This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/01/mps-call-for-release-of-key-documents-connected-to-farm-poisoning
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| MPs call for release of key documents connected to farm poisoning | MPs call for release of key documents connected to farm poisoning |
| (2 days later) | |
| MPs are demanding that ministers release key documents and correspondence connected to the decision to end the mandatory use of a chemical sheep dip by farmers. | MPs are demanding that ministers release key documents and correspondence connected to the decision to end the mandatory use of a chemical sheep dip by farmers. |
| The call comes as the government made a partial release of evidence to explain why it ended use of the chemical. The documents, published for the first time, show ministers were advised to end use of the chemical because of its failure to eradicate the disease (sheep scab) caused by the parasite. | The call comes as the government made a partial release of evidence to explain why it ended use of the chemical. The documents, published for the first time, show ministers were advised to end use of the chemical because of its failure to eradicate the disease (sheep scab) caused by the parasite. |
| But campaigners suspect that the government knew about the health impacts of using organophosphate-based (OP) chemicals before it decided to end compulsory use in 1992, but were worried about legal action from manufacturers. | But campaigners suspect that the government knew about the health impacts of using organophosphate-based (OP) chemicals before it decided to end compulsory use in 1992, but were worried about legal action from manufacturers. |
| Thousands of farmers suffered debilitating ill health after using the chemicals under government regulations, to protect sheep against parasites. The former MP Lord Tyler said he was told privately by the then farm minister John Gummer (now Lord Deben) that he was only allowed to say that dipping had been ineffective. | |
| “Gummer confessed privately to me in 1992 that he was advised by lawyers that a fuller explanation of the reasons for the withdrawal of the compulsory dipping order would have resulted in very unwelcome and expensive legal action from the manufacturers,” Tyler told the Guardian. “So they claimed it was due simply to lack of proven efficacy.” | “Gummer confessed privately to me in 1992 that he was advised by lawyers that a fuller explanation of the reasons for the withdrawal of the compulsory dipping order would have resulted in very unwelcome and expensive legal action from the manufacturers,” Tyler told the Guardian. “So they claimed it was due simply to lack of proven efficacy.” |
| One of the documents that have already been released, dated January 1992, reports the former foreign secretary and MP William Hague being told after raising the issue in parliament, that there was “no clear evidence that sheep dips cause any unacceptable human health risk when used in accordance with the label instructions”. | One of the documents that have already been released, dated January 1992, reports the former foreign secretary and MP William Hague being told after raising the issue in parliament, that there was “no clear evidence that sheep dips cause any unacceptable human health risk when used in accordance with the label instructions”. |
| However, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has not yet released the results of blood tests known to have been undertaken in 1991 and 1992 on farmers who had reported illness. Virginia Murray, the toxicologist who led the blood analysis work at the poisons unit at Guy’s and St Thomas hospital and currently working for Public Health England, has said previously that blood samples showed farmers were being affected. | However, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has not yet released the results of blood tests known to have been undertaken in 1991 and 1992 on farmers who had reported illness. Virginia Murray, the toxicologist who led the blood analysis work at the poisons unit at Guy’s and St Thomas hospital and currently working for Public Health England, has said previously that blood samples showed farmers were being affected. |
| The Guy’s hospital tests are not mentioned in any of the documents, but ministers were advised that “the risk to farm workers of adverse reactions have caused increasing public concern”. They were also told that there had been 174 incidents of adverse reactions in people following the use of the chemical between January 1991 and April 1992. | The Guy’s hospital tests are not mentioned in any of the documents, but ministers were advised that “the risk to farm workers of adverse reactions have caused increasing public concern”. They were also told that there had been 174 incidents of adverse reactions in people following the use of the chemical between January 1991 and April 1992. |
| A spokesperson for Defra confirmed it would respond to the MPs request to release this new evidence. Conservative MP Neil Parish, chair of the environment, food and rural affairs select committee, said he would not rule out an inquiry into whether farmers were misled about the reasons for the government ending compulsory use of the chemical until he had seen this evidence. | A spokesperson for Defra confirmed it would respond to the MPs request to release this new evidence. Conservative MP Neil Parish, chair of the environment, food and rural affairs select committee, said he would not rule out an inquiry into whether farmers were misled about the reasons for the government ending compulsory use of the chemical until he had seen this evidence. |
| Gummer himself has said he always consulted the “best available science” during his time as a minister but that he could not explain why he made the decision without access to all the relevant documents from the period. He did not respond to requests to comment about the recent release of documents or the remarks of Lord Tyler when approached by the Guardian. | Gummer himself has said he always consulted the “best available science” during his time as a minister but that he could not explain why he made the decision without access to all the relevant documents from the period. He did not respond to requests to comment about the recent release of documents or the remarks of Lord Tyler when approached by the Guardian. |
| • This article was amended on 3 June 2016 to clarify a remark by Lord Tyler: in the fourth paragraph, “the chemical” was replaced by “dipping”. |