===============================================================================
 PRESS RELEASE - Key Government Advisor's (the ACP) Criticised Over Pesticides
===============================================================================
 
Rural Residents' anger over Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) response to 
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report on pesticides, as it 
emerges that the ACP's current approach could be unlawful

The Government's main advisors on pesticides, the Advisory Committee on 
Pesticides (ACP) have today come under renewed fire from rural residents and 
communities following the publication of the ACP's response to the Royal 
Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) report on the risks to people from 
crop-spraying.

The Royal Commission's report published in September last year had concluded 
that crop-spraying is a potential health risk and that chronic illnesses and 
diseases reported by people in rural areas, including cancer, Parkinson's and 
ME, could be associated with pesticide exposure.

The RCEP report was highly critical of the ACP and concluded that the level of 
confidence and assurance that had been given by the ACP to Ministers, as well 
as the public, regarding the safety of residents and bystanders exposed to 
agricultural pesticides, "represented too sanguine a view of the robustness of 
the scientific evidence."

The RCEP report found significant unresolved issues in relation to the health 
and exposure elements of the current risk assessment. The RCEP concluded that 
they did not agree that the evidence could lead to unequivocal conclusions, 
previously given by the ACP, that the system provides adequate protection and 
that there are no scientific concerns or that it provides full reassurance to 
the Minister.

However, in the ACP's response to the RCEP report, published today, the 
majority of ACP members have stood by the ACP's previous advice to Ministers 
that the risk assessment for bystanders used at present provides adequate 
protection. The ACP's report, commissioned by Defra, argues that current 
regulatory controls already ensure a wide margin of safety.

The ACP press release states, "The ACP agree with many of the recommendations 
in the RCEP report, but differ in their evaluation of the potential for toxic 
risks to people living next to sprayed land." "We agree with the Royal 
Commission that there are scientific uncertainties, but we differ in our 
assessment of their importance." The ACP press release states that the ACP 
think it unlikely that pesticide toxicity contributes importantly to disorders 
such as chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity as suggested 
by the RCEP. The ACP commentary states that, "…many people do not like 
pesticides being sprayed right up to the boundary of their property, and that 
the resultant anxiety may in itself impact on their health and well- being."

The RCEP had been asked to examine the scientific evidence on which DEFRA had 
based its decision on the risks to people from crop-spraying, following a 
determined and relentless five year campaign by Georgina Downs of UK Pesticides 
Campaign, (www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk), the leading campaign highlighting the 
effects of pesticides on people in rural areas (referred to in the RCEP report 
as "residents" and "bystanders").

Ms. Downs was the first to identify serious fundamental flaws in the 
Government's "bystander risk assessment," in early 2001 and started presenting 
a case to the Government for an overhaul of the regulations and legislation 
governing agricultural spraying.

This included the presentation of a video featuring people from all over the 
country reporting cases of cancers, leukaemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, 
neurological problems, including Parkinson's disease and ME, amongst many other 
illnesses, in rural communities surrounded by sprayed fields. Despite that fact 
that Professor Coggon had repeatedly told Ms. Downs that the ACP needed to see 
the evidence of what was happening in reality to check if the current system 
was working, the video was only seen in full by a small handful of members and 
the ACP subsequently dismissed its content. In stark contrast, RCEP members all 
saw Ms. Downs' video in full. The RCEP recommended in their report that the 
ill-health effects reported by residents and bystanders need to be taken more 
seriously by Government advisors and regulators.

Ms. Downs states, "The ACP continues to maintain that a robust system is in 
place to protect public health. This is misleading, is not factually correct 
and demonstrates the ACP's continued complacency in relation to the impact of 
pesticides on human health. To continue to maintain that this is merely a 
social issue and that many residents are just "believing" or "perceiving" that 
their health has been affected following exposure to pesticides is grossly 
insulting and disrespectful to all those suffering ill-health whether it be 
acute or chronic. Many of the conditions that are reported in rural areas 
including cancer and leukaemia are devastating diseases that are on the 
increase, especially in children and even though there could be a number of 
different causes for any chronic illness or disease, all the causes must be 
identified in an attempt to try and prevent them from occurring."

Many pesticides have neurotoxic, carcinogenic and hormone-disrupting 
capabilities and substantive evidence already exists linking pesticides to 
various forms of cancer, neurological diseases and birth defects, among other 
chronic conditions. Warnings on safety data sheets for pesticides can include, 
"Very toxic by inhalation," "do not breathe spray," "do not breathe fumes," "do 
not breathe vapour," "harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through 
inhalation," " may cause cancer by inhalation," etc.

Ms Downs points out that the total cost to the UK with regard to cancer, ME and 
asthma alone, is in excess of £6 billion per year. It is not known what 
proportion of the overall costs from damage to health and the environment could 
be attributable to pesticides. However, Ms. Downs points out that even if only 
partly, then the cost to the economy and society, as a whole, is clearly 
substantial, although she stresses that the personal and human costs to 
individuals suffering ill-health cannot be calculated in financial terms.
Therefore, Ms. Downs states, "The significance of these consequences requires 
the adoption of a preventative approach, especially in relation to the 
protection of children and other vulnerable groups."

In relation to the RCEP's recommendation of 5 metre buffer zones Ms. Downs 
states that, "Rural residents and communities will definitely not be protected 
by 5 metre buffer zones. Therefore this distance is wholly inadequate and has 
been widely criticised by experts all over the world."

A leading former UK researcher on vapour, Victor Breeze, who carried out 
studies between 1983 and 1994, funded by MAFF and PSD states, "5 metres doesn't 
bear serious scientific consideration, it wouldn't give protection from droplet 
drift (spraydrift) and certainly not from vapour drift, as movement of vapour 
is more or less unrestricted."

Therefore Ms. Downs states that much larger distances are required and points 
out that a recent study from America that confirmed acute illnesses in children 
and employees from pesticides sprayed on farmland near schools highlighted that 
7 US states require no-spray buffer zones of up to 2.5 miles around schools.

Ms. Downs already has an application in the High Court to Judicially Review an 
earlier Government decision not to act to protect rural residents from exposure 
to pesticides. However, following investigations by Ms. Downs, it has now 
emerged that the ACP's current approach, in itself, could be unlawful. Ms. 
Downs explains that the EU Directive 91/414 EEC and the UK equivalent 
legislation (the Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulations 2005) state that a 
pesticide shall not be approved unless it has been satisfied that "it has no 
harmful effect directly or indirectly on human or animal health…."

However, following Professor Coggon's appointment as Chairman of the ACP in 
2000, he produced a document entitled "A Guide to Pesticide Regulation and the 
Role of the ACP." This document included an explanation of the legislation both 
in the EU and the UK. Under the section entitled "The Scientific Assessment of 
Pesticides," it states "The legislative framework….is designed with the aim 
that….(b) no one should develop any serious illness through the use of 
pesticides."

Ms Downs states, "The introduction of the word "serious" would appear to 
reconstruct and thus reinterpret the precise and definite language used in the 
legislation in relation to the unconditional degree of priority required to be 
given for the protection of human health. The regulatory system is supposed to 
protect against any adverse health effects occurring from exposure to 
pesticides, not simply those that the regulators and scientific advisors deem 
to be serious adverse effects."

A letter has recently been sent from Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat's front 
bench environment spokesman, to Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for 
DEFRA, asking for clarification as to whether Professor Coggon had the 
authorisation of any Minister before introducing the word "serious," which was 
subsequently adopted as the interpretation by both the ACP and the Government 
regulators the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD). Indications are that Prof. 
Coggon did not have Ministers authorisation.

Rural residents all over the UK have expressed anger at the ACP's dismissive 
attitude regarding the health effects of pesticides and the arrogance of 
deciding what should be deemed a serious effect or illness.

Marion Tait, from Cambridgeshire, states, "I have been ill since 1995 after 
moving to a house beside fields that were intensively farmed. I had all the 
usual acute symptoms when they sprayed, starting with sore throats and burning 
eyes. It never occurred to me when I saw the sprayer run up the side of the 
house that they might be spraying poison and so I stayed out gardening. 
Eventually I collapsed with ME and have spent the last 10 years mainly bed 
ridden and in terrible pain. The Government did nothing to protect me and 
someone should be held responsible for taking my life away and leaving me in 
this state."

Her anger is echoed by rural resident, Jan Simpson, who states, "Since moving 
to Lincolnshire I have never felt so persistently ill. I used to be 100% fit 
and now I find it hard just to make it through the day. I would like to know 
whether Professor Coggon would classify the devastating long-term effects I 
have suffered as serious or not?"

John Elson, from Uckfield, who 17 years ago, was caught in a cloud of 
pesticides being sprayed over 15 metres away on a nearby field, suffered 
permanent damage to his vocal chords, which eventually forced him to retire his 
position as the vicar of a rural Sussex village. Mr. Elson states, "The 
Government have not taken action before probably because it hasn't happened to 
anyone's knowledge in their backyard. I mean if they had the spraying in the 
fields next to their house and one of their family was affected, I would 
imagine something would be done pretty quickly."

Ms. Downs states, "Rural residents and communities deserve to be protected from 
avoidable and unnecessary exposures and risks to their health. Substantive 
evidence already exists to demonstrate a serious public health problem and 
therefore the Government must take immediate action. The only way to protect 
public health and prevent future suffering from any illnesses and diseases that 
may be associated with pesticides, is to avoid exposure altogether through the 
widespread adoption of sustainable non-chemical and natural methods as an 
alternative to chemical pest control."


---- Notes to editors ----

- The ACP's response to the RCEP report will be available on the ACP website 
at:- http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/acp_home.asp (NB. This is ACP's response to 
the RCEP report and not the Government's, which is due to be published in 
summer 2006)

- Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report entitled "Crop Spraying 
and the Health of Residents and Bystanders" is available at:- www.rcep.org.uk
- Ms. Downs submitted considerable written evidence to the RCEP study. She was 
also an invited speaker at the RCEP public meeting held on September 25th 2004 
and gave oral evidence to the Commission members a few months later. Ms. Downs 
also peer reviewed 4 chapters of the RCEP report

- Ms. Downs was recently listed in the Farmers Weekly Top 20 Power Players in 
UK Farming, following the impact of her campaign. Others included in the list 
were Gordon Brown, Margaret Beckett, Peter Mandelson, Prince
Charles, Jacques Chirac and Jamie Oliver. For the full list see:-
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2006/01/19/92020/Power+Players.html

- Georgina Downs campaigns to highlight the effects of pesticide use in rural 
Britain and has lived next to regularly sprayed fields for 22 years. She was 
the first to identify serious fundamental flaws regarding the bystander risk 
assessment and for the last 5 years has presented a case to the Government for 
a change in the regulations and legislation governing agricultural spraying. 
She has also produced 2 videos "Pesticide Exposures for People in Agricultural 
Areas – Part 1 Pesticides in the Air; Part 2 The Hidden Costs" to illustrate 
chemical exposure and the effects on people in rural 
areas

- Ms. Downs has a database of approximately 750 people, compiled since early 
2001. The acute ill-health effects that are commonly reported to Ms. Downs by 
people in agricultural areas include sore throats, burning eyes, nose, skin, 
blisters, headaches, dizziness, nausea, flu-type illnesses, amongst other 
things. The most common chronic long-term illnesses and diseases reported 
include clusters of various cancers, leukaemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, 
neurological problems, including Parkinson's disease and ME, asthma, allergies, 
along with many other medical conditions. The RCEP visited a number of people 
from Ms. Downs' database during the study. (NB. Under the existing regulatory 
system there is no monitoring or collection of data on chronic effects, so the 
full extent of ill- health related to pesticides is currently not known)

- Contact details for Victor Breeze, Marion Tait, Jan Simpson and John Elson 
are available via Georgina Downs. Other cases from Ms. Downs' database are also 
available upon request

- Ms. Downs has called for an immediate ban on crop-spraying and the use of 
pesticides near to people's homes, schools, workplaces and any other places of 
human habitation and for direct access for the public to all the necessary 
chemical information. Ms. Downs has highlighted that small buffer zones will be 
wholly inadequate as they are only in relation to immediate spraydrift and will 
not be able to protect people from exposure to pesticides in the air, chemical 
fumes after application, volatilisation, along with all the other exposure 
factors relevant for people in rural areas. Therefore a much larger distance is 
required. For further information on Georgina Downs' campaign see 
www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk

Contact: Georgina Downs 
UK Pesticides Campaign
Telephone: 01243 773846 
Mobile: 07906 898 915 
Email: georginadowns@yahoo.co.uk 
Website: www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk