FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS (Hansard, 13 July 1966)

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.

While it is true to say that Government restrictions on certain insecticides, together with the more careful handling of them by the users, has reduced the dangers considerably in recent years, there is still widespread concern about these insecticides which have affected the whole of our environment and have even polluted the sea and affected marine species. D.D.T. and B.H.C. are still suspect and widely used, so much so that the Council for Nature recently drew up a seven-point programme for dealing with the problem. One of these points was that the containers of these chemicals should be more clearly labelled, and that is the purpose of the Bill.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is engaged in regional studies of the effects of pesticides on birds, has also maintained that clearer labelling would be of great help to the users and it has received many letters from people asking for information about the ingredients of particular products and about the dangers in their use.

The Bill has somewhat lightheartedly been described as the "Birds and the Bees Bill", but it may well be that, as in other respects, the birds and the bees, and the effect which insecticides have had on their fertility and their health and their lives, may serve as an early warning system for human beings about possible dangers from insecticides.

Despite the fact that one county council officer has maintained that there is no danger, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association have combined to initiate a general study which is to start next month and to take up to two years and possibly longer examining a great variety of food for possible chemical contamination. They include not only insecticides but all forms of agricultural pesticides and chemicals. They include fruit, vegetables, butter, fish, baby foods, meat, eggs and milk in their 1465 examination. It may be that the fears which many people have are unjustified. Nevertheless, the fact that this study is being undertaken indicates the concern of the people who are best qualified to appreciate the danger.

The National Union of Agricultural Workers has recently given evidence to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals about its concern about the inadequate labelling of containers, their unsafe storage and the dangers from spray drift to people working on the land.

And then there is always the possibility of an accident. The Ministry of Agriculture, to whom I am grateful for its advice and help in the Bill, has stated that there have been no deaths as a result of the use of pesticides over the last 14 years and I accept that.

The Association of British Manufacturers of Agricultural Chemicals has also stated that there is no danger of accidental deaths. Nevertheless, the Principal Scientific Officer at the Chemical Defence Research Establishment at Porton, Wiltshire, has maintained that the organo-phosphorus compounds which are the basis of these modern insecticides are among the most lethal synthetic poisons, and he maintains that, however carefully they are handled, there will will always be danger, and he is certain that there will be occasional accidental deaths from their use.

Part of the danger of accidents was illustrated by the case of the poisoned flock of hens who were fed over a period with corn which was sold as being suitable for feeding, but which was, in fact, seed corn which had been dressed with a lethal quantity of aldrin and mercury. The effect on the flock was that they first lost their fertility and then flopped about as though the hand of death was on them, and finally they died.

What would have been the effects on human beings if that corn had been fed 1466 to birds which were to be sold for human consumption? Can we even be sure that not one egg from that flock found its way on to the market and was eaten by someone who might have had a particular susceptibility to this kind of poison?

There is so much unanimity among all the interests concernecl— and in this I include the Henry Doubleday Research Foundation, which was one of the pioneers in the idea of the Bill—about the need for labelling to state quite clearly the chemical constituents of the particular products, and also to indicate the degree of toxicity, that I ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

I have brought in this Measure three times before, and I hope that the obstruction which prevented it going through to a Second Reading on two occasions will not be repeated on this occasion. The hazard of a General Election coming along while the Bill was between its First and Second readings at the third attempt is not likely to be a danger at this point of time, but I am hopeful that the Bill will this time get on to the Statute Book and he of great assistance to the thousands of farmers and millions of gardeners who like to feel that they are treating dangerous chemicals with the necessary amount of care and caution and who deserve the labelling which will enable them to do so.