Your Daily Poison - Pesticide Action Network UK
Your Daily Poison - Pesticide Action Network UK Your Daily Poison - Pesticide Action Network UK
Hazard to health issues World Health Organisation classifications Class LD 50 for the rat (mg/kg body weight) 38 Solids {Oral} Liquids Solids {Dermal} Liquids Ia Extremely hazardous 5 or less 20 or less 10 or less 40 or less Ib Highly hazardous 5-50 20-200 10-100 40-400 II Moderately hazardous 50-500 200-2000 100-1000 400-4000 III Slightly hazardous Over 500 Over 2000 Over 1000 Over 4000 U Unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use: ‘WHO Table 5’ O Active ingredients believed to be obsolete or discontinued for use as pesticides The terms ‘solid’ and ‘liquids’ refer to the physical state of the active ingredient. The LD50 value is a statistical estimate of the number of mg of toxicant per kg of bodyweight required to kill 50% of a large population of test animals. Endocrine disrupting chemicals UK EA – on the UK Environment Agency’s list of target EDCs, Strategy for Endocrine disrupting chemicals, http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/139909 DEFRA – identified as associated with endocrine disruption by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, web site: Hormone Disrupting Substances in the Environment http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/hormone/ index.htm Definitions of cancer categories US Environmental Protection Agency The US EPA has changed its classification systems in recent years. Some categories have similar definitions: Weight-of-evidence categories developed during the 1980s Group B = Probable Human Carcinogen: B1 indicates limited human evidence; B2 indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans. Group C = Possible Human Carcinogen: Weight-of-evidence categories developed during the 1990s Known/Likely available tumour effects and other key data are adequate to demonstrate convincingly a carcinogenic potential for humans. L1 = Likely at high doses but Not Likely at low doses L2 = Likely to be carcinogenic to humans, available tumour effects and other key data are adequate to demonstrate carcinogenic potential for humans. S = Cannot be Determined-Suggestive evidence from human or animal data is suggestive of carcinogenicity, but is not sufficient to conclude as to human carcinogenic potential. Source: Office of Pesticide Programs List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential, US EPA, [see details at www.epa.gov/pesticides/carlist/ although list not available on website], August 2000. Ger.EA – potential and confirmed EDCs by the German Federal Environment Agency column, Pesticides suspected of endocrine-disrupting effects by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency, ENDS Report 290, March 1999. EU – considered as high concern EDC by the European Union, Commission moots priority list of endocrine chemicals, BKH/TNO report, June 2000. OSPAR – identified as a potential EDC under Oslo and Paris Commission, Endocrine disrupting pesticide: Gwynne Lyons. Pesticides News 46, December 1999. European Union There is no single EU list available denoting carcinogenic pesticides. EC Directive 67/548 and subsequent amendments provide the classification of dangerous substances, including pesticides. The cancer classifications are: Category 2 (denoted as R45 on the pesticide label) = May Cause Cancer Category 3 (denoted as R40 on label) = Possible Risk of Irreversible Effects (Cancer, as cited in table) Sources: EC Directive 67/548 EEC and subsequent amendments; Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) [CHIP2] Regulations 1994, Health and Safety Executive, UK. International Agency for Research on Cancer Group 1 = Carcinogenic to Humans Group 2A = Probably Carcinogenic to Humans (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals). Group 2B = Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence in experimental animals). Source: http://193.51.164.11/monoeval/grlist.html [Note: lists cited include many non-pesticides] Your daily poison:
APPENDIX 6a Pesticides in the public drinking water supply From PAN UK survey, 2005 (2004 data). Water company Total number of pesticide determinands* tested for in 2004 Anglian 19 separate pesticide determinands with 18147 tests in total Bournemouth & West Hampshire Failures for pesticides in 2004, and level(s) found (EC Drinking Water Directive limit 0.1 micrograms per litre) ✝ Trietazine, 7: 0.12, 0.11, 0.11, 0.13, 0.12, 0.12, 0.11 Pesticide removal costs: 1) capital cost to date 2) operational cost for 2004 Not available in this format. N/A N/A N/A N/A Bristol 32, 9,364 [tests] 0 Not specifically available: ozone and GAC [granular activated carbon] treatment is installed for taste and odour control in addition to pesticide removal. In your Company’s view, should overall pesticide usage be reduced? There are advantages and disadvatages of the use of pesticides and a balance needs to be sort [sic]. It is the Company’s policy to minimise the use of pesticides and herbicides and only to use nonpersistent types. Cambridge N/A N/A N/A N/A Cholderton & District N/A N/A N/A N/A Dee Valley 25, 1326 on final waters MCPA, 1: 0.2 Not given. ‘Not known.’ Dwr Cymru N/A N/A N/A N/A Essex & Suffolk 39 pesticide determinands 0 Not available. We do not feel this is a tested for; 6980 tests matter for water carried out on raw water companies to comment sources; 9243 tests on final waters for regulatory compliance purposes upon. Folkestone & Dover N/A N/A N/A N/A Hartlepool 5 separate pesticide determinands with 100 tests in total 0 Nil There are clearly advantages and disadvatages of the use of pesticides and a balance needs to be sort [sic]. Mid Kent 48 0 Not given. Not answered. Northumbrian 49 pesticide determinands tested for; 11,115 tests carried out on raw water sources; 27,354 tests on final waters for regulatory compliance purposes Portsmouth 25, 2482 [tests] 2,4-D, 1: 0.133; metaldehyde, 1: 0.23; Simazine, 1: 0.658; total pesticides, 1: 0.677 MCPA, 5: 0.12, 0.17, 0.19, Not given. We are not in a position to 0.20, 0.24 comment on this matter. Not available. Not answered. Severn Trent N/A N/A N/A N/A South East N/A N/A N/A N/A South Staffordshire 45, 9839 tests 0 Not given. Yes. South West N/A N/A N/A N/A Southern Raw: 23,134 tests for 54 2,4-D, 1: 0.15 Capital cost to date: £46 There are statutory pesticides; treated: million; operational cost obligations for the control 22,443 tests for 39 for 2004: ~£225,000. of certain weeds which will pesticides. require the correct use of pesticides. Proper use and management of pesticide applications should reduce any risk to the water supply and environment. Sutton & East Surrey 12 individual pesticides and total pesticides. Total number of determinations = 1339 (raw and treated). 0 Not given. Not answered. the second UK pesticide exposure report 39
- Page 1 and 2: YOUR DAILY POISON: THE SECOND UK PE
- Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .
- Page 5 and 6: 1 Pesticide exposure in the environ
- Page 7 and 8: ◆ A baby girl of 9 months was fou
- Page 9 and 10: Exposure to spray-drift, pesticide
- Page 11 and 12: 2 Food residues PAN UK has conducte
- Page 13 and 14: David Mason, ‘official laboratori
- Page 15 and 16: environment in the cycle of precipi
- Page 17 and 18: conference that a Europe-wide biomo
- Page 19 and 20: 5 Conclusions and Recommendations T
- Page 21 and 22: APPENDIX 1 Pesticide usage trends i
- Page 23 and 24: APPENDIX 3 The regulatory testing a
- Page 25 and 26: APPENDIX 4a ‘The human health inc
- Page 27 and 28: APPENDIX 4c PAN UK survey: pesticid
- Page 29 and 30: Local authority Number and nature o
- Page 31 and 32: APPENDIX 5b Food residues (UK testi
- Page 33 and 34: Food Pesticide WHO hazard OP WHO Cl
- Page 35 and 36: Food Pesticide WHO hazard OP WHO Cl
- Page 37 and 38: Food Pesticide WHO hazard OP WHO Cl
- Page 39: Food Pesticide WHO hazard OP WHO Cl
- Page 43 and 44: APPENDIX 6b PAN UK survey: pesticid
- Page 45 and 46: APPENDIX 7 Members of the All Party
- Page 47 and 48: development in the womb. As a resul
- Page 49 and 50: pollution stems from steroid hormon
- Page 51 and 52: APPENDIX 10 Copies of PAN UK questi
- Page 53 and 54: the second UK pesticide exposure re
- Page 55 and 56: the second UK pesticide exposure re
- Page 57 and 58: References 1. Craig A, People’s P
- Page 59 and 60: 57 Your daily poison:
APPENDIX 6a<br />
<strong>Pesticide</strong>s in the public drinking water supply<br />
From PAN <strong>UK</strong> survey, 2005 (2004 data).<br />
Water company Total number of<br />
pesticide<br />
determinands* tested<br />
for in 2004<br />
Anglian 19 separate pesticide<br />
determinands with 18147<br />
tests in total<br />
Bournemouth & West<br />
Hampshire<br />
Failures for pesticides<br />
in 2004, and level(s)<br />
found (EC Drinking<br />
Water Directive limit<br />
0.1 micrograms per<br />
litre) ✝<br />
Trietazine, 7: 0.12, 0.11,<br />
0.11, 0.13, 0.12, 0.12,<br />
0.11<br />
<strong>Pesticide</strong> removal costs:<br />
1) capital cost to date<br />
2) operational cost for<br />
2004<br />
Not available in this<br />
format.<br />
N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Bristol 32, 9,364 [tests] 0 Not specifically available:<br />
ozone and GAC [granular<br />
activated carbon]<br />
treatment is installed for<br />
taste and odour control in<br />
addition to pesticide<br />
removal.<br />
In your Company’s<br />
view, should overall<br />
pesticide usage be<br />
reduced?<br />
There are advantages and<br />
disadvatages of the use of<br />
pesticides and a balance<br />
needs to be sort [sic].<br />
It is the Company’s policy<br />
to minimise the use of<br />
pesticides and herbicides<br />
and only to use nonpersistent<br />
types.<br />
Cambridge N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Cholderton & District N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Dee Valley 25, 1326 on final waters MCPA, 1: 0.2 Not given. ‘Not known.’<br />
Dwr Cymru N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Essex & Suffolk 39 pesticide determinands 0 Not available. We do not feel this is a<br />
tested for; 6980 tests<br />
matter for water<br />
carried out on raw water<br />
companies to comment<br />
sources; 9243 tests on<br />
final waters for regulatory<br />
compliance purposes<br />
upon.<br />
Folkestone & Dover N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Hartlepool 5 separate pesticide<br />
determinands with 100<br />
tests in total<br />
0 Nil There are clearly<br />
advantages and<br />
disadvatages of the use of<br />
pesticides and a balance<br />
needs to be sort [sic].<br />
Mid Kent 48 0 Not given. Not answered.<br />
Northumbrian 49 pesticide determinands<br />
tested for; 11,115 tests<br />
carried out on raw water<br />
sources; 27,354 tests on<br />
final waters for regulatory<br />
compliance purposes<br />
Portsmouth 25, 2482 [tests] 2,4-D, 1: 0.133;<br />
metaldehyde, 1: 0.23;<br />
Simazine, 1: 0.658; total<br />
pesticides, 1: 0.677<br />
MCPA, 5: 0.12, 0.17, 0.19, Not given. We are not in a position to<br />
0.20, 0.24<br />
comment on this matter.<br />
Not available. Not answered.<br />
Severn Trent N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
South East N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
South Staffordshire 45, 9839 tests 0 Not given. Yes.<br />
South West N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Southern Raw: 23,134 tests for 54 2,4-D, 1: 0.15 Capital cost to date: £46 There are statutory<br />
pesticides; treated:<br />
million; operational cost obligations for the control<br />
22,443 tests for 39<br />
for 2004: ~£225,000. of certain weeds which will<br />
pesticides.<br />
require the correct use of<br />
pesticides. Proper use and<br />
management of pesticide<br />
applications should reduce<br />
any risk to the water<br />
supply and environment.<br />
Sutton & East Surrey 12 individual pesticides<br />
and total pesticides. Total<br />
number of determinations<br />
= 1339 (raw and treated).<br />
0 Not given. Not answered.<br />
the second <strong>UK</strong> pesticide exposure report 39
Change language