The Royal Commission was asked by Government Ministers to study the pesticide issue following a decision by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that suggested that there was no need to protect bystanders and rural residents from pesticides
The Royal Commission had to address what they considered to be a complex and controversial issue - that human health might be at risk from pesticides used in agriculture.

Their report was released on 22nd September 2005 and suggests that there is sufficient uncertainty about the science to give reason for concern. They therefore recommend additional measures to help protect the public, including 5 metre "Buffer Zones", better advice for those exposed from doctors, improved exposure models and more research to ensure the accuracy of those models, tightening of the regulations, and a more precautionary approach.

The Commission wrote that the Minister concluded ‘… despite existing advice, there is clearly a perception that current arrangements are inadequate. I have listened to the concerns of campaigners who hold strong views about how crop spraying has affected their health. I believe the time is now right for a fresh and independent appraisal of the basis for risk assessment. That is why I have asked the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to examine the evidence on which the current system is based and the reasons for people’s concerns’.

The Commission collected evidence from people who believed that their health had been adversely affected by pesticides and from their doctors.
Like other Government committees before them the Commission stated that "No-one can dispute that those individuals who have reported ill-health, which they claim is due to pesticides being sprayed, are genuinely ill."(Sir Tom Blundell 22 October 2005) and
"There is no dispute that some people who have been exposed to pesticides have become ill." (6.4)

Since publication of the report both sides of this debate have seized on aspects of the report to criticise both the Royal Commission and those who claim that their illnesses are caused by pesticides.
This is an attempt to examine what went wrong.

We must first recognise that the Royal Commission members are scientists and professionals who have already produced reports in which they have raised concerns about the safety and effects of chemicals in the environment. As they state in their report "The Members of the Commission have a wide range of expertise and experience in natural and social sciences, medicine, engineering, law, economics, and business. They serve part-time and as individuals, not as representatives of organisations or professions".
When the Royal Commission started work on this project the Government already had a great deal of evidence demonstrating the harm caused to people and the environment in the form of submissions to their own consultations.
For reasons unknown the officials involved chose to ignore that evidence and left rural dwellers living close to frequently sprayed fields with no protection, no warnings of impending spraying operations and no right to know or to obtain details to the chemicals to which they were being exposed.
In 2.3 the Commission writes "As a result many feel that they have on the whole been disregarded or even obstructed in gaining recognition of their concerns.
Effectively nothing has changed.

<The conclusions of the Commission are not binding on Government.

The Commission states that the industry was opposed to further regulation and access to information while those members of the public who made comment were in favour of greater regulation and a right to access details of chemicals used.
The more cynical amongst us might ask why the industry is so frightened to make the public aware of their activities but there are apparently good reasons for this, and not least the additional burden of paperwork in an already highly regulated industry.
However. Regulations are only a burden if they are enforced and current enforcement is poor.

Pesticides include a wide range of chemicals such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides and soil sterilants and other chemicals in the commercial formulations, which all have different actions within the metabolism of the human body. Some effects are direct and others are caused by the reaction of the body to the presence of those chemicals as in allergic reactions or hormone imbalances triggered by chemicals that mimic natural hormones.
Cause and effect are not easy to relate, especially given potentially long delays between exposure and the onset of symptoms.

The Commission writes that "currently around 275 active ingredients are authorised for use as pesticides in the UK, and around 1,000 different co-formulants can be used in the final formulations.
This web site has reported for many years that the testing procedures for these chemicals are grossly flawed and that dangerous assumptions are made during the approvals process.

The Commission also states (1.29) that For approximately 135 active ingredients (or combinations of active ingredients) used in the UK there is a statutory requirement to have five metre or one metre strips of land alongside watercourses, known as ‘buffer zones’, or ‘buffer strips’, in which these pesticides are not applied because they are highly toxic to aquatic life.
So for half of the chemicals used the buffer strips are already in place to protect nature and water - but not man.
In their report the Commission states (5.26) that the Advisory committee on Pesticides themselves had recommended that "the proposal of five m[etre] set-aside strips in the proposed [Common Agricultural Policy] CAP reforms should be supported"
In 5.85 the Commission members demonstrate that they missed the point regarding residential exposures when they state In our view, five metres would be a reasonable zone width in line with the approach taken for watercourses. It would also reflect the need to protect children since drift at 0.9 metres above ground level is initially much greater than at a height of 1.9 metres, but declines to only slightly higher values five metres away from the sprayer
The buffer zones protect water courses from run-off but not from drift.
Children are not protected by 5 metre buffer zones because drift can travel for miles and children often play in recently treated fields, especially those bordering their homes.

Did the Royal Commission choose 5 metres in order to appease Industry and the EU?

Despite the protests already heard from sectors of the agricultural press the costs of such buffer zones to agriculture under the current EU regime could be minimal if the Commission recommendations are ever enforced. Our recommendation (see 5.86) that five metre unsprayed buffer zones should become compulsory between areas treated with agricultural pesticides and residential properties is therefore compatible with current opportunities for set-aside land. (5.106)
"However, for most farms, it is likely that the introduction of pesticide-free buffer zones will require only a relatively small proportion of land to be taken out of pesticide-based production." (5.120)
The proposals appear to be designed for minimal impact rather than maximum protection for public health.

The Government had, the Commission reported, begun a "Pilot Study" in which a system of notifying residents about impending spraying operations was being trialed. The conclusions were intended to be released to Ministers in late summer 2005 but the Royal Commission report was not released until September and there is still no word on the success or otherwise of those trials. Many residents were annoyed that people in the trial areas were given information that could protect their health while the majority had to continue suffering in ignorance.
The Commission rejected the view that information on chemicals used should only be available via a third party.
"Defra proposed that information on what had been sprayed should be made available through a third party only. We rejected this approach as untenable over 20 years ago in our Tenth Report, Tackling Pollution – Experience and Prospects, and were disappointed to find it still being used to justify policy today." (6.16)

Although the Royal Commission suggest that the numbers of people affected by pesticides is low (1.35) they appear to have overlooked their own observations that the reporting systems are grossly flawed and that poisonings are internationally recognised to be under-reported. Thus, when they state that "One explanation of the small number of reported cases of ill health from the exposed population could be the rare occurrence of this combination of circumstances." they are perhaps forgetting that the one certain method that will reduce the number of reported cases is the failure of doctors and investigatory bodies to report accurately on the cases they see.

In 2.9 the Commission reports that evidence from the residents and bystanders visited identified a series of well-defined acute symptoms immediately following pesticide spraying. It is known that some residents had produced video evidence demonstrating how operators often ignored best practices when spraying and others had medical opinion supporting the links with pesticide exposure and their adverse health effects. Commission members witnessed Parkinson-like tremors and reported that they saw people with numerous chronic complaints (2.10) and that doctors expressed concern about cancers including lymphomas and leukaemia with possible links to endocrine system disruption. ME, CFS and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity were reported and the Commission observed that they were all genuine and often distressing symptoms.
Failed by the Government controlled medical system many exposed individuals had resorted to tests and treatments at their own expense by complementary and alternative medical practitioners in the private sector. (2.13) but what the Commission failed to say was that many doctors in desperation had also had to follow that route in order to gain some help for their patients. Nor did they say that Government officials and doctors then pour scorn on the patients for seeking help outside of the areas the government itself controls.

The Commission admit in 2.16 that There is clear evidence that chemicals used in pesticides do have biological effects in humans, which could explain disordered physiological processes that are considered to underlie some of the disease states observed in those reporting ill health. There are many examples of very similar molecular targets shared by target organisms and humans.

In 2.20 the Commission "agree with the view of Professor Coggon, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), that risk assessment needs to be backed up with sound epidemiological studies and health surveillance" but epidemiology is notoriously difficult when the triggering agents are so widely used, when some people are susceptible to very low doses, and when the affected population is mobile and has no way to confirm what chemicals, or mixtures of chemicals, they are exposed to - without the additional problem of the variable delay in symptom development and in the form the effects take in individuals.(2.54)
The Advisory Committee is itself divided regarding the safety of low dose exposures.
Even given the difficulties noted above epidemiology studies were admitted by the Commission to have demonstrated a link between pesticide exposure and Parkinsonism, cancers, neurological disorders and adverse reproductive effects.
However the positive links were countered by suggestions that some research may have been flawed but in 2.37 they state regarding Multiple Chemical Sensitivity that the evidence provides an increasing case for the existence of MCS as a distinct clinical entity.
This is remarkable given that their own members had earlier suggested that there was no such problem and that there was no toxicological basis for the serious, debilitating, and socially isolating, problem that is MCS.[RCP(02)821 A Review of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) Minutes of a meeting held on 2-3 May 2002 at The Sanctuary by Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.] Quote "Sir Brian Follett explained that it was described as a toxicological loss of tolerance although questioned whether it really existed. The Secretary reported that some authorities had described MCS as a self-reinforcing belief: sufferers attributed all ailments to exposure to chemicals regardless of whether actual exposure had occurred."
And again when interviewing Lord Melchett on the 6th January 2005 "you write about the certainty of many people being affected by multiple exposure, a multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. Once again a plausible hypothesis but one which, we have not been able to pin down with a very compelling scientific account of."
At least it seems they now recognise the weight of international evidence supporting MCS.

Although the Commission states that a risk can only be described as acceptable if the public regards it as such. in practice it is not the public but the Government that determines the level of acceptable risk.
The public are largely ignored by government advisers.

Amazingly in 2.42 the Commission states that "Pesticide testing differs from pharmaceutical testing. For pesticides no toxic effect is permitted" but the entire document refers to the toxic effects in humans of pesticides and the Commission was given evidence that doctors had diagnosed poisoning by pesticides.
Despite admitting the limitations of animal testing - the very testing techniques that resulted in the placing on the market of pesticides which then had to be withdrawn because of their adverse effects - the Commission then calls for more animal testing. There is no logic in this approach.
Animals cannot tell us when they feel nauseous, tingling sensations in their limbs, if they have sore throats or headaches, that their thought patterns are confused, or a host of other effects that can seriously interfere with normal human life. In addition chemicals that have no effect on some animals can be very dangerous in other species.
e.g. Chocolate is loved by humans but extremely toxic to dogs. Chemicals that have passed the "Hen Test" have still caused peripheral neuropathy in man. It is interesting to note that pesticide manufacturers were once advised by Government regulators to change the type of experimental rat used to a less susceptible species because too many animals were dying before the toxicological tests had been completed!
However the Commission was "impressed with the testing regime undertaken for pesticides".(2.47)
And yet they admit that "Currently, there are no animal models available to reflect all of the chronic ill health effects that many residents and bystanders have associated with pesticide spraying". (2.48)(2.51)

Even studies of actual exposure levels are lacking and the Commission was surprised to find that no efforts have been made to establish a database of baseline information for agricultural pesticides that are commonly used in the UK. Nor have any studies been made to determine the actual exposures of rural residents.(2.61).
Unfortunately the newest commissioned studies will require exposure levels sufficient to produce measurable metabolites in the urine and yet residents have reported respiratory and other effects at exposure levels far lower than these.

Medical training in toxicology does not appear to have advanced since the British Medical Association report "Pesticides Chemicals and Health" produced in 1990.
Doctors are directed to the National Poisons Information Service but the victims of organophosphorus sheep dips and pesticides have demonstrated a failure to properly diagnose poisoning even in occupational exposures. The lack of data was criticised even by the COT report on organophosphates.
It has long been suspected that the close links of members of the NPIS with both industry and the Government regulators goes some way to explaining the failure of this organisation in recognising non-suicidal incidences of pesticide poisoning.

The Government provided all GPs with a book giving the symptoms of pesticide poisoning and advice on treatment in 1996 but the Commission admits that "General practitioners receive large volumes of material, and a decade after the handbook was distributed it is likely that awareness of it is low."
This does not help the unfortunate person or family exposed to pesticides.

The Government's Health and Safety Executive is seen as the first point of call for reporting incidents of pesticide exposure but they have an appalling record and their Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel plays no role in defining a causal role for pesticide related illness. In any event PIAP only acts on information provided by HSE and government doctors and it is admitted that only some 30% of reported cases involve HSE doctors from their Employment Medical Advisory Service.
PIAP is only concerned with acute exposures and is therefore not interested in the potentially more serious long-term chronic exposures experienced by rural residents, but there are recorded instances where they have even failed to recognise documented acute exposures in occupational incidents.
The Commission noted the inadequacy of the arrangements for monitoring human health effects in relation to pesticide spraying.(2.94) It is no surprise therefore to see that the Commission calls for a radical reform of the reporting and investigatory systems.(2.85)

Unfortunately the Commission reports in 2.96 that "the Chief Executive of the HPA was confident that, with adequate funding, a proactive system to deal with pesticide exposure in residents and bystanders could be set up within the current structure of the HPA in England and Wales." but controlling members in the Health Protection Agency have previously been implicated in hiding the true effects, and scientific knowledge, of occupational organophosphorus poisoning.
Passing responsibility from HSE/PIAP to the HPA will simply pass the problem from one failed government body to officials who have already failed in their duty to the victims of pesticides.

In 2.105 the Commission report "We have tried to review the evidence afresh and to reconsider the hypothesis that their reported ill health may be linked to pesticide exposure. We are not persuaded that the evidence from individual cases is so weak as to rule out this possibility."
Those of us who gave the Commission firm scientific evidence supporting the diagnosis of poisoning by pesticides are surprised by the weakness of this statement.

Much space in the report is given to application methods for pesticides but this misses the point.
The problem with pesticides involves not only the techniques used to apply them but also the failure of operators to adhere to guidelines and regulations and the release of pesticides from the confines of the treated crop via drift, fume and vapour release in the days or weeks after application.
Although the Commission recommends (5.68) that "Anyone using agricultural pesticides must be fully trained." there have been many instances when operators who are fully trained and hold the relevant certificates have failed to follow the rules and their actions have harmed others.
The Commission was informed that some people who are susceptible to pesticides are unable to go outside their houses for up to two weeks after spraying applications when some chemicals are used due to the adverse effects on their health. Others have traced the source of the pesticides affecting their health to applications many miles from their homes.
No application method currently available will prevent that form of exposure and this reinforces the importance of the need to ensure that pesticides pose no risk to human health BEFORE they are approved for commercial use.
Although the Commission suggests that the smell of pesticides is often due to the co-formulants and not to the active ingredient it should be noted that many of those co-formulants are themselves toxic chemicals that may trigger symptoms in susceptible individuals, and may also be the cause of serious long-term illness.
The Commission refers to the various routes of exposure - "Direct uptake may occur as a result of penetration through skin (dermal absorption) and eyes, or through inhalation. Indirect uptake may result from ingestion or contact with residues on clothing, surfaces, garden produce or dust." but they do not appear to mention that the homes of rural residents can be contaminated resulting in long-term exposures that could be continuous.
No changes to droplet size will remove that exposure route for residents
How many people realise that their pets, or even their children, could have walked through treated crops and carried the chemicals into their homes and that those chemicals have now penetrated deep into their carpets, bedding and furniture?
Many farmers, despite the regulations, spray across footpaths. Some even use pesticides to destroy crops that have been sown across footpaths in order to ensure that walkers know the true route for the path.
The calculations used by the PSD to determine bystander exposure do not take into account the long-term intakes due to contaminated clothing, homes and food, or the increased exposures due to the persistence of the contamination.
The Royal Commission recognises some of the weaknesses in the calculations which do not even attempt to address individual susceptibility (3.39)and it is not surprising that they expressed serious concerns about the current method of assessing resident and bystander exposure to pesticides.(3.50)

The Royal Commission has reported on the difficulties for those who have been damaged by pesticides to obtain a remedy through the courts but they were also aware of the near impossibility even for those occupationally exposed to obtain either a remedy or their rightful payments under the Social Security system.
The dishonesty encountered by some of those applying for Industrial Injury Benefit when Agricultural pesticides have been involved was reported in detail to the Royal Commission.
That deception is a national scandal given that the Industrial Injury system was introduced because there were known risks of permanent disability caused by occupational exposures and it was recognised that those workers who risked their health deserved to be supported should something go wrong. Effectively those who are trying to protect the chemical industry have betrayed them. Denied those benefits by Government agencies many of the workers have also found that government agencies and lawyers then work to deny them justice in the courts, even when employer negligence is obvious.
It is provably untrue to suggest that breaches of regulation will strengthen any court case.
No matter how serious the breach of regulation or pesticide law it appears that the culprit is likely to escape because they rely on the difficulty in proving causation and the failure of science and the medical profession to offer supporting opinion to the degree of certainty now required by the court. Although Civil cases, and benefit claims, should be decided on the "balance of probabilities" which is as low as "more probable than not" or 51%, the causation aspects of every case now have to be proven to scientific degrees of certainty without the scientific backing to make such a standard achievable.
It appears that no injured person will be permitted to gain full compensation for injuries caused to them by pesticides and it has been reported that during training sprayer operators are informed that pesticides are capable of causing them permanent injury but they would never be allowed to prove it!

Residents, bystanders, and the users of pesticides should theoretically be protected buy the regulations referred to by the Royal Commission.(5.2)
The problem is that the regulations are rarely enforced. It is a matter of record that even when pesticides are illegally used it is rare that the enforcing authorities refer to the regulations that supposedly protect human health during prosecutions. Presumably any prosecution that is successful under public safety or Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations would demonstrate that pesticides can and do harm people and such a result would provide evidence that the testing procedures and safety claims are not sufficient to protect the public.

The Commission recommends that "courts should be empowered to suspend or revoke the right to spray where operators have been convicted of breaking the law" (5.94) but the key phrase there is "where operators have been convicted" because few cases ever face court or conviction due to the prohibitive standards of proof required and the reluctance of the authorities to take action.
The Approvals system has failed us because many approved products have later been withdrawn either because they were causing harm or because the manufacturers could not support their continued use.
It has failed us because there is no independent check on the accuracy of information provided by the manufacturers.
The testing regimes themselves are inadequate and do not test for the full range of effects on humans either for individual chemicals or for the many mixtures and combined exposures experienced by residents.
There is a built in assumption that no ill-effects occur at exposure levels below the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL) calculated from the NOAEL.(2.50)
The ACP stated that "there should not be a movement away from using the AOEL for bystander risk assessment" (5.26) and yet residents have potentially far greater exposures due to lack of protective equipment and prolonged exposures.
The claim that no ill-effects occur below these levels is not a sustainable scientific argument.
Although the report states (5.31) that "it was made clear that the ACP has not been able to identify a toxicological cause of ill health" there are other reactions within the body which do not depend on direct toxicological actions - in the accepted use of the term.
Hormone imbalance can occur long before toxic effects are observable and the levels at which peanut allergy can be life threatening are too low to be measured.
It is not the toxic effect of the chemical but the reaction of the body to the presence of the chemical that is important.
Exposures to residents have not been measured and there is no reliable data supporting safety claims.(5.8)
The Pesticide Safety Directorate and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides have failed to advise Ministers or to take action to protect the public when evidence has been reported to them that safety data are flawed, and that ill-health has resulted from exposure.
The Health and Safety Executive has failed in its duty to enforce the regulations, failed in its duty to properly investigate incidents, and failed to bring prosecutions against those whose misuse of pesticides has caused harm to human health.
The National Health Service has, under the control of the Department of Health, failed to properly diagnose and treat those who have been harmed by pesticides - unless there is obvious suicidal intent, for which the blame falls on the patient.
They have also hidden evidence and refused to release vital medical records to patients and their lawyers.
The Department of Work and Pensions has been inconsistent in its recognition of pesticide-induced illness and has been proven to use deception in order to deny both diagnosis and rightful social security benefits to the claimants.
Numerous Government Departments simply ignore evidence that would demonstrate their failings.

It is not surprising that the Royal Commission was critical of the actions of these bodies.
"In our opinion, in this instance, the assurance given to Ministers represented too sanguine a view of the robustness of the scientific evidence." (5.42)
"Framing the issue so that the science appeared not to be in question has led to controversy and fuelled mistrust of the PSD for some." (5.46)
"Conducting a consultation in this manner runs against government guidelines"....."At the very least this approach appears to have once more exacerbated the level of mistrust between some members of the public and the PSD." (5.48)

Could it be that the failure to protect the public is due to the reliance of the PSD on income from the Industry it regulates? - "In the year 2003/04 the PSD received £4.363 million from the levy for regulatory work which includes monitoring and compliance and £2.791 million in industry fees for evaluating applications.(5.50)
As the Commission reports "There is a danger of a conflict of interest, which may be greater where funding is derived from outside government."(5.51)
"On occasion the importance of health and environmental considerations appears to be subordinate to pest control."(5.53)

The key recommendations from the Royal Commission are:

The Royal Commission has covered an incredible amount of ground in a very short time in order to compile this report and they have obviously come under concerted pressure from industry and government officials but the majority of their conclusions are sound and offer a way forward to a safer environment for those living near fields where pesticides are frequently sprayed.
The greatest criticism of the report must be the failure to acknowledge the evidence provided to the Commission by those who have had firm confirmation that their illnesses were caused by pesticide exposure.
That failure left those made ill by pesticides to face further unfounded criticism in the media.

Sadly for the Royal Commission the failure to confirm that they possessed supporting evidence has also given those in industry the opportunity to belittle the entire findings of the report and they have already been criticised by certain sections of the media and in the agricultural community, misled as they are by the Farming Press.

Indications of which individuals, groups, and agencies misled the Royal Commission are to be found in the files and transcripts of oral evidence that are found on the web site at http://www.rcep.org.uk