GASGA - the Group for Assistance on Systems relating to Grain After-harvest - is a voluntary association of organizations primarily linked with donor operations.
These organisations all have major involvement in most, if not all, of the following:
The association is essentially technical; it is international in character, but informal and limited in membership, so that its deliberations, aimed at the specific objectives indicated below, can take place readily.
GASGA consists of the following organisations:
GASGA aims to stimulate improvement in the technical help given to developing countries in the postharvest handling, processing, storage and transport of grain, and to harmonise activities so that the most effective use is made of members' resources. GASGA seeks to identify and suggest ways of meeting needs for research, development, training and information in this subject field, in the light of existing or planned operations by GASGA members and other organisations.
The Group is also prepared to answer requests for technical advice put to it by developing countries.
GASGA also seeks to facilitate the appropriate dissemination of information about technical developments and activities in the postharvest sector to donors, developing countries, and other interested organisations. The last group includes, for instance, the International Agricultural Research Centres whose commodity oriented preharvest programs need links with postharvest activities and requirements.
In essence, GASGA's role lies in advice and the provision of a forum for exchange of technical information and experience.
The GASGA Executive meets annually to review progress in its activities and discuss proposals for future work.
This volume, the third in the series, publishes the papers presented at a seminar held during the 21st GASGA Executive Meeting, held at KIT Headquarters in Amsterdam from 31 May2 June 1989.
The objective of this seminar was to summarise, through an interpretive overview from various perspectives, the nature of the pesticide residue problem in stored grains, its severity, where concentrated, on what grains and why. Also to be assessed were the implications for consumers: which are the populations most at risk, where, in what way, when, and to what degree of severity? If this information is not available, how can it be determined? The aim was to produce a publication that would contribute to current appreciation and thought from an operational perspective.
The seminar opened with a presentation by Mr J. van der Kolk (Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues) on international regulation of pesticide residues in food grains. In the discussion which followed, the question was raised as to the implications for research and laboratory facilities: where does the money come from? Mr van der Kolk replied that it is the responsibility of pesticide companies to undertake research leading to toxicological and residue data in connection with the development of pesticides. There will, in due course, be some contribution at national level as part of registration procedure. Codex, with its expert panel and publications, is funded jointly by FAO and WHO; the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues is hosted by The Netherlands.
Of particular concern was the question of unilateral actions taken nationally: for example, India and Germany are currently seeking residue levels in relation to certain pesticides that are much lower than those recognized internationally. Mr van der Kolk agreed that individual governments can and do establish their own requirements - it is difficult to convince them that these may be lower than is necessary. However, in India, for example, grains may be consumed without complete processing there is the problem of reconciling pest control needs with requirements concerning residues. There are also observed discrepancies between rule and practice.
A paper by Mr D. Halliday (NRI) paper focused on the occurrence, sources and toxicological significance of pesticide residues in food grains. A question about the fumigant ethylene dibromide (EDB), which was not referred to specifically in the paper, led to some discussion about inorganic bromide residues. Mr Halliday pointed out that EDB is tending to be phased out because of carcinogenic implications. Although inorganic bromide levels are lower than with methyl bromide, there is also a problem with unchanged ethylene dibromide. The primary concern with methyl bromide fumigation was the question of repeated fumigations which occur in those situations where treatments are undertaken on a 'calender' basis rather than on a basis of infestation assessment. Mr van der Kolk pointed to the additional problem of importing countries requiring a certificate of fumigation prior to export (regardless of any assessment of need) and the fact that commodities from developing countries shipped into Europe for re-export may be subject to an additional, and probably totally unnecessary, fumigation.
There is much interest in developing countries in the use of indigenous plant materials (e.g. neem); also much scientific research is diverted towards the potential use of hormones and pheromones for insect control. What is the position with such materials as regards consideration by Codex? Mr van der Kolk replied that their use is so limited at the present time that no cases have come before Codex. However, if grain treated, for example, with neem entered international trade then Codex consideration would be needed (but who would bear the cost?).
In response to a question whether it is possible to offer practical methods for residue determination for use at storage level in developing countries, Mr Halliday replied that, for fumigants, concentrations can be measured during treatment but as far as pesticides are concerned it is not possible to avoid laboratory analysis of samples. Although this can be done using simpler methods (e.g. TLC) than those used in developed country residue laboratories, the results will be less accurate. NRI was currently this problem, Mr Halliday salt. He noted that a publication would be issued shortly giving guidelines on the establishment of pesticide residue laboratories in developing countries with details of procedures and chemical and equipment requirements. Also, a project is in progress to review less sophisticated methods such as TLC and ELISA.
Dr J. Pedersen (KSU) mentioned that an American company had developed a rapid test based on a colour reaction for organophosphorous insecticides - the 'Enzy Tee' method. Mr Halliday said that NRI had evaluated this method but found the results to be unimpressive. Mr Weber pointed out that the accuracy of this, and any other method, will depend upon the sampling procedure used.
Mr R. Harnisch (GTZ) commented that, although some 80% of grain produced in many developing countries is held in storage on the farm, he would estimate that no more than 1% of farmers are using insecticides. Mr Halliday responded that generally losses are insufficient to justify input costs. It is only in situations in which 'improved' varieties, with their greater susceptibility to primary storage pests, are stored, or in which the serious pest Prostephanus truncates occurs, that them is sufficient cost-benefit justification.
A presentation by Dr M. Kern (GTZ) described the objectives of the GTZ supraregional pesticide residue project and summarised the results of investigations on the degradation of insecticide deposits in stored grain. Data presented on halflives of different insecticides led to discussion on the question of formulation. Mr Halliday pointed out that half-life would be influenced by type of formulation (e.` dilute dust, wettable powder, etc). Reference was made to problems with formulation of insecticides for use in developing countries and the supply of inappropriate formulations.
Dr Kern referred to the FAO specifications for formulations in the FAO Code of Conduct, and supplementary technical guidelines on labelling and use. Mention was also made of the problem of repackaging of pesticides.
Finally, Mr Harnisch drew attention to the special case of insecticide 'cocktails' such as are being used to control mixed populations of Prostephanus and Sitophilus in Tanzania. If marketed as a 'cocktail' the labelling should provide adequate information, including MRLs, for each component Reference was made to this question in the final paragraph of Mr Halliday's paper.
Mr J.G. Theissen (SPV Mission de Coopération) distributed copies of his report 'Control and Registration of Pesticides in Africa', describing the proposals discussed during a workshop 'Pesticide Regulation in French Speaking Africa' organised jointly by the French Ministry of Agriculture/CNEARC and the OAU Inter-African Phytosanitary Council and held in Yaounde in November 1987. The principles are based on the FAO Guidelines/Code of Conduct, simplified in consultation with representatives of countries. GIFAP, which was represented at the Yaounde meeting, supports the FAO Code of Conduct and the need for regulation because it supports reputable manufacturers.
Dr B.R. Champ (ACIAR) referred to the fumigation 'code of practice' on which ACIAR has been working with countries in Southeast Asia. He said that countries are requesting labelling in local languages.
FAO had originally agreed to participate in the seminar with a contribution aiming to present a developing country-region perspective on the problem of pesticide residues, based upon the FAO Code of Conduct. In the event, it had not proven possible for FAO to send a representative.
J. van der Kolk
Codex Committee on Pesticide
Residues
Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural
Affairs
Post Box 5406
2280 HK Rijswijk
The Netherlands
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) is a committee that forms a subsidiary body to organisation of the Joint FAD/WHO Food Standards Programme, the Codex Alimentarius.
The Codex Alimentarius contains a series of standards for foodstuffs. All member-countries of FAO and WHO are invited to take part in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which chairs the programme.
In the programme, a distinction is made between 'horizontal' standards - standards which apply to different groups of products, such as food additives, food hygiene, residues of veterinary drugs and of pesticides, end 'vertical' standards, which apply to a specific group of foods, such as cereals, cocoa products, fish, etc.
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues meets every year - under the Chairmanship of The Netherlands - and is attended by representatives from about 45 countries and of some 15 international organisations as observers. There is an important industry delegation at the meetings.
By a system of priority-setting and with the help of an independent evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues of the pesticides on the agenda, the Committee elaborates standards for residues in foodstuffs, which are recommended to governments by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The procedures for the CCPR and the Commission are clearly laid down in the Procedural Manual.
The CCPR is also involved in other aspects in relation to residues, including methods of analysis, methods of sampling, and specific problems of developing countries.