HC Deb 06 August 1980 vol 990 cc221-2W
Dr. Roger Thomas

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether facilities are available in the United Kingdom for estimating the amount of 2,4,5-T in body tissues and for the measuring of its dioxin contaminant, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin if he will consider applying such monitoring processes to those people quoted in the publication "Not One Minute Longer!", prepared by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, who have been exposed to these chemical preparations; and if he will consider instituting the random testing of workers who handle these preparations at any stage from their importation to their ultimate application as a herbicide.

Dr. Vaughan

[pursuant to his reply, 25 July 1980, c. 437–38]: I am advised that, although facilities are available for estimating the amounts of 2,4,5-T and the dioxin contaminant 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in various substrates, test methods specifically for the analysis of particular body tissues would first need to be adapted and checked. Several practical problems need to be taken into account however when considering the value of developing such tests. 2,4,5-T is excreted from the body over a period of approximately five days so that the results and significance of such tests would rapidly diminish with time elapsed after exposure. TCDD is preferentially absorbed by certain body tissues, for example liver and fat, and in contrast is excreted very slowly at levels which are likely to be below the present limits of detection. In addition, interpretation of any test results would be hampered by the lack of reliable data relating concentrations of 2,4,5-T or TCDD in urine (the only practical medium for routine monitoring tests) with observable symptoms of ill-health or possible long-term effects. The circumstances of the individuals quoted in the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers' dossier "Not One Minute Longer!" are being examined by the Government's advisory committee on pesticides and the need for any individual clinical monitoring will be considered in the light of its assessment and recommendations.

The introduction of health monitoring measures for workers is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I understand that consideration is being given by the Employment Medical Advisory Service to the advisability of carrying out a planned programme of checks on the urine of workers handling the herbicide 2,4,5-T but no decision has yet been reached. Random tests would be inappropriate because of the intermittent and short-term basis on which the herbicide is handled.

Forward to