Pesticide Action Network UK welcomes report from Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, but says it misses vital points on pesticides
Subject: PRESS RELEASE 31 January 2002
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:35:35 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulationcc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
PRESS RELEASE 31 January 2002
Pesticide Action Network UK welcomes report from Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, but says it misses vital points on pesticides
PAN UK welcomes the news that the public could be allowed increased access to the process of decision-making about pesticides, a role which has been encouraged by the Policy Commission.
After continuous pressure over many years from PAN UK and other groups, the government’s Advisory Committee on Pesticides has opened its doors to more public scrutiny. The Commission say the ACP should go further, and widen their remit, leaving open the possibility that non-chemical pest control methods can be considered.
The Commission also acknowledge public anxiety about the unknown harmful effects and consequences of combinations of pesticides, the so-called ‘cocktail’ effect. But what they leave out, says PAN UK, are the chronic effects on people’s health of long-term exposure to pesticides. PAN UK keeps a database of over 1,000 cases, and has recently collaborated in a major study on people who are so ill from exposure to organophosphates that they have fallen out of the workforce.
‘The risks to people’s health and the environment will be reduced if the government adopts a progressive pesticide reduction strategy, as they have in Sweden, for example’, says David Buffin of PAN UK. ‘It is disappointing that the report falls short of clear recommendations. For example, it hedges round the issue of the pesticide tax. Only when this is in place will research into alternatives, and their use, be really driven forward’.
PAN had also urged the Commission that particularly risky pesticides, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, carcinogens, and bioaccumulative substances, should be restricted by regulators, and that the precautionary principle should come into play when there is not enough safety information. ‘We are disappointed that the Commission did not recognise the need to include the so-called ‘comparative risk assessment’ into the regulatory process whereby hazardous pesticides are replaced by safer alternatives.’ says David Buffin.
Contact: David Buffin, 020 7274 8895, davidbuffin@pan-uk.org
Notes for editors Farming & Food: A sustainable future, Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, January 2002, www.cabinet-oiffice.gov.uk/farming.
For the Pesticides Section in the PCFFF Report, see pages 90-92.
· Pesticide Tax: The Commission supports the possibility of a tax, but falls short of a full recommendation. PAN UK believes a pesticide tax should be imposed to help support conversion to more sustainable agriculture, such as organic farming.
· It is not clear how the inclusion of the ‘Red Tractor’ in the voluntary industry package of measures on pesticide use will improve monitoring of reductions in pesticide use.
· PAN UK welcomes the increase in the research and development for integrated farming and organic farming, that reduce or avoid the use of pesticides. We hope that the resources ear-marked for research will be sufficient actually to deliver safer alternatives in practice.
· We welcome the suggestion for greater public involvement in the regulatory decision making process. The report however fails to recognise that government committees take account of the wide range of scientific views found across society.
· Minor uses: extension of use should not be an excuse for avoiding the adoption of safer alternatives. This should be a research priority area. The report should have suggested more positive policies, as there are not sufficient mechanisms driving this process.
· PAN UK welcomes the need to move away from old ‘broad-spectrum’ chemistry, which produced pesticide active ingredients that are still in use today. However adopting newer, more selective, less persistent chemistry should also avoid other adverse effects and recognise the uncertainty that still exists in the regulatory approval system. Pesticides are largely considered safe by virtue of extrapolating findings from animal testing. Better pesticide safety testing is required as a matter of urgency.
The full version of PAN UKs submission to the Policy Commission on Food and Farming is available at: http://www.pan-uk.org/press/pcfffsub.htm
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us.
|
Nontoxic Products Recommended by Steve Tvedten Now Available |
| Safe 2 Use Products and Services |