 |
|||
 |
 |
|
|
|
Small items of news
PEX Newsletter No.16, September 2002PEX Newsletter No.15, June 2002 PEX Newsletter No.14, March 2002 PEX Newsletter No.13, December 2001 PEX Newsletter No.12, September 2001 PEX Newsletter No.11, June 2001 PEX Newsletter No.10, March 2001 Health
Protection Agency The aim is to create an overarching body, taking in the infectious disease functions of the NHS, the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Microbiological Research Authority, the National Focus for Chemical Incidents, the National Poisons Information Service, the regional Health Emergency Planning Advisers, the National Radiological Protection Board, and 'other bodies' which 'make essential contributions to health protection', including, crucially, the Food Standards Agency, the Health & Safety Executive, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. PEX welcomes the opportunity to draw the government's attention to the deficiencies in public health surveillance and recording of pesticide-related ill-health. We are all widely exposed to these substances in our food, and in the air, water and environment. There is a plethora of regulatory bodies, 'quangos', and other agencies who are responsible for protecting our health against their effects. They work in isolation from each other, and none of them take a broad view of the overall effects of pesticides on health, or tackle the problem proactively. For example, only this year has government research started on the effects of mixtures of low-levels of these toxins (the Working Group on the Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Pesticides and similar substances report is due for publication at the end of September). [Published in PEX Newsletter No.16, September 2002] Review
of monitoring systems PEX members have contributed some very useful proposals already. Margaret Reichlin's are:
Margaret Anderson emphasises the need for a central and independent 'one-stop-shop' for reporting, collating and analysing pesticide exposure systems. As she points out, the more hands the information passes through, the greater the risk of inaccuracies and distortion. She says that awareness needs to be raised - among people who are potentially exposed - that certain symptoms may be linked to these chemicals. This is particularly important among farmers, council workers, timber treatments and other pesticide users; and for children in sprayed areas. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.16, September 2002] Another
OP sheep-dip study If you are interested in finding out more about this study, contact Joanna Pope, Research Coordinator, Study of the Health of Agricultural Workers (SHAW), Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, 4th Floor Humanities Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, tel: 0161 275 5169, joanna.pope@man.ac.uk Details of the study will be placed on a website shortly: www.coeh.man.ac.uk/shaw [Published in PEX Newsletter No.16, September 2002] Poisons
report available at last The National Poisons Information Service is the only consultant-level NHS information resource available to GPs, when a patient suspects their health problems are related to pesticide exposure. It comprises six regional centres, and is available to health care professionals only. Only three of the centres have an associated specialist clinical unit: Birmingham, Cardiff, and London . Most of the work involves pharmaceutical drugs, but pesticides are also covered. The year 2000 is the first time the regional poisons centres have produced a combined annual report. There is no common database between these centres and individual centres have developed their own areas of expertise separately. The NPIS in Birmingham has a special interest in pesticides, with a database that 'comprises the most comprehensive listing of pesticide products currently marketed in the UK'. Frustratingly, it is impossible to determine from the data in this report how many people are poisoned by agrochemicals per year. Principally this is because there is no systematic follow-up of enquiries made to the centres, and doctors have no obligation to report outcomes to them afterwards. London NPIS, however, list among the core activities of their 'Agrochemicals and plants/fungi/botanicals group' the postal follow-up of cases concerning new pesticides and pesticides where little data is available, and all severe or unusual cases involving pesticides. However, when PEX made enquiries about these results we were told (in a letter of 30th July) that: 'The number of enquiries thought suitable for follow up in each of the last three years was very small. The rationale for follow up is that we believe that the information gained might add to the knowledge of human toxicity. The generation and analysis of follow up is a labour intensive operation both for the Information Service and the hospital or GP from whom we request information. Patient confidential information is generated and exchanged within the NHS and while we are happy that our treatment of such information is proper it is not material we wish to create as a routine.. The information you have requested is unfortunately not available as we do not keep exhaustive or centralised records of 'follow up' questionnaire data. NPIS (London) does not at present have a formal procedure for sending out follow-ups. There is no compulsion for a hospital or GP to complete the follow-up questionnaires and in fact the return rate is not high (somewhere in the order of 20 to 40 per cent) although as a general rule, the more severe the effects the more likely it is that a questionnaire will be returned.' Overall health impacts of agrochemicals are hidden in other ways. For example, enquiry details (giving symptoms of the patient at the time of the call only) are put into categories which do not clearly distinguish pesticides (for example, in Birmingham, 'non-pharmaceutical chemical' is the closest category). For a copy of the annual reports, contact: Gordon Tunley, NPIS Team Leader, PH5A, Department of Health, 80 London Road, London SE1 6LH, tel 020 7972 5017 gordon.tunley@doh.gsi.gov.uk [Published in PEX Newsletter No.16, September 2002] Conference [Published in PEX Newsletter No.16, September 2002] Country Walking magazine have produced an article in
conjunction with PEX which will be published in the July issue of the magazine,
out in mid-June. Walkers who regularly use rights of way crossing sprayed fields
are not taken into account in the pesticide risk assessments used by the
governments Advisory Committee on Pesticides, a concern to be raised at their
Open Day on 10th July in York (deadline for applying for the free tickets 14
June, tel ACP 01904 455845). [Published in PEX Newsletter No.15, June 2002] The Survey of Health and Pesticide Exposure (SHAPE) study
is making progress and will report in September. Approximately 470 participants
were interviewed by telephone, and a further 130 written questionnaires were
received from a subsequent mailing. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.15, June 2002] Save the Children are selling a wide selection of organic
and pesticide-free bedding and clothing. Some, but not all, items are expensive.
For a catalogue, contact the charity at 17 Grove Lane, London SE5 8RD tel 020
7703 5400. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.15, June 2002] Pesticide
exposure blood test kit for workers If you work with organophosphate pesticides or sheep-dips
your employer has an obligation to monitor your health, and to check that your
exposure is not unsafe. Not publicised by the Health & Safety Executive,
there is a straightforward method for doing so: the Lovibond Cholinesterase Test
Kit, which can be used by non-medically qualified people in the field. A small blood sample is taken, mixed with reagents, then
visually matched with coloured glass filters to give a direct reading. The
Lovibond Cholinesterase Test Kit, AF 267 costs £725 (UK 1997 List Price).
Contact The Tintometer Ltd. Waterloo Road, Salisbury SP1 2JY tel 01722 327242. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.15, June 2002] A landmark legal ruling has officially recognised for the
first time in Britain that Gulf War Syndrome is a disease. Nine years ago, Shaun Rusling, 43, a veteran from Hull, was
turned down by the governments War Pensions Agency for an army pension on the
advice of Ministry of Defence doctors. But on 6 June a pensions appeal tribunal
in Leeds ruled that Gulf War Syndrome did exist and was caused by active service
in the 1991 war. The decision could theoretically affect several thousand
veterans. The MoD are 'looking at the ruling and studying its implications'. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.15, June 2002] A new study of people whose health has been affected by organophosphate sheep-dips has concluded that some individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of the chemicals because they have different forms of a genetically-determined enzyme which metabolises them. The authors suggest that their results support the claim that OPs contribute to ill-health. The researchers recruited 175 people who have ill-health they attribute to OP exposure. Every volunteer was asked to name three other people who were not blood relatives and who dipped sheep, whom they thought to be in good health, lived near them, were of similar age (within ten years), and whose sheep-dipping activity had been similar to their own. A nurse visited these people, obtaining information on exposure and health, and taking blood samples. DNA was extracted, and the PON1 genotypes for the 55 and 192 polymorphisms identified. When the results were statistically analysed, these latter two forms of the enzyme, associated with a diminished ability to hydrolyse diazinonoxon (the metabolite of diazinon, an OP used in sheep-dip) were more frequent in people reporting ill-health.
PEX members may not be aware that there is a German support group for people exposed to chemicals, comprising two sub-groups: one for those exposed to pyrethroids, and the other for toner exposure victims. The organisation, Interessengemeinschaft der Holzschutzmittel-Geschaedigte e.V. (IHG), is run by Karl-Juergen and Sabine Prull. Website (material in German): www.ihg-ev.de. If there is sufficient interest in working with this group, PEX will ask IHG to provide an English translation. A new publication, What is ME? What is CFS? - information
for clinicians and lawyers, by Professor Malcolm Hooper and colleagues,
produced in response to the Chief Medical Officer's Working Group report on the
illness published this year, argues the need for medical investigation into the
physiological and biochemical bases of the disease. To obtain a copy (free to
those on low incomes) send a cheque for £3, made out to M Hooper to: Professor
Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, School Sciences,
Fleming Building, Wharncliffe Street, University of Sunderland, SR2 3SD. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.14, March 2002] The cocktail effect of pesticides See Pesticides News 55, page 10, for an update on the work of the government's WiGRAMP committee (Working Group on the Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Pesticides and similar substances). The deadline for comments on the draft report is 28 March; contact Keith Butler of the Food Standards Agency for information: tel 020 7276 8522 keith.butler@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.14, March 2002] Come to the Organic Targets Bill Parliamentary Lobby and Rally which will be held on 23 January, 2002, at Westminster Central Hall, London. This will be a great chance to lobby your MP for more organic food, and raise concerns about pesticides. Speakers will include Patrick Holden from the Soil Association, Professor Tim Lang, Charles Secrett from Friends of the Earth and Joan Ruddock MP. The campaign is demanding:
Transport is available from some places. Many groups will have a stand there, including PAN UK. You can register online at www.sustainweb.org, or telephone Sustain, 020 7837 1228. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.13, December 2001] The AGM of OPUS, Organophosphate Users Support (Mid Wales & Marches) was held on Tuesday, 27th November, Ludlow. Speakers included the Bishop of Ludlow, John Saxbee, and Ruth Myhill, the group's new project officer. Updates on the medical and legal aspects of OP poisoning were presented. Dr Sarah Myhill, GP, presented new evidence on the toxicity of OP sheepdip: Sheep-dip is not just a solution of organophosphate. It is a toxic cocktail of several organophosphates in a solvent base with other equally, if not more, toxic compounds. Even the parent OP is not pure - it also contains impurities which can hugely increase toxicity. OPUS believes it has traced the sequence of events: In 1981, there was a change in the formulations of OP sheep dips; in1985, a manufacturers' memo refers to hidden hazards, not at dipping time, but subsequently; in 1987, and possibly earlier, HSE doctors diagnose poisoning from low doses of OP dip; in 1990, there is an HSE study of dipping - a report which has only just been disclosed - concluding that the solvents/phenols in dip are causing poisoning; in1992 Veterinary Medicines Directorate asks questions of manufacturers about the impurities; and in1992 VMD decides a timetable for withdrawal of 'traditional phenolic dips'.These official documents give vital clues about the relative hazards of the dips. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.13, December 2001] Two government committees, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and the Committee on Mutagenicity, have recommended a total ban on products containing the organophosphate dichlorvos (also known as DDVP), which is suspected to cause cancer. Look at the active ingredients listed on household products, such as Nuvan Staykil, Vapona, Betterware Slow Release Fly Killer, W Jeyes Expel Slow Release Fly and Wasp Killer, and Terminator Slow Release Fly Killer. On 14th December, Boots withdrew its two own-label products containing dichlorvos. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.13, December 2001] MPs discuss prevention of breast cancer A meeting for MPs will be held on 15th January in the new year, to discuss breast cancer and the environment. The meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Breast Cancer meeting is not open to the public, but please write to your MP to ask him or her to attend. Breast cancer is now the most common form of cancer in the UK. An estimated 39,500 cases are diagnosed each year, compared to 38,900 new cases of lung cancer. The chances of a woman in the UK contracting breast cancer during her lifetime have risen from one in twelve in 1995, to one in nine in 2001. Only eight to ten per cent of cases are known to be due to genetic disposition; lifestyle accounts for only about thirty per cent of all known cases; so between fifty and seventy per cent of cases have no known cause. Breast cancer is linked to lifetime exposure to oestrogen: the more we are exposed to, the greater our risk of developing the disease. There are increasing levels of oestrogen-mimicking chemicals in the environment, in some pesticides, plastics, and in industrial agents. Many of the 70,000 synthetic chemicals in regular commercial use are persistent and accumulate in body fat, including the breast. Some 400 have been detected in human body tissues and secretions, including breast milk. Of the fraction that have been tested, several thousand are listed as known or suspected carcinogens, and several hundred as damaging to the developing foetus. A chemical may not, by itself, instigate cancer, but it may work with other factors to contribute to the risk of developing the disease. From Breast Cancer and the Environment, Women's Environmental Network, November 2001. WEN tel 020 7481 9004 www.wen.org.uk [Published in PEX Newsletter No.13, December 2001] At the PEX conference on 16th June, Dr John McLaren Howard of the Biolab Medical Unit, discussed the significance of pesticide 'body burdens'. Dr Howard described the Biolab pesticide screen (blood serum or fat cell) which can detect organochlorine pesticides, organophosphates, carbamates and other chemicals. Biolab regards pesticides as 'anti-nutrients', which interfere with nutritional pathways. Dr Howard emphasised that for each patient their history, examination and laboratory investigation is carried out on an individual basis, and that Biolab does not operate as epidemiologists. However, he presented the results of 450 patients - who were not referred to Biolab with pesticide-related problems - but whose 'body burden' of pesticides was nonetheless remarkably heavy. A full transcript of Dr Howard's presentation is available from PEX. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.12, September 2001] Book reviews by Margaret Reichlin Cosmetics
Unmasked by Dr Stephen and Gina Antczak, Thorsons, £9.99 We are told that the growing allergy rate may be due to the fact that our lives are now lived without a natural amount of dirt and bacteria; in other words, our world is now too clean. But is that the cause, or is it the assault of man-made chemicals used to arrive at that state? What do we, the purchasers, really know about what we use? In the first century BC, Cicero said, in his 'Test cases for business': 'All the facts must be revealed, and the purchaser must be as fully informed as the seller', illustrating how progress is so often in the wrong direction. However, in 2001 AD, we have now caught up again. There are several categories of people who should buy these two new books.
Labelling has improved over the years, but most of us were left with the problem that the list of ingredients did not tell us what they are and what they might do to us. Most people will not have realised until reading the information provided by these two books, just how necessary and urgent it is. Cosmetics Unmasked is full of information on cosmetics and personal care products, and practical advice. For example, when in doubt, buy the product with least ingredients, thereby minimising the risk of exposure to any single chemical or syngergistic effects of mixtures. There is a full chemical glossary at the back for easy reference. Dr Antczak, a chemistry teacher, and his wife Gina, a psoriasis sufferer with sensitive skin, are an ideal team for this subject, and write in an easy style. Every teenager, embarking on an image hunt, should read this book. As an example of a harmful substance in common household use, Cosmetics Unmasked describes sodium lauryl sulfate, which has been ubiquitous in soap, toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner, and other products, for many years. It has been known since 1983 to cause, in laboratory animals, eye damage, depression, laboured breathing, diarrhoea, severe skin irritation and corrosion, and even death. Studies suggest it prevents children's eyes from developing properly, possibly by denaturing proteins in the eye, inhibiting correct structural formation. This damage is permanent, and there is also evidence that SLS retards the healing process in eye damage, particularly in the young. The protein denaturing properties in the SLS have been linked to immune system impairment within the skin. Cleaning Yourself to Death started life as an article in 'What Doctors Don't Tell You', a good source. It covers the full range of personal care, air fresheners and other domestic products, with plenty of good advice about safe 'home made' alternatives such as vinegar and baking soda. There is a list of useful contacts and a good biography at the back, but you will need to look up individual chemicals in the relevant 'use' section. The book is written in an easy style, and every home, school, library, hospital and GP should have a copy. [Published in PEX Newsletter No.11, June 2001] Pesticides and human health - a resource for healthcare professionals A useful report for doctors has just been
published jointly by the American medical society, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, and one of PAN UK's partner organisations, Californians
for Pesticide Reform. Pesticides and human health - a resource for
healthcare professionals has collated the research studies which show the
serious long-term health risks we are taking in our use of pesticides. What an indictment of pesticide licensing
policy this report forms. The examples cited are from California, where a
Pesticide Use Reporting system is maintained by the state. This enables both the
public and officials to have some idea of public exposure levels, although
actual use is estimated to be between 20 and 25 per cent higher than
reported use. In the UK we have MAFF's Pesticide Usage Survey, a non-mandatory
scheme, involving an estimate of usage based on areas of crops grown. The Californian scheme allows them to
calculate, for example, that use increased 40 per cent between 1991 and 1998,
and that 90 per cent is in agriculture. The use of known and probable
carcinogens increased by 127 per cent between 1991 and 1998. More than 6.5
pounds of pesticide active ingredient are used per person per year in
California, more than double the national rate of 3.1 pounds. A study to compare
usage rates in the different counties of the UK, for example, would also be
revealing. Chapters cover the dermatologic effects of
pesticides, cancer, respiratory disease, neurological and behavioural effects,
reproductive and developmental effects, immunological effects, and pesticide
regulations. Doctors are urged to inform patients about
the risks of pesticide exposure and discourage the use of many pesticides in the
home and garden, and on pets, particularly in homes with small children or
pregnant women. Their active support is encouraged in pressing for the phase out
of the most acutely toxic pesticides, as well as those that cause cancer or
reproductive harm. They are even asked to recommend, and to purchase, organic
food! A detailed questionnaire protocol, for
interviewing patients with occupational or environmental exposure, is included,
based on the work of the US Environmental Protection Agency
www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare A UK equivalent of this guide is needed. If
you or your doctor would be interested in the Californian one, copies are
available from PAN-UK or on www.igc.org/cpr
Green
Code revision - public consultation
The government's Pesticides Safety
Directorate are requesting comments on a forthcoming update of the Code of
Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings (the 'Green
Code', which details all the current regulations). Your response is needed by
30 March 2001. For a copy of the consultation document, contact Caroline Jones,
Pesticides Safety Directorate, Room 312, Mallard House, Kings Pool, 3 Peasholme
Green, York YO1 7PX, tel 01904 455738, caroline.jones@psd.maff.gsi.gov.uk
www.pesticides.gov.uk. You should
also be able to get hold of the 'old' (1998) Code, with which to compare it,
from the PSD, but failing that, PEX can supply copies. Our particular
concern is that an important 'best practice' guideline to notify neighbours
and adjacent landowners of spraying, in case of ill-health effects, has been
dropped. We also believe that effective health surveillance is necessary for
everybody using pesticides regularly.
Medical
examinations for benefit claims
The OP Information Network Scotland report
that their members are being assisted with the medical examinations for benefit
claims, and over financial support, by: Mrs Liz Brash, The Royal Scottish
Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Ingliston, Edinburgh EH28 8NB tel 0131 333
1023/1027 liz@rsabi.org.uk
Community
Cancer Survey questionnaires
If you would like advice on how to do a community cancer survey in your area, and a copy of the survey questionnaire, produced by Lincolnshire Against Cancer, in partnership with PEX and Women's Environmental Network, contact Maureen Dennis on 01205 870887, or PEX.
See our archive of small news items from March 1999 - December 2000 |
|||
 |
 |
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with pesticides is they are not just toxic to the 'target species', they can be harmful to humans and a whole range of wildlife |
||
Available for download |
||
 |
||
Your Daily Poison: the second UK pesticide exposure report, containing data from 2004 about pesticides in our food, water and environment is now available. |
||
