Our Plot at Green Lane Alloments Blog | Our Weather Blog | School Vegetable Patch Website | School Vegetable Patch Blog
© Our Plot on Green Lane Allotments -
|
Why not browse the rest of my site too? - |
NB: The PSD is now the Chemicals Regulations Directorate (CRD)
The Pesticide Safety Directorate has undergone reorganisation and from 1 April 2009 is known as the Chemicals Regulations Directorate. Click here for their website.
Click here for information about the 'new' directorate.
Click here for advice on use of chemicals by the home gardener
Following on from the contaminated manure problems of last year -
My comments appear in green
Questions and responses from an email conversation that I had with the PSD
The PSD responses are in black and the questions/issues that I think the response raises are in green.
- Why does there appear to be nothing in place to regulate the use of a licensed product -
no- one accepts responsibility for tracing the source of the misuse of this chemical?
There has been statutory control of pesticides since 1986 under which pesticides must be approved before they can be legally advertised, sold, supplied, stored or used. These are primarily the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (as amended by subsequent legislation), the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended), the Plant Protection products Regulations 2005 (as amended), and the Biocidal Products Regulations 2001 (as amended). Prior to 1986, there was a voluntary industry-
My point here is that there seems no system in place to track where things have gone wrong. There may well be strict regulations but is there a system of monitoring that the regulations are followed. It would appear from emails that I have received in confidence that at least one person affected went back to the farm and it was confirmed that aminopyralid had been used -
Where legislation exists it usually includes provision for monitoring and enforcement -
And http://www.environment-
pdf -
- Safety relies on someone reading, (in fact being able to read and understand) a label on a bottle and effectively passing information down a chain of supply -
no paperwork is needed just word of mouth.
We are in the process of considering whether the aminopyralid approvals need modifying in order prevent a recurrence of the problem in future. Incidentally, UK pesticides regulations actually require that anyone using a pesticide in the course of business or employment must be competent to perform the duties required by that business or employment. It is arguable that someone who cannot read and understand the label would have some difficulty in demonstrating that they are therefore competent to use a pesticide.
This takes me back to my comment above -
Anyone using any of the aminopyralid product such as Forefront would be required to hold a Certificate of Competence (with certain very limited exceptions), and since the training for the Certificate includes a written test, it is unlikely that someone who could not read would be able to pass the test.
- No testing appears to have been carried out prior to licensing as to the safety of eating accidentally contaminated crops -
at best now advice is contradictory. The PSD state that crops affected should be safe to eat if the manure is contaminated with aminopyralid but say evidence is circumstantial and there may be other causes.
If by testing you mean trials involving the consumption by humans of crops containing pesticide residues, then this does not happen. There are significant ethical issues involved in any medical trial involving human subjects and other ways are usually found to obtain the required information. With pesticides, studies are done, usually on rats, to determine the toxicity of a pesticide, and on crops to determine the likely residues that will be present in the crops. It is then possible to extrapolate from these results to carry out a consumer risk assessment. If you would like further information on this aspect of pesticide regulation and assessment, you might find the applicant Data Requirements Handbook of interest: please see http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/applicant_advice_home.asp this will give you an indication of the range and scale of data required to support an application for the approval of a pesticide. Based on the information we now have, we consider that if aminopyralid is present in the manure at the highest possible level that could result from use of aminopyralid products, the level of aminopyralid present in the crops should be well below the levels at which we might expect a risk to health to occur and therefore any crops grown in the manure should be safe to eat. Where we have said that the evidence is circumstantial, this is actually in respect of the presence of aminopyralid in the manure, and not in respect of the crops being safe to eat. When we say that the evidence is circumstantial, we don't mean that it is questionable or untrue; we simply mean that while we have evidence of the use of an aminopyralid product on grass which was fed to animals which produced manure which was used on allotments where crops showed signs of damage consistent with the known effects of aminopyralid, we have no definite, explicit evidence that aminopyralid is in the manure and cannot therefore exclude the possibility that something else might have caused the crop damage, even though the use of aminopyralid means that it is highly likely that aminopyralid is in the manure because there is a known route by which it can end up there.
I don't expect testing to be done on humans but when I first enquired about this I was told by the chemical company that no testing had been done for the scenario that we were facing. Official advice was to dig in crops and not to eat them. Then in restudying data the advice changed. I would have expected that investigation of data would have already been carried out prior to the herbicide being authorised as at that point it must have been acknowledged that there was a chance of the chemical entering the food chain. The initial advice caused upset to people who had already consumed crops without realising that they could be contaminated. It also caused people do destroy crops that they are now advised should be safe. I also wonder why the wording is not IS safe to eat rather than should be.
The aminopyralid products met the terms of the approval process and the potential effects on certain crops was recognised at this stage. However, as the approval process allows for, information came to light which led to us reviewing the situation. As part of this review, we obtained further information to clarify specific points and it was on the basis of our assessment of this further information that we amended our advice. I should emphasise that while we have said that crops from affected plants should be safe to eat, this does not mean that anyone with affected crops must eat them; it means that if they do or have done so, we would not expect them to come to any harm. The reason for saying "should be safe" rather than "is safe" is that "is safe" implies a categorical (that is, absolute) assurance that no harm will come to anyone under any circumstances and it is simply just not possible to guarantee this, not just with pesticide use but in any situation in life. There is always a risk in every situation; the challenge is to try and manage the situation to ensure that any risks are acceptable.
- The opinions on whether testing of soil samples and plant material is viable or even effective is again contradictory. We are told testing is being done but are not sure what is being tested. At best it would appear that due to the small amounts of herbicide likely to be in the manure and the complex way in which residues are released -
testing cannot rule out its presence just at best confirm it.
We have been currently looking at two sampling sites where we have an explicit link between manure (known to have come from a farm using a Dow aminopyralid product) and allotment grown crops with exposure symptoms. These have been selected to give us the best chance of relating any residues we find to inputs and thus improving our risk assessment and hopefully being able to provide further reassurance to consumers. The samples depend on what is available at the sites but include soil/manure and plants. And the results might do little more than simply confirm that aminopyralid is present, but that will place us in a better position than simply assuming it is present.
- We are told that the supply of manure to allotments and gardens is a grey area -
in effect anyone can deliver manure containing anything to us for use on our food crops.
This does not mean there is no regulation or that no legislation exists which might cover this situation. While the disposal of manure from farms and stables is regulated by the Environment Agency, the provision of goods and services which should cover the supply of manure to allotment users will be covered by trading standards and consumer protection legislation. In general, if someone is supplying a product, then that product must be fit for its purpose, so if a supplier was to claim that the manure was free of aminopyralid and it subsequently transpired that aminopyralid was present and it caused damage to crops, that is likely to provide the basis for an extremely good case against the supplier. See also the response to point 8 below.
I have contacted Trading Standards, and the Environment Agency and it is from these sources that I was told of the grey area. Trading standards would cover if a commercial product stated it was organic and proved to be contaminated with herbicide but not 'raw' manure. Both agencies explored this scenario in detail before coming up with the answer that it was not within their remit.
This probably means that any 'regulation' of manure supply will be dependent on self-
- Contaminated manure even appears to have been supplied by organic farms and seems to have found its way into commercially bagged manure/compost.
We have had one or two reports of this but no confirmed evidence. The testing we have been undertaking is in the context of carrying out a risk assessment of the problem rather than a risk assessment of every affected allotment, and we have no remit to carry out general or quality assurance testing on behalf of the manure supply industry.
Isn't it difficult to provide confirmed evidence? By one or two do you mean that literally? In answers to questions in Parliament Mr Woolas states that PSD have about 90 complaints. However when I complained it was on behalf of 12 people not just me. Other allotments have sent in maybe one complaint on behalf of many. Your website seems to put people off making a complaint as it says that a user should be reasonably certain (very difficult) and if so contact DOW for advice. It doesn't ask for a report to be made to PSD. I think the numbers affected by this problem are underestimated.
Yes, I do mean literally one or two reports of problems resulting from the use of commercially bagged compost/manure. The 90 complaints that Mr Woolas refers to is also literally that: we have a record of some 90 enquiries or reports on different aspects of the one problem. In many cases, we are aware that the enquirer has contacted us on behalf of one or more other people, or even on behalf of an entire allotment society, but that is still only considered to be a single enquiry. The number of people involved does not actually materially alter the problem as far as pesticide regulation is concerned, but simply the extent of it (that is not intended to deny or diminish the problems that any individual has experienced), so there has been no over-
- We don't know whether at any point fruit and vegetables supplied by the retail trade have been affected.
We have not, as yet, had any reports of aminopyralid residues in foods supplied by the retail trade but if aminopyralid is detected in samples of food then we would make an assessment of any risks to health based on the levels of aminopyralid present. In any case, many suppliers and retailers in the food industry already carry out their own residue testing as part of ensuring that the commodities they supply meet the requirements of Food Safety legislation.
- We are told that in order to avoid a repeat of the problem we should only obtain manure from trusted sources. Due to the intricacy of the chain of supply and how this contamination can enter the chain -
this is impossible. Anyone misusing either by design or accident is unlikely to be traceable and therefore educated or prosecuted. Apparently farmers were 'educated' in the use of the herbicide last year when problems were cause to commercial crops but it would appear the lessons were not learned.
It is probably impossible, as you say, for an end user to determine what might have gone into any manure they obtain. However, a degree of self-
Is a degree of self regulation adequate though? I have read that one commercial supplier is asking stables to sign to say that no aminopyralid products have been used but that depends on the stable being able to trace back through the chain of supply and get accurate answers. Wouldn't a more significant step be to require an article of provenance to be kept whereby the use of any chemical was listed as the product was passed down the chain. This is something that is already used in other industries. It also of course relies on the end user -
It is a little difficult to estimate how effective self-
- If aminopyralid isn't the cause of the crop failures is there any other chemical that could have the same effect?
PSD have no evidence that any other active ingredient causing the same symptoms.
Responses from Phil Woolas to a letter that I sent recently to Mary Creagh MP
Question/comment:
In many ways I am amazed that no-
Response:
The possibility that crops could be affected by contaminated manure was anticipated as it was known that aminopyralid would remain tightly bound to plant material in manure. Data was therefore provided to, and assessed by, the PSD to show what crops might be affected by residues arising from the application of manure or ploughing in grassland for following crops. As a result, the restriction that manure should not be applied to those sensitive crops was added to the label. Following label instructions is a legal requirement and failure to comply with the conditions of use is a prosecutable offence. I do not think it could reasonably have been foreseen that so many farmers would appear to have been unaware of the restriction, or to have disregarded it.
Follow-
Does anyone know of anyone who has actually been prosecuted for misuse? As far as I am aware no-
Question/comments:
I applaud what the chemical company has done by voluntarily withdrawing the product even on a temporary basis. It is worrying, however, that it is the chemical company and not our government departments that is taking the initiative.
Response:
PSD must operate within the law and regulatory decisions must have a clear legal basis. When the approvals of these products were amended to prevent sale and use, there was no direct evidence that aminpoyralid was the causal agent. The suspicion that aminopyralid was involved was based on symptoms of crop damage which could have resulted from other causes. By that stage, however, PSD had evaluated additional which confirmed that, if aminopyralid was the cause, it would not have implications for consumer health. In these circumstances any action by PSD which did not have a clear legal basis could have led to legal action by the approval holder. It was therefore better and more effective to work with the approval holder to seek a voluntary change in the approval status of the affected products.
Question/comment:
The Pesticide Safety Directorate issue updates on their website but do all farmers read these and if so how often? How else do they find out that a product has had its licence withdrawn? I understand that some farmers are still unaware that this is the case for products containing aminopyralid. So will some continue to use aminopyralid based products unwittingly?
Response:
The season of use of these products had at that stage passed and it is unlikely that farmers would have continued to use these products after their use was suspended. Moreover, relatively few farmers buy products direct from the approval holder; most; obtain products from a small number of distributors who do read regulatory updates. The manufacturer, Dow AgroSciences, has contacted distributors to take back any stocks they may have and to contact the farmers to whom they have sold supplies. Farmers and distributors do not, in any case, hold large stocks because of the cost, and these products are thus only in the system to the extent that they have already been used in 2008. This may still have a potential impact on manure sold into 2009.
Follow-
If manure is stored in piles for a time before being delivered to gardeners etc. I would guess that the effects of spraying in 2008 will affect gardeners for longer than just 2009. As I understand it when manure is stored in piles the chemical can take several years to break down.
Question/comment:
A number of people suspect that contamination was introduced to their soil through bagged commercial products which would come under Trading Standards remit but proving that contamination exists in such products is practically impossible. As I understand it there are no tests yet available that could categorically come to a definite conclusion. At best they could only detect that aminopyralid residue was present not that it definitely wasn’t.
Response:
Establishing whether manure or compost might be contaminated is indeed difficult. Sensitive chemical tests do exist for aminopyralid which are capable of detecting as little as 10 to 20 millionths of a gram of the substance in a kilogram of plant material, soil or manure. However, these tests are highly complex and expensive and some plant species, particularly legumes are sensitive to even lower levels (aminopyralid is after all a selective herbicide used to control broad leaved plant species). This means that chemical analysis is unlikely to be an effective way of monitoring residues and it may be less selective but more sensitive bioassay would be helpful to allotment holders to check for any residues in manure.
Question/comment:
From DOW’s website I understand that in the near future DOW is looking to apply for licence to use aminopyralid products on food cereals crops. Should this licence be granted then the problem will be compounded as straw products will also be affected by residues.
Response:
The investigation that is currently being undertaken by PSD will be looking at how the difficulties that have arisen for gardeners and allotments holders may be dealt with and prevented in the future before re-
Response 2:
A key issue in their (DOW) consideration will be whether the conditions of use regarding manure are sufficient, or sufficiently well known. PSD is the European Community's rapporteur for aminopyralid under Directive 91/414/EEC and has sought information from other member States who may have experienced similar problems. These findings will be taken into account when the Community considers whether this substance should be approved for use more widely.
(For those of you -
Responses from Huw Irranca-
Follow-
Does anyone know of anyone who has actually been prosecuted for misuse? As far as I am aware no-
Response to follow up
There is a real difficulty in showing unequivocally that damage or even slow growth is directly linked to a particular source. Additionally there is the question of whether the supply was made knowing that the manure contained aminopyralid. It might also be necessary to prove that at the time of planting there was indeed sufficient aminopyralid present in the treated soil. Given that aminopyralid is quickly broken down by soil bacteria, it might be difficult to extrapolate back to the time of damage if no aminopyralid could be found in the treated soil at the time of the investigation.
Comment:
So this is a law that it is impossible to enforce and consequently offers no protection nor provides a deterrent against misuse. The statement that aminopyralid quickly breaks down in the soil leads to a false sense of security. In an area of soil containing contaminated manure it can take at least a year for all the affected material to break down thus releasing aminopyralid into the soil. It is only then that it takes a short time (assumed to be about three weeks) for the aminopyralid to be broken down. Consequently aminopyralid is being released into the soil over an extended period of time which causes problems thought at least one growing season. As I understand it from the PSDs own website tests have been carried out that have confirmed the presence of aminopyralid.
