Archives
May 2008
30/05/08
26/05/08
25/05/08
23/05/08
21/05/08
20/05/08
19/05/08
19/05/08
17/05/08
15/05/08
The Elephant in the room ignored
14/05/08
14/05/08
11/05/08
09/05/08
09/05/08
08/05/08
15 May 2008
18:21:00 o'clock BST
When it discussed the potential link between pesticides and Parkinson's disease in 2003, the ACP agreed that further research was needed, (an all too familiar delaying tactic) but no precautionary action was suggested.
Meanwhile, public unease is growing. The Health Protection Agency says: "The long-term consequences of low-level, chronic exposure to chemicals and poisons are not well understood and there is increasing public concern about the possible impact, especially in relation to reproductive health, asthma and cancers."
Written by bettineolive Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
18:21:00 o'clock BST
The Elephant in the room ignored
Like trying to push an elephant through treacle
I would wager that trying to push an unwilling elephant through treacle is impossible, but that is what it is like trying to get any UK government to do something to protect the health of its citizens from toxic pesticides, artificial musks, and other noxious chemicals that harm the immune system and lead to serious illnesses.
All it would take would be regulations with teeth - not mere 'advice' to these culpable farmers. After all, the traffic laws have teeth, why not an environmental law with teeth to protect humans as well as animals?
Nelson looked through his telescope with his blind eye. This government clearly doesn't have a telescope, it is so short-sighted, and if it did, it would look through it with eyes firmly shut.
How else could governments please the monied interests at the expense of public health?
Here is a portion of an article taken from the Guardian IN 1995! Since then, (yes, you guessed) absolutely nothing has been done to protect rural residents who, throughout too many years, have been forced to breathe in toxic pesticides instead of clean country air.
The 1995 Press article was entitled:
"Indecent exposure"
..."Chemical pollutants are a part of our everyday life, and links to diseases such as Parkinson's are being investigated. So why, asks Michael Meacher, isn't the government acting?
Wednesday July 20, 2005
The Guardian
The Guardian
Government figures just released reveal startling evidence of the
continued increase in the use of pesticides, despite their known toxic damage to the environment and probably to human health. In the past decade, the area of crops sprayed with pesticides in the UK has increased by a further million hectares. The use of pesticides has increased by more than 30% in the same period, even though the area of land under cultivation has decreased.
continued increase in the use of pesticides, despite their known toxic damage to the environment and probably to human health. In the past decade, the area of crops sprayed with pesticides in the UK has increased by a further million hectares. The use of pesticides has increased by more than 30% in the same period, even though the area of land under cultivation has decreased.
Article continues
We are now surrounded by chemical pollutants. We breathe, touch and ingest agricultural pesticides, industrial waste products, traffic emissions, and domestic-use chemicals every day. They are an invisible menace to our health, especially for the most vulnerable. Yet there is no sense of urgency within government to tackle the issue, and its expert committees do not intervene.
The recent findings, which suggest that farmers who have been exposed to pesticides are 43 times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease, confirm suspicions that date back years. A study in 2003 also found positive links; and the top expert committee advising government, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), which reviewed the issue in depth in 2001, concluded that "there is an apparent consistency of
epidemiological reports linking Parkinson's disease with pesticide
exposure." However, ACP chair David Coggon says that advice to reduceexposure to pesticides "across the board would seem disproportionate".
epidemiological reports linking Parkinson's disease with pesticide
exposure." However, ACP chair David Coggon says that advice to reduceexposure to pesticides "across the board would seem disproportionate".
When it discussed the potential link between pesticides and Parkinson's disease in 2003, the ACP agreed that further research was needed, (an all too familiar delaying tactic) but no precautionary action was suggested.
We must not wait to reduce the incidence of brain diseases such as
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease. These have increased drastically over a 20-year period; and dementia in men has trebled. In the late 1970s, there were around 3,000 deaths a year from these conditions in England and Wales, but by the late 1990s there were 10,000. The study's authors suspect environmental pollution by chemicals as the cause of the rise.
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease. These have increased drastically over a 20-year period; and dementia in men has trebled. In the late 1970s, there were around 3,000 deaths a year from these conditions in England and Wales, but by the late 1990s there were 10,000. The study's authors suspect environmental pollution by chemicals as the cause of the rise.
Recent research from Duke University, North Carolina, is the latest in a long line of studies suggesting toxic pollutants are a prime causal suspect of disease. Scientists found that medulloblastoma, a form of brain cancer, is significantly more common in children whose birthdays are in the autumn. The researchers speculate that seasonal variations in the use of pesticides, fungicides, other water pollutants and antihistamines could expose foetuses to these compounds during critical periods of brain development.
Cancer in children is rising. A study published in December provided clear evidence of an increase across Europe of cancer incidence in childhood and adolescence since the 1970s, and the trend is accelerating.
Of the 18 most common types of cancer listed by Cancer Research UK, 14 are increasing in adults. Cancer increased overall, from 1991 to 2000, by 2.3% in men and 4.4% in women.
Pesticides are under suspicion as a cause: the government's own advisory body, the Committee on Carcinogenicity, reviewed studies and found a link between farming and prostate cancer, suggesting that exposure to pesticides could be a factor.
Meanwhile, public unease is growing. The Health Protection Agency says: "The long-term consequences of low-level, chronic exposure to chemicals and poisons are not well understood and there is increasing public concern about the possible impact, especially in relation to reproductive health, asthma and cancers."
In the UK, the regulations relating to pesticide use are the
responsibility of the Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD). It is provided with advice from the ACP. Between them, they administer a regulatory system that is widely seen as being among the best in the world. But, while fatalities are relatively rare in the UK, this mounting evidence of possible chronic health effects suggests a need for greater precaution.
responsibility of the Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD). It is provided with advice from the ACP. Between them, they administer a regulatory system that is widely seen as being among the best in the world. But, while fatalities are relatively rare in the UK, this mounting evidence of possible chronic health effects suggests a need for greater precaution.
PSD's aim is to ensure that pesticide use is safe for users, consumers and the environment. So why, then, are the potential chronic and long-term health effects of pesticides not being taken more seriously?
The government acknowledges that pesticides pose a "residual risk" to the environment, and declining bird populations and reductions in biodiversity are well documented. Pesticide Action Network UK (Pan UK) wants to know why people are not treated as another "non-target species" and given the level of attention and protection that our wildlife is beginning to enjoy.
PSD claims that any pesticide approved has demonstrated that it poses no unacceptable (think about that word) risks to human health. However, as Pan UK points out, this is not strictly true.
The evaluation of the effect of pesticides on human health is based
largely on results from tests on laboratory animals. While there are
recognised methods for extrapolating such data to humans, uncertainties always remain.
largely on results from tests on laboratory animals. While there are
recognised methods for extrapolating such data to humans, uncertainties always remain.
The effects of pesticide mixtures on health are not evaluated in the
approval process, and because of the hundreds of pesticides on the market this would be nearly impossible.
approval process, and because of the hundreds of pesticides on the market this would be nearly impossible.
The effect of pesticides on particularly vulnerable members of society - those with allergies, pregnant women and their unborn children, older people and the very young - are difficult to determine from laboratory studies.
Chronic effects from low levels of exposure are also difficult to identify from laboratory tests, and monitoring of health impacts, once pesticides are approved for use, is minimal. (minimal? actually it is NIL)
Yet, in the face of all this, there appears to be very little being done
to protect us from the dangers of pesticide exposure. Why?
to protect us from the dangers of pesticide exposure. Why?
First, one is bound to suspect a significant influence of the agrochemical industry on policy. Fees from companies for approval of pesticides account for the majority of the PSD's income.
Second, there is little opportunity for public scrutiny of the decisions made about evidence of links between health and pesticides. The advice on which the ACP relies to make decisions about health impacts of pesticides is provided by the Medical and Toxicological Panel, a group of scientific experts whose meetings, discussions and recommendations are not made public.
Third, the kind of data needed to establish links between pesticides and health are not being collected. (eyes firmly shut, you see)
Those who believe that they have been affected by pesticides used in their neighbourhood do not have access to information about those pesticides - this new legal right was promised us in 2004 but has still not been granted.
We need to know that all reasonable precautions are taken to protect our health, and that public interest never takes second place to the economic interests of the pesticides' industry. (Hah!)
In an important step forward last year, (in 2004 - another delaying tactic) the government asked the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to consider the exposure of bystanders - that is, those in the vicinity of sprayed fields - and to examine the scientific evidence on which decisions are based and to look at current policy on access to information. The report is due to be published in September.
Will there be the wind of change blowing away the secrecy and complacency involved in licensing these hazardous chemicals, or will the status quo, so strenuously defended by government and industry, remain? (No question, the complacency and status quo continues...)
ยท Michael Meacher MP was environment minister 1997-2003.
What he said made sense. Do you think that was why he was demoted to the back bench?
If you feel as strongly about this disgusting state of affairs as I do, would you please copy this blog and send it to your local MP. The British public need to stop trusting the government to protect their health and let their feelings be known. If both the Guardian and Michael Meacher knew that, in 2005, "already public unease" was growing, then the government of the day also knew. It knows full well what is being done to a large section of the population and to the millions yet unborn, and yet it does nothing about it. More than that, it wants to keep the general public ignorant of what is happening.
I find that quite disgusting.
Written by bettineolive Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
