Human health implications and
risk assessment
17. Organophosphate compounds have long been linked
to human health problems.[79]
Although this was not the main concern of our inquiry, we did
raise certain aspects of the issue. On one side of the argument,
we were told that "the threat of exposure lies beyond simply
opening the container",[80]
whilst the National Association of Agricultural Contractors' experience
suggested that "OP sheep dip concentrates handled by trained
operators are not a risk to the user".[81]
The advice on the effects of OPs on human health makes a distinction
between the effect of the concentrate and low level exposure.
The Institute of Occupational Medicine's report suggested that
"exposure to concentrates was associated with an increased
likelihood of ill-health in the groups of subjects studied".[82]
Baroness Hayman interpreted it thus: "I think the weight
of scientific evidence is that there is no doubt that exposure
to the concentrate can be dangerous to human health and have very
bad effects on human health".[83]
The Committee on Toxicity reported that "the effects of long
term exposure at low levels were still not certain".[84]
We hope that while the use of OPs is prohibited the research into
their effects will continue apace, and that the concerns raised
about human health are properly examined, including any effect
on those handling dipped sheep.
18. Nonetheless, we were more than a little concerned
that the risk of OP contamination associated with dipping sheep
had not been quantified more carefully before the withdrawal was
announced. For example, we accept that the existing containers
are "a source of potential contamination"[85]
and that "exposure to concentrates is the greatest hazard
to human health"[86]
but for the Government's advisers to find it "extremely difficult
to quantify" the impact of wearing protective clothing and
then to provide a qualitative assessment that the risk "is
very substantially reduced"[87]
if it is worn seems hard to justify in this context. It is important
that the action taken by Government is seen to be proportionate
to the risk and this can only be done in terms of a proper risk
assessment made freely available to all interested parties. We
acknowledge the strength of opinion on both sides of the debate
as regards a complete ban on OPs but we believe that the risk
of OP concentrate to human health should have been made more explicit
in the Press Release from MAFF where the message was blurred by
the stress on official advice against any general withdrawal of
OPs from the market.
Conclusion
19. There are strong environmental, economic and
animal health and welfare arguments in favour of OP sheep dips.
However, there are potential human health effects and we accept
that these must carry a considerable weight in deciding whether
a product should be withdrawn from the market. In this case, both
sides of the argument should have been presented to the industry
in a clearer fashion.
50 Ev. p. 25, para 17. Back
51 Ev.
p. 2. Back
52 Q
93. Back
53 Ev.
p. 31. Back
54 Ev.
p. 45. Back
55 Ev.
p. 26. Back
56 Ev.
p. 30. Back
57 Q
91. Back
58 Ev.
p. 21. Back
59 Q
90. Back
60 Q
92. Back
61 Q
87 Back
62 Q
93. Back
63 Ibid. Back
64 Q
92. Back
65 Ev.
p. 35. Back
66 Ev.
p. 45. Back
67 Ev.
p. 39. Back
68 Q
119. Back
69 Q
113. Back
70 Q
111. Back
71 Q
109. Back
72 Ev.
p. 45. Back
73 Ev.
p. 54. Back
74 Ev.
p. 56. Back
75 Q
101 Back
76 Q
98. Back
77 Q
99. Back
78 Q
100. Back
79 Ev.
p. 37. Back
80 Ev.
p. 37. Back
81 Ev.
p. 54. Back
82 Ev.
p. 1, para 3.1. Back
83 Q
10. Back
84 Q
2. Back
85 Q
35. Back
86 Q
36. Back
87 Q
38. Back
