Pesticide Exposures for People in
Agricultural Areas
Presentation to the
Royal Commission
on Environmental
Pollution
Georgina Downs
www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk 25/9/04
Pesticides - Background
• Pesticides deliberately designed to be toxic - inherently
hazardous to human health
Safety Data Sheet warnings:
• Toxic by inhalation/do not breathe spray/may be fatal if
inhaled/risk of serious damage to eyes etc.
• Over 50 years of scientific/medical evidence of dangers
of pesticides/risks inherent in use/acute and chronic
long-term effects that can result following exposure,
including from Government’s very own documentation
ie. “Safe use of Poisonous Chemicals on the Farm” MAFF
1975 - “Avoid inhaling particles of any pesticide”
Identifying Key Issues
Current system fails to protect residents and others in the
countryside from exposure to pesticides
• Inadequacy of bystander exposure/risk assessments
• Mismatch and inconsistencies between the legislative
requirement to protect workers and no protection for residents
• Inadequacy of current monitoring system and the role of the
Pesticides Incident Appraisal Panel (PIAP)
Inadequacy of exposure/risk assessments
Bystander model not appropriate for residents
• Bystander • Resident/neighbour
Predictive Model Real-life exposure
Assumes:- Reality:-
• Occasional • Repeated/frequent
• Short-term exposure • Long-term exposure
• Immediate spraydrift • Pesticides in the air
• One pesticide only • Mixtures
• Can walk away • Live in sprayed area
Not considered in current assessments
• Long term exposure to pesticides in the air (excluding
spraydrift)
• Transportation - pesticides can travel for miles
• Mixtures - 4, 5 way mixes/other chemicals/all sources
• Exposure via:- volatilisation after application/
precipitation/harvesting dust/pollen/pesticides
transported from outdoor to indoor air/environment etc.
• Vulnerable groups - babies, children, pregnant women,
elderly, people already ill (interactions with medication)
• Exposure for dogs/cats and other domesticated animals
-inhalation/ingestion from walking in sprayed fields etc.
Mismatch/inconsistencies between legislative
requirement to protect workers and no
protection for residents
• Worker • Residents/bystanders
• Legally allowed to • Currently not entitled to
know info. on know info. on
chemicals/risks/effects chemicals/risks/effects
• Required to wear PPE • No protection and yet
to protect against breathing same
droplets/particles/ droplets/particles/
vapours/dusts etc. vapours/dusts etc.
Inadequacy of current monitoring
system and the role of PIAP
• HSE/PIAP only really set up to deal with incidents of
acute exposure - no monitoring/ collection of data on
chronic effects
• Full extent of ill-health related to pesticides not known -
underreporting/misdiagnosis due to many factors
including:- No knowledge of exposure/chemicals/that
symptoms may be linked/no reporting/no
investigation/lack of training for doctors
• Previous reports heavily criticized
regulations/monitoring for pesticides (ie. BMA
1990/Select Committee on Agriculture 1987)
Ill-health reported by people living near sprayed fields
Acute Chronic
• Sore throats/burning eyes, • Clusters of cancers,
nose, skin/blisters/ leukaemia, Non-Hodgkins
headaches/dizziness/ lymphoma/neurological
nausea/flu-type illnesses effects/asthma/allergies
• May be correlation with • Difficult to prove
safety data sheet warning causation (years after
exposure/mixtures/no
• Commonly dismissed by chemical info. or even
authorities as not related to knowledge of exposure)
pesticides - why?
Quotes from Professor David Coggon ACP
Open Meeting, July 10th 2002
“There certainly is some ill-health that is occurring in
relation to pesticide spraying – nobody is trying to deny
that. We are not turning our back on the problem
saying there’s nothing there……”
“We also need to look at why ill-health is occurring in
relation to pesticide usage, is it because people aren’t
following the rules as they should or is there a problem
with the way in which we do our risk assessment.
Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to be too big a public
health problem, but we mustn’t be complacent, there
are problems that need to be sorted still.”
DEFRA Consultation
• Did not address the fundamental issues (ie. residents are
not bystanders - Centred on immediate visible spraydrift
only– not the actual overall exposure people are getting in
this exposure scenario - discounted chronic effects)
• It portrayed an unbalanced view of the problem – costs to
farming industry and economics, but didn’t address costs
and devastating effects on residents and others in the
countryside etc.
• Inaccurate and incomplete data raises questions about
handling and statistical analysis
• Consultation was a self-fulfilling prophecy as set up saying
science not in question and then determined by saying no
new science was presented to justify the introduction of
no-spray zones - discounted evidence as well as public
views/values - yet society designates “acceptable risk”?
Infringements of Human Rights
• The WHO EU Charter on Environment and Health states
that:-“Every individual is entitled to “an environment
conducive to the highest attainable level of health and
well-being” and that “the health of every individual,
especially those in vulnerable and high risk groups must
be protected.”
• Current system violates fundamental Human Rights -
natural peaceful enjoyment of property etc.
• Government failed to stop infringements of these rights
by not acting to stop exposure of people
Data gaps - where is evidence?
• No direct measurements taken in either UK or EU of
actual exposures for residents
• No direct measurements taken in blood/urine or other
health monitoring
• Without adequate exposure assessment - no
appropriate/realistic assessment of the risks
• No monitoring for chronic effects/patterns of illness
• Serious data gaps - ill-health reported - where is the
evidence to support the position that system is
robust/protective?
What should be done?
• Principle aim of pesticide regulation supposed to
be protection of public health
• Adequate evidence already exists to demonstrate a
serious public health problem
• Adoption of prevention principle, as people
deserve to be protected from avoidable and
unnecessary exposures/risks
• Ban on crop-spraying near homes, schools,
workplaces and any other places of human
habitation and direct access for the public to
necessary chemical information
Summary of Key Issues for
Royal Commission
Modelling (inadequacy of exposure/risk assessments -
bystander model is not appropriate for residents)
Monitoring (inadequacy - no monitoring for chronic
effects and acute effects commonly dismissed)
Clusters/patterns of ill-health reported in rural
communities (both acute and chronic)
Where is the scientific evidence to support DEFRA's
position that current system is robust/protective?