Ministers reject no-spray zones

The ACP says there are already adequate regulations in place

The government has rejected calls for "no-spray" zones around the edges of fields where pesticides are used.

The call came in a report published last September by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP).

Campaigners have labelled the government's response as "extraordinary" and "a disgrace".

The government has accepted many of the RCEP's other points and says it "is not able to rule out" the possibility that pesticide exposure causes disease.

"It is plausible that there could be a link between resident and bystander pesticide exposure and chronic ill health," it says.

Campaigners maintain that pesticide exposure can cause cancer and other diseases, and the RCEP concluded: "we are persuaded that it is possible that some cases of ill health could... be shown to be due to complex effects following exposure to pesticides."

One of its major recommendations was the establishment of a five metre "buffer zone" around sprayed fields to reduce the chance of human exposure.

But drawing on evidence from its own Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), the government has declined to take up this option, and indicated its preference for voluntary agreements rather than the statutory approach favoured by the RCEP.

In February the ACP advised against buffer zones as an "arbitrary and disproportionate response" to uncertainties over the effects of pesticides.

Statutory measures 'essential'

Launching the government's official response to the RCEP report, Environment Minister Ian Pearson told MPs there is "insufficient evidence" to support the RCEP's request for additional regulations on safety grounds.

If the government won't look after people's health, the answer has to be a large-scale move to organic farming and the end of all pesticide sprays in the British countryside Peter Melchett

"Introducing regulations for other reasons such as perceived nuisance from spraying would be incompatible with the Government's Better Regulation policy," he said.

"We have therefore decided against introducing any new regulations at this time."

Campaign groups were quick to condemn the response.

"The government has refused to acknowledge the health risks inherent in the spraying of agricultural chemicals and has decided not to introduce any legal measures to protect rural residents and communities," said Georgina Downs of the UK Pesticides Campaign.

"Voluntary and self regulatory measures have existed for decades, have not worked and are completely unacceptable in this situation; therefore the introduction of statutory measures is essential."

Peter Melchett, policy director of the pro-organic farming Soil Association, added: "If the government won't look after people's health by acting on the best scientific advice they have, the answer has to be a large-scale move to organic farming and the end of all pesticide sprays in the British countryside.

"Pesticides are not necessary to produce good quality food and most British people do not want pesticides in their food."

But the government's "no" to further regulation was welcomed by Peter Sanguinetti, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, a trade body.

"We support the Government's commitment to basing regulatory measures on sound scientific evidence, and we hope members of the public will be reassured by today's announcement," he said.

"Pesticides are strictly regulated before approval, and comprehensive laws and statutory codes of practice are in place to ensure they are used responsibly."

The government wants to spread the use of voluntary initiatives such as the Green Code, and will end the "grandfathering" exemption from current regulations which some sprayers enjoy on the basis that they have been doing it for a long time.

It will also draw up new algorithms for assessing risks from exposure, and involve health authorities more in monitoring health issues which may be related to pesticides.