Fonofos: Effect on Wildlife (Hansard, 2 March 1993)

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
My Lords, at the time of its approval, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides considered all aspects of the use of Fonofos and was satisfied that it was acceptable provided it was used as directed. All reported incidents of suspected wildlife poisoning by pesticides are 535 investigated under the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme. In the past two years only three incidents have been reported which have been positively linked to Fonofos. The future status of the product will be reconsidered when it is reviewed as part of the routine review programme of older pesticides.

§ Lord Buxton of Alsa
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As I understand it, Fonofos and other agrochemicals are given provisional approval then let into the wild, so to speak, to see what damage is done, and then they are subsequently reviewed. Does my noble friend feel that the system is adequate in this particular case, taking into account the fact that the World Health Organisation has described Fonofos as extremely hazardous? In the United States Fonofos is on the extremely hazardous substances list. In the former Soviet Union and Germany it is banned. It is described in the literature as relatively more potent than aldrin and dieldrin, both of which had to be banned here. Does my noble friend really feel happy about that situation?

Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not think my noble friend needs me to point out that there is no such thing as a completely safe pesticide. However, what the Government have to decide in considering the withdrawal of approval is whether there is an unacceptable degree of risk attached to a product on the basis that it is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. It is the Government's view that there is no unacceptable risk attached to Fonofos against the background of incidents reported.

§ Lord Gallacher
My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether he is aware of any accidental poisoning of endangered wild birds by Fonofos?

Earl Howe
My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, in 1991 two incidents were reported where treated seed appeared to be the cause of death of a number of pigeons. In 1992, 10 feral pigeons were killed due to a combination of smoke inhalation from crop burning and ingestion of treated seed.

The Viscount of Falkland
My Lords, is the noble Earl prepared to say whether the Government could reintroduce their successful amnesty for unwanted and dangerous pesticides? Apart from the pesticide mentioned in the Question there is a pesticide called Fenthion—used mainly for the control of crows and foxes —which has recently accounted for the death of five rare red kites. The danger of that pesticide could well be reduced by the reintroduction of the amnesty.

Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Viscount asks an interesting question which is slightly wide of that on the Order Paper. If he cares to table a Question on that matter I shall be pleased to answer it. We should not overlook the effect on cereal crops if approval for Fonofos were to be withdrawn. I believe there would be a very much larger incidence of disease—notably wheat bulb fly—in wheat and barley, resulting in much poorer yields. This is not a step to be taken lightly.

§ Lord Moran
My Lords, am I right in thinking that Fonofos was introduced because, unlike dieldrin and aldrin, it degrades relatively quickly? If that is so, how quickly does it degrade and what is the interval between sowing seed dressed with Fonofos and the time when it can safely be eaten by a wild bird?

Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, makes an important point. Fonofos is an organophosphorus insecticide for soil and seed treatment. Aldrin and dieldrin, on the other hand, are completely different, being organochlorines. They were banned due to their persistence in the environment, as the noble Lord rightly said. Fonofos has only short-term persistence and the risks associated with it can be minimised by good farming practice. The advice from manufacturers is that livestock should not be exposed to any area where Fonofos has been used for a period of six weeks afterwards.

§ Lord Buxton of Alsa
My Lords, I hope my noble friend will register the point that taking account of casualties to birds or wildlife in the field is a flawed system because only large fat birds such as pigeons, partridges or pheasants are likely to be noticed. Probably hundreds of birds that are affected are not noticed. It is only zealots like myself who might see those birds and send them off for analysis. For every bird that is found there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of small seed-eating birds such as finches and songbirds that flutter away into the hedges and bushes and are never seen or heard of again.

Earl Howe
My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's concern on this matter. In many ways this is an inexact science. The Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme is operated by MAFF and it examines incidents involving vertebrate wildlife as well as companion animals and honey bees in England and Wales. Field investigations are carried out by ADAS wildlife biologists. Dead animals are then subjected to post mortem examination at veterinary investigation centres. The results are treated seriously and the general public are not slow to report incidents of this nature.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, the noble Earl said that Fonofos would be due for review in the normal course of events—I do not remember his exact words—but what length of time does he envisage? How often are such substances reviewed? In this case, how long will it be before it is looked at again?

Earl Howe
My Lords, as I said earlier, Fonofos will be reviewed under the rolling programme for older pesticides unless new information comes forward which requires more urgent review. Naturally, the Government would accept the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in that regard. But at present no date has yet been set.