Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360-371)
24 FEBRUARY 2005
RT HON
ALUN MICHAEL
MP, DR SUE
POPPLE, DR
IAN DEWHURST
AND MR
PAUL O'SULLIVAN
Q360 Chairman: Can you anticipate at
all for us how things might change in terms of pesticide use through
the Pesticides Strategy which is being put forward in this document?
Dr Popple: I think it is difficult
as to whether you talk about overall changes in pesticide use
or whether or not one of the things in the Strategy is that we
have got five areas of action plans where we felt that it would
be better to be tackling those specifically rather than trying
to say that we are going to reduce pesticide usage overall. Now,
clearly that does give you some indication as to what is happening,
but pesticides are a very complex area and just reducing use in
itself might not actually have any effect either on risk or impact,
so I think it does give a sensible way forward to be trying to
identify where there are problems and actually tackling those.
Q361 Chairman: And finalising the Strategy—what
is the timetable? Are you able to tell us?
Dr Popple: The consultation is
until June, but I think we will be working out and talking to
some of the stakeholders about some of the action plans as they
are at the moment because they are only draft and they have been
designed so that we will be taking them forward in consultation
with stakeholders and we are working in partnership with them,
so I see the Strategy being almost a dynamic document so that
it is sort of pointing the way forward, but some of the more detail
in it will be refined with time.
Q362 Paddy Tipping: There has been a
suggestion that you could underpin the VI with a statutory mandatory
framework. Is that a possibility and, if you were minded to do
it, how would you do it? What bits would you pick out?
Alun Michael: I think that is
the sort of thing that would need to be considered with the evaluation
in 2006 because clearly if there are farmers who are working hard
to achieve the outcomes that we all want to see them achieve and
there are others who are not, there is an unfairness in that.
I think, by and large, what I would be looking for is whether
within the arrangements that are coming into place, things like
cross-compliance, the way that the Water Framework Directive is
implemented and all the rest of it, there are ways of making sure
that there is a synergy between that and the Voluntary Initiative
on Pesticides rather than having another totally separate set
of regulations which I think would go down like the proverbial
lead balloon. There is clearly a relationship between all these
different areas of practice and regulation, as Sue mentioned a
few minutes ago, so I think it is in that context that we would
look at it as part of the evaluation.
Q363 Chairman: I want to turn now to
another issue which was not going to be part of our inquiry at
all and that is the question of the health effects. The only reason
we have taken this on board, and we have not made an inquiry into
health effects, is that there were some very controversial press
reports just as we began our deliberations about linkages between
pesticides and various kinds of cancers. We have taken evidence
on that because clearly it mattered to us, if we are making progress,
how it is that we are now getting perhaps more evidence of health
effects arising from the possible use of pesticides. I just wanted
to ask you, Minister, whether the Department accepts that approved
pesticides can result in detrimental health effects?
Alun Michael: I think when we
are addressing questions like that, it is very important indeed
to have a very clear scientific and evidential base. Now, I am
not a scientist and, therefore, I cannot give a scientist's answer
to the question. There was the recent report by the Department
of Health's Committee on Carcinogenicity which identified only
a weak association between pesticide use and prostrate cancer.
The response to that was that it did not warrant any regulatory
action. Nevertheless, we have agreed with the Advisory Committee
for Pesticides' recommendation for the systematic review being
commissioned to review the available epidemiological studies looking
at the risks of those working in pesticide manufacture of developing
prostrate cancer and, therefore, allowing information to be gathered
on specific pesticides. I think sometimes in this field generally
there tends to be evidence which, if you like, gives rise to a
genuine question which needs to be answered and I think the responsible
way to respond to that is to test out the evidence and to make
sure that we have good evidence and answers to the questions.
I do not think that it is responsible to jump beyond what the
evidence actually shows, so certainly any evidence that comes
to us we take seriously.
Dr Popple: Yes. I think where
there is evidence it is considered by the advisory committee and
the advisory committee, as I say, in some circumstances might
refer it on to another body that it feels has more expertise.
Then they will provide advice back which will go to the Minister
and be responded to.
Q364 Chairman: We took evidence from
the Committee on Carcinogenicity on the specific linkages and
obviously that is a matter which is now on the record. We have
had many, many reports, I am sure the Department is very conscious
of this. Georgina Downs, for example, has produced a great deal
of information about the reports that she receives and the research
that she has done on ill-effects arising from people who believe
that there is a linkage with the pesticide use in their localities.
There is a lot of constant information/reports being brought from
the public themselves. It is very clear in the public mind there
is a potential linkage and concern. I just wonder if, when these
reports are received from the public and from campaigners associated
with members of the public, any research is commissioned as opposed
to the monitoring that goes on by the COC and other bodies.
Alun Michael: Sue will come in
on the particular work that is commissioned. I am glad that you
refer to it as information rather than evidence because whenever
information has been provided by any individual we look at it
and say "What does this tell us? Is it evidence that requires
either action or further investigation?" Sometimes there
is evidence that is portrayed in the press and the media inevitably
as providing clear conclusions of when scientific scrutiny and
the advice we receive is entirely different. That is the point
of us having independent advice and expert advice and on a number
of occasions on these issues I have circulated to interested Members
of Parliament the response and advice that we have had. Concern
is not the same thing as evidence of impact or a connection. As
I indicated at the beginning by asking our Chief Scientific Adviser
to scrutinise the science used by the division in relation to
some concerns and proposing to the Royal Commission that it look
at some of these issues, I and the Department are very open to
wanting to go further where the evidence justifies us to go further.
I think there are some occasions on which we are asked to take
steps that are not appropriate and do not fit with the evidence
that is made available to us.
Dr Popple: Picking up on your
point about whether we do fund research, certainly particularly
where the advisory committees have looked at questions or comments
or instances that have come in and they recommend we put in place
research or they have questions over uncertainty that they feel
the research could help with, then we are putting in place that
research. That information will be fed back then to the advisory
committees for their further consideration and also to help out
our thinking as well.
Q365 Chairman: Is there anything specifically
going on looking into health clusters in rural areas which have
been reported as being associated with pesticide use?
Dr Popple: I am not aware of any.
Q366 Chairman: You are not aware of any
fresh studies?
Dr Popple: We are not funding
such work at the moment.
Q367 Chairman: No, I appreciate it would
be Government as a whole, I am really asking about awareness but
you have not any?
Alun Michael: That would have
to be a response to evidence that there was something specifically
to address.
Q368 Chairman: I think it is a difficult
one. As someone who worked on pesticides in my youth and was working
on their carcinogenicity, we do know there is linkage with other
organisms, the difficulty is whether we have a human linkage,
I think.
Alun Michael: Yes.
Q369 Chairman: You have answered the
questions. Finally, just to ask about the revision of EC Directive
91/414, we wonder if you anticipate this will lead to some of
the more toxic pesticides being banned.
Alun Michael: You are referring
to the Directive which establishes a harmonised framework for
the authorisation of plant protection products, agricultural pesticides
in Europe. What that does is to establish a two tier system with
active substances being registered at Community level and products
containing these substances being registered at a national level
but in accordance with common rules. The key element in the regime
is the review which is an EC review of all existing active substances
and that is defined as those in the market on 25 July 1993. That
is intended to ensure that active substances allowed under the
harmonised rules meet modern standards of safety for people and
the environment. As that review progresses more pesticides are
registered under the EC regime which is gradually replacing national
systems. Certainly it is the case that many older products were
approved on the basis of limited data which does not meet modern
standards. The review is creating a more level playing field for
growers who cannot be undermined by the use of cheaper and less
safe pesticides in some other Member States. It comes back to
exactly the same sort of issues as live issues with REACH in relation
to substitution. When you substitute you want to make sure you
are certain about the substitute product not having unintended
side-effects or uncertainty about its application. Certainly the
review programme is resulting in the withdrawal of some of the
older and higher risk products that are not being supported for
commercial as well as safety reasons, and those two things very
often run together. It does seem that the impact is less marked
in the UK than in some particular Mediterranean countries. The
current situation is that the Directive is being revised to reflect
policy and technical developments since it was first negotiated,
that was 15 years ago. Key policy issues involved in the revision
are likely to be proposals for zonal authorisation, comparative
risk assessment, hazard criteria, data sharing, access to information
and public participation, and the impact of the review programme
on agriculture. There is quite a comprehensive set of issues to
be dealt with there.
Q370 Chairman: Dr Popple?
Dr Popple: I think we are waiting
to see the Commission's proposal. There has been quite a lot of
discussion, particularly over the last two to three years, on
where they are going to go with the review of the existing Directive.
Which of these things will be in it, we are not sure. Certainly
we have done some work looking at comparative risk assessment
and where it might be sensible to use it in practice but I think
until we see the proposal it is difficult to be able to take a
line on it.
Q371 Chairman: Thank you all very much
for coming, Minister, Mr O'Sullivan, Dr Popple and Dr Dewhurst,
and for everything you have been able to tell us this afternoon.
Obviously if you want to add anything, we will be very glad to
hear from you subsequently. Thank you for your time.
Alun Michael: Can I thank the
Committee for their interest. It is one of those issues that I
think we are continually coming back to and it is clear from the
Committee's questions that you will be too.
Chairman: We have that feeling! Thank
you.
| 
