FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS (Hansard, 22 December 1964)

§ Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the labelling of farm and garden chemicals, and matters related thereto. In recent years there has been growing disquiet about the possible effects on the balance of nature, wild life, and, perhaps, human beings themselves, of the increase in volume of toxic chemicals which are used on the land. Some of these chemicals are used to destroy the insects which reduce crop yields, and these are the chemicals with which the Bill is concerned—more especially the organo-chlorine pesticides which are most effective in their destruction of harmful insects, but also leave behind the most persistent residues.

No one questions the value of much of this modern development, but, just as in the case of road traffic we have had to institute not only a Highway Code, but also increasing restrictions and limitations to deal with the problem of increasing traffic, so, with the problem of chemicals on the land, we are learning all the time, and it is becoming necessary to improve the safety regulations and to make them more generally applicable, instead of merely to the agricultural workers who are protected by certain precautions in this respect at present.

A great deal has been done already, but we must not develop a sense of false security about the situation. There are three things which seem to me to be particularly necessary. First, we must realise what the problem is and the effect it is having on wild life in this country. In spite of the ban which has been imposed, in part, on the more drastic of these toxic pesticides—aldrin, dieldrin, eldrin and heptachlor—bodies and eggs of birds are coming in for examination for toxic residues in the same number as before. The number of birds of prey increased to 82 in the past year, as compared with 57 the year before.

The use of dieldrin in sheep dip has caused an alarming decline in the fertility of golden eagles in Western Scotland, and more than one of these birds of prey are now threatened with complete extinction. Far from the problem diminishing from what is being done, it 1055 is becoming more widespread. An increasing number of observers are becoming concerned about the build-up of very heavy contamination in marine species of all kinds. In addition, not only are harmful insects destroyed, but bees, in their hundreds of thousands, are often wiped out by aerial crop spraying.

I have no figures concerning the possible effects on human beings in this country, but authorities in the United States have estimated that the average American citizen takes in about 50 mgs. of D.D.T. per year, mainly through the imbibing of food, and that he has an average body content of 150 mgs. of D.D.T. From time to time a number of cases have been reported to me of unexplained sickness in this country. Relatives and friends of these patients have been convinced that some crop sprays of this kind caused the minor sickness, which could not otherwise be accounted for.

The second thing we need to do is to educate the users of toxic chemicals. It is too often assumed that everybody using these insecticides on the land is highly trained, skilled and knowledgeable about them. This is not so. A great many of these chemicals are used by enthusiastic but not very knowledgeable amateur gardeners in all kinds of sprays in their garden, and they frequently give an extra spray for luck without thinking of the possible consequences on their pets, their neighbours, and possibly even themselves.

It is important that we should realise what is happening. I have been very disturbed to learn that a number of farmers have stockpiled several years' supply of sheep dip containing dieldrin in order to beat the ban on that chemical when it comes into force, and that in some cases they have been encouraged by distributors to do this. Clearly, there is a great deal of educational work to be done to make the users realise their responsibilities.

One way in which we can improve the position is by a better labelling of 1056 the containers of these toxic chemicals. It must be made possible for nontechnical users to see quite clearly what are the ingredients in the cartons, bottles, or tins. The voluntary scheme which was introduced by the manufacturers is very good as far as it goes, but I am not alone in believing that the time is long overdue for the scheme to be made mandatory and applicable to everybody who produces these chemicals.

It is also important that there should be a clear warning of toxicity on the labels of these containers, in the form of a distinctive mark or colour, so that it is possible to see at a glance whether or not the chemical has dangerous properties. It is important to realise that as the more deadly chemicals are banned, there is the danger that those which might be equally harmful, although rather longer term in their effect, may be used in increasing quantities by people who believe them to be safe. There is some evidence to show that this is happening with B.H.C. and D.D.T. These are universally used in shops and homes, as well as on farms and for gardens, with great liberality and with very little consideration on the part of those who use them.

I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in my very modest Bill, which is confined to the labelling of insecticides, and which, I think, will make a small but useful contribution to the solution of what is now a very great and serious problem.