Scudamore meeting with All Party Group

Paul Tyler MP, Countess of Mar, Lord King of Bridgwater, Russell Brown MP, David Drew MP, Ian Liddell-Grainger MP, Andrew George MP, Elfyn Llwyd MP, Michael Meacher MP, Roy Beggs MP (All Party Group on OPs)

Introduction to roles of the bodies and committees involved

JS: Explained the role of the Official Group on OPs, whose purpose is to co-ordinate between Government departments rather than being a scientific or policy committee. It was created in 1997, and although it only meets once a year, much work is achieved through e-mail contact.

LL: Explained the role of the Medical and Scientific Panel. It was formed in 1994 and is a sub-committee of the VPC. It is made up of a variety of experts and has 2-3 meetings a year. It gives scientific advice on the quality of research projects, gives advice on further research work, and reports findings of concern to the VPC, who can then take them forward to the VMD.

International comparisons

EL: Asked how many other countries have banned OPs and the reasons behind this? Why could we not follow in footsteps of other countries?

Suggestions were made that the use of OPs for sheep scab was a uniquely British situation. It was noted that other countries do use OPs for purposes other than sheep dip, and that a uniform approach is not possible as climates/practices differ. As Britain is one of the largest producers of sheep and the sheep scab mite is so contagious, the severity of the problem is enhanced.

Summary of events re. usage of different types of sheep dip

JS: Summarised OP developments since 1930s, including when certain substances introduced/banned, when changes occurred in Government policy.

There are now 2 types of OPs and 3 types of synthetic pyrethroides in use. During the compulsory period, a list of approved products was produced, this is still produced by the HSE and provided to farmers. The Group was promised to be provided with this list.

PT: Asked why OP usage continued despite their apparent ineffectiveness?

JS: Said that the problem is not the efficacy of the dip itself but the way in which it is applied, problems of cross-contamination from other farmers&39#; flocks, the propensity of sheep scab to develop resistance etc.

Countess M: Questioned why diazinon had been withdrawn from other products but not from sheep dip?

IA: When this was considered by the Pesticides Safety Directorate, approval for other products, i.e. pesticides, was revoked because chemical companies didn&39#;t provide essential data for the approval to continue.

Health side

LL: Referred to Professor Cherry of Manchester University, and Lancet report from March 2002 regarding genetic variability. The HSE is soon to be presented with the final report on this project. It was commented that the case was not as simple as a certain characteristic in the genetic make-up always correlating with the presentation of certain symptoms.

The intended consequences of this &39#;final&39#; report was questioned, and whose responsibility it was to comment on future action: the MSP would report to the VPC who would then report to government ministers.

Questions were raised as to the membership of the VPC, considering its pivotal role.

IA: Out of the 25 members of the VPC, 21/22 have an interest in veterinary pharmaceutical companies. However, they have to declare their interests before every meeting, and if a conflict of interest occurs at any point, they are required to leave the meeting.

Precautionary principle: Group members asked why this stance wasn&39#;t being taken in light of possible consequences when conclusions about OPs were reached.

Current research/what happens next

MM: In terms of non-chemical treatments, it looked as if there might be promising Australian products, for example fungi, vaccinations, if they were as effective.

PD: There are currently four areas to the research into alternatives. The first of these looks at the make-up of the mite itself, considering what treatments are viable, whether it is possible to keep the mite alive off the host etc. However, this research probably won&39#;t lead to a marketable product until about 5 years time, in 3 years time we may know whether a vaccine is viable.

JF: Commented that in context of the development of new medicines/vaccines, 5 years is not a long time.

MM: Asked why not cooperating with the Australians who are further on than us?

JS: Explained the processes involved in making something marketable. First have to identify what the &39#;candidate product&39#; is, e.g. what part of the mite is going to be attacked, then it is necessary to turn something into a practicable product, finally it needs to go through safety/licensing procedures. It was agreed that copies of this chart of progress would be sent to members of the group. In relation to safety part of process, with the fungus options, an important question was whether it was sensible to introduce something non-native for another purpose.

Phillips and BSE connections

TK: enquired as to the connections between OP warble fly dressings and BSE. Was this anecdotal connection still being looked into or had the Phillips file been closed?

JS: Admitted that hadn&39#;t been briefed on this, some work related to the Phillip&39#;s file had been completed, other work ongoing. Promised to provide progress report.