Advisory Committee on Pesticides Annual Report 2001

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Foreword Foreword 2001 was another busy year for the ACP. In addition to the assessment of 22 new pesticides and a major ongoing review of anti-cholinesterase compounds, we addressed several important generic issues. Following discussion at our first open meeting in September 2000 and a subsequent request for advice from Ministers, we initiated an investigation into the scope for comparative risk assessment in the regulation of pesticides. It seems obvious that where either of two pesticides will control a problem effectively, it is desirable to choose the one that carries the bigger margins of safety. In practice, however, implementation of such a policy is not straightforward. For example, one product may be preferable in relation to the health of users, while the other poses less threat to wildlife. Moreover, a product that is best for one use may not be best for another. After a helpful consultation exercise, we concluded that it might be possible to develop a system in which products were graded as first-, second- or third-line for each of their uses. There could then be an onus on the user to justify applying any product that was not first-line for the pest problem he or she was trying to control. Our next step is to explore exactly how grades might be assigned. If this can be achieved satisfactorily, we may wish to consult stakeholders again on more detailed proposals. iii Risk assessment for pesticides undergoes continual refinement, and as part of that process we are now turning our attention to their indirect effects on wildlife. At present, we assess the toxicity of individual pesticides to a wide range of wildlife species, but they may also cause harm through other mechanisms. For example, use of a herbicide or insecticide might deprive birds of a vital food source. It will not be easy to disentangle such effects from those attributable to other aspects of agricultural practice, but through our Environmental Panel we are looking to promote the research that is needed. Another significant development in 2001 was the effect of two court rulings on the openness of our proceedings. In each case, legal action by a company holding approval for a pesticide prevented publication of sections of our minutes, pending review of any regulatory action that might follow from our advice on their products. This runs counter to the recommendations of the Phillips report, and risks compromising public confidence in the regulatory process. We very much hope that it will not become a regular occurrence.
<strong>Advisory</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> on Pesticides Annual Report 2001 I would like to thank two members, Mike Roberts and Colin Soutar, who left the <strong>Committee</strong> during 2001, and as ever, I am grateful to the secretariat for their excellent support. Professor David Coggon, Chairman of the ACP iv
Page 1 and 2: Department for Environment, Food an
Page 3: Department for Environment, Food an
Page 7 and 8: Advisory C
Page 55 and 56:
Advisory C
Page 57 and 58:
Advisory C
Page 59 and 60:
Advisory C
Page 61 and 62:
Advisory C
Page 63 and 64:
Advisory C
Page 65 and 66:
Advisory C
Page 67 and 68:
Advisory C
Page 69 and 70:
Advisory C
Page 71 and 72:
Advisory C
Page 73 and 74:
Advisory C
Page 75 and 76:
Advisory C
Page 77 and 78:
Advisory C
Page 79 and 80:
Advisory C
Page 81 and 82:
Advisory C
Page 83 and 84:
Advisory C
Page 85 and 86:
Advisory C
Page 87 and 88:
Advisory C
Page 89 and 90:
Advisory C
Page 91 and 92:
Advisory C
Page 93 and 94:
Advisory C
Page 95 and 96:
Advisory C
Page 97 and 98:
Advisory C
Page 99 and 100:
Advisory C
Page 101 and 102:
Advisory C
Page 103 and 104:
Advisory C
Page 105 and 106:
Advisory C
Page 107 and 108:
Advisory C
Page 109 and 110:
Advisory C
Page 111 and 112:
Advisory C
Page 113 and 114:
Advisory C
Page 115 and 116:
Advisory C
Page 117 and 118:
Advisory C
show all

Advisory Committee on Pesticides Annual Report 2001

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?