Annex
Neonicotinoids and human health
The approval process for neonicotinoids, as with
other pesticides, includes consideration of the potential effects
on human health, both through food crop consumption and through
direct exposure by agricultural workers and bystanders. Exposure
limits are generally set at one-hundredth of the level at which
no acute effects are detected in experimental animals.[176]
A 2005 report by the then Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
examined the human health risks of pesticides, which identified
an association but not a firm causal link:
We have tried to review the evidence afresh and to
reconsider the hypothesis that [individuals'] reported ill health
may be linked to pesticide exposure. We are not persuaded that
the evidence from individual cases is so weak as to rule out this
possibility.[177]
There is no dispute that some people who have been
exposed to pesticides have become ill. The dispute has concerned
the causality and underlying basis for these illnesses. On the
evidence that we have received we cannot draw firm conclusions
on causality. But we are persuaded that it is possible that some
cases of ill health could, on further investigation, be shown
to be due to complex effects following exposure to pesticides.[178]
The Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded that
that assessment overstated the risks.[179]
Georgina Downs described evidence amassed by the UK Pesticides
Campaign and in the academic literature, including research since
the 2005 Royal Commission report, on the effects of pesticides
on people. The Campaign identified in particular what it sees
as strong associations between pesticide use and a wide range
of long-term chronic human illnesses.[180]
On neonicotinoids in particular, Georgina Downs told
us that that particular type of pesticide was not the focus of
the UK Pesticides Campaign.[181]
Our agronomist witnesses had seen no link between human health
and neonicotinoids:
I have been in the business now since 1976 and have
dealt with a lot of farmers across a wide area. I am not aware
of any direct or indirect link of the illness on a farm that has
arisen as a result of farming operations, other than perhaps being
run over by a tractor or something like that.[182]
Professor Vyvyan Howard of Ulster University told
us that he had not identified any cases of human health effects
specifically from the use of neonicotinoids.[183]
Defra explained why such a link was unlikely:
The impacts of neonicotinoids on insects are largely
the result of strong binding of the compounds to nicotinic receptors.
The available data strongly suggests that the binding of neonicotinoids
to mammalian nicotinic receptors is much weaker than to insect
receptors. In addition, scientific studies show that neonicotinoids
are not as potent in vertebrates (including humans) as they are
in insects. Although this does not mean there are no effects in
mammals, there is a higher margin between doses required to kill
insects and doses of potential concern for people than is the
case for some of the older insecticide active substances such
as organophosphate compounds.[184]
The ACP added:
There is currently no evidence of harm to human health
in either UK surveillance or the published literature following
use of neonicotinoid insecticides in accordance with UK approvals.
Given the very large margins of safety required in human risk
assessment before an authorisation can be recommended, it is unlikely
that use in accordance with the UK conditions of authorisation
will result in any impacts on human health. However, as no experimental
data are available on humans, in addition to the detailed risk
assessment, the ACP also considers reports of suspected ill-health
associated with pesticide exposure in the UK, and screens the
published literature for reports of adverse health impacts that
might be of relevance to UK pesticide use. ... None relate to
approved use in the UK. Most seem to be reports of attempted suicide,
mostly in developing nations. It is notable that the recovery
from these events was generally within a matter of days with a
relatively low level of mortality being reported. This contrasts
to literature reports for some other insecticide classes which
might be considered alternatives to neonicotinoids.[185]
The evidence and analysis provided by the ACP related
mainly to potential acute effects rather than chronic effects.
They told us that while monitoring had not identified reports
of ill health in the UK associated with use of the neonicotinoid
insecticides in accordance with their authorisations, those surveillance
schemes focused on acute ill-health and were not designed to identify
long term consequences of pesticide exposure.[186]
ACP working groups are examining these issues, namely the Pesticides
Adverse Health Effect Surveillance Scheme Working Group and the
Bystander Risk Assessment Working Group.[187]
This scrutiny is important, because there is some anxiety and
concern which needs to be addressed in a timely fashion.
176 Ev 204 Back
177
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Crop Spraying
and the Health of Residents and Bystanders, September 2005,
para 6.4 Back
178
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Crop Spraying
and the Health of Residents and Bystanders, September 2005,
para 2.105 Back
179
Advisory Committee on Pesticides, "A commentary on the report
published by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in
September 2005", December 2005, paras 3.39-3.45 Back
180
Ev 166-191, 241-250 Back
181
Q 543 Back
182
Q 565 Back
183
Q 475 Back
184
Ev 204 Back
185
Ev 220 Back
186
Ibid. Back
187
Ev 182-183 Back
|