APPENDIX 10
Memorandum submitted by the OP Information
Network (B 11)
In the report published in 1994 by the VMD Appraisal
Panel for Human Suspected Adverse Reactions to Veterinary Medicines
(SARs), under the heading "Conclusions and Recommendations",
the report says:
"The Panel noted that a number of SARs had
occurred as a result of accidental contamination while dispensing
the concentrated dip. As a result the Panel reviewed the containers
of OP dip products currently on the market, and recommended to
the VPC that companies should review the effectiveness of the
container design. Discussions on the improvement of the container
design are underway between the HSE and the companies concerned".
(As far as we can ascertain there is no report
in existence on the outcome of such discussions).
In January 1995 the VPC reported to MAFF, it
said:
"The Appraisal Panel had considered a number
of SAR reports where exposure resulted from handling a sheep dip
container . . . and being splashed when dispensing the concentrate.
Samples of sheep dip containers were obtained from license holders
and examined."
(No report of the outcome of these examinations
is available.)
Again, in the 1995 VMD SARs report, on p xiv
it says:
"The Panel were informed that all the companies/dip
manufacturers had made progress in improving the design of sheep
dip containers, to minimise the risk of spillage."
(There are no reports of improved dip can designs
being accepted by HSE, VMD or VPC.)
In the 1999 report of the study carried out
by the Institute of Occupational Medicine (Edinburgh) into sheep
dipping it states that the main source of contamination and resulting
ill-health comes from splashing of OP dip concentrate on the hands
of dippers. It is clear that this is due to the dip can design.
When MAFF Minister, Jeff Rooker MP, responded
to the IOM report, in July 1999, (see Hansard), he again
recommended that manufacturers should be asked to submit improved
designs of dip cans. This was five years after the original requests
from the VMD and VPC.
By November 1999 Baroness Hayman had replaced
Jeff Rooker, and she again asked for new designs to be submitted.
As we now see, such requests had been made repeatedly with no
apparent success, and for the manufacturers and other organisations
to attempt to behave as if such requests come as a new and surprising
request is less than honest.
It would be important to enquire into what discussions
had actually gone on between the manufacturers and the HSE in
1994, and the VPC in 1995.
We are delighted to see that the Select Committee
is at last looking into detailed questions of safety and protection
for workers exposed to OP dips, and suggest that you might look
into the Institute of Occupational Medicine reports of 1993 and
1994[2]
into the effectiveness of recommended protective equipment. This
was commissioned by the National Office of Animal Health, and
has received no attention so far, although its conclusions are
very important, and should be taken seriously.
14 March 2000
2 (Occupational Hygiene Assessment of Exposure
to Insecticides and the Effectiveness of Protective Clothing during
Sheep Dipping Operations, Niven et al, February 1994,
IOM Edinburgh, Report TM94/04). Back
| 
