HL Deb 27 February 2002 vol 631 cc238-9WA
Lord Beaumont of Whitley

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will give details of any approved uses of pesticide chlorfenvinphos since the previously agreed revocation date of 31 December 2001 with reasons for each extension of approval beyond that date, the dates on which each extension was granted, and the periods of time for which each approval has been extended. [HL2863]

Lord Whitty

Since 31 December 2001. only one approval for chlorfenvinphos-containing products has been granted. The approval for the product, Birlane 24, has been extended from its original expiry date of 31 December until 25 July 2003. This has allowed an approval to continue for important uses on swedes and turnips.

The extension was needed because of a difference between the UK and the EC review programmes with respect to the time allowed for withdrawn products to be used up by growers.

Chlorfenvinphos has not been supported by the manufacturer in either programme, and under the normal terms of the UK review its approval would have expired on 31 December. The extension was granted to bring the approval into line with the expiry date in the EC, in order that UK growers would not be disadvantaged.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will state the reasons for the new condition of approval, announced by the Pesticide Safety Directorate on 19 December 2001, which restricts the approved rates of use for pesticide products containing carbendazim and thiophantemethyl which are used as a post-harvest dip treatment on apples and pears. [HL2864]

Lord Whitty

The maximum approved rates for these compounds were reduced as it became apparent that their continued use at these rates might result in an exceedence of the maximum residue level (MRL ) on apples and pears. Such an exceedence would not result in a chronic risk to consumers. It is known, however, that the compounds are effective against apple and pear storage diseases at 50 per cent of the maximum approved rates, and it is already horticultural practice to use a 50 per cent rate. Action has therefore been taken to reduce the maximum approved rate by 50 per cent which still provides effective disease control, but which will not result in a breach of the MRL.