THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were now to make a statement, similar to the one being made by my right honourable friend in another place. I will use his own words. This statement relates to the use of certain toxic chemicals in agriculture.
§ "I have received the Report of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage on the persistent organo-chlorine pesticides. Copies of the Report are now available in the Vote Office. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Sir James Cook and the members of his Committee for their work.
§ "The Committee found no evidence of any serious immediate hazard to human beings from the use of these pesticides, or to wild life, apart from certain species of predatory birds. In particular they reject the suggestion that these chemicals may be severe liver poisons or that they can be condemned as presenting a carcinogenic hazard to man. On the other hand, they regard it as a matter of concern that traces of the chemicals are being found in so many situations and express the firm opinion that accumula- 1152 tive contamination of the environment by the more persistent organo-chlorine pesticides should be curtailed. The Committee do not advise that the situation calls for urgent action, but they recommend that a start should be made as soon as possible by restricting certain important uses of aldrin and dieldrin. Other uses of these chemicals, and the use of D.D.T., should be reviewed again at the end of three years.
§ "Consultations have taken place with organisations representing the interests concerned. The manufacturers of aldrin and dieldrin have informed me that they disagree strongly with the Committee's scientific conclusions, since their own scientific researches suggest that, after reaching a certain harmless level of concentration, the chemicals cease to have further cumulative effect. The National Farmers' Unions have drawn attention to the considerable significance that restriction could have for agriculture. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to give effect to the Committee's recommendations and I am glad to be able to tell the House that I have had assurances of co-operation from all the interests concerned in curtailing the use of these chemicals on the lines recommended by the Committee. This will be done through the voluntary schemes operated jointly by the manufacturers and the Government.
§ "The principal changes will be that fertilisers containing aldrin, products for garden use containing aldrin or dieldrin, and dips and sprays for sheep containing these chemicals will cease to be available. Generally, these and other recommended changes will take place at the end of the 1964 season, though in the case of sheep dips more time will be needed and the change will take place at the end of the following season. Further consideration will be given to sanctioning certain relatively minor uses.
§ "The Committee stress that their recommendations are based purely on the situation as they see it in Great Britain and may have no relevance to conditions in other countries. In developing countries in particular these chemicals have made a striking 1153 contribution to solving the problems of malnutrition and disease and, under these different conditions, the gains from their use may well outweigh any potential hazards.
§ "The voluntary scheme has so far worked well, but as scientific knowledge increases and more restrictions are found to be necessary, it comes under increasing strain. The Government are asking the Committee to examine the present voluntary safety arrangements and will consider whether legislation, which the manufacturers of agricultural chemicals now advocate, would be desirable.
§ "The Advisory Committee, whose terms of reference are at present limited to agriculture and food storage, has drawn attention to the use of organo-chlorine pesticides for industrial and domestic purposes such as wood preservation and mothproofing. The Government have decided to extend the Committee's terms of reference to include these purposes and also to enable them to report on other toxic chemicals which the Government might wish from time to time to refer to them. In view of this extension of the Advisory Committee's responsibilities, it will in future be primarily responsible to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but will continue to advise other Ministers as necessary."
§ My Lords, that is the statement. And, of course, my reference to the Report's availability in the Vote Office in another place means that it is also available in the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, we welcome the Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Cook Report and we regard it as a first step. But, having listened to the noble Lord, I think everybody in this House must express concern on learning that the manufacturers of these products do not endorse the Government's attitude or endorse the Cook Committee's recommendations. In view of this, does not the Minister think that, with science advancing so rapidly in this field, the test for toxicity should be taken out of the hands of the manufacturer of the product, and an indepen- 1154 dent central organisation be set up to test all these products and then to recommend that they can be distributed?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I think the noble Lady is a little astray in saying that the manufacturers of these products do not endorse the Committee's recommendations. In fact, one manufacturer has disagreed, and has given reasons for disagreeing which were considered by the Committee. But as the noble Lady will have seen, the Government have continued with the action which the Committee recommended. In fact, another manufacturer of a chemical called heptachlor chose to withdraw that particular chemical slightly before the Committee made its Report. This shows, I think, that the views of its own scientists were going in the same direction.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLCould the noble Lord answer the question whether he thinks the time has arrived when there should be an independent organisation set up to test these substances?
LORD ST. OSWALDNo, my Lords. We always treat the noble Lady's views with great respect, but we believe the voluntary system does work. As I mentioned in the statement, the question of the possible introduction of legislation is being looked at; but at the moment we find the voluntary system works, and we hope it will carry on working as effectively as it has up to now.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, as I had occasion to be somewhat critical of the noble Lord's attitude when this matter was last debated in your Lordships' House, I should like to say that all naturalists in this country will appreciate, I will not say the change of heart, but at any rate the modification of the noble Lord's attitude and that of his Minister in regard to these chlorinated hydrocarbons, which have done such immense damage to the wild life of this country. Nobody disputes the importance of the use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture, but I would remind the noble Lord that it is only recently, as a result of representations by the naturalists and, in another country, Rachel Carson, whose book had such an influence, that it has come 1155 to be recognised that damage is being done.
In thanking the Ministry for the action they have taken, and whilst recognising the great importance of restricting the use of, in particular, aldrin and dieldrin, may I also say that, in spite of the reservations which seemed to be attached to his description of the manufacturers' attitude, we recognise that they also have approached this particular problem with a considerable degree of enlightenment?
May I put one or two questions to the noble Lord? First, may I take it that the Ministry's pamphlet to gardeners which caused so much feeling and was the subject of so much criticism a year ago will now be withdrawn or very substantially modified? May I remind him that it contained the statement that these substances, including those he has mentioned, are
quite safe for use in the garden if properly handled"?My Lords, does he not now agree that the use of aldrin and dieldrin by gardeners who have little idea what they are using, or of the damage they can do, has in fact done immense damage to our insectivorous birds?I would not dispute that these substances are quite safe to human beings if properly handled, but does he not agree that, in destroying the insects, they have also destroyed a vast number of birds? May I put one other point to the noble Lord? Does he not think that the fact that our water is now carrying quantities of these particular substances and appears to be affecting all aquatic birds is in itself a matter which requires further research?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I remember the noble Lord's criticism, which naturally I took very much to heart. I am happy that he is pleased at the direction in which we are moving. He may have noticed that chlorinated hydrocarbons, which we were discussing at that time, have now become organochlorine chemicals. I hope he will not ask me why. As regards the booklet he mentioned, I can tell him that a revised booklet will be issued. I ought to tell him—though he may think this is splitting hairs—that the Committee found no evidence in their studies of 1156 birds being killed by the use of chemicals in gardens. He related that question to the pamphlet, I think. I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on the levels of these chemicals in water. I do not think they are known; but, of course, we shall pay attention to what he has said.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, is the Minister really satisfied that, if it is not safe to use these chemicals in this country, it really is safe, right and proper to send them out to primitive peoples with very much more primitive methods of handling them in tropical agriculture?
§ LORD TAYLORThat is why I asked.
LORD ST. OSWALDI know. I drew attention to the fact that it was the cumulative effect of these chemicals which, though it had not become dangerous, looked as if it might do so. I also said (and this is the statement to which the noble Lord is drawing attention) that in some countries the value of these chemicals in food production might outweigh the existing potential risks.
§ LORD TAYLORBut if these potential risks are there, am I not right in thinking that they are handled in a very sloppy way, quite often, by primitive agriculturists (for which they cannot be blamed), and that there are very real hazards to health arising from them? In fact, the World Health Organisation has a special section dealing with this question.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, that question does not come under the Ministry of Agriculture or Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD TAYLORYes, it does, if the chemicals are exported.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLYou have mentioned them.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, can the noble Lord say why, if the Government have accepted the Committee's recommendations, they will not be implemented, in the case of sheep dips, until 1965?
LORD ST. OSWALDBecause, my Lords, we have to give the sheep farmers time to replace this particular chemical with others equally effective. It would not be fair to withdraw this as quickly as the others are being withdrawn. It is true that there are effective alternative dips, but they have to be used two or three times a season, whereas this has to be used only once a season; and in certain parts of the country physical conditions make it extremely difficult for farmers to do that. We think it is only fair to give time for another effective chemical to be produced.
§ LORD STONHAMIs the noble Lord not saying that he thinks it is only fair to allow the farmers to use up their stocks of poison?
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, would the noble Lord explain why this confident prediction is made; that the accumulation of these poisons in the human body will not do anybody any harm? What research has been done on that subject?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, what I have said, or what I ought to have said, and what I hope I did say, is that there is no evidence that the present levels have done anybody any harm. The fact is that we do not know, and nobody knows, what exactly are the tolerances in the human body. The noble Lord will be well aware—more aware than myself—that tolerances vary between one animal and another, and between animals and human beings but we have no evidence to suggest that the buildup of these chemicals in the human body has reached the point of harmfulness.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHYes, my Lords; but has the noble Lord any evidence that it has not reached that point? He has said that he has no evidence at all. Since when has no evidence become evidence?
LORD ST. OSWALDIt would need positive evidence before we should feel justified in taking any stricter and swifter action than we are taking already. We believe that the action we are taking is sufficiently strict.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHIs it not desirable to have positive evidence of safety?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, following on that last and very important question, can the noble Lord assure us that his Department, or some other Department, is in fact urgently engaged on a research programme which is going to provide evidence, whether it is positive or negative, rather than simply leaving it to—
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLAutopsies.
§ LORD WALSTON—autopsies to show whether or not there is any evidence of any harm? I think the House would he most grateful if the noble Lord could give us that assurance now.
LORD ST. OSWALDYes, my Lords, I can give an assurance of that nature. The Government are referring the Committee's Report to the Chief Medical Officers' Committee on the Medical and Nutritional Aspects of Food Policy for advice on tolerance levels (I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, wanted to know) and in the light of the views of that Committee will again seek the views of the Food Standards Committee as to the making of regulations under the Food and Drugs Act to provide for maximum residue levels. Such regulations—and this is a partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—would have to apply to home produce and imported produce alike. The figures given, which noble Lords will find in Appendix F to the Committee's Report, indicate that, on the whole, imported produce does not compare unfavourably with home produce in the matter of dieldrin residues.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that these long, future programmes that he has read out are in any way comparable to actual scientific experiments designed to decide these very important questions on which there is, on his own admission, no evidence? Referring something to a Committee is not exactly the same as carrying out a scientific experiment.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, the Committee will, of course, have at their command the physical means of making these experiments.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, have I understood the noble Lord to say that his Committee denied that there is any evidence of the death of wild birds, other than of birds of prey, as a result of these chemicals? If so, how can that be reconciled with evidence produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology, which shows that the bodies of a very large number of dead birds, of a wide range of species, have been found, on analysis, to contain a high concentration of these substances? And that they were dead certainly cannot be denied. Can the noble Lord further say how he reconciles what he says with the fact that a large number of eggs were found to be infertile?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, we are back on a subject which the noble Lord and I have discussed before. This learned and conscientious Committee received the sort of evidence that the noble Lord mentioned, and in their conclusions they say that the only convincing evidence of death of birds caused by taking in these chemicals was among predators.