HC Deb 31 July 1975 vol 896 cc2420-30

9.58 a.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

Every time I use a hair spray I have a little worry about its possible effect on my health or that of any other members of the family who may be in the vicinity. There is something inherently unnatural about spraying oneself with chemicals, the possible effects of which are not known. Many people feel the same.

It was not until scientists began to discover a relation between the fluorocarbons which are used as propellants in aerosols and the density of the unknown layer in the atmosphere which acts as a radiation screen round the earth that I and many others became alarmed —so much so that in America the State of Oregon has made the sale of all sprays containing fluorocarbons illegal after February 1977, and other American States are following suit, although I must say that the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission recently decided by three votes to two not to do the same.

So, what is the problem? First, there is the possibility of an increase in skin cancer cases through the increase in harmful radiation reaching the earth's surface and caused by the effects of fluorocarbons on the ozone layer. This is alarming enough, particularly as the increase in such cases was predicted as being very high indeed. According to an article in The New Yorker, the scientists Rowland and Molina calculated that after the year 2050 there would be 40,000 additional cases of skin cancer each year in the United States alone if fluorocarbons production continued to increase at its present rate of 10 per cent. a year until 1990.

However, the real scare is the fear that our human spraying from the billions of cans of aerosols now in use, and ever-increasing, may be seriously threatening our whole environment by destroying the ozone layer irreversibly. That is the real nightmare.

Of course, aerosols are not the only culprits in the use of industrial fluorocarbons. A large part goes into refrigeration and air conditioning, into use by dry cleaning firms and in other ways, and ground cleared of vegetation by burning also releases a substantial quantity of organo-chlorine compounds into the atmosphere.

All this is terrifying, but mercifully, since the original scare, further studies show that natural halocarbons enter the atmosphere in great quantity—probably in a ratio of about 80 per cent. to 20 per cent. of natural halocarbons to industrial fluorocarbons at their present rate of production. As these halocarbons are produced naturally in great abundance and do not appear to have damaged the ozone layer in the way feared for industrial fluorocarbons, it is now believed that there may he some mechanism not yet understood by which they may act as a natural way of keeping the ozone layer from growing too large.

If this is so, it must affect our estimate of the atmospheric effect of fluorocarbons also. What is certain is that the ozone layer fluctuates in concentration in a way that is not properly understood, and that we know very little about how it actually works. Probably all that we can say is that we know just enough about the upper atmosphere to know that we do not know nearly enough. But is this uncertainty any reason why we should continue to use fluorocarbons which may not be absolutely essential when there may be a risk involved?

When the whole subject is so new and uncharted, surely we should be extra-specially careful. It is almost as though we have looked doom in the face and suddenly been given the hope of a reprieve. But that does not mean, surely, that we can continue as before. We need to examine urgently every industrial process that may threaten our environment and be much more stringent in our criteria of approval than we have been in the past.

The commercial attitude is naturally always that we should permit use until proof of harm is produced. But where fluorocarbons are concerned, who is to be responsible for furnishing absolute proof whether they threaten the ozone layer, and is it safe to wait for absolute proof to be established?

From the consumer point of view, I do not believe that we should so wait. While some fluorocarbon uses would be difficult to change quickly, with aerosols that is not the case. In the first place, many products, like paint, do not need to be in spray form at all and I believe that their use as sprays should be discouraged. I know from the answer to a Parliamentary Question that 30 per cent. of aerosols in this country do not contain fluorocarbons, so alternatives are in use and that use should be extended wherever possible.

Finally, where alternatives are not possible—there are some difficulties about hair sprays and deodorant sprays—the aerosol industry and the appropriate Department—probably the Department of the Environment but several others are involved—should work out a timetable for producing alternatives and phasing out fluorocarbons altogether from aerosols. If Oregon can do it by February 1977, there would seem no good reason why we could not operate to a similar deadline, after which fluorocarbons would be banned in aerosols.

This would not be difficult, because many firms are American-based and will probably be phasing out fluorocarbons in their American area to meet environmental demands there, as one firm has already done. We should have regulations to ensure that similar action is taken here. I believe that all aerosols should in any case have adequate ingredient labelling so that the consumers may know what they are using.

It has been said that, because of the uncertainties, all this is unnecessary, but there is another point. In any case there is some evidence that fluorocarbons in aerosols are undesirable on ordinary health grounds as well, so their removal would be beneficial in this respect, quite apart from the environment worry.

I understand that the Department and the aerosol manufacturers have been engaged in discussions in recent weeks. I urge the Minister to give these talks a new urgency and to secure early agreement in the public interest.

I am not impressed by arguments that because the burning of plants to clear land for agricultural development makes a substantial contribution to the release of organo-chlorine compounds into the atmosphere, it is somehow wrong to select aerosols as our first line of attack on this environmental problem. Without ignoring other uses, we should make a start here. It can be done without damage to the industry and with great benefit to both personal and environmental health.

For myself, I am phasing out the use of my hair spray from now on.

10.8 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell)

My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) always raises these environmental matters very attractively. I note that she intends to phase out her use of aerosol hair sprays. I am sure that that will not detract from the attractiveness with which she greets us in the corridors of this place.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject. She has often done us great service in drawing our attention to these matters, and this is not the least of her services to the country in this respect.

"Freons" is an American trade name for a certain class of fluorocarbons. It might help if I explained the properties and characteristics of some fluorocarbons, or, as they are popularly known, "freons". They are used extensively as aerosol propellants—that is, the gas which atomises the aerosol product— as the cooling fluid in refrigeration and air-conditioning plants and as the foaming agents to produce polyurethane foam. Other uses include fire extinguishers and solvents. These are the major sources for the release of fluorocarbons into the atmosphere which results from their use as propellants.

About 1 million tons of fluorocarbons are produced each year throughout the world—about half comes from the USA —and production is increasing at about 10 per cent. per year. Approximately 70 per cent. of fluorocarbons produced in this country are used in aerosol containers, and the rest go into refrigeration units and other applications. In the USA, about half the amount produced is used in aerosols, 30 per cent. as refrigerants, and the rest for other uses.

The particular types of flurocarbons which are now in common use were developed as refrigerants but their properties also made them ideally suited for aerosol propellants. They do not react with the products being discharged, and they have extremely low toxicity to the user.

But it has been suggested that these very features which make them valuable as aerosol propellants may result in eventual changes in the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere, as my hon. Friend suggested, in the way I shall explain.

We are all familiar with the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere—here clouds form and disappear and the whole weather pattern develops and fades. In other words, it is a region of movement —where by its very nature good mixing occurs of any material discharged into it and which is cleansed by the action of rain and snow, although fluorocarbons are unaffected by this action. At a height of about 15 km there is a discontinuity known as the tropopause, above which there is a region called the stratosphere, about which we know more. Unlike the troposphere, this is a region of high stability where vertical mixing is very strongly inhibited. Any compounds which enter the stratosphere are likely to remain there for a long time and this is the main cause of concern. The stratosphere is not just of academic interest—it plays a vital role essential to man.

In the upper stratosphere, at altitudes of 25 to 50 km, ultra-violet radiation from the sun causes the formation of ozone from oxygen. The ozone acts in turn as a barrier to the ultra-violet radiation, and prevents most of the harmful rays from reaching the earth's surface. For fair-skinned races like our own, this is important because ultra-violet radiation causes sunburn. Prolonged and excessive exposure over long periods can also lead to some people developing skin cancer, which is, fortunately, generally curable. The effectiveness of the layer as a barrier to radiation varies both with latitude—it is thinner near the equator—and with time. Both seasonal and longer-term changes occur in the thickness of the layer. Several natural ozone destruction processes occur to balance its photo-chemical formation.

In 1974 American scientists postulated that fluorocarbons would eventually diffuse upwards into the stratosphere where they would dissociate under the action of intense radiation and liberate active chlorine atoms. These would be added to the amounts coming from other man- made compounds, and from the natural load supplied by, for example, volcanic eruptions. The chlorine might catalyse the destruction of ozone, as one of the various destruction processes that natur- ally balance ozone production.

The point of all this is that a reduction in the thickness of the ozone layer would permit more ultra-violet radiation to reach the earth's surface, and might cause an increase in the incidence of sun-burn and skin cancer in man, especially near the equator. Therefore it is a matter of concern.

The Royal Commission on Environ-mental Pollution drew attention to the possible long-term effects of fluorocarbons on the ozone layer in their fourth report which was published in 1974, and in response to their report my Department commissioned an appraisal of the subject by the Atomic Energy Research Establishment. This appraisal has now been completed and is with the Royal Com-mission. It concluded that evidence presently available showed that freons might act as an agent for the destruction of ozone, and that there was a case for further studies.

'The Government therefore accept that there is a need for coordinated research and action on this question, and my Department is accordingly in the process of considering with the Meteorological Office, the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, and other Government Departments and bodies concerned what further work needs to be done to assess the problem adequately.

I emphasise that it is very difficult to determine whether fluorocarbons can have a deleterious effect on the ozone layer—there are problems in making deductions from measurements of the ozone layer, as I have already mentioned, because of the wide natural variations in the thickness of the layer. At present there are many gaps in our knowledge of the stratosphere, and the various chemical reactions that occur in it. Chemicals other than fluorocarbons probably contribute to the stratospheric chlorine as large quantities of other halocarbons are produced naturally.

If any problem does exist, it will be a very long-term one. Reductions in ozone, if any, are not likely to be noticed until towards the end of this century. It will then take many years of exposure to the increased ultraviolet radiation before it has any effect on man in terms of skin cancer. This form of cancer is, as I have said, generally curable. Nevertheless, we are not complacent on that score. Moreover, in this country it is relatively infrequent and is more likely to be used by factors other than ultraviolet radiation.

As my hon. Friend is probably aware, considerable work on the effect of fluorocarbons on the stratosphere has been carried out in America. An American committee of inquiry, the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Inadvertent Modification of the Stratosphere—a body known as IMOS—recently published a report which concluded that fluorocarbon releases to the environment were a cause for concern, and recommended that unless the National Academy of Sciences report, due out next year, showed to the contrary, the use of aerosols containing fluorocarbons should be banned from January 1978, and other uses restricted.

My Department has read the IMOS report with interest, but we feel that in view of the uncertainty of current evidence, the recommendations for a ban are premature. As I have indicated, we are carrying out studies of our own, and will take account of the results of the NAS report when it appears.

As my hon. Friend suggested, the aerosol industry is not unaware of all the activity on this front and is undertaking research into suitable substitutes for fluorocarbons, but these are difficult to find. Despite long-term research into alternatives, fluorocarbons are considered to be the best available propellant at the moment, particularly in cosmetic and medical products.

There is, of course, the argument that aerosols are an unnecessary extravagance in modern society. I suspect that my hon. Friend sympathises with that view. I agree that life would not come to a full-stop without aerosols, but they are undeniably extremely convenient. Moreover, we used 18 million a year for medical purposes and here there is not an equally effective substitute for fluorocarbons. That is a very considerable number.

I might add that there would be a considerable loss to our balance of payments if we banned aerosols, and far-reaching repercussions on the aerosol industry. None of this is to be taken to suggest that we are in any way complacent. We are not.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Maim (Mitcham and Morden)

There is some evidence that the damage has already been caused and that it will not be apparent for a long time to come. Last year I sent to my hon. Friend evidence from the studies in America and reports in Nature that the damage had already been caused.

If other countries take the step of banning aerosols, surely our exports will be harmed if we do not ensure that the aerosols we export are permissible to be used in the countries to which they are exported?

Mr. Howell

We have great concern about the matter.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

Why not a ban?

Mr. Howell

My hon. Friend probably wants to ban everything, but it is better first to find out whether there are any alternative substances which can be used, and obtain the facts on which to take action.

I agree with my hon. Friend that if there is damage the use of so many aero-sols already will have contributed to that damage. That is a reason, above all, why we wish to commission this extremely important further research from the most competent bodies that we have in this country, which I think certainly will be as competent as any other scientific bodies to be found anywhere else in the world.

We are looking at available information on the effects of fluorocarbons on the stratosphere, and are considering the further research that needs to be done to assess the problem fully. We hope to publish a report about the end of the year, but may not by then have sufficient information available to come to clear-cut decisions on the future use of fluorocarbons.

We must recognise that material which we have already liberated may not produce its maximum effect until many years hence—that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) made—but, as I have explained, there is doubt as to exactly what those effects are and exactly what degree of danger exists, and there is at this stage no need for immediate and precipitate action.

What is necessary is to take the matter seriously as a potential problem and mount the necessary studies to improve our knowledge base. I assure the House that that is exactly the Government's approach. We take the matter seriously. We shall commission the best possible research and shall continue to keep it constantly before the House.

Mrs. Joyce Butler

Can my hon. Friend say anything about the possibility of some kind of phasing-out deadline, if he rejects banning altogether at this stage. in order to speed up research into alternatives?

Mr. Howell

As I have said, we expect to have a further report by the end of the year. In addition, we are commissioning further research. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. The moment we reach the conclusion that action of a radical nature such as banning is necessary we shall not hesitate to take it. But that would be premature now. It is a problem which can wait until we have the fuller report in about four months.

I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to raise this matter in the House and, as I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) say attractively on the radio this morning, to prod the Government from to time. We do not intend to be complacent. This is a matter of serious concern. We accept our responsibilities, but there is no need for panic action. There is, how- ever, need for time for us to mount the important research about which I have made an announcement this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.