Sheep-dip cans are unsafe says ministry

Companies manufacturing sheep dip were given until the end of January to remove unsafe chemical cans from the market. John Harvey reports on the dilemmas facing the company bosses as they try to cope with new demands from the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF).

Companies making organophosphate sheep dip are trying to decide whether it will ever be worth trying to market their products again.
Sheep dips were ordered off the market in December after the Ministry of Agriculture decided the containers used to pour them into baths were unsafe. ‘The companies will now have to decide whether the market conditions justify new investment in container designs,’ said Stephen Dawson, technical executive for the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH), which represents the companies.
‘Whether or not a design is found, it will not be ready for the spring dipping which usually starts in April. The rules on market authorisation say you need twelve months’ stability data on any container. Even if the authorities allowed six months data, we are talking nine months as an absolute minimum if the chemical is to be produced and packed properly.’

Companies were warned
But Elizabeth Sigmund, coordinator of the OP Information Network, said the companies should have been prepared for the Government’s action. In a letter to Baroness Hayman, the junior agriculture Minister who told the companies to re-design their cans, Mrs Sigmund said there had been warnings about the risks of exposing farmers to dip concentrate as far back as 1994 and 1995.
    In 1994, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s (VMD) appraisal panel for human suspected adverse reactions (SARs) noted that people had been accidentally contaminated by pouring dip concentrate. In its report to the Veterinary Products Committee, which licenses OP dips, the panel said: ‘As a result, the panel reviewed the containers of OP dip products currently on the market, and recommended to the VPC that companies should review the effectiveness of their container design.’ The following year, the VPC reported to the Ministry: ‘Samples of sheep dip containers were obtained from licence holders and examined.’
    In her letter to Baroness Hayman, Mrs Sigmund says that these extracts make it clear that the companies have known about the dangers of dip containers for years. ‘Your request of December 1999 followed (former junior agriculture Minister) Jeff Rooker’s discussions with the manufacturers about re-designing dip containers after the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) report came out in July 1999 … and can hardly have taken the manufacturers by surprise.’
    The companies involved are DiverseyLever, Battle Hayward and Bower, Bimeda, Crown, Novartis, Schering Plough, Virbac and Bayer. Novartis and Bayer had not renewed their product authorisations, Mr Dawson said, because they felt they were not making money.

Cans were re-designed
The companies argue that there were changes after 1994/1995 which improved the cans by adding a larger, extendable plastic spout to reduce glugging and splashing. There were proposals made for new labels, but the companies say they have been waiting for 18 months for the right text.
    Baroness Hayman’s action followed the IOM report, which identified the handling of sheep dip concentrate as a hazard. This led the VPC to recommend a re-design of the containers to minimise the danger of exposure – a move supported by Jeff Rooker. Only one company came near to a satisfactory re-design which involved turning the can on its side and using a tap to control the dip. But one response was that farmers wouldn’t know whether the tap was on or off. In the end, the Ministry ordered a product re-call. (1)
    One of the reasons the Ministry acted was because farmers using the cans designed after 1995 were exposed to dip concentrate running back down the extendable spout and accumulating on top of the can. Some may not have worn protective gloves, and others may have left their gloves on top of the can.
    One obvious way to improve the dip containers – which are tin-plated cans – would be to look at the plastic containers used for pesticides in crop protection. But Mr Dawson said there were differences: pesticides were put into a closed crop sprayer, but dip was poured into an open bath. ‘You cannot have a closed system with dips.’

Plastic dip cans won’t work
Hydro-carbon compounds in the dip would cause plastic containers to bulge and explode. ‘The containers do not retain their shape.’ It is an offence to market sheep or lambs infected with scab, so farmers have to use something. The alternatives to OPs are synthetic pyrethroids (SPs) and injectable products. Solvents in the SPs meant they had to be poured from cans, said Mr Dawson, and injectables are more expensive than either OPs or SPs. There is some resistance to SPs, and they have to be disposed of properly.
Injectables have a withdrawal period of between 42 and 70 days. Some need to be used twice to be completely effective, and sheep may have to be released on to clean land after treatment in case they are re-infected.

References
1. Government announces four-point plan on organophosphates, MAFF press release, 20 December 1999.

Report backs PAN UK on tax

MPs have backed Pesticide Action Network UK’s call for a tax on pesticides used in farming.
    In their pre-budget report on pollution taxes, MPs on the House of Commons environmental audit committee(1) said that they were convinced the tax would reduce pesticide use.
    ‘We acknowledge the current economic plight of the farming industry, but are convinced that a tax could be introduced in a manner which minimises its adverse economic impact and yet encourages substantial reductions in pesticides use-for example, by hypothecating the revenues,’ said the report.
    PAN UK’s evidence to the committee is cited throughout the report’s section on a pesticides tax. The MPs joined PAN UK in condemning the Government’s decision to drop proposals for a tax from this year’s budget. ‘We are astonished and disappointed that the Government has decided to drop from this year’s budget a pesticides tax without even making the industry’s alternative proposals public.’
    Nearly all the points which PAN UK made in evidence were mentioned in the committee’s report. Although the overall weight of pesticides used may have declined ‘…this may have been outweighed by the increased toxicity of new formulations and changing patterns of use.’

References
Fourth Report, Select Committee on Environmental Audit, House of Commons,
7 Millbank, London SWIP 3JA.
(See also page 15)

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 47, March 2000, page 18]