house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1133 Organophosphates<br />
[17 JUNE 2009]<br />
Organophosphates<br />
1134<br />
7.55 pm<br />
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I do not think that the noble<br />
Lord, Lord Rooker, ever left the human race, which is<br />
one reason why he was such a good Minister.<br />
I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for initiating<br />
this short debate as part <strong>of</strong> a campaign that has been<br />
going on since long before I came to this House. With<br />
the noble Countess, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and<br />
my noble friend Lord Tyler, I feel as though I am<br />
among some <strong>of</strong> the political giants as far as this issue<br />
is concerned. My interest in OPs, particularly sheep<br />
dips, came about a bit less than 10 years ago when<br />
Chris Davies MEP took me up a track on the Saddleworth<br />
moors to see Mrs Brenda Sutcliffe, an equally doughty<br />
campaigner on OPs in a rather different way, bashing<br />
away on what was then her manual typewriter. She is<br />
still there and still campaigning, and long may she do<br />
so as long as this issue needs resolving.<br />
I shall refer to the most recent piece <strong>of</strong> research on<br />
OPs and sheep dips, which comes from Dr Sarah<br />
Mackenzie Ross <strong>of</strong> University College London on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> Defra’s project VM02302 on which, over the<br />
past six or seven years, the department has spent<br />
nearly £500,000. The project was mooted earlier; it<br />
started in August 2004 and ended in 2008, last year.<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the study was to determine whether<br />
low-level exposure to organophosphates caused disabling<br />
neurological or psychiatric disease in a small sub-group<br />
<strong>of</strong> exposed persons. The significance <strong>of</strong> this project is<br />
that it is concentrated on low-level exposure over a<br />
period <strong>of</strong> time rather than on a higher level and the<br />
more acute problems presented by most <strong>of</strong> the people<br />
who have come forward as victims <strong>of</strong> OPs.<br />
The participants in the study—there were originally<br />
160 but there ended up being 132—are working farmers<br />
and farmers who retired on the grounds <strong>of</strong> ill health<br />
and who have a history <strong>of</strong> exposure to sheep dip. They<br />
were compared with a control group, a comparison<br />
group, <strong>of</strong> rural police workers, in an attempt to find<br />
similar people in the community who had not been<br />
particularly exposed to organophosphate pesticides.<br />
That group began as 80 but ended up as 79. The<br />
participants were recruited from the south-west and<br />
the north <strong>of</strong> England. My understanding is that the<br />
study has been completed—certainly the executive<br />
summary has been published—and that we are waiting<br />
for the full <strong>report</strong> to be peer-reviewed. Perhaps the<br />
Minister will confirm that. It is with Defra and we are<br />
waiting to see what Defra is going to do about it.<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> this study <strong>of</strong> low-level exposure were<br />
that,<br />
“A range <strong>of</strong> emotional, physical and cognitive problems were<br />
identified in agricultural workers with a history <strong>of</strong> low level<br />
exposure to OPs. In terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive function, general intellectual<br />
ability, reasoning, visio-spatial and verbal ability were relatively<br />
well preserved, but agricultural workers obtained lower scores on<br />
tests <strong>of</strong> response speed, working, verbal and visual memory,<br />
mental flexibility and fine motor control, than non-exposed controls”.<br />
The <strong>report</strong> also compared these results with the general<br />
population and found a similar difference. The <strong>report</strong><br />
says that,<br />
“a number <strong>of</strong> significant correlations were observed between<br />
duration <strong>of</strong> exposure and verbal and visual memory, verbal<br />
ability, strategy making and fine motor control. Although weak,<br />
they were in the expected direction, consistent with findings from<br />
the group analyses and consistent with study hypotheses.”<br />
I am not sure that I understand these words, but I<br />
think they mean that there was a correlation and the<br />
findings were significant. The recommendation is that<br />
follow-up studies should be carried out to determine<br />
whether symptoms persist over time, improve or worsen,<br />
and to look into recommended treatment protocols<br />
for individuals who <strong>report</strong> chronic ill health following<br />
exposure to OPs. This is one reason why the <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
committee should be reconvened. It is suggested that<br />
there is a need for prospective treatment trials. That is<br />
from Dr Mackenzie Ross.<br />
Defra has responded. I have looked at the Defra<br />
website and failed to find it, but that may be because I<br />
am not very good at negotiating websites, or it may<br />
not be there. I read in the Western Morning News that<br />
a Defra spokesman said:<br />
“The results <strong>of</strong> this <strong>report</strong> do not definitively demonstrate<br />
that organophosphates cause chronic ill-health, but suggest that a<br />
relationship may exist”—<br />
I think that is what Dr Mackenzie Ross is saying—<br />
“It is not possible to draw conclusions on the basis <strong>of</strong> one<br />
<strong>report</strong> without considering a wider context <strong>of</strong> published data on<br />
OPs and human health”.<br />
That seems to be a fairly weak response from Defra, <strong>of</strong><br />
the kind that previous speakers have suggested has<br />
been forthcoming over the years. It seems to me,<br />
again, to be a reason why the committee should be<br />
reconvened and should meet to consider these matters.<br />
Defra continues to say that,<br />
“our advice to farmers remains to take all necessary protections<br />
including protective clothing and to follow instructions supplied”.<br />
That is all very well for people who are around now<br />
but it does not really tackle the problem <strong>of</strong> people who<br />
were exposed in the past. I read in my exciting weekly<br />
reading, the Farmers Guardian, a quote from<br />
Dr Mackenzie Ross herself:<br />
“The worry is that there might be a slow cumulative effect on<br />
people. We have got no idea how many people out there are<br />
suffering … There was this idea that low exposure is OK but this<br />
research would suggest otherwise. We think it is more dangerous<br />
than previously thought”.<br />
There follows the same quote from Defra, suggesting<br />
that it would rather not do very much.<br />
This latest <strong>report</strong> is important, partly because it confirms<br />
that people have been suffering from OPs, but particularly<br />
because it looks at the people who have been subjected<br />
to low-level exposure, as opposed to those who have<br />
been made particularly poorly by a high level <strong>of</strong><br />
exposure. This is clearly new evidence and clearly a<br />
new <strong>report</strong>. I ask the Minister, first, what will Defra do<br />
with this <strong>report</strong>? What is its response to it, other than<br />
trying to tell the papers that everything is really okay?<br />
Secondly, in particular, is it not sensible to put it to a<br />
reconvened <strong>of</strong>ficial committee?<br />
8.04 pm<br />
Lord Taylor <strong>of</strong> Holbeach: My Lords, I declare an<br />
interest as a farmer and grower. We use chemicals in<br />
pest and disease control; I will make observations on<br />
this in my speech. No one can doubt the commitment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the noble Countess to making sure that the use and<br />
effect <strong>of</strong> organophosphates remains on the agenda.<br />
She should be thanked for securing this debate and for<br />
the skill with which she has presented her case. She<br />
speaks powerfully from a personal experience that has<br />
been extremely distressing. Indeed, all noble Lords