House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Eighth Report

6 Possible health effects

109. This inquiry did not set out to address the possible health effects associated with the use of pesticides. However, concerns about these effects were still raised in the evidence we received. PAN-UK felt that, even with current best practice being implemented, pesticides were "still not intrinsically safe", since they were "designed to kill" and "be toxic".[216] FoE pointed out that "some of the residues occurring in our food are known to be a threat to human health […] because they are suspected carcinogens or hormone disrupters".[217] The Women's Environmental Network advocated a precautionary approach to pesticide approvals, based on its research into the causes of breast cancer.[218] Georgina Downs, who campaigns for restrictions on crop spraying, told us about the correspondence she receives from people all over the world, reporting acute and chronic long-term ill-health effects following exposure to pesticides. Some of the diseases reported to her include prostate cancer, breast cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukaemia and Parkinson's disease.[219]

110. Furthermore, in the week before we started taking oral evidence, reports appeared in the media about new concerns regarding potential links between pesticides and an increased risk of prostate cancer and Parkinson's disease.[220] The first of these press reports stemmed from a statement from the Committee on Carcinogenicity (CoC), an independent advisory committee, which had concluded that "there was some evidence to suggest an association between [...] farm workers, exposure to pesticides and increased risk of prostate cancer".[221] The second press item reported on minutes from a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), which had noted that a review of the existing evidence "indicated a correlation between recalled pesticide exposure and Parkinson's disease".[222] In the light of these media reports, we decided to take evidence from both independent advisory committees whose statements had led to this media coverage.

Prostate cancer

111. Professor Forman, epidemiologist on the CoC, told us that he and his fellow committee members had reviewed the available medical research in an attempt to identify if there were any potential chemical exposures which might be associated with prostate cancer. The Committee's main conclusion was that the trend of increased incidence in prostate cancer was "largely due to changes/improvements in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and treatment of benign prostatic conditions".[223] This suggested that no new environmental cause was required to account for the increased incidence, although the CoC did conclude that "there was some evidence to suggest an association between […] farm workers' exposure to pesticides and prostate cancer".[224]

112. Professor Forman explained that the overall magnitude of any association with pesticides was likely to be small, with "roughly a 9% increase in risk" in men in pesticides-related occupations, in comparison with the level of prostate cancer in the general population.[225] He considered that the risk was so low that it was very difficult to say if it represented "a real, small causal association" or whether it was an elevated risk that "might be explained by other factors" that had not been measured properly in the context of the studies.[226]

113. Professor Coggon, Chairman of the ACP, told us that, in response to the CoC's findings, his committee had recommended a "systematic review of the evidence on prostate cancer from studies of manufacturers".[227] The advantage of such a study was that workers in a factory might be exposed to a smaller range of products than a farmer might use, so it would be easier to link an individual to exposure to specific compounds. The Minister told us that the Government had accepted the ACP's recommendation and was to commission a review on "the available epidemiological studies looking at the risks of those working in pesticide manufacture".[228]

Parkinson's disease

114. Professor Coggon told us that the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environment and Health had conducted a systematic review looking at epidemiological studies of the relationship between Parkinson's disease and exposure to pesticides.[229] The review had covered over 40 studies in the published literature, some of which showed a more positive association between Parkinson's disease and pesticides than would have been expected from chance. However, Professor Coggon said that the relative risk, when looking at the studies overall, was "not that high" and the pattern was "not entirely consistent".[230] He also said there was "not any evidence pointing consistently to a problem with any single pesticide or class of pesticides".[231]

115. Professor Coggon told us that the ACP had decided that, while it was "not appropriate to take any regulatory action at this stage in relation to Parkinson's disease and pesticides", there was "a need to keep a watching brief" on what was coming out in this area.[232] The ACP had also recommended that "further work be commissioned looking at the mechanisms of toxicity that might underlie a link between chemicals and Parkinson's disease".[233]

Defra's position

116. The draft national pesticides strategy emphasises that "the regulatory system is designed to ensure that pesticides constitute no danger to the health of people (operators, consumers or bystanders) when used correctly".[234] However, the PSD told us "public concern over health effects of plant protection products" was put first in the list of issues that have driven the need for a national strategy.[235]

117. The Minister appeared unswayed by concerns put to us in evidence. He said that "concern is not the same thing as evidence of impact or a connection" and described occasions where the Government had been "asked to take steps" that he felt were not appropriate and did not fit with the evidence that was available.[236]

Our conclusions

118. The possible health effects of pesticides were not the primary focus of our inquiry. However, it is generally acknowledged that pesticides have the capacity to harm human health. The Government's independent advisory committees, the CoC and the ACP, have recommended further research into possible links between pesticide use and human disease. The potential effects of pesticides on human health, together with the public concern surrounding this issue, make it even more important that the national pesticides strategy be developed and implemented.

216 Q 106 Back

217 Ev 45 Back

218 Ev 167-168 Back

219 Ev 178 Back

220 "Pesticides may cause prostate cancer, say government advisers", The Guardian, 10 January 2005, p 3; "New study of Parkinson's and pest killers urged", The Guardian, 14 January 2005, p 8 Back

221 Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, Prostate Cancer, Statement COC/04/S6, December 2004 Back

222 Advisory Committee on Pesticides, Draft Minutes of the 310th meeting held on 18th November 2004 Back

223 Ev 105 Back

224 Ibid. Back

225 Ibid.; q 287 Back