Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feedingstuffs) (Scotland) Regulations (SSI 2000/Draft)
Item 3 on the agenda concerns the first affirmative instrument to come before the committee. Under rule 10.6 of standing orders, the Rural Affairs Committee is required to consider a formal motion of approval and report to the Parliament with its recommendations on whether the instrument be approved. The Minister for Rural Affairs, Ross Finnie, will speak to the instrument; he is joined by representatives from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, Miss Frances Reid and Mrs Eileen Kennedy.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the instrument this morning and did not highlight any technical problems with it. The minister and his assistants will explain the nature of the document and then we will have an opportunity to consider the motion.
Thank you very much, convener. I congratulate Alasdair Morgan on his appointment as deputy convener. As the cabinet minister with ultimate responsibility for fisheries, I wish to associate myself with his remarks, the sentiments of which are shared by the rest of the committee.
I look forward to meeting the committee at our humble abode in Pentland House. I hope that you will not be disappointed if we cannot find a room that matches the quality of this committee room. As those of you who have been there will know, Pentland House is an example of 1960s architecture known commonly as early matchbox, so it is very brave of you, convener, to bring your committee to us; I just hope that you do not think that our accommodation lacks the basic facilities or the grandeur that you obviously enjoy here.
It is my duty to introduce the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feedingstuffs) (Scotland) Regulations 2000. I should stress at the outset that, by their technical nature, pesticides are a complex area, as some committee members will well understand. I hope in these few remarks to remove some of that complexity.
The purpose of this weighty tome is twofold. First, it introduces maximum residue levels—or MRLs—for a new fungicide, azoxystrobin. Secondly, this instrument consolidates regulations that were made in 1994 and five sets of subsequent amending regulations—it brings everything together into a single statutory instrument.
The regulations are made jointly under the European Communities Act 1972 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The former act provides powers to introduce MRLs adopted as part of the EC's programme to harmonise residue levels throughout the Community. The latter act provides the legislative vehicle to introduce national MRLs pending the adoption of harmonised EC limits. MRLs introduced under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 require affirmative resolution procedure, which is why we are here today.
It might be helpful to explain the extensive system of controls that operates for pesticides. Pesticide regulation is the responsibility of ministers in five regulatory departments. As well as from the Scottish Executive, ministerial approval is required from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Welsh Assembly. Only approved pesticides can be advertised, sold, supplied, stored or used. Before approval can be given, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive carry out a careful scientific evaluation of how safe the pesticide is for human beings, non-target species and the wider environment. The efficacy of the product is also carefully considered. The final scrutiny is given by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides.
The product can be marketed only when ministers are satisfied on the basis of the expert independent advice that the product can be used without unacceptable risk to people, livestock, domestic animals or the environment. Once a pesticide is approved, it will continue to be subjected to routine review. It may be reviewed at any time if any evidence emerges about its safety. If deemed appropriate, the approval can be restricted or revoked where there are safety concerns.
An integral part of the system of controls on pesticides is the establishment of maximum residue levels. MRLs are based on the maximum residue occurring in a crop when a pesticide is used as approved. To enable members to understand their significance, let me explain briefly how MRLs are derived.
Trials for a particular pesticide are conducted on crops to establish the maximum residue level that will occur in a crop when the pesticide is used in accordance with its proposed conditions of use. A complex scientific risk assessment is undertaken to establish whether the maximum residue level established from the trial would pose a risk to consumers. That risk assessment considers safe intake levels and consumption by different consumers and by different population groups, including infants and children. It also takes account of the range of crops on which a pesticide is used.
From a consumer protection point of view, the essential point is that, if a particular residue level is established to be safe, that level will be agreed as the maximum residue level, which will then be introduced into legislation. If, on the other hand, a residue level is found to be unsafe, that use of the pesticide would not be approved and no MRL would be set. Thus the maximum residue level corresponds to the maximum level of residue found in a crop when a pesticide is used in accordance with approved methods. That level is often substantially lower than what would be regarded as safe.
Most MRLs in the regulations originate from EC directives. Those who have read the regulations carefully, particularly the two sections at the back, will have noted that almost 11,000 individual MRLs are listed. The regulations largely comprise an extensive numerical schedule, so the legislation is highly technical, although it has an important practical purpose.
Pesticide residues in food are checked annually through a major surveillance programme. That programme, organised through the working party on pesticide residues, involves collecting 2,000 to 3,000 samples of food each year, mainly from retail outlets around the United Kingdom. Each sample is tested, usually for many different pesticides, with the result that some 90,000 analytical results are generated each year. The annual cost of the programme is currently around £1.7 million. A substantial amount of monitoring is also conducted by the food and farming industries.
Under the programme, milk, bread and potatoes are tested each year. Other produce is tested less regularly. The programme is concerned with fresh produce, particularly fruit and vegetables, because that is where residues are most likely to be found. However, some processed foods, and particularly processed baby foods, are also tested. On the whole, the results from the programme are reassuring. In 1998, for example, 73 per cent of the samples contained no detectable residues, and only 1 per cent of samples contained residues above the MRL.
The results of the programme, together with the MRLs established in the regulations, are used in three main ways: first, to check that regulatory decisions on pesticide approvals have been soundly based and that the scientific assessment reflects what is happening in the field; secondly, to check that farmers are using approved pesticides in accordance with those approvals and that there is no misuse; finally, to ensure that there is a standard against which to judge produce imported from overseas, where we cannot control directly how pesticides are used. The MRL regulations that I am introducing today provide a benchmark for us to do all those things.
The surveillance programme that I described shows that residue levels above the MRL are uncommon. However, they occur in both domestic produce and imported food. Occasionally, there have been repeated breaches of a particular MRL. In such situations, samples are collected direct from the growers or from retailers, with a view to prosecution. The regulations provide for fines of up to £5,000 on summary conviction and an unlimited fine on indictment. If necessary, they provide also for produce with levels above the MRL to be seized and destroyed.
Maximum residue levels are a key element in pesticide controls and an important component in our wider food safety arrangements. I believe that the consolidation of the current statutory instruments will be helpful to all those who work with the regulations.
Thank you. Are there any questions for the minister and his officials?
I noticed that there is only one category for wild berries, whereas all the individual varieties of cultivated berries are distinguished. For wild berries, the MRL was also usually lower than for individual varieties of cultivated berries. I assumed that, because you did not distinguish between different types of wild berry, you had decided to take as the MRL for wild berries the lowest of the MRLs for cultivated berries. However, I noticed that in the case of one compound—cypermethrin—the MRL for wild berries is 2 mg, whereas for cultivated strawberries it is 0.05 mg. Why is 2 mg an acceptable MRL for a wild strawberry, when for a cultivated strawberry the MRL has to be as low as 0.05 mg?
It is obvious why Alasdair Morgan has been made deputy convener—anyone who can display that grasp of cypermethrin in strawberries and wild berries is well worthy of that post. I cannot respond directly to the question, but we can certainly get the information.
Miss Frances Reid (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department):
I do not think that we can respond at this point.
It is a genuine question.
We know from discussions that what you said about the minimum level is along the right lines. We will undertake to respond to the question in writing at the earliest opportunity. Although what you say is informative, I do not think that it undermines the objectives of these regulations.
I was not suggesting that.
Indeed you were not, but I do not think that it should delay the process.
Would it be fair to say that the residue levels for individual crops set out in this instrument are substantially the same as the figures that appeared in previous instruments?
There has been no change. At the moment, practitioners have to refer to five or six separate instruments to ascertain the appropriate level, which has become unwieldy for people in the trade. This instrument consolidates the earlier legislation, as well as introducing one new range of MRLs.
Is it true that the chemical that Alasdair Morgan mentioned has not been included in previous statutory instruments?
It has not. This is its first appearance.
Broadly, what is the function of the chemical?
It is a fungicide that acts as a spore inhibitor and has been approved for use in wheat and barley.
Minister, you said that, rather worryingly, there are occasionally breaches of MRLs. Can you expand on that? How often do such breaches occur? When was a fine last imposed?
It does not happen frequently. Your question, Alex, was probably triggered by the fact that I referred to one pesticide with particular problems—vinclozolin, which is used with lettuce. Residues of non-approved pesticides, such as vinclozolin, were found in UK winter lettuce over a number of years. Enforcement action was taken in 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, which resulted in the successful prosecution of five UK growers. It is extremely disappointing that someone would seek to abuse the system, but there is some comfort in the fact that the systems were in place to detect that abuse and to produce a successful prosecution.
That was some four or five years ago?
Yes. The industry has no history of abusing the systems that are in place. Experience indicates that such occasions are very much the exception rather than the rule, as the industry understands the importance of following the regulations.
As there are no further questions, I thank Eileen Kennedy and Frances Reid for their help and invite them to withdraw from the table.
The next stage in dealing with this affirmative instrument is for the Minister for Rural Affairs to move motion S1M-420. I remind members that the committee has no power to amend the motion or the order. Our task is to recommend whether the instrument shall or shall not be approved.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs Committee in consideration of the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feedingstuffs) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, recommends that the Regulations be approved.
The question is, that motion S1M-420, in the name of Ross Finnie, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister for his contribution to this agenda item and for helping us to understand developments in pesticides.