Advisory Committee on Pesticides Annual Report 2001

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
<strong>Advisory</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> on Pesticides Annual Report 2001 Following the Court judgement, approval holders for both agricultural and non-agricultural products were asked to provide any further data relating to the potential genotoxic carcinogenicity of dichlorvos. These data would be considered by the ACP early in 2002. Diuron The ACP considered submissions received from four companies concerned with antifouling products containing diuron. The <strong>Committee</strong> had considered the use of this compound in antifouling products in September 2000. Members had considered that the safety margins for professional and amateur users of products were not as high as they would wish and that use of these products posed an unacceptable risk to the aquatic environment. Therefore the ACP had recommended that all uses of diuron in antifouling products should be revoked. The companies responding now expressed concern that action taken only in the UK would be a barrier to trade and put them at a competitive disadvantage and asked for an extended phase-out period for products, to enable alternatives to be developed. 60 The <strong>Committee</strong> considered that companies had been provided with adequate information regarding the possibility of revocation. Few had submitted comments to the <strong>Committee</strong> and it concluded that the submissions made were not sufficient to justify cancellation of, or changes to the timescales for, the revocations agreed previously. Fenitrothion Fenitrothion is an organophosphorus compound currently approved for nonagricultural use as an insecticide against crawling and flying insects. It is one of the chemicals included in the current review of organophosphorus and carbamate compounds. Currently, non-agricultural pesticide products containing fenitrothion are approved for both professional and amateur use, with amateur use restricted to aerosol space and surface sprays. Professional use encompasses emulsifiable and microencapsulated concentrates, wettable and dusting powders approved for use as public hygiene insecticides and animal husbandry insecticides. The <strong>Committee</strong> considered a review of the physical chemistry, mammalian toxicity and efficacy of fenitrothion. The main health effect of concern for fenitrothion was its anticholinesterase activity. However, the review also identified a number of other health effects that the <strong>Committee</strong> needed to consider. The evidence presented demonstrated that acute poisoning with fenitrothion caused Intermediate Syndrome (IMS).
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 7 and 8:
Advisory C
Page 9 and 10:
Advisory C
Page 11 and 12:
Advisory C
Page 13 and 14:
Advisory C
Page 15 and 16:
Advisory C
Page 17 and 18: Advisory C
Page 67: 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?