Memorandum by The Pesticides Trust (HSE
26)
The Pesticides Trust is a charity concerned
with the health and environmental impacts of pesticides. We work
in the UK, Europe and in developing countries, and are a member
of the Pesticide Action Network which links over 300 groups in
60 countries. We have eight staff and have been established for
over 12 years.
We follow pesticides issues in agriculture,
urban situations, food and fibre production and public health
and other sectors. We produce the quarterly international journal
Pesticides News which circulates in 90 countries, together
with briefing papers and research abstracts. We produce information
on pesticides for users and sit on the UK government Working Party
on Pesticides Residues (WPPR), the joint MAFF/DETR advisory body
Pesticides Forum, and the HSE body Biocides Users Group (BUG).
We also carry out consultancies for the European Commission and
attend a number of UN Expert Groups on pesticides issues. We also
operate a "help" line for those who consider they have
been adversely affected by pesticides.
Below is a note of the points we would like
to bring to the Committee's attention. I would add that we start
from the premise that HSE performs a vital public function, often
under difficult conditions, and we respect the work its officers
do. We hope our comments may be taken as constructive.
1. RESOURCING
HSE has a staff of approximately 100 Agricultural
Inspectors, responsible for perhaps 250,000 farm premises. Farms
might receive visits approximately once every six to 10 years.
MAFF literature notes that one tablespoonful of spilled pesticide
concentrate could pollute the water supply of 200,000 people for
a day, and that in one second, two sprayer nozzles can deliver
enough pesticide to contaminate a 3km long brook. Given the potential
impacts of pesticides we are concerned that the level of resourcing
of the Inspectorate is not sufficient to assure safety.
2. CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
There is a conflict that needs to be addressed
between the Agency's role in licensing non-agricultural pesticides,
and its role in investigating incidents concerning such pesticides.
There has also been a lack of clarity in the Agency's role in
advising and supporting other regulatory agencies (even if HSE
is not the licensing authority—eg sheep dips) and its investigations
in those areas.
3. TRAINING OF
INSPECTORS
We have contact with users and members of the
public concerned at the potential impacts of pesticides. As a
result of that contact we feel that there may be a need to review
the training that field inspectors receive in interviewing witnesses
and gathering evidence during an investigation.
4. LACK OF
ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS
We participate in the Health in Agriculture
sub-group (HIAG) of HSE. As a result of discussions in HIAG we
are concerned that HSE may be hampered in its advisory and investigative
role due to a lack of enforceable health and safety standards
in pesticide application technology. In particular:
— Although there are British Standards
for knapsack sprayer manufacture, there are apparently no manufacturers
in the market who are prepared to manufacture equipment to those
standards.
— Although the benefits of correctly
calibrated spraying equipment—particularly tractor-drawn
equipment—are accepted, it has not been possible to introduce
mandatory sprayer testing. Mandatory "MoTs" for sprayers
have been one of the introductions in Sweden that have contributed
most significantly to reductions in pesticide impacts.
5. ENFORCEMENT
OF COSHH AND
FEPA
The introduction of the Control of Substances
Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) and the Food and Environment
Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) and the mandatory certification of
operators were both foreshadowed in the Body Report. We are concerned
that:
— Some 13 years after the introduction
of FEPA approximately 30 per cent of the UK arable acreage is
treated by operators with no formal certification or training
in pesticide use, according to the Agricultural Development and
Advice Service (ADAS). We ask if HSE is enforcing the mandatory
training/supervision requirement.
— COSHH requires that a risk assessment
be conducted before pesticides are used, and that the results
are recorded. In the majority of cases, we believe advisers and
agronomists are making the spraying decisions, and farmers are
neither making the risk assessment nor recording the results.
We ask if HSE has evidence that risk assessments are being made
and recorded.
6. AN ENVIRONMENTAL
COSHH
COSHH lays duties on operators carrying out
operations that involve chemicals that may be hazardous to human
health. There is no equivalent duty to consider environmental
safety. The parameters of human health are relatively constant,
but environmental considerations vary greatly according to the
nature of the particular site in question. We would like to suggest
that the Environment Sub-committee might consider whether there
is a need for a parallel "environmental" equivalent
of COSHH which would require the carrying out of an environmental
risk assessment.
7. INCIDENT REPORTING
The publication of the revised guide Reporting
Incidents of Exposure to Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
has been helpful. Nevertheless we continue to receive calls from
members of the public who have found it difficult to obtain clear
advice from agencies as to responsibilities for pesticides incidents.
Examples concern the apparent abandonment on land of pesticide
containers, and the use of space insecticides where it is alleged
damage has been caused to livestock and/or human health. Whilst
we recognise it is difficult to anticipate all eventualities,
the problem remains that the public cannot be expected to analyse
carefully the facts of an incident and ensure it is reported to
the corrent agency.
A "one-stop" shop such as a help line
would facilitate co-ordination between agencies and engender public
confidence in prompt investigation of incidents.
October 1999
| 
