Profile of the UK Agriculture Minister

Baroness Hayman was appointed as Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in July 1999. In an interview with David Buffin she discusses urgent pesticide concerns, and gives a personal view of overarching safety issues she wants to see considered in the longer term.

Background
As the Minister with specific responsibility for pesticide safety, Baroness Hayman relies on advice of civil servants at the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), an executive agency of MAFF. PSD’s main function is the evaluation and processing of applications for approval of agricultural pesticides, and to advise Ministers on the development and enforcement of pesticide policy and legislation. In turn both Baroness Hayman and PSD rely on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides which was established in 1968 to advise Ministers on all major issues relating to the control of pests (see PN 48). Members are selected to provide expertise in scientific disciplines relevant to the evaluation of pesticides. Recent additions to the Committee include one member with expertise in organic farming. Additionally, two lay members, provide a perspective on consumer affairs, and environmental issues. 
    Although MAFF is the ‘lead agency’ for agricultural pesticides, Ministers and civil servants at the Department of Health, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), the Health and Safety Executive, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales and the newly created Food Standards Agency have an increasing input into the health and environmental problems posed by pesticides.

PAN UK welcomes the moves towards greater openness at the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP)(see PN48). The membership of the committee has been broadened, and the summary minutes and agenda are published on the web. ACP promised that detailed minutes of the meetings would be available on the ACP website, when can we expect to see these minutes?
On 21 July PSD published a consultation document on openness including the ACP’s procedures. MAFF has now received the responses from interested parties, and one of the proposals was about making the detailed minutes available rather than just a summary available. The comments on that consultation are being pulled together now. We hope to make some announcements soon. 
    The summary minutes were easier to make available because you can avoid some of the difficult issues about what is and what is not genuinely commercially confidential. And one can be pretty certain with a summary that you will not cross that line. But with the full minutes, one has to take into account how to avoid trouble on the other side. 
    But we have made a start, and I would not have wanted to hold back the summary minutes in order to wait for the whole process.

At the 6 September ACP Open Meeting, a question was raised about the substitution principle – a system which would favour registration of the least toxic pest control options. What are you views on the application of this principle to the pesticide approvals system? 
The substitution principle is something the government has to look at and see whether it is the right principle – whether it is applicable to pesticides. Some countries have adopted it – the US and the Scandinavian countries, and some have not. But it has not been the tradition here, and there are some technical difficulties in its application. 
    Firstly there would need to a change in the European Union’s Plant Protection Products Directive, and our corresponding Plant Protection Products Regulations, and we would need to consider whether the Control of Pesticides Regulations would also need to be amended.
    Secondly, the substitution principle involves weighing up difficult dilemmas. One example involves sheep dips. How do you adopt the substitution principle when comparing the synthetic pyrethroids (SPs) against organophosphates (OPs)? SPs are more environmentally damaging: The OPs are more damaging to human health. Which of these is the least damaging? It would require some different methods of judgement in the assessment of the two chemical impacts. It is difficult enough at the moment balancing the risk OPs pose to the health of the operator versus the animal welfare. 
    At the moment, much of what I do is reactive – responding urgently to a particular pesticide with a particular problem. When there is restrictive regulatory action somewhere in the world, such as with the insecticide chlorpyrifos (see below), MAFF is expected to respond at once – but it’s just fire fighting. I would like, having ‘fought fires’ for a year and a bit, to stand back and look at some of the general issues and principles, such as the substitution principle. Although I am not saying that MAFF will adopt the substitution principle tomorrow. But I do not think we should rule it out, just because it has not been done in the past. I would like to see some analysis of the difficulties, including the legislative difficulties, because it would be naive to suggest that one could just snap fingers and adopt the principle. The process needs legislative time in the EU, and that is in itself a constraint. But I am looking to have some discussions with interested parties about some of these broader issues.

A number of recent opinion surveys have reported consumer concern about pesticide residues in food. Do you think that industry should be encouraged to provide more information on the label about post harvest treatment of pesticides on food?
In fact I started off the consultation on better labelling when I was responsible for food safety. One of the questions asked in that consultation was ‘what sort of information do consumers want about pesticides’ in addition to claims on health, wholesomeness, and many other issues. 
    The Food Standards Agency [FSA] (which reports to the Department of Health) is taking the lead in this difficult area of food policy. 
    One issue involves the structural procedure. Food labelling is now quite rightly the responsibility of the European Union, and any changes would have to be negotiated among all Member States. 
    There are also problems concerning how much information can be put on a food label. It could end up as a huge document that nobody has the time to read.
    The FSA is due to publish a policy statement on labelling next April. 

Earlier this year the House of Commons Select Committee on Environmental Audit said: ‘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 pesticide use’. In light of the comments by MPs, why has the government shelved the idea of a pesticides tax?
Ultimately it will be up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is a pesticides tax, but I am not going to side step the question like that. The government has not shelved the tax, no final decision has been taken*. MAFF’s concerns about a pesticides tax are well documented, and they are not just about farm incomes (although that is a serious issue, given the state of farming), or about the competitiveness of UK agriculture. It is about whether a tax would actually reduce the impact of pesticides on the environment, and whether it will minimise pesticide use. These factors ought to be in the interest both of farmers and consumers, because pesticides cost money – so it is not just a ‘you win or I win situation’. The question is whether a blunt instrument like a tax will deliver a reduction in pesticide use. 

Do you think a pesticide tax should be invested back into agriculture, or hypothecated, perhaps enabling farmers using low pesticide input systems to benefit directly from the income generated by the tax?
Minimising pesticide use can be seen in terms of whether you achieve it by the stick or the carrot. The financial support for organic farming, and the conversion to organic farming, is about providing the ‘carrot’ – farming in ways that very obviously minimise pesticide use – rather than using a ‘stick’ that taxes people who are farming in different ways. The impact of a tax will differ according to location and the type of farm enterprise. But no one has ruled out a tax. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of chlorpyrifos for most over-the-counter insect sprays and lawn and garden products (see PN49 p16). Why is the UK regulatory position more lax with regard to this hazardous organophosphate?
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not banned chlorpyrifos across the board. It has looked at reducing potential exposure to workers applying the pesticide, and to food treated with it. As a result there is a phased voluntary withdrawal of many of the residential and amateur uses. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) has considered the EPA’s interpretation of the toxicological data, and has advised there is no need for any immediate restriction on agricultural or non-agricultural uses in the UK. But it has asked for improved data on the long-term toxicity. 
    PSD has recently obtained further information on the proposed US action in respect of chlorpyrifos use on apples, where there are similar use patterns to that of the UK. I have asked for ACP to look at the case made against this specific use of chlorpyrifos by the EPA, and advise ministers accordingly.
    The EPA review was very thorough, but it is based on different types of usage criteria, which presents difficulties when comparing the regulatory view of one country with that of another. Usage in the US was very different from that in the UK.
    Chlorpyrifos is already being assessed in the UK Review of Anticholinesterase Compounds (OPs and carbamates) and in the European Union review of existing pesticides**. In response to data generated, the ACP has looked at the amateur, agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Two uses, bulb dipping and amateur use in the home, have lost approval for use through lack of support from the manufacturer. At the moment the government is examining the recommendations across the board. It has taken a step-by-step approach looking at all the chlorpyrifos applications, and will continue to do so. 

A recent report of the Pesticides in the Environment Working Group (PEWG) says not enough is known about pesticide usage in many sectors. Do you think that mandatory usage reporting should occur in agriculture (and all other sectors)?
MAFF is at the forefront, together with Sweden and the Netherlands, in carrying out and publishing direct surveys on use of pesticides on farms. However it becomes more complicated in other usage sectors. There are many other non-agricultural uses that are not formally monitored. Exactly how the government pools everything together outside agriculture is quite a challenge. I do not know what the answer is. It is one of those ‘bigger questions’ that I want to look at in greater length. 
    In the meantime I do think it is important that there is appropriate monitoring of use of herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops if, and when they are used. 

The PEWG report also says government departments/agencies have placed too much reliance on examining the effects of pesticides in isolation. What is MAFF doing to ensure that a more integrated approach towards the monitoring of pesticides occurs?
This issue has not been completely ignored in the past. In the case of anticholinesterase pesticides, MAFF has considered the possibility of combination effects between the different substances, and looked at the need for further research – but this is not fully satisfactory. We are aware of the issue – it was raised at the ACP’s Open Meeting in September. The FSA has set up a working group of the Committee on Toxicology to look at cumulative exposure through the diet, of compounds with similar mechanisms of toxicity. So there is some work going on in this area, which is very important for the future assessment of pesticides.

Finally, in the next few years, what would you personally like to achieve at MAFF in relation to pesticides?
I would like to feel that pesticide safety reviews are being appropriately dealt with, and that this process could pre-empt some of the ‘fire-fighting’ pesticide scares that I have had to deal with in the past. I want to have examined the bigger issues, already mentioned. I hope we will have a process that allows pesticides on the market at safety levels that are acceptable for the year 2000, and that they are not approved simply because of historical reasons. I would like people to look back to the year 2000 in the year 2010, and think that the framework standards we use today for pesticide safety are not old fashioned and are up to the best standards possible. 

Baroness Hayman was appointed as Minister of State at MAFF on 29 July 1999. From July 1998 she was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. From May 1997 to July 1998 she was Minister for Roads at DETR. After more than ten years working for the National Health Service, she held the position of Chair of the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London from 1992-1997. Her associations with several national voluntary organisations include Shelter, the National Council for One Parent Families and the Maternity Alliance. She was Labour MP for Welwyn and Hatfield from 1974 to 1979.

* The Chancellor gave a progress report in the Pre-Budget Report in November 2000: ‘The government stated in the November 1999 Pre-Budget, it believes that a tax could, in conjunction with other measures, be a useful tool in addressing the environmental impacts of pesticides. Since the 1999 report, the government has been exploring with the agrochemical industry [through the Crop Protection Association (CPA)] whether its objectives could be better achieved through a partnership approach.’ According to the Chancellor, the government is however concerned that measures proposed by the industry are not sufficient: ‘The government would like to see further improvements to this package and will be holding discussions with the CPA on developing a more substantial package in the run up to the Budget in 2001.’

** At present there are two parallel systems for the approval of pesticides in the UK. Under the first, the evaluation of pesticides is carried out entirely at the national level. However this is gradually being replaced by a second system which is organised by the European Commission. Existing agricultural pesticides are being reviewed under EU Directive 91/414.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No.50, December 2000, p10-11]