Report raises crop-spraying controversy in UK

Agra Europe Weekly, Friday September 23 2005

A report released on Thursday by the UK's most influential environmental body, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) 1) confirms that crop-spraying is a potential health risk and that illnesses and diseases reported by people in rural areas could be associated with pesticide exposure. However, there could be significant cost implications for farmers if further regulation is introduced.

Georgina Downs of the UK Pesticides Campaign said the report "vindicated" her four and a half year campaign to highlight the effects of pesticides on people in rural areas. But, she claimed, the key recommendation contradicts the report's own findings by failing to provide an adequate buffer zone to protect rural residents.

The RCEP had been asked by the former minister for rural affairs, Alun Michael, to examine the scientific evidence on which the department for the environment, food and rural affairs ( Defra ) had based its decision on the risks to people from crop-spraying, as well as its policy on access to information.

Policy overhaul

The RCEP's conclusions overturn previous government assertions over the safety of pesticides, Downs said. If implemented the RCEP's recommendations would result in an unprecedented overhaul affecting all the government agencies and departments currently responsible for pesticides.

The report found that there are significant unresolved issues in relation to the health and exposure elements of the current 'bystander risk assessment'. The RCEP concluded it was not clear that the present system provided adequate protection.

Downs has a database of approximately 750 people living in agricultural areas, compiled since early 2001, who have reported a variety of acute and chronic ill health effects, claimed to be due to crop-spraying.

Outgoing RCEP chair, Sir Tom Blundell said, "Government policy on exposure of bystanders and local residents is currently inadequate… Based on our personal examination of some of these cases and on our current understanding of the effects that pesticides can have on the body system, it is not implausible that there may be a link between pesticide spraying and chronic ill health... We feel that the protection of the health of the British public needs to be strengthened."

Conflict of interests

The RCEP's findings are highly critical of both the government's key scientific advisors on pesticides: the regulators, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). The RCEP also questions the independence of the PSD, which receives 60% of its funding from the agro-chemical industry and suggests that the PSD's current structure seems to be making health and environmental considerations subordinate to pest control.

The report also criticises the current lack of involvement of the department of health (DOH) regarding the health impacts of pesticides. And it reveals that on two occasions the PSD did not pass on to ministers the ACP's formal written advice regarding the bystander issue. The confusion surrounding this issue resulted in the RCEP having to delay publication of the report from June to September, Downs points out.

Recommendations

The RCEP's recommendations include a new requirement for farmers to warn residents before spraying and give the public access to information on the chemicals being used. They also call for a five metre buffer zone around sprayed areas, which Downs describes as "wholly inadequate".

"Considering the evidence submitted to the RCEP in relation to the distances pesticides have been shown to travel and the calculated health risks for rural residents and communities… I remain at a loss to understand how the RCEP could have considered this to be acceptable and protective." Some American states had 2.5 mile buffer zones in place, she said.

Downs concluded that the only way to completely protect public health was to avoid exposure altogether through the use of sustainable non-chemical and natural methods of pest control.

Cost to farmers

However, Conservative Party agriculture spokesman Jim Paice highlighted the cost to farmers of the buffer zone recommendation. "The government must allow [buffer zones] to count towards set-aside or be entered into environmental schemes to minimise the financial cost," he said.

Research carried out by Agra CEAS 2) has found that, under a worst case scenario, the cost to British agriculture and horticulture from the introduction of 5m pesticide-free buffer zones on cropped field margins where there is potential for bystander pesticide exposure is estimated to total £1.64 million.

If farmers who are growing cereals, oilseeds and protein crops with set-aside area could re-allocate their set-aside to strips adjacent to areas where there is potential bystander exposure, then the net cost for producers of such crops would be reduced to zero.

There is no impediment in EU law to buffer strips qualifying for set-aside payments. However, if UK farmers were to qualify for set-aside payments for 5m buffer strips, then national rules would need to change as they currently require a minimum buffer of 6m.

This would, however, not be the case for producers of other crops since they have not been under an obligation to set-aside. In future, some potential for compensating for non-use of pesticides may be introduced via the newly launched Environmental Stewardship Scheme. The Entry Level Scheme provides for up to £30 per hectare for land managed in a more environmentally friendly manner including the introduction of 2m, 4m or 6m buffer strips.

Government response awaited

Commenting on the RCEP report, Peter Sanguinetti, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, said, "This is a very detailed report that the government will need to study in some depth; we look forward to their response."

He stressed the role of pesticides in the production of a plentiful supply of safe, high quality, affordable food and the industry's concern for the safety of those who come into contact with their products.

"The UK regulatory system is one of the most robust in the world and is reviewed and updated as science evolves. As a responsible industry, we will comply with any new requirements the regulator introduces," Sanguinetti added.

Meanwhile, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland said it was worried that further controls were being recommended in an already strictly regulated industry in the absence of scientific evidence.

"At the moment, as the Commission's report itself says, the science is very uncertain. That makes the case for further research, not further regulations," said spokesman David Houghton.

1)The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report, Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders (see the RCEP website for more details).

2) Potential economic and financial impact of introducing pesticide free buffer zones.

For more information please contact Dr. Edward Oliver in the Wye office.

email : info@ceasc.com
Tel: UK +44(0)1233 812181 or Brussels +32(0)2 736 00 88