammes of active ingredient, remained largely unchangedbetween 1992 and 2008 at approximately 12,750,000 kg. However,this figures masks substantial changes on a crop by crop basis. Forinstance, the quantity of active ingredient applied to winter barleydeclined by approximately 48%, facilitated in part by a 19% decreasein spray area over the same period. By contrast the quantity ofactive ingredient used on oilseed rape increased by 67%, accom-panied by a 224% increase in the spray area (Table 2). The meanpesticide application rate across all four crops decreased by 41%between 1992 and 2008 and by 13% between 2002 and 2008. Thegreatest mean application rate decline for any one crop was

Fig. 2. Mean yield of wheat, spring and winter barley and oilseed rape for the period1992e2008.

recorded for spring barleywhich reduced by 63% from its 1992 levelof 0.43 kg/a.i. ha�1 to 0.16 kg/a.i. ha�1 in 2008.

3.3. Environmental impact ratings

The overall mean EIQ rating across the four crops decreased by17.94% from 1992 to 2008 and by 4.81% between 2002 and 2008.The largest mean EIQ decrease was recorded for oilseed rape(25%) between 1992 and 2008 and 15% decrease between 2002and 2008. The smallest decrease was recorded for winter barley(by 11%, 1992e2008 and by 1%, 2002e2008). EIQ ratings forfungicides increased by 2.73% and decreased for herbicides andinsecticides by 15% and 31% respectively for the period1992e2008 and decreased by 5.9% for fungicides, and increasedby 4% and 5% for herbicides and insecticides between 2002 and2008.

The mean EI rating for the four crops decreased by 27%between 1992 and 2008 and by 4% between 2002 and 2008. Themean EI for wheat decreased by 21%, winter barley by 64%, springbarley by 32% and oilseed rape by 31% for the period 1992e2008.For the period 2002e2008 the mean EI fell by 8% for wheat, 30%for winter barley, 17% for spring barley and 44% for oilseed rape. EIratings for the three non-target groups also decreased. TheEIfarmworker ratings for the two periods (1992e2008; 2002e2008)decreased by 31% and 6% respectively, the EIconsumer by 27% and 2%respectively and the EIenvironmental by 25% and 4% respectively(Table 2).

The mean EI ha�1 across all crops decreased by 24%(1992e2008) and 3% (2002e2008). Spring barley showed thelargest decrease in EI ha�1 for the above time periods 44% and 25%respectively (Fig. 3). As the quantity of crops (t/ha) changes overtime it is more appropriate to view changes in the EI ha�1 in thecontext of changing productivity per hectare. Hence, Fig. 4demonstrates that in spite of increased yields of wheat perhectare, the EI ha�1 has continued to rise whereas the other threecrops have shown varying rates of decline in the EI ha�1 rating.

4. Discussion

When interpreting these results, several caveats need to beconsidered that may influence the findings. Firstly, EIQ scores forindividual substances change over time as new data and findingsare published and incorporated into the relative toxicity compo-nents. Consequently, the EIQ rating of novel substances or formu-lations may change in the following years. Similarly, ratings forsubstances in 1992 may have changed in the interim period.Secondly, the Pesticide Usage Surveys for Arable Crops are pub-lished every two years and present a snap-shot of usage changesover time. They offer an incomplete overview of the drivers of thesechanges. For instance, the dynamics of pest populations, changes inresponse to environmental and climatic signals which inducesa corresponding change in pesticide usage. Any changes in pesticideusage from one study period to the next would likely depend asmuch on the prevailing weather pattern for the year as to anymarket or policy induced influence. However, trends should beidentified with more confidence over a more extended period, suchas the 16 years of this study.

The EIQ indicator suffers from a number of limitations that mayhave an influence on the results. It does not consider weatherconditions or specific soil conditions (Greitens and Day, 2007). Theissue of weather may be an important variable as in 2008 therewas a strong increase in the quantity of fungicide used corre-sponding to above average summer rainfall in 2008 (320 mm)on the back of higher seasonal rainfall in 2007 (357.1 mm)(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2008/summer.html). As

Table 2Pesticide use, Environmental Impact Quotient and Environmental Impact values for pesticides used on arable crops for two time periods (1992e2008 and 2002e2008).

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 % Δ 1992e2008 % Δ 2002e2008

Crop area/ha�1

Wheat 2067 1811 1976 2045 2081 1986 1990 1833 2080 0.63 4.73Winter barley 784 627 749 772 589 546 420 388 416 �46.94 �23.81Spring barley 514 481 519 483 539 555 587 494 616 19.84 10.99Oilseed rape 421 491 415 534 402 432 554 575 598 42.03 38.44Total 3786 3411 3659 3834 3611 3519 3551 3290 3710 �2.01 5.43T/ha�1

Wheat 6.82 7.35 8.15 7.55 8.03 8.04 7.77 8.04 8.28 21.45 2.98Winter barley 6.15 5.82 6.61 5.56 6.31 6.28 6.41 6.72 6.74 9.53 7.19Spring barley 4.95 4.78 5.45 4.84 5.14 4.86 5.29 5.33 5.42 9.64 11.61Oilseed rape 2.88 2.53 3.41 2.94 2.88 3.40 2.90 3.29 3.30 14.51 �2.90Mean 5.20 5.12 5.91 5.22 5.59 5.65 5.59 5.84 5.94 14.16 5.12

Pesticide use (Kg � 106) and spray area (ha�1 � 106) in brackets % Δkg (ha�1) 1992e08 % Δkg (ha�1) 2002e08Wheat 89 (155) 78 (152) 90 (178) 87 (198) 84 (242) 82 (213) 92 (235) 80 (198) 96 (265) 8.92 (70.62) 17.58 (24.23)Winter barley 25 (44) 20 (50) 25 (49) 25 (54) 20 (46) 19 (43) 16 (34) 13 (33) 13 (35) �47.85 (�19.46) �31.27 (�17.82)Spring barley 6 (14) 7 (15) 5 (18) 5 (17) 6 (22) 6 (25) 8 (29) 5 (21) 5 (31) �17.51 (124.53) �21.53 (21.61)Oilseed rape 8 (17) 7 (15) 7 (22) 8 (29) 6 (21) 7 (24) 10 (33) 12 (37) 13 (56) 67.41 (224) 73.45 (138.54)Totals 128 (230) 112 (232) 128 (267) 125 (299) 117 (330) 115 (305) 126 (331) 110 (289) 127 (387) �0.13 (68.32) 10.83 (26.94)

EIQ ratings % Δ 1992e2008 % Δ 2002e2008Fieldworker 14.28 14.27 13.54 12.18 12.29 11.29 11.27 10.53 10.68 �25.20 �5.39Consumer 8.02 8.08 8.16 7.70 7.53 7.44 7.14 7.09 7.23 �9.91 �2.80Environment 50.10 49.34 54.05 50.19 47.13 43.69 45.37 42.58 41.51 �17.15 �5.00Overall 24.14 23.89 25.26 23.36 22.33 20.82 21.27 19.96 19.70 �18.36 �5.35Mean 24.14 23.89 25.25 23.35 22.32 20.81 21.26 20.07 19.81 �17.94 �4.81EIfarmworker (x106)Wheat 77.1 73.2 55.6 46.5 48.4 53.7 48.0 48.4 57.3 �25.7 6.6Winter barley 23.6 18.7 17.1 14.0 10.4 11.2 7.7 7.5 7.8 �66.9 �30.2Spring barley 4.7 5.0 4.6 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.4 2.9 2.7 �42.2 �18.0Oilseed rape 7.6 7.2 8.7 9.0 13.5 5.7 6.9 8.2 10.2 35.2 81.3EIconsumer (x106)Wheat 65.8 63.7 46.9 39.7 44.1 49.0 40.7 43.4 55.8 �15.1 13.9Winter barley 19.3 15.8 14.0 10.9 8.3 9.5 6.1 6.1 6.8 �64.9 �28.5Spring barley 2.7 3.1 2.6 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 �34.1 �15.7Oilseed rape 4.7 4.1 5.7 7.6 11.7 5.2 6.1 8.4 6.4 36.2 22.2EIenvironmental (x106)Wheat 262 258 210 181 188 195 183 184 211 �19.50 8.16Winter barley 77 62 65 53 40 42 30 28 29 �62.47 �30.82Spring barley 13 15 15 10 10 12 13 10 10 �28.31 �16.87Oilseed rape 26 25 34 35 65 24 30 35 34 28.40 39.56EI (x106) by pesticide typeFungicide 29 27 29 17 15 12 22 20 20 �31.30 74.86Herbicide 41 29 49 43 38 37 38 34 40 �3.49 6.83Insecticide 6 10 7 9 5 4 5 4 4 �26.89 16.62Molluscicide 5 9 8 9 14 12 7 14 18 255.01 47.75Growth Regulator 113 108 67 60 58 73 54 55 60 �46.64 �16.85EI/ha�1

Wheat 6526 7261 5281 4355 4499 4996 4558 5000 5135 �21.32 2.79Winter barley 5105 5141 4293 3353 3348 3820 3440 3577 3489 �31.65 �8.65Spring barley 1353 1589 1412 958 939 1023 1041 1004 763 �43.58 �25.41Oilseed rape 3065 2498 3864 3245 3101 2716 2564 2973 2819 �8.00 3.79Mean 4012 4122 3713 2978 2972 3139 2901 3138 3107 �23.94 �2.77

P.Cross,G.Edw

ards-Jones/Crop

Protection30

(2011)1579

e1585

1582

Fig. 3. The Environmental Impact per hectare for wheat, spring and winter barley andoilseed rape for the period 1992e2008.

P. Cross, G. Edwards-Jones / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1579e1585 1583

mentioned in the introduction a number of so-called ‘risk indices’,such as the EIQ, are in fact hazard indices. They give a measure-ment of the hazard present in the environment rather than anestimate of the risk of the hazard converting to a harmfulendpoint. Therefore, whilst the level of hazard may change, theremay not necessarily be a corresponding change in the level of risk.Scores (1, 3, 5) for each of the components of the EIQ calculationare linear and are therefore insensitive to log increases in toxicity.For example, the scores for acute dermal toxicity are assignedbased on logarithmic differences in the LD50 (mg kg�1) for theproduct. Thus, products with toxicity greater than 2000 mg kg�1

score 1, whilst toxicity ratings of 0e199 score 5. This leads toa situation whereby a product possessing a thousand times thetoxicity of another product will only be assigned a 5 fold increasein its EIQ toxicity rating (Gallivan et al., 2005). Stenrød et al. (2008)also observe that the lack of component sensitivity tends to giveincreased ‘risk’ weight to heavily used pesticides.

Fig. 4. Changes in environmental impact per hectare divided by average yield for theperiod 1992e2008. This calculation allows comparison of pesticide hazard per unit ofcrop produced as yields increase over time. It is necessary to calculate EI/ha/t as thesimple calculation of EI/t produced would not control for changes in crop area overtime.

Most of the pesticide active ingredients identified as requiringnew data packages ceased to be permissibly used in the UK by July2003 when 320 substances were removed. A further 150 activeingredients were removed by 2008. Changes between 1992 and2008 appear to demonstrate an overall decline of 23% in the meanEI ha�1 over this period, but this hides a more complex storey ofdifferent rates of change across crops.

The 23% overall change in environmental impact per hectareappears to be attributable in large part to changes in pesticideimpact on non-target groups (fieldworkers, consumers and theenvironment) for winter and spring barley, although applications towheat also underwent an important decline in hazard. The 48%decrease in pesticide use for winter barley is almost entirelyattributable to the 47% decrease in the UK crop area for winterbarley although yields improved by 10% over the study period.However, yields may also have improved due to factors other thanimproved pesticide usage, such as improving weather patterns andthe expansion in use of higher-yielding varieties. Nonetheless, theenvironmental impact per hectare declined by 32% for winterbarley and by 44% for spring barley which indicates thatimprovements in the pesticides for these crops may be havinga reduced impact on non-target groups. Similarly, an importantpart of the 67% increase in pesticide use for oilseed rape can beattributed to the 42% increase in crop area, although the change inhazard per hectare (�8%) remains stable. Much of the reduction inpesticide environmental impact occurred during the period1992e2002 with the exception of spring barley where 57% of theoverall reduction occurred after 2002.

Of the four crops included in this study, wheat accounted for75% of the volume (kg) of pesticide usage and of the pesticidesused on this crop fungicides and herbicides dominated usage. Ofthese two groups of pesticides the top 10 of each groupaccounted for much of the total volume of usage and the overallenvironmental impact (Table 3). There appears to be a trendtowards increasing use of a small number of substances forfungicides. For instance, in 1992, 40 fungicides were used and thetop 10 accounted for 68% by volume and 72% by EI. By 2002 (theyear before directive 91/414/EEC came into effect), 42 substanceswere in use and the top 10 accounted for 71% by volume and 75%by EI. By 2008, 51 substances were used and the top 10accounted for 77% by volume and 88% by EI. Herbicide usageappears to have remained relatively stable between 2002 and2008 in terms of the top 10 products used, their volume usageand EI. By comparison, total insecticide usage was negligible in2008 accounting for just 10% of the volume of the single mostused herbicide isoproturon and 11% of its EI. The increase in EI forwheat appears to be due in large part to the increased usage offungicides. During the study period the EI ha�1 for fungicidesunderwent greater fluctuations (EI ha�1 1992 ¼ 14.06;2002 ¼ 3.56; 2008 ¼ 9.14) possibly due to the influence of theweather than for herbicides (EI ha�1 1992 ¼ 27.37; 2002 ¼ 21.28;2008 ¼ 21.28). A number of the top 10 pesticides in use in 1992were still in use in 2008, although some of these products weresold as formulations. Changes in product use as a result ofDirective 91/414/EEC appear to have had a limited effect on theoverall EI for UK arable crop production.

The scale of European and UK policy change and imple-mentation since 1991 has been both extensive and intensive. Coststo the agricultural agrochemical industries are likely to have beensubstantial and yet the overall decline in the EI ha�1 has beenmodest for three of the four study crops and has actually increasedfor wheat. Changes in the EI ha�1 cannot be explained in terms ofrelative price changes as all four crops demonstrated the samepercentage increase in price of 263% (See http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx) during the period 2002e2008 (the period

Table 3Environmental impact ratings of the top 10 pesticides (by volume) for the years 1992, 2002 and 2008.

Year Fungicide Kg (‘000) Ha(‘000) EIQ EI (’000) Herbicide Kg (‘000) Ha(‘000) EIQ EI (’000)

1992 chlorothalonil 401 942 37.42 15,014 isoproturon 1106 669 25.56 28,270fenpropimorph 292 849 31.67 9236 diflufenican/isoproturon 606 531 13.20 8000chlorothalonil/flutriafol 242 436 17.19 4152 mecoprop-P 359 415 15.33 5510fenpropidin 197 654 31.67 6223 chlorotoluron 347 128 19.06 6619sulphur 169 51 32.66 5512 isoproturon/pendimethalin 243 133 15.34 3723mancozeb 160 153 25.72 4116 mecoprop 190 148 15.33 2919carbendazim/maneb 123 115 12.68 1560 tri-allate 168 84 27.07 4535maneb 101 91 21.44 2175 isoproturon/trifluralin 165 68 11.43 1883carbendazim/mancozeb 93 66 14.89 1390 pendimethalin 165 166 30.17 4964cyproconazole/prochloraz 72 216 12.14 880 glyphosate 119 152 15.33 1825Total 1850 3574 237.48 50,258 Total 3468 2494 187.81 68,248

2002 chlorothalonil 142 318 37.42 5311 isoproturon 1224 933 25.56 31,273epoxiconazole/fenproprimorph/kresoxim-methyl 118 581 9.34 1099 pendimethalin 463 431 30.17 13,981azoxystrobin 103 1103 50.50 5181 glyphosate 458 628 15.33 7018epoxiconazole 65 1487 36.61 2372 clodinafop-propargyl/trifluralin 306 334 9.41 2874tebuconazole 55 607 40.33 2233 tri-allate 296 138 27.07 8011epoxiconazole/kresoxim-methyl 54 419 12.92 699 diflufenican/isoproturon 284 457 13.20 3744trifloxystrobin 52 534 29.78 1551 mecoprop-P 256 450 15.33 3929epoxyconazole/pyraclostrobin 39 311 11.79 456 chlorotoluron 218 84 19.06 4145cyprodinil 39 116 26.78 1032 flufenacet/pendimethalin 173 132 13.51 2339epoxiconazole/kresoxim-methyl/pyraclostrobin 27 175 7.10 190 trifluralin 172 197 18.83 3244Total 693 5651 262.56 20,124 Total 3849 3785 187.46 80,560

2008 chlorothalonil 908 1960 37.42 33,962 isoproturon 1051 859 25.56 26,861azoxystrobin/chlorothalonil 166 284 17.83 2967 glyphosate 500 651 15.33 7659boscalid/epoxiconazole 166 603 14.22 2365 trifluralin 471 497 18.83 8862chlorothalonil/cyproconazole/propiconazole 155 337 12.52 1940 flufenacet/pendimethalin 456 384 13.51 6157chlorothalonil/cyproconazole 130 345 12.52 1623 chlorotoluron 232 112 19.06 4424prothioconazolespiroxamine 120 424 20.07 2415 pendimethalin 229 229 30.17 6909mancozeb 107 149 25.72 2753 prosulfocarb 217 78 39.78 8643epoxiconazole/fenproprimorph 94 391 16.46 1543 mecoprop-P 209 431 15.33 3198prothioconazole/tebuconazole 90 571 14.25 1280 pendimethalin/picolinafen 196 256 15.00 2940epoxiconazole/pyraclostrobin 79 600 11.79 928 clodinafop-propargyl/trifluralin 95 99 9.41 894Total 2015 5665 182.79 51,775 Total 3655 3597 201.97 76,548

P. Cross, G. Edwards-Jones / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1579e15851584

during which wheat EI ha�1 increased). At first sight directive 91/414/EEC appears to have had an effect on the overall reduction ofpesticide hazard in the environment, although this still appears tobe dependent upon the type and quantity of crop grown. Theextent to which any of the reductions can be considered costeffective in terms of market disruption that such policy initiativescause remains unexplored.

The findings from this study can be used to evaluate the extentof further changes in the level of pesticide hazard in the widerenvironment. The arrival of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 willneed to be evaluated against a baseline and the findings from thisstudy may prove useful in evaluating future successes of theDirective.

References

Balderacchi, M., Trevisan, M., 2010. Comments on pesticide risk assessment by therevision of Directive EU 91/414. Environmental Science and Pollution Research17, 523e528.

Bues, R., Bussieres, P., Dadomo, M., Dumas, Y., Garcia-Pomar, M.I., Lyannaz, J.P.,2004. Assessing the environmental impacts of pesticides used on pro-cessing tomato crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 102,155e162.

Cross, P., Edwards-Jones, G., 2006a. Variation in pesticide hazard from arable cropproduction in Great Britain from 1992 to 2002: pesticide risk indices and policyanalysis. Crop Protection 25, 1101e1108.

Cross, P., Edwards-Jones, G., 2006b. Variation in pesticide hazard from vegetableproduction in Great Britain from 1991 to 2003. Pest Management Science 62,1058e1064.

Davis, R.P., Thomas, M.R., Garthwaite, D.G., Bowen, H.M., 1993. Pesticide UsageReport: Arable Farm Crops in Great Britain in 1992. MAFF.

Gallivan, G.J., Surgeoner, G.A., Kovach, J., 2001. Pesticide risk reduction oncrops in the Province of Ontario. Journal of Environmental Quality 30,798e813.

Gallivan, G.J., Berges, H., McGee, B., 2005. Survey of Pesticide Use and Eval-uation of the Changes in Pesticide Risk on Agricultural Crops in Ontario.Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food New Directions Program,Ontario.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., 1999. Pesticide Usage Survey Report: Arable FarmCrops in Great Britain in 1998. DEFRA & SEERAD, York.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., 2001. Pesticide Usage Survey Report: Arable FarmCrops in Great Britain in 2000. DEFRA & SEERAD, York.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., Anderson, H., Stoddart, H., 2004. Pesticide UsageSurvey Report 202: Arable Crops in Great Britain. Defra, York.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., Dawson, A., Stoddart, H., 2003. PesticideUsage Survey: Arable Farm Crops in Great Britain in 2002. DEFRA &SEERAD, York.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., Hart, M., 1995. Pesticide Usage Report: Arable FarmCrops in Great Britain in 1994. MAFF.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., Heywood, E., Battersby, A., 2006. Pesticide Usagesurvey report 213: Arable Crops in Great Britain (Including Aerial Applications2003e2006). Defra, York.

Greitens, T.J., Day, E., 2007. An alternative way to evaluate the environmental effectsof integrated pest management: pesticide risk indicators. Renewable Agricul-ture and Food Systems 22, 213e222.

Ioriatti, C., Agnello, A.M., Martini, F., Kovach, J., 2011. Evaluation of the environ-mental impact of apple pest control strategies using pesticide risk indicators.Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management:Early View.

Kleter, G.A., Bhula, R., Bodnaruk, K., Carazo, E., Felsot, A.S., Harris, C.A., Katayama, A.,Kuiper, H.A., Racke, K.D., Rubin, B., Shevah, Y., Stephenson, G.R., Tanaka, K.,Unsworth, J., Wauchope, R.D., Wong, S.S., 2007. Altered pesticide use ontransgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmentalperspective. Pest Management Science 63, 1107e1115.

Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degnil, J., Tette, J., 1992. A method to measure the envi-ronmental impact of pesticides. New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139,1e8.

Labite, H., Butler, F., Cummins, E., 2011. A review and evaluation of plant protectionproduct ranking tools used in agriculture. Human and Ecological Risk Assess-ment 17, 300e327.

Levitan, L., 1997. An Overview of Pesticide Impact Assessment Systems (A.K.A."Pesticide Risk Indicators") Based on Indexing or Ranking Pesticides by Envi-ronmental Impact. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development,Copenhagen.

P. Cross, G. Edwards-Jones / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1579e1585 1585

Stenrød, M., Heggen, H.E., Bolli, R.I., Eklo, O.M., 2008. Testing and comparison ofthree pesticide risk indicator models under Norwegian conditionsea case studyin the Skuterud and Heiabekken catchments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Envi-ronment 123, 15e29.

Thomas, M.R., Garthwaite, D.G., Banham, A.R., 1997. Pesticide Usage Survey Report:Arable Farm Crops in Great Britain in 1996. MAFF.

Verro, R., Finizio, A., Otto, S., Vighi, M., 2008. Predicting pesticide environmentalrisk in intensive agricultural areas. I: screening level risk assessment of indi-vidual chemicals in surface waters. Environmental Science & Technology 43,522e529.

Whitehead, R., 1996. The UK Pesticide Guide 1996. CAB International, Wallingford,England.

Whitehead, R., 2001. The UK Pesticide Guide 2001. CAB International, Wallingford,England.

Whitehead, R., 2003. The UK Pesticide Guide 2003. CAB International, Wallingford,England.

Whitehead, R., 2004. The UK Pesticide Guide 2004. CAB International, Wallingford,England.

Whitehead, R., 2006. The UK Pesticide Guide 2006. CABI Publishing, Norwich,England.