Advisory Committee on Pesticides Annual Report 2001

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section E: UK Review Programme operators in the agricultural sector. The consumption of produce already treated with dichlorvos (sourced from within or outside the UK) would not raise the same level of concern since the levels of dietary exposure (based on food residues monitoring data) were considered minimal. Alternatively, if COM concluded that dichlorvos was an in-vivo mutagen, but that the tumours observed in animal tests did not result from a genotoxic mechanism, or if it could not confirm that dichlorvos was an in-vivo mutagen, or it took the view that dichlorvos was not an in-vivo mutagen, the ACP’s previous recommendations would be maintained. Following consideration of all the available mutagenicity data, and comments from the data owners, the COM concluded that dichlorvos should be regarded as an in-vivo mutagen at site of contact, and that it could not exclude the possibility of it acting as a genotoxic carcinogen. It finalised a statement on 30 July 2001. The ACP considered the COM advice, and whilst they recognised that any risks from exposure would be low, they agreed that the possibility of genotoxic carcinogenicity could not be excluded. The <strong>Committee</strong> therefore recommended to Ministers that, as a precautionary measure, it would be prudent to revoke, with immediate effect, all agricultural and non-agricultural uses of dichlorvos. 45 Before such regulatory action could be carried out, AMVAC Chemical UK Ltd (an approval holder) obtained an injunction, which prevented regulatory action. Government agencies were also prohibited from making any announcement to the public about the regulatory action that was proposed. The approval holder also gained permission for a judicial review, which was heard in November 2001. The grounds for the challenge were that AMVAC had not been properly informed of the proposed regulatory action or the basis for it, and had not been given sufficient time to make representations. AMVAC also claimed that Ministers had not given proper regard to the precautionary principle and to the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgement of the Court was issued on 3 December 2001. Mr Justice Crane rejected most of the company’s submissions, including those concerning the precautionary principle and the Convention on Human Rights. However, he ruled that the company had been given insufficient time to respond to the conclusions of the Government’s expert advisers prior to regulatory action being taken. He accepted that the matter was urgent but considered that the claimant had now had full opportunity to present any further material.
<strong>Advisory</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> on Pesticides Annual Report 2001 During the period of the injunction, the <strong>Committee</strong> were unable to publish the minutes of their meetings. The <strong>Committee</strong> had concerns that this compromised the openness of the advice given to Ministers, and could thereby have an adverse effect on public confidence in the regulatory process. They were also concerned that speculation about the missing minutes might create unwarranted public anxiety. Notwithstanding these concerns, the <strong>Committee</strong> agreed that while rapid implementation of regulatory action was desirable once decisions had been made, it was also important that the regulatory process be fair and open to scrutiny. In this case, the <strong>Committee</strong>’s advice had been precautionary (i.e. based on insufficient reassurance that exposures to the compound were acceptable rather than direct evidence that people were being harmed), and the delay caused by the legal action would be acceptable provided that it was not unduly prolonged. Following the Court judgement, approval holders for both agricultural and non-agricultural products were asked to provide any further information relating to the potential genotoxic carcinogenicity of dichlorvos. This information would be considered by the ACP at the earliest opportunity in 2002. 46 Dimethoate Dimethoate was reviewed as part of the UK review of anticholinesterase compounds. Dimethoate is a broad-spectrum contact and systemic organophosphorus insecticide, formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate. Products containing dimethoate are approved for use in agriculture, horticulture and the home garden on a range of crops. The ACP noted that dimethoate had previously been reviewed as part of the UK routine review programme and that the reference doses [acceptable daily intake (ADI), acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL) and acute reference dose (ARfD)] used in the current review had been established in 1993 and 1998. The ACP considered estimates of consumer exposure for dimethoate and its metabolite omethoate against the current ADI for dimethoate of 0.0008 mg/kg bw/day. It was concerned that the estimated long-term consumer exposure exceeded the ADI and agreed that the approvals for adding new stocks of dimethoate products to the supply chain be suspended while a strategy for reducing consumer exposure was submitted. The ACP considered that the stocks already in the supply chain could continue to be used.
Page 1 and 2:
Department for Environment, Food an
Page 3 and 4: Department for Environment, Food an
Page 5 and 6: Advisory C
Page 53: 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?