Advisory Committee on Pesticides Annual Report 2001

Section E: UK Review Programme
and non-agricultural uses of dichlorvos. This advice was given as a
precautionary measure, since the possibility of genotoxic carcinogenicity could
not be excluded. The ACP considered that any risk of human carcinogenicity
was likely to be very small, and would be mainly associated with certain uses
in the home and with exposures to some operators in the agricultural sector.
Before such regulatory action could be carried out, AMVAC Chemical UK Ltd
(an approval holder and manufacturer of dichlorvos) 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. AMVAC also gained permission for a judicial review hearing,
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 in 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.
59
During the period of the injunction, the ACP was unable to publish the
minutes of its meetings. The ACP 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. It was also concerned
that speculation about the missing minutes might create unwarranted public
anxiety. Notwithstanding these concerns, the ACP 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 ACP’s advice to Ministers 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.