PSD talks about its impact assessments
Posted by Helen Dunnett on December 09, 2008 in European Regulation
We recently had the opportunity to talk to Richard Davis, Director of Approvals, from the UK’s Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) just a few days before the Directorate issued a revised impact assessment on the proposed revisions to existing pesticide legislation (Directive 91/414/EEC). PSD received a fair amount of criticism for its first report so we asked why.
Both reports and further information is available on PSD’s site.
RSS
Comments(0)PSD issues new impact assessment
Posted by Wyn Grant on December 02, 2008 in Environment, European Regulation, Farming
It will be recalled that the impact assessment issued by the UK’s Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) earlier this year made a significant contribution to the ongoing debate on the legislation currently being considered within the co-decision process. The assessment attracted some critical comments both from the Commission and the European Parliament, but it also heightened awareness of the possible impacts of some aspects of the proposals on European farming. The PSD has now issued a revised impact assessment which is available on their website. Click here to view.
Assessing the work of the Pesticide Safety Directorate
Posted by Wyn Grant on October 21, 2008 in Environment, European Regulation, Farming
When Farmers Weekly presented their Save our Sprays petition to German Green MEP Hiltrud Breyer, the response they received was interesting to say the least. It will be recalled that the UK regulatory agency, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), has estimated that the cut-off criteria agreed by EU farm ministers in their ‘common position’ would lead to the disappearance of 15 per cent of currently available plant protection products. The European Parliament’s proposed extra criteria would place about 85 per cent under threat.
Ms Breyer said that she had major doubts about the accuracy of the PSD’s claims. They were based on incorrect definitions and were designed to create panic, she said. ‘The figures are absurd.’ In my personal view as an academic, I believe the PSD is staffed by serious minded civil servants who pride themselves in their professionalism as scientific regulators. They are always very cautious in their use of language.
The PSD insisted that its findings were robust and based on the best available information at the time of the study. Assessments in other member states has received very similar conclusions.
Georgina Downs v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Posted by Wyn Grant on January 03, 2008 in Food & health
I have now read the decision of the England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) before Mr Justice Collins. I must emphasise that in commenting on this matter I am not a lawyer. The judgment is a long and complex one, although much of it is taken up with a statement of the facts and a consideration of the relevant law.
The judge notes in relation to the substance of the matter that there are conflicting views on the subject of ‘bystander’ exposure as is evident from the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) and the response by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). He states, ‘I am not qualified to judge between those views nor is it an appropriate exercise for a judge to undertake on judicial review.’ He adds, ‘we are here at the very fringe of what should properly be the subject of a judicial review.’ That being so, it would seem to me as a non-lawyer there might be grounds for an appeal, although in making that decision other considerations have to be weighed apart from the chances of success.
The judge takes the view that ‘the fundamental requirement that human health be not harmed must in my view require that the preacutionary principle is to be applied so that measures to ensure the protection of all who may be affected by the use of the pesticide must be considered.’ He finds that ‘Overall, we believe the PSD approach … is best described as yielding an approximate exposure estimate based on data which happened to be available, rather than a scientific prediction validated systematically by specifically designed experiments.’
The judge finds that ‘The claimant has produced cogent arguments and evidence to indicate that the approach does not adequately protect residents, and so is in breach of the Directive. ’ [91/414/EEC] He continues, ‘There is in my judgment solid evidence produced by the claimant that residents have sufferred harm to their health … or, at the very least, doubts have reasonably been raised as to the safety of pesticides under the regime which presently exists … It is clear that the precautionary principle must apply.’
The judge admits that ‘None of what is produced establishes the causal link: the establishment of such a link scientifically is a very difficult exercise and what may seem obvious tio the victim or the inexpert observer may in reality not be so. It is however to be noted that the medical tests carried out on the Claimant provide very powerful reasons for concluding that there has been the necessary cause and effect.’
‘The result of this judgment is that the defendant must think again and reconsider what needs to be done. It is not for me to specify any particular action he needs to take.’ However, he makes it clear that he favours a compulsory scheme to inform residents of intended spraying and of the composition of pesticides to be used. He also thinks that ‘there is a very strong case for a buffer zone’. Although such zones already exist in relation to watercourses, their extension to field margins near housing or other development would present significant challenges to farmers.