UK Pesticides Campaign (ABR0031)

 

Introduction

 

1.1           On behalf of the UK Pesticides Campaign[1] - which represents rural residents affected by pesticides[2] sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, amongst other areas - I would make the following important points to this inquiry.

1.2           The use of pesticides, chemical fertilisers, and other agro chemicals in the existing conventional farming system, not only poses a risk to the environment, wildlife, pollinators, other species, habitats, biodiversity etc. but most importantly – and often ignored – there is a risk to the health of all those living in the locality of conventionally farmed crops, as well as children attending schools/playgrounds near crop sprayed fields.

1.3           The UK Pesticides Campaign’s evidence will therefore focus on the adverse impacts on the health of those living in areas of intensive agricultural activities, especially the unacceptable widespread and regular use of poisonous chemicals in conventional farming

1.4           For example, Government statistics show that in relation to pesticides alone (ie. not including chemical fertilisers and all the other agro chemicals used in conventional farming), in 2014 the total area treated with pesticides on agricultural and horticultural crops was 80,107,993 hectares, with the total weight applied being 17,757,242 kg.[3] 

1.5           Therefore before commenting on the post Brexit position regarding pesticides and agriculture, it is important to briefly detail the catastrophic failings of the existing system.

Factual background

1.6           European laws on pesticides (both the former EU Directive 91/414 and the revised EU legislation consisting of the EU Regulation 1107/2009, and the Sustainable Use Directive (SUD)), clearly requires the protection of human health and the environment as the overriding priority. For example, Recital 24 of the EU Regulation clearly states, “The provisions governing authorisation must ensure a high standard of protection. In particular, when granting authorisations of plant protection products, the objective of protecting human and animal health and the environment should take priority over the objective of improving plant production. Therefore, it should be demonstrated, before plant protection products are placed on the market, that they present a clear benefit for plant production and do not have any harmful effect on human or animal health, including that of vulnerable groups, or any unacceptable effects on the environment.”

1.7           It is therefore clear that under EU law there can be no balancing of interests with the multi-billion pound pesticides industry, or other related big business, when it comes to public health protection.

1.8           Yet, although such strict EU laws exist they have simply not been adhered to by either the UK or indeed by any other Member State within the European Union.

1.9           This is due to the fact that there are fundamental failings in the way that pesticides have been approved here in the UK, and across Europe, as well as on a global scale. This is because, to date, the official method produced by regulators in the UK (and then subsequently used by other regulators around the world) for assessing the risks to people from crop spraying, and under which many thousands of pesticide products have been approved, has been based on the predictive model of a short term 'bystander', which assumes there will only be occasional exposure, for just a few minutes, from a single pass of a sprayer, at 8 metres in distance, and also to just one individual pesticide at any time.

1.10      Yet this model clearly does not in any way address the exposure for people who are actually living in the locality of sprayed fields, as the real life exposure for residents, as opposed to a mere bystander, is both repeated acute and chronic exposures over the long term, its cumulative, and is to innumerable mixtures and cocktails of pesticides used on crops, throughout every year, and in many cases, like my own situation, for decades.

1.11      In fact there are approximately 2,000 pesticide products currently approved for agricultural use in the UK alone and each product formulation in itself can contain a number of active ingredients, as well as other hazardous chemicals, such as solvents, surfactants and co-formulants (and many of which can have adverse effects in their own right, even before considering any potential synergistic effects in a mixture/cocktail).

1.12      Further, despite the fact that European law - that sets out the data requirements that applicants must submit prior to any pesticides being considered for authorisation[4] - clearly specifies that the risk assessment undertaken for residents has to include both acute and chronic exposures, DEFRA has recently repeatedly stated that it will not be expecting applicant companies to undertake assessments for acute exposure either.[5]

1.13      This is again inconsistent with EU law.

1.14      Therefore it is a matter of fact that pesticides have been approved for decades without first assessing the health risks for rural residents and communities who actually live in crop sprayed areasand which obviously includes babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people already ill and/or disabled (and where any interactions or synergistic effects between pesticides and any medication must be taken into account).

1.15      The fact that there has never been an actual risk assessment for the real life exposure of residents means that under EU law no pesticide should ever have been approved for use in the first place for spraying in the locality of residents homes, schools, children's playgrounds, nurseries, amongst other areas, as EU law is clear[6] that it must be established before a pesticide can be approved for use, on the basis of all the required risk assessments, that there will be no immediate or delayed harm to human health. Yet this has clearly not been established regarding residents and communities. This also means that all agricultural pesticides that have ever been approved have clearly been done so unlawfully.

1.16      This situation is, without a doubt, as I have always correctly stated throughout my campaign, a catastrophic public health and safety failure on a truly scandalous scale.

1.17      It is a matter of fact that there has never been any evidence of safety for residents, or children attending schools/playgrounds near sprayed crops, just successive Governments' own unfounded - and totally fake science - assertions, as well as those of the pesticide industry and big farming unions. For example, how on earth can it be asserted – which it so often is – that the risk assessments are based on ‘sound science,' when there has never been an actual risk assessment for the real life exposure of rural residents/communities?

1.18      Whilst operators will be in filtered cabs and/or have personal protective equipment when using pesticides, residents have no protection at all. Instead millions of residents have been put in a massive guinea pig-style experiment and for which many of us have had to suffer the serious, devastating - and in some cases fatal - consequences.[7] 

1.19      The primary duty of any Government is supposed to be to protect its people, especially those most vulnerable. Yet successive Governments' have continued to fail to act to secure the protection of residents from the cocktails of poisons sprayed on crops.

Adverse health impacts of pesticides

1.20      EU law already recognises that exposure for residents living in the locality of crop sprayed fields is high, as residents are now specifically defined as a "vulnerable group" in Article 3, paragraph 14, of EU Regulation 1107/2009, which clearly recognises and clearly states that residents are "subject to high pesticide exposure over the long term."

1.21      Throughout my 16 year campaign I have continued to receive reports of both acute health effects, as well as chronic long-term effects, illnesses and diseases, from rural residents and communities. There are so many more horrific stories of people being poisoned from crop spraying in the locality of their homes, and many involve children.

1.22      The acute effects reported are the same types of acute effects that are recorded in the Government's very own monitoring system. They include, amongst others: chemical burns (including to eyes and skin); rashes and blistering; throat irritation (eg. sore and painful throats); damaged vocal chords; sinus pain; respiratory irritation; difficulty swallowing; chest discomfort; coughing; breathing problems; asthma attacks; headaches, dizziness, nausea; vomiting; stomach pains; flu-type illnesses; and aching joints.

1.23      The most common chronic long-term effects, illnesses and diseases reported to my campaign from residents living in the locality of crop sprayed fields include neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Motor Neurone Disease, and neurological damage, as well as various cancers, especially those of the breast and brain, leukaemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, amongst many other chronic health conditions.

1.24      It is now beyond dispute that pesticides can cause a wide range of both acute, and chronic, adverse effects on human health. This includes irreversible and permanent chronic effects, illnesses and diseases.

1.25      The pesticide manufacturers own product data sheets themselves can carry various warnings such as "Very toxic by inhalation," "Do not breathe spray; fumes; vapour," "Risk of serious damage to eyes," "Harmful, possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation," "May cause cancer by inhalation," and even "May be fatal if inhaled."

1.26      High quality, peer-reviewed scientific studies and reviews[8] have concluded that long-term exposure to pesticides can disturb the function of different systems in the body, including nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, renal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems.

1.27      Such studies have concluded that exposure to pesticides is associated with a wide range of chronic diseases including, cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, brain (including childhood brain cancer), kidney, testicles, pancreas, oesophagus, stomach, bladder, bone, as well as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, soft tissue sarcoma, leukaemia, (including childhood leukaemia).

1.28      Other chronic health impacts that pesticides have been associated with in studies include, birth defects, reproductive disorders, neuro degenerative diseases (including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)), cardio-vascular diseases, respiratory diseases, diabetes, chronic renal diseases, and autoimmune diseases (such as rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematous).

1.29      Such studies have concluded that exposure to pesticides is associated with some of the major chronic health conditions affecting public health in the 21st century.[9]

1.30      Such findings add further support and vindication to the many residents who have continued to raise concerns over the association of pesticides and such chronic conditions.

1.31      The economic costs of the health conditions that pesticides can cause are massive. Obviously it goes without saying that the personal and human costs to those suffering chronic diseases and damage, and the impacts on all those around them, cannot be calculated in financial terms.

1.32      Many more residents will inevitably also succumb if the UK Government continues to fail to stop the spraying of these toxic chemicals in the locality of homes, schools etc.

1.33      It is important to stress the fact that farmers cannot control pesticides once they are airborne (either at the time of application or subsequently), and therefore the exposure for residents is not about the misuse, abuse or illegal use of pesticides, but about the permitted, approved use of these substances.

1.34      It is also important to stress the critical fact that the principal aim of pesticide policy, under the EU authorisation Regulation 1107/2009, is clearly based on the risk of harm, and not that harm has to have already occurred. Therefore under EU law residents are not supposed to be exposed to the risk of harm to their health from any pesticide.

The post Brexit position

1.35      The origins of traditional farming methods did not include reliance on chemical inputs for mass production.

1.36      There is no doubt that the widespread use of pesticides in agriculture is causing serious damage globally to the environment, wildlife, and above all, human health.

1.37      This has massive economic, societal and financial implications for all parties (with the exception of the pesticides industry). In fact the reality is that taxpayers are paying twice, as at present members of the public subsidise intensive farming at a cost of many billions per year, but British citizens then have to pay again in both financial and human terms for the damage caused to their health and the wider environment.

1.38      Yet despite the fact that chemical farming is costing the UK billions every year, the entire financial analysis of the issue by successive Governments’ has been hopelessly flawed because it has never taken account or factored in the wider, destructive impacts of pesticides, and the enormous external health and environmental costs of pesticide use.

1.39      The public should not have to be subsidising farmers, but if some form of public subsidy were to continue post Brexit then rural residents and communities in particular should have the overall say in how that farming in the areas where they live and breathe, go to school, play, etc. is undertaken and operated. This is not a matter of social acceptability it is quite simply a matter of protecting public health.

1.40      The UK Government's future laws and policies on agriculture if and when leaving the EU must ensure that the protection of human health and the environment is the overriding priority and which must then be properly adhered to.

1.41      Standards need strengthening and must not be even further weakened. There can be no compromising when it comes to public health protection.

1.42      In particular, the UK Government must as a matter of urgency immediately secure the protection of people in the countryside by banning the crop spraying and use of any pesticides and other agrochemicals in the locality of residents’ homes, schools, children's playgrounds and other such areas (eg. nurseries, hospitals etc.)

1.43      This must be in substantial distances, as small buffer zones won't protect anyone considering how far pesticides are known to travel. For example, scientific studies have found pesticides miles away from where they were originally applied and calculated health risks for residents and communities living within those distances.[10]

1.44      It is an absolute no brainer that no pesticides should ever have been sprayed where people live and breathe, especially babies, children, pregnant women, people already ill and/or disabled, and the elderly. 

Rural residents call for protection from pesticides in their thousands

 

 

1.45      Rural residents have been calling on the Prime Minister, Theresa May, in their thousands via an online petition to ban all crop spraying of poisonous pesticides near residents homes, schools, and playgrounds.[11]

1.46      The petition, which I originally started, has been signed and supported by Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, along with other high profile environmentalists including Jonathon Porritt and Gordon Roddick, as well as politicians including the Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas.

1.47      There are many comments under the petition from other residents affected by pesticides across the UK and therefore it is not possible for me to highlight them all here.

1.48      However, a few selected anonymised examples of some of the truly harrowing experiences from other residents include the following:-

      "My entire family have been made seriously ill / had to move house / had to remove our child from school / been ignored by local government / been ignored by parliament / learned to realise the HSE are a pathetic, useless organisation / learned that - so far - capitalism dictates that profits are more important than the future of civilisation, etc, etc.."

 

      "I live right next to a sprayed field and have had two different cancers. I cannot understand why these farmers get off with spraying poison next to my home. My oncologists agree there is a danger but nothing is done with them by any Government."

 

      "I live next to many farming fields. I have cervical cancer, my female dog has stomach cancer. My male dog has bowel cancer. My next door neighbour died of chest cancer. My next door neighbour died on various cancers. 4 doors away they have their 3rd case of bladder cancer. 2 doors away breast cancer. How much evidence is needed. But I don't think rural lives matter!"

 

      "Having suffered chemical burns from ankle to thigh, and nearly choked to death on spray fumes at 5am through an open bedroom window, I know this stuff is toxic, and you have no right to expose my children to this poison just because big corporations want to make money! What price the rural nation's health? The pollution in the Cities is nothing compared to life in the country!"

 

      "I have been personally affected by this issue and am still suffering the effects of inhaling pesticides over 30 years after the event. I suffer from loss of voice, from pain in my chest and throat, and I have trouble breathing. I had to retire 12 years earlier than planned, which incurred loss of pension."

 

      "I have been directly affected by spraying throughout my life starting as a child when crops were sprayed within a few feet as I walked to school and all day as I attended alongside fields that were sprayed. Throughout my life I have struggled with my health as a direct result."

 

      “Where I live is surrounded by fields. Which are sprayed, year on year on year. We all know pesticides are dangerous to humans, and on so many different levels - so why is this still be allowed to continue?”

 

      "I am signing because it is absolute madness that there is currently no protection for anyone living, working or going to school in these rural areas where these poisonous chemicals are sprayed on crop fields. I have witnessed crops being sprayed just metres from my Daughter's rural school and have had signs of chemical scorching on our fruit trees in our garden, from the adjacent field being sprayed. (Just metres from my Daughter's sand pit!)"

 

      "I am surrounded by farmland that is regularly sprayed and so is my son's primary school."

 

      "Both our children have rare kidney diseases. The farmer has sprayed fields on three sides of our house for over 30 years without telling us when he will spray or what he will spray. There is no law to stop him or even to make him tell us in advance. This is WRONG!"

 

      "My family have always lived next to fields sprayed with chemicals. My husband and my son died from neurological diseases. Our neighbouring farmer and his wife both have MS. That's why I'm signing."

 

      “I live in a rural area and have done all my life. Spraying of crops is carried out almost daily with massive machines. I suffer from 2 chronic diseases, one of which is fatal and I have long suspected that the use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides have a detrimental effect on the health of all of us.”

 

      "I have brought my family of 3 up next to a frequently sprayed arable field. On many occasion the sprayer has come in and gone over them while they have played. It has covered washing hanging on the line and blown through our open windows at night. It also, at least three times a year kills the plants at the end of the garden and our grass path. We are long term tenants and treated as if this is nothing to do with us. We do not know what chemicals these are, year after year, only that the farmer, when mixing and pouring them into his tank wears full protective clothing, then sits in a protected cab. Once, when the spray boom went right over my children, misting them completely, and we complained - we were told it was only water. Of course it wasn't. It killed most of our garden hedge."

 

      "I live in a cottage surrounded by fields and the sprayers turn up nearly every week. I have seen yellow spray which surely cannot be good to the crop or nature and especially me. I have neighbours who have been hospitalised because the farmer sprayed right up close to their fence and know of two farm hands that both got esophical [sic] cancer after using spray tractors. Pretty disgusting on this day and age. I also see loads of dead bees!!!"

 

      "As a teenager I lived near crop spraying. The chemical overload I experienced at this time, led to devastating health consequences for many years. I had to defer my place at Cambridge University for 3 years as I was too unwell. I had to have lots of medical treatment and I still do. I would not wish what I experienced on anyone else. The safety tests that are currently used (short exposure by a man in a mask) in no way replicate the exposure levels experienced by people living next to fields that are regularly sprayed. Please sign this, thank you."

 

      "I'm signing because I feel sure pesticide spraying was the cause of my daughter's leukaemia, and most likely many of the other cases of leukaemia in the local area - a cluster way above the national average for leukaemia incidence. The law needs to change to help protect rural residents from the proven damaging effects of these chemicals."

 

      "I am sprayed with Cocktails of pesticides by my neighbour, a fruit farmer, around 20 times per year. As a toxicologist I know that these agents are not meant to be used anywhere near residences and yet my home is covered with these chemicals every time he sprays. I have been to HSE, Environmental agency and Dow and they all agree with me but there is no legislation in the UK to protect innocent neighbours."

 

      “My Dad dies after working in a grain dryer for several summers, not realising that the chemical sprays that had been used on the crop were killing him. This is such a serious problem and the people in the tractor cabs seem completely removed from the devastation that is being caused around them. Thank you Georgina.”

 

      "Humans and wildlife alike are suffering the ill effects of these filthy, foul smelling chemical pesticides which are used to spray crops. People's lives are being made a misery by the illnesses they suffer as result of crop spraying. No wonder our National Health Service is stretched to the limit. Crop spraying anywhere near homes, schools etc. should be banned should be immediately."

 

      “The human costs are terrible. But the healthcare and welfare costs are also a huge and increasing burden which Britain cannot afford.”

 

      "Spraying crops is insane and does damage to the human body. Chemicals cause many of the diseases of the western world including cancer. It's crazy to spray poison into our food chain. STOP!"

 

      “Enough is enough. We are being poisoned. These chemicals are toxic.”

 

      “I am signing because i dont want pesticides near me and my airspace and Prime Minister would you like chemicals sprayed near your home? Ban harmful chemicals, go eco control natural instead.”

 

      “I am signing because I have been poisoned by pesticides and I know many other people suffering from the horrible health problems caused by pesticide poisoning. I was an Agricultural Training Board apprentice shepherd and have worked in food production all my life.”

 

      "We have farmers spraying near our home and school. The fumes cause headaches, dizziness and burn the throat. It not just the environment, there is a real human cost to intensive farming that we will be paying back for many years."

 

      “I'm signing because this is urgently needed, why are we allowing our food, environment & wildlife to be poisoned?”

 

      "I have been directly affected for 40 years living 8 feet from the sprayed field."

 

      "I have had to move twice in the last 10 years because I was made ill by pesticide spraying. The public has no protection whatsoever from being poisoned this way and it needs to stop now, before further people lose their health or die."

 

      “I totally disagree with chemicals in the air our water table and on our food its been going on far too long stop now its already damaging all our health. I stayed on a farm when picking apples where they sprayed numerous chemicals then we pucked them getting residue in our lungs n bodies many if us had health issues I believe due to those toxins.”

 

      “I have been made ill from the use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, so have other members of my family and neighbours. I don't want my children to suffer too. Please ban the use of chemical sprays near residential areas, it is not fair, summer is spent keeping an eye on the fields for crop sprayers and days spent with the doors and windows shut. I buy organic food as a principle.”

 

      "My neighbour sprays so close we can sometimes feel the drops on our face and there is nothing we can do, my children are at risk from this!!!!"

 

      i am sick of the government thinking it is ok to poison our world even more!”

 

      “I live in an intensively sprayed area where agricultural land, fields and crops within just a few miles or less of each other can be treated with pesticides/herbicides even on the same day. This state of affairs puts rural residents in particular at risk as it is almost impossible to avoid the chemical fumes and vapour, but also walkers and visitors are endangered when they use public rights of way through or near to crops which might have been treated with very toxic chemicals only hours before.”

 

      “This affects so many people and no one in government seems to care. #StopTheSpraying.”

 

      "I'm signing this petition because the toxicity of these sprays has now been proven beyond doubt. Peoples lives have and are being ruined due to the lack of proper testing and scrutiny, and also to the uncontrolled power of the corporations who manufacture and distribute the products."

 

 

1.49      The Prime Minister needs to now hear the evidence of the residents issue directly herself to see the enormity of this appalling public health scandal that has destroyed countless human lives and which will affect many more if the necessary action to protect residents is still not taken.

1.50      The UK Government simply cannot continue to cover up this issue. Residents have clearly told Theresa May in the petition that enough is enough. This chemical warfare in the countryside has to stop for the protection of us rural citizens now, and also for all future generations.

1.51      Many rural residents are waiting for the day we get a Hillsborough-style victory for the 'double injustice' we have endured from: firstly being poisoned by the Government's very own policy; and then having to fight for years for recognition of the damage caused and for the necessary protection to prevent other families suffering the same.[12] 

Conclusion

1.52      It is clear that the problem with pesticides is not going to be solved by simply papering over the cracks as the whole core foundations and structure on which the current UK policy operates is inherently flawed. For example, it would not solve the very deep seated and fundamental problems that exist by merely reducing the use of pesticides as just one single exposure can lead to damage to the health of residents and communities.

1.53      Nor will it be solved by Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which is still a system that uses pesticides to some degree whichever definition one goes by. Many conventional farmers insist they already adopt IPM practices - even though they are still spraying mixtures of pesticides on a regular basis, year after year, on crops across the UK. So in reality and in practice, IPM is simply a red herring as it's not going to change anything.

1.54      This problem is also not going to be solved by merely substituting one pesticide for another. Particularly as historically once one pesticide has been withdrawn another toxic chemical pesticide will just be introduced in its place. How does that solve anything? The answer is simple, it doesn't.

1.55      The only real solution to eliminate all adverse health and environmental impacts of pesticides is to take a preventative approach and avoid exposure altogether with the widespread adoption of truly sustainable non-chemical farming methods (such as crop rotation, physical and mechanical control and natural predator management).

1.56      This would obviously be more in line with the objectives for sustainable food and farming, as the reliance on complex chemicals designed to kill plants, insects or other forms of life, cannot be classified as sustainable.

1.57      In 2003 the then DEFRA Minister for Food and Farming, Lord Whitty, actually stated that, Reducing reliance on pesticides is a priority, and we want to find alternative, more environment-friendly pest controls for farmers and growers.”

1.58      However, this statement has not to date been backed up by any real action by either the Labour Government, or the former coalition, or the current Conservative Government, to move away from chemical dependency and the strong ties with the agro-chemical industry to the development of sustainable non-chemical farming methods.

1.59      The agro-chemical lobby and big farming unions have always continued to wrongly maintain that damage will be caused to agriculture and food production by any restrictions on pesticide use. In truth, there is actually little evidence to support this.

1.60      Indeed, research on the use of non-chemical methods shows that such methods can actually match, or even provide a higher, yield. In any case, the essential health of the public and environment, is supposed to come before such crude financial considerations.

1.61      To briefly give a few examples of studies showing increases in yield from non-chemical methods:

      One 15-year study comparing non-chemical farming methods to conventional methods concluded that yields from non-chemical farming equal conventional yields after 4 years. And that's with no detriment to soil, water or human health. (Rodale Institute of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, 1998)

 

      One review of over 200 food production projects involving simple, organic type techniques in different countries found that they resulted in major yield increases, ranging from 46-150%. ('Reducing Food Poverty with sustainable agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence' 'SAFE-World' Research Project. J. N. Pretty and Rachel Hine, 2000).

 

      Another report found that organic and agro-ecological farming in the Southern hemisphere produces dramatic yield increases, as well as greater crop diversity and greater nutritional content. For example: Tigray, Ethiopia (composted plots yield 3-5 times more than chemically treated plots), Brazil (maize yields increased 20-250%); and Peru (increases of 150% for a range of upland crops). 'The Real Green Revolution - Organic and agro-ecological farming in the South', N. Parrott, T. Marsden, 2002.

 

      A study in Africa also showed an increase in yields from using organic and non-chemical methods. The research conducted by the UN Environment Programme suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings with it. An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where such organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128% in east Africa

 

      Researchers in Denmark found that a large-scale shift to organic agriculture could actually help fight world hunger while improving the environment. "Organic agriculture and food security." (Mark W. Rosegrant, Timothy B. Sulser, and Niels Halberg, 2007).

 

 

1.62      Thus it is a complete paradigm shift that is needed - to move away from the use of pesticides in farming/agriculture altogether - as no toxic chemicals that can harm the health of humans, other species, or environment, should be used to grow food.

Specific questions within this inquiry

 

1.63      Although the comments detailed above would cover a number of the specific questions that have been raised within this inquiry, I would just reiterate the following: 

Yes and it should. As said earlier, the Government's future laws/policies must ensure that the protection of human health and environment is the overriding priority and which must then be properly adhered to. Standards need strengthening and must not be even further weakened. There can be no compromising when it comes to health.

The Government needs to strengthen even further the existing EU Regulations and Directives on pesticides. There must certainly not be any deregulation in relation to pesticides as there is no real regulation as it is, especially regarding residents (as set out above). The UK must now move away from pesticides to non-chemical methods.

There is a real opportunity for the UK to move away altogether from the use of pesticides, chemical fertilisers, and other agro chemicals in the existing conventional farming system to one that utilises a truly sustainable non-chemical approach. This would help protect not only the health of residents and other members of the public, but also the environment, wildlife, pollinators, other species, habitats, biodiversity etc.

As said earlier, the public should not have to be subsidising farmers, but if some form of public subsidy were to continue post Brexit then rural residents and communities in particular should have the overall say in how that farming in the areas where they live and breathe, go to school, play, etc. is undertaken and operated. This is not a matter of social acceptability it is quite simply a matter of protecting public health.

15 February 2017


[1] www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk

[2] The main types of pesticides used in agriculture include insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides.

[3] As informed by the Government's Pesticide Usage Survey Group.

[4] Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1st March 2013.

[5] As stated by David Williams from DEFRA in an email dated 20th September 2015, and again in an email from Adrian Dixon, Head of Policy, CRD, on 15th January 2016.

[6] Eg. Article 4 of EU Regulation 1107/2009 which can be seen at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107

[7] See further  http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987648/from_hillsborough_to_pesticides_establishment_coverups_lies_and_corruption.html

[8] For example a review published on 15th April 2013 in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology regarding the chronic health impacts of pesticides entitled "Pesticides and Human Chronic Diseases; Evidences, Mechanisms, and Perspectives" can be seen at:- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X13000549

[9] Ibid.

[10] Eg. Lee et al, “Community Exposures to Airborne Agricultural Pesticides in California: Ranking of Inhalation Risks” (2002).

[11] The petition can be seen at: https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-ban-all-crop-spraying-of-poisonous-pesticides-near-our-homes-schools-and-playgrounds

[12] See further  http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987648/from_hillsborough_to_pesticides_establishment_coverups_lies_and_corruption.html