The wording that is objectionable here is the suggestion that a product that is less risky to your body than coffee or salt will somehow effect your child’s development or make the ill more ill
could be a further wave of product withdrawals from the market. Possible active ingredients that could be phased out as a result of regulatory changes are: 2,4-D, amitrole, carbendazim, glufosinate, ioxynil, iprodione, picloram, prochloraz, propiconazole and tebuconazole. These are a selection of what could be going - a few tried and trusted active ingredients that solve weed and turf disease problems as well as treating Japanese Knotweed.
It would be easy to be down beat at this but, in truth, there is an opportunity here too. As the bar gets raised for the standards that products need to pass to be approved, then new products for the future will have even better levels of activity and improved environmental profiles. So, hopefully, the manufacturers who supply solutions to these problems will take up this challenge and invest in the next generation of products. This leaves the thematic strategy -
where and how products are used. In the UK we have a superb system of qualifications to use and advise on pesticide use. We have stores that are regulated and monitored. Our advisors and spray operators are in compulsory professional development schemes. All this goes further than our other European partners to ensure competency and high standards.
So, when it comes to interpreting the
wording and implementing it on the ground, there could be a very strong case for demonstrating that our house is in order and that no action is necessary.
The thematic strategy was drafted to
remove, or severely limit, the use of pesticide products, and I quote, “in other places such as public parks, sports and recreation grounds, school grounds and children's playgrounds, and in the vicinity of healthcare facilities, the risks from exposure to pesticides are high. In these areas, the use of pesticides should be minimised or prohibited”. This is fine in areas of the EU that
don’t have rules that cover this already, and don’t have a system of qualification that enables competent use. However, it does suppose that children, and those in hospital, are more vulnerable than the rest of the population to the effects that use of pesticide products could have.
I chose my words in that last sentence very carefully, and emphasise the use of the words “effects that the pesticide products could have”. Routine grounds maintenance and urban weed control relies on glyphosate to maintain a satisfactory weed free condition in and around most schools and hospitals. The wording that is objectionable here is the suggestion that a product that is
less risky to your body than coffee or salt will somehow effect your child’s development or make the ill more ill. Put into context, the methods used to
control the weeds outside facilities such as schools and hospitals are not harmful. The material used for pest control on the inside however could be considered in a different light. Rat baits, cockroach baits and cleaning products all have a higher potential to cause harm unless managed in a professional manner, but are outside the current wording. What is needed here is a little common sense. If something isn’t harmful it isn’t harmful - as long as it is used properly, where it is used and applied responsibly. And this is where semantics comes in. Interpretation of the meaning of the words that are going to shape a large part of our industry’s future. We should be confident enough to implement any agreed changes knowing that we have a strong regulatory and training system, and limit the changes needed to the bare minimum that interpretation will allow.
Paul Cawood is Business Development Manager at LanGuard Ltd.
www.languard.co.uk
19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124