Autor: Arturo Correa Briones
Ingeniero agrónomo, magister
La evolución de la tecnología va unida a la aparición de nuevos riesgos que, al no ser tenidos en cuenta, pueden dar lugar a efectos negativos sobre la vida humana y el ambiente. Es el caso de la liberación intencional de sustancias químicas sintéticas.
Los plaguicidas, solventes, reactivos, coadyuvantes, medicamentos, entre otros, son ejemplos, los cuales pueden ser una amenaza, tanto para seres humanos como para animales y el ambiente. Se trata de los llamados xenobióticos, sustancias químicas, en su mayoría de síntesis, que pueden interferir con el sistema endocrino e incluso ser cancerígenos, teratogénicos o mutagénicos.
Se debe señalar que las sustancias químicas se constituyen como elementos estructurales de los bienes que utilizamos habitualmente, además de los materiales de alta tecnología necesarios para una economía circular y climáticamente neutra, por tanto, su retiro o limitaciones relevantes en su uso parece complejo. La producción de sustancias químicas es también un sector industrial que consume mucha energía y genera grandes emisiones de CO2.
En este contexto, la Agenda 2030, que trata sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible (Acuerdo No Vinculante de países de Naciones Unidas), aporta de varios Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible – ODS (son 17), donde, algunos de los cuales tienen metas específicas sobre la gestión racional de las sustancias químicas, a saber:
a. ODS 12: sobre el consumo y la producción sostenibles, meta 12.4. Este compromiso se basa en el objetivo del Enfoque Estratégico para la Gestión de Productos Químicos a Nivel Internacional (SAICM).2, el cual propone el retiro de las sustancias químicas altamente peligrosas y el control de las consideradas «críticas», entre otras materias.
b. ODS 3: sobre la salud y el bienestar, meta 3.9; donde se indica la necesidad de controlar la exposición de los trabajadores a estas sustancias químicas, entre otras materias.
c. ODS 6: sobre el agua limpia y el saneamiento, meta 6.3. que busca evitar la contaminación y por consiguiente, los efectos sobre la salud humana y el ambiente., etc.
La idea de este blog es abordar estas materias, intentando proponer soluciones, que deriven en algunos casos en la generación de políticas públicas y en otras, acciones que pueden realizar los privados, particulares o empresas, en un contexto de bien común. En las próximas semanas iniciaremos los análisis.
Importante noticia de la Agencia Medioambiental de Estados Unidos (EPA), respecto del uso de plaguicidas neonicotinoides, para tener en cuenta en Chile.
Arturo Correa, ingeniero agrónomo
consultor, Mayo 2023
EPA Takes Next Step in the Endangered Species Act Review of Three Neonicotinoids
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing new analyses identifying federally endangered or threatened (listed) species that it predicts face the greatest risks from clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam, part of a group of insecticides known as neonicotinoids used on a variety of crops, turf, and ornamentals, and for other residential and commercial indoor and outdoor uses. While these types of analyses—which predict which species could be at jeopardy and which critical habitats could face adverse modification from the use of these pesticides—have not historically been part of EPA’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) assessments, EPA has recently conducted some of these analyses in order to expedite ESA consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). The analyses will also help EPA and the Services prioritize mitigation measures for the highest risk species. These analyses were completed as part of EPA’s efforts to meet its obligations under the ESA and furthers the goals outlined in EPA’s April 2022 ESA Workplan to provide practical protections for listed species from pesticides.
EPA finalized biological evaluations (BEs) for clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam in June 2022. The BE is EPA’s determination of whether the continued registration of these insecticides will have an effect on each listed species or its designated critical habitat. When EPA makes a “may affect” determination, the Agency also determines if continued registration will likely adversely affect (LAA) or not likely adversely affect (NLAA) a listed species or critical habitat.
In the final BEs, the Agency made numerous LAA determinations. An LAA determination means that EPA reasonably expects that at least one individual of any listed species may be exposed to a chemical at a sufficient level to have an adverse effect. This is the case even if a listed species is almost recovered to a point where it may no longer need to be listed. The likely “take,” which includes unintentional harm or death, of even one individual of a species, is enough to trigger such a determination. As a result, there are often a high number of LAA determinations. An LAA determination, however, does not necessarily mean that a pesticide is putting a species in jeopardy.
Whenever EPA makes an LAA determination, the Agency consults with the Services, which will analyze whether those impacts rise to the level of jeopardizing the existence of the entire species or adversely modifying its critical habitat. The Services’ analysis is typically complex and time consuming. To help expedite this analysis, EPA in its BE has predicted whether each of the three pesticides could lead to a future jeopardy or adverse modification finding for each species or critical habitat with an LAA finding. Although EPA has made these predictions, the Services are responsible for making the actual jeopardy/adverse modification findings and have the sole authority to do so.
Below are the findings from the BEs and the new analyses on jeopardy and adverse modification (last two bullets). The BEs evaluated the effects of the three neonicotinoids on over 1,700 listed species and over 800 critical habitats in the United States.
Clothianidin
- Will have no effect on 16% of species and 17% of critical habitats;
- May affect but is not likely to adversely affect 20% of species and 27% of critical habitats;
- Is likely to adversely affect but EPA predicts that use will not likely cause jeopardy to 55% of listed species or adversely modify 52% of critical habitats;
- Is likely to adversely affect and EPA predicts that use may cause jeopardy to 9% of listed species and adversely modify 4% of critical habitats.
For more information on clothianidin, see https://www.epa.gov/
Imidacloprid
- Will have no effect on 15% of species and 13% of critical habitats;
- May affect but is not likely to adversely affect 13% of species and 11% of critical habitats;
- Is likely to adversely affect but EPA predicts that use will not likely cause jeopardy to 61% of listed species or adversely modify 73% of critical habitats;
- Is likely to adversely affect and EPA predicts that use may cause jeopardy to 11% of listed species and adversely modify 3% of critical habitats.
For more information on imidacloprid, see https://www.epa.gov/
Thiamethoxam
- Will have no effect on 15% of species and 13% of critical habitats;
- May affect but is not likely to adversely affect 14% of species and 10% of critical habitats;
- Is likely to adversely affect, but EPA predicts that use will not likely cause jeopardy to 60% of listed species or adversely modify 73% of critical habitats;
- Is likely to adversely affect and EPA predicts that use may cause jeopardy to 11% of listed species and adversely modify 4% of critical habitats.