Your Daily Poison - Pesticide Action Network UK

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fatality reported reported to PAN UK pursue their complaint to the stage where it is dealt with by PIAP, and none of these cases in 2004/2005 was classified as ‘confirmed’ or ‘likely’. Between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2005, HSE inspectors investigated 150 pesticide related incidents, see Table 1. This was a reduction from the previous year’s total of 204. Fifty five incidents involved allegations of ill health, seven less than the previous year. The HSE has acknowledged that under-reporting is a problem in respect of PIAP, and a loss of confidence in the scheme may result in fewer reports. b. ‘THE HUMAN HEALTH INCIDENTS SURVEY’: PESTICIDE EXPOSURES AND POISONINGS REPORTED TO THE PSD BY COMPANIES The latest survey by the PSD of incidents reported by members of the public direct to pesticide companies (Appendix 4a) indicates a significant rise in cases of exposure. Reports have risen from 137 in 2002, to 177 in 2004, giving a total of 466 incidents reported by companies in three years. Cases involving children account for a steady 15 per cent each year so far. The low figures for pesticide-related ill-health PAN UK traced details of a fatality listed in the PSD results of 2004. It occurred in 2002 after exposure to aldicarb, but it was not clear whether or not it was related. The case was publicised across Scotland in the Sunday Herald newspaper 10 : the following is an extract. ‘An official investigation into whether a young Scottish farm worker was killed by a highly toxic pesticide had to be abandoned after a university mix-up … Graham Stephen died on May 3, 2002, after he had applied a dangerous pesticide known as aldicarb to a potato crop on a farm near Forfar in Tayside. He was 37. ‘After hearing from police that Stephen could have breathed in the pesticide and that this might have helped cause his death, the procurator fiscal ordered his blood to be screened for aldicarb. Samples were sent to the forensic science laboratories at the University of Glasgow, but were accidentally disposed of after six months before techniques for detecting aldicarb had been developed. The university said the incident was a ‘regrettable accident’… ‘Aldicarb is one of the most hazardous pesticides still licensed for use on farms in the UK. It was one of the pesticides produced at the chemical plant at Bhopal in India where an accident in which poisonous gas was released in 1984 killed 8000 people. Because of the risks aldicarb poses to human health and the environment, the European Union has severely restricted it, but a ban has been resisted in the UK and other countries, by aldicarb’s multinational manufacturer, Bayer CropScience.’ PAN UK comment: companies are required to submit an analytical method as a condition of licensing to the regulators 11 . 4 reported by the HSE from the PIAP scheme have been used many times to justify reassurances by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) to both the public and Ministers, that these substances are not a significant public health issue. The ACP is the expert committee providing advice to Ministers on pesticides (see appendix 2). But the Human Health Incidents Survey, first published in December 2004 6 , instantly doubles the official figure which for years has been estimated at ‘less than 100 incidents per year’ based on PIAP data. The survey was first conducted in 2003 after PAN UK questioned whether or not the pesticides industry had been complying with a legal obligation to submit immediately any new information on the adverse effects of their products. PSD sent surveys to the companies but despite several extensions of the deadline, 13 out of 184 companies failed to respond. The PSD responded by revoking the licences for all products sold by the non-responding companies 7 . Revocations of ‘a handful 8 ’ of the products were subsequently reversed on receipt of the requested information from the companies. In the most recent survey, all companies responded. As with the previous survey, the PSD has reported results in full on their website 9 , but this time has withheld company names. Examples of exposures reported by the PSD: ◆ Children were playing on a lawn three days after it was treated with MCPA + dichloroprop-P + dicamba + ferrous sulphate. Forty-eight hours later the children had sickness and diarrhoea. ◆ Two young children were playing on the lawn treated with MCPA + mecoprop-P + ferrous sulphate. Both children have developed a rash on their legs. ◆ A paddock was treated with a product containing clopyralid and triclopyr. Some mint was picked from it and used in cooking potatoes. A girl aged 3 who ate them was reported ill: she already had tonsillitis and a temperature. ◆ A woman working as a spray operator who was three months pregnant contacted the company to ask if glyphosate could harm her unborn child. The company doctor closed the case, reporting ‘there were no further issues’. Your daily poison
◆ A baby girl of 9 months was found by her parents lying on floor. A broken plant pot which had compost in it containing chlorpyrifos was covering her face. The child appeared to have ingested an amount of compost. She vomited three times. c. PESTICIDE POISONINGS REPORTED TO THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (NHS) The National Poisons Information Service (NPIS) is a clinical toxicology service for healthcare professionals working in the NHS and is a service commissioned by the Health Protection Agency. The service consists of a network of units across the UK, providing information and advice on the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients who may have been accidentally or deliberately poisoned. Information on management of poisoning is available to registered medical professionals on TOXBASE, an Internet database or via a 24 hour telephone service for more complex cases requiring specialist advice 12 . The NPIS changed the format of its annual reports in 2004, now reporting data in the new format for a few types of pesticide active ingredients (Appendix 4b), so comparing Table 2. Top 20 agents reported to be involved in exposures, April 2004 to March 2005 Ingredient Number of exposures Permethrin 84 Paraquat 58 Diquat 57 Glyphosate 56 Metaldehyde 48 Bromadiolone 36 Phenols/cresols* 32 Borax 29 Sodium chlorate 23 Bendiocarb 21 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one 21 Difenacoum 17 Tetramethrin 14 Cypermethrin 12 Diuron 9 Chlorpyrifos 8 Pyrethrins 7 Alphachloralose 7 Organophosphate 6 Alphacypermethrin 6 * From creosote but note that creosote has been banned since 2003. However, some members of the public use ‘creosote’ generically to denote some sort of wood preservative so these may not all be creosote. Source: Adams R D, Good A M, Bateman D N, ‘Pesticide exposure monitoring using NPIS resources April 2004 - March 2005’, NPIS Edingburgh earlier reports directly is not possible. Telephone enquiries to the NPIS do not necessarily represent numbers of poisonings because they are often precautionary only. The NPIS deals with all kinds of poisoning: in 2004/5, the majority (67%) resulted from pharmaceuticals, and agrochemicals represented 1% of enquiries (other sources: industrial chemicals 12%, household 8%, cosmetics 8%, plants 3%). The total number of enquiries for pesticide poisonings in 2004-05 was 739, which included 268 pyrethroids, 137 organophosphorus, 125 paraquat (including two deaths), 120 glyphosate and 89 carbamates. The top 20 pesticides reported as responsible for incidents are listed in Table 2. In the previous year (2003-04) the figures were: 102 for glyphosate, 175 for organophosphorus insecticides and 88 for paraquat with one death. The NPIS is conducting a new surveillance programme specifically for pesticides 13 using its online service TOXBASE. The survey was commissioned by the PSD and HSE following work by the ACP on improving the surveillance of pesticide-related ill-health. In total, information on 588 pesticide-related exposures was collected from telephone and TOXBASE enquiries. This represents an improvement in the surveillance and reporting of pesticide poisonings. The scheme is voluntary, and it is unknown how many more cases would be reported if it was mandatory. Although information on headlice products was also collected, it was not included in the report to the PSD, because it is the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) which regulates these products. At their meeting in November 2005, the ACP considered the pesticide exposure monitoring report from the NPIS and commented that ‘most incidents were relatively minor, and that those which were more serious tended to arise from intentional poisoning.’ d. PESTICIDE EXPOSURES REPORTED TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES Incidents are still reported to local authority environmental health departments (Appendix 4c) despite the publication by the HSE of an accessible leaflet 14 to the public on reporting. In 2002, over half of the local authorities (see the second UK pesticide exposure report 5
Page 1 and 2: YOUR DAILY POISON: THE SECOND UK PE
Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .
Page 5: 1 Pesticide exposure in the environ
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 41 and 42: APPENDIX 6a Pesticides in the publi
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:
show all

Your Daily Poison - Pesticide Action Network UK

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?