Northern Ireland Forum

for

Political Dialogue

aaaaaaaaa

ORGANOPHOSPHATE INSECTICIDES -

THEIR USE BY THE FARMING COMMUNITY

A REPORT

prepared by

STANDING COMMITTEE D

(AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES ISSUES)

aaaaaaaaa

Presented to the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue

on 3 April 1998

Adopted CR25

This report has been prepared by Standing

Committee D for the consideration of the Northern

Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue. Until adopted

by the Forum in accordance with its Rules, this report

may not be reproduced in whole or in part or used for

broadcast purposes.

Note

DRAFT REPORTS

ORGANOPHOSPHATE INSECTICIDES -

THEIR USE BY THE FARMING COMMUNITY

A short while ago I came upon the following quotation from

"A Pride of Tigers" by Sybil Marshall:

"I fell to wondering why it is that 'experts' so often get things

wrong. Once they become experts they know all the answers, so

they don't ask questions. They simply reach out and take the

most likely ready made explanation from the peg and use it,

whether it fits the case in point or not."

OP victims are tired of, and distressed by a medical profession

which tells them that they should see a psychologist, or that

conventional medicine can do nothing for them, simply because

the medical profession is confounded by the multitude of

symptoms with which their patients present, and there is no easy

explanation in the medical literature and no clear lead from the

Department of Health.

The Countess of Mar

House of Lords

Hansard - 24 June 1997

Column 1559

ORGANOPHOSPHATE INSECTICIDES -

THEIR USE BY THE FARMING COMMUNITY

CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ORGANOPHOSPHATES 3

- What are they? 3

- How are OPs controlled? 3

- How are they used by farmers? 4

3. ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS POISONING 6

4. CONCLUSIONS 16

5. RECOMMENDATIONS 20

ANNEXES

A MEMBERSHIP OF STANDING COMMITTEE D

B. LIST OF PERSONS AND BODIES WHO HAVE

PROVIDED EVIDENCE

C. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

D. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

E. WRITTEN EVIDENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In August 1997, Mr Ernie Patterson, the then Press Officer of the newly

formed Northern Ireland Organophosphorous Sufferers' Association

(NIOPSA) contacted the Secretary of Standing Committee D to arrange a

meeting with the Committee at which the problems being faced by

NIOPSA members could be aired. In anticipation of this meeting, and as

the Forum was then in recess until early September, Mr Patterson agreed

to prepare a written submission for presentation to the Committee. A

copy of this submission is attached at Annex E.

1.2 The Committee met with Mr Patterson and other members of NIOPSA on

30 October 1997 and a copy of the Minutes of Evidence of this meeting is

attached at Annex D. Following this meeting, the Committee decided to

seek evidence from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland,

the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social

Services, the Employment Medical Advisory Service of the Department of

Economic Development and the Health and Safety Executive. Copies of

the written responses received are attached at Annex E.

1.3 On 24 November 1997, representatives of the Committee attended a

meeting of NIOPSA held in the White Gables Hotel, Hillsborough. A note

of the meeting is attached at Annex E.

1.4 Further Oral Evidence Sessions were then arranged as follows:

27 November 1997- Ulster Farmers' Union

12 February 1998 - NIOPSA

26 February 1998 - Dr H Campbell - Chief Medical Officer, DHSS

Dr D Skan - Employment Medical Advisory Service

Mr M McAllister - Chief Environmental Health

Officer

Copies of the Minutes of Evidence for each of these Oral Evidence

Sessions are attached at Annex D.

1.5 The Committee wishes formally to thank all those persons and bodies who

assisted in the production of this report. A list of names of those

concerned is attached at Annex B.

2. ORGANOPHOSPHATE COMPOUNDS

What are they?

2.1 Organophosphate (OP) compounds, first recognised in 1854 and

developed by Germany during the Second World War as a product of

nerve gas development, are the most widely used group of insecticides.

OP compounds are derived from phosphoric acid and are generally among

the most acutely toxic of all pesticides to vertebrate animals. They come

in liquid or powder form and are either diluted with water and sprayed or

directly applied as granules.

2.2 Marketed by many of the world's major agrochemical companies, OPs

have a wide range of pest control applications as contact, systemic and

fumigant insecticides. They are widely used by the agriculture industry,

but they are also used in other spheres, eg

- against household pests;

- against catering industry pests;

- against head lice in human beings;

- against pests found among domestic pets;

- against pests which attack cereals and vegetables.

How are OPs controlled?

2.3 The approval, carriage, supply of OPs and in the case of sheep-dips

containing OPs, sale, are subject to Government regulation, the stated aim

of which is to ensure that OP products, if used in accordance with

approval or authorisation, will not give rise to adverse health effects on

humans.

2.4 In approving pesticides, Ministers are advised by the Advisory Committee

on Pesticides, the members of which are independent of Government.

This Committee considers toxicity to man and animals as well as

environmental effects when laying down conditions of approval through

the Veterinary Products Committee. Further information on the controls

on the use of OPs are contained in the letter dated 28 November 1997

from Dr Delia Skan of the Employment Medical Advisory Service and

also in the letter from the Permanent Secretary of the Department of

Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Mr Peter Small, dated 3 December 1997.

Both these letters are attached at Annex E.

How are they used by farmers?

2.5 In his evidence to the Committee on 30 October 1997, Mr Ernie Patterson

of NIOPSA explained that while OPs are used in many areas of farming

practice most notably as veterinary products, they are mainly used in

sheep-dips. He pointed out that OPs were introduced as a sheep dip in the

1960s and under the Sheep Scab (Northern Ireland) Order 1970, sheep

farmers were required to dip their sheep each year, using an approved

product - the Government approved product being an OP sheep dip. In

later years, he said, compulsory sheep dipping was required twice a year,

the requirement to dip being withdrawn in Great Britain in 1992 and

shortly afterwards in Northern Ireland. Following the withdrawal of the

compulsory dipping of sheep the Government introduced a certificate of

competence for those who wished to use OP sheep dips, this certificate

being awarded following attendance at a training course and the passing of

a written test.

3. ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS POISONING

3.1 OPs inhibit enzymes of the nervous system which play a vital role in nerve

impulse transmission. They can be absorbed through the skin, lungs and

eyes. The typical symptoms of OP exposure in human beings can include

the following:

- chronic breathing problems;

- pains in the joints and muscles;

- hand, leg and muscle tremors;

- impaired co-ordination;

- weakness, headache, giddiness;

- nausea and diarrhoea;

- blurred vision;

- excess salivation and sweating;

- heart and digestive problems;

- incontinence, vomiting;

- depression, lack of concentration and memory impairment;

- occasional uncontainable rage.

3.2 In his paper 'Dangerous Dips - The Truth About Organophosphates'

produced in October 1996 (see Annex E), the then Shadow Secretary of

State for Environmental Protection Mr Michael Meacher MP, indicated

that recent evidence of further risks from OPs includes studies on damage

to the peripheral, central and autonomic nervous systems, damage to bone

cell function and research on OPs, Affective Disorders and Suicide.

3.3 In addition, OP use during the Gulf War has also been identified with 'Gulf

War Syndrome' which has affected Gulf War veterans.

3.4 OP poisoning is not a new phenomenon. As early as 1951 a Working

Party under the chairmanship of the then Solly Zuckerman presented a

Report 'Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture' to the Minister of Agriculture and

Fisheries. This Report addressed precautionary measures against toxic

chemicals used in agriculture. A copy of this Report is attached at

Annex E.

3.5 At paragraph V6 of the Report, it is pointed out that illness caused by

'organo-phosphorous' compounds had caused apprehension. At

paragraph V19 Zuckerman, in relation to certain OP compounds indicated

that they can be absorbed through the skin and by inhalation and ingestion,

that repeated absorption may result in cumulative poisoning and that death

could occur as the result of a single exposure. Zuckerman took the view

that the chemical compounds with which the enquiry was concerned, were

fulfilling an important role in the control of weeds and pests and were thus

contributing in no small measure to efficient agricultural production.

However, he did recommend measures for the protection of workers who

handle these chemical compounds in agriculture. These recommendations

included

- the provision of "adequate protection" viz "rubber gloves, rubber

boots, an eye shield, white cotton overalls with a hood and in confined

spaces a respirator".

Zuckerman, in pointing out the "astonishing level of carelessness about

their own safety" shown by men engaged in using chemical compounds,

concluded that it was imperative for farmers, contractors etc to be

thoroughly educated in the dangers attendant on their use and in the

precautions to be taken.

3.6 The BBC Factsheet "Disaster - The Chemical Scythe", written to

accompany the programme 'The Chemical Scythe' first broadcast as part of

the 'Disaster' series on 30 January 1997 on BBC (see Annex E) indicates

that a number of recommendations in the Zuckerman Report regarding

safety warnings, notifications to doctors etc were not acted upon by

Government.

3.7 This Factsheet also reveals that having investigated the licensing and use

of OP based products, it appeared that crucial medical and safety

information was not provided or was withheld, and that the system for

licensing chemicals and monitoring reactions was highly inadequate.

3.8 The Factsheet highlights the fact that the committee which licenses OPs

for use in agriculture is the same committee as that which monitors

adverse reactions both in animals and humans. It is pointed out that this

committee is dominated by scientists and advisers who work for or have

links with the agrochemical companies - a conflict of interests "made more

complicated by the fact that, by law, if the Government revokes the

licence for a chemical product, the producers are able to sue. Successive

Government Select Committees have pointed to these anomalies and

recommended a separation of responsibilities and a change in the law. So

far nothing has changed."

3.9 The Factsheet reveals that during the compulsory sheep dipping period

(1976-1992) containers of OP products did state that the chemicals were

potentially hazardous, but no protective clothing and equipment was

recommended nor did containers carry the skull and crossbones.

3.10 With regard to the publishing in 1981 by the Health and Safety Executive

of a medical guidance note on the dangers of OPs, how to detect cases of

OP poisoning and methods of treatment, the Factsheet states that the

document was never circulated to doctors and hospitals - and further,

having been re-published in 1987 it was still not circulated. This

particular point was reinforced in evidence from Mr Patterson of NIOPSA

in relation to this document - MS17 "Biological Monitoring of Workers

exposed to Organophosphorous Pesticides" - when he said that this

information (see Annex E) was never circulated to farmers, vets or

doctors. Mr Patterson also drew attention to key matters covered in

MS17:

- the reference to cumulative toxicity in paragraphs 3 and 12;

- the fact that OP formulation based organic solvents are liable to

penetrate protective clothing - paragraph 8;

Mr Patterson highlights "the scant information with which we have been

provided over the year has been totally inadequate".

3.11 While the necessary information which could have ensured the safety of

farmworkers and other users of OPs was available, it would appear that

nothing had changed from the situation in 1951. It is therefore little

wonder that the conclusion to the BBC Factsheet referred to earlier is as

follows:

"Now sheep-dip products are boldly labelled with safety instructions.

Recommended protective clothing and equipment are now so thorough

that it makes you wonder just how dangerous a chemical you are

handling. Doctors have recently been circulated with a new booklet

on chemical poisoning. Farmers now have to obtain a 'certificate of

competence' before they are allowed to purchase sheep dip

formulations effectively placing the burden for safe use on them only.

Dipping is no longer compulsory and medical companies are starting

to develop more non-OP alternatives. To campaigners and those

suffering from OP poisoning this looks like the Government is trying

to move away from the use of OPs because of the damage they cause,

while simultaneously denying that they have been responsible for the

widespread use and nuisance of an extremely dangerous chemical.

Otherwise compensation claims could be crippling."

3.12 With regard to research, the Committee noted that in October 1995, the

Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh was awarded £0.5m for

research into the possible long-term human health effects of OP sheep

dips. This exercise is scheduled for completion by April 1999. In

addition in February 1996, the MAFF Minister announced two major

research projects worth £1.2m over three years on a new approach to the

development of a suitable vaccine for sheep scab. Copies of the relevant

MAFF press releases relating to these initiatives are attached at Annex E.

3.13 In October 1996, Mr Meacher, the then Shadow Secretary of State for

Environmental Protection in his paper 'Dangerous Dips - The Truth About

Organophosphates" concluded that successive Governments had failed

- to provide adequate and accurate advice on the potential dangers of

exposure to OP users;

- to provide adequate and accurate advice on protective equipment;

- to provide adequate education for doctors on the known chronic

effects of OP poisoning;

- to ensure that licensing of OPs was not guaranteed by bodies which

relied for research data only from the chemical companies.

3.14 Mr Meacher went on to make recommendations which were remarkably

similar in certain aspects to those made in 1951 by Zuckerman. They are

as follows:

- a moratorium on the use of OP products in sheep-dips;

- an urgent study by the Government of known cases where farmers and

others have suffered from OP use;

- a public education programme on the potential dangers of OP use;

- an exercise to ensure that health professionals are fully informed about

symptoms and treatment;

- an examination of the licensing system for OPs to reduce dependence

on manufacturers' toxicity data and to ensure that licences can

speedily be revoked where there is danger to public health;

- products containing OPs should only be sold to the general public

when accompanied by clear advice about potential health risks and

necessary safety precautions.

3.15 On 14 July 1997, the OP Information Network, accompanied by four

medical consultants met with Dr Cunningham and Mr Rooker of MAFF.

It is reported as being a warm, friendly and constructive meeting during

which Dr Cunningham undertook to discuss the provision of diagnostic

centres with the Department of Health, and to attempt to obtain funding

for more fundamental research into the effects of exposure. Following this

meeting, Dr Cunningham appeared on 'Farming Today' and is reported as

saying that he could not ban OPs because of advice from Government

lawyers.

3.16 The Committee is aware of a number of legal cases taken by people

affected by OP poisoning. In the case of Mr John Hill, a farm hand, he

recently won a partial victory in his damages action over debilitating

ill-health which he claimed was caused by OP poisoning. In July 1997 in

Hong Kong, an American musician won damages of £1.9 million and costs

against Ciba Geigy for chronic health damage caused by exposure to a

diazinon insecticide spray in 1987. More recently Mr Robert Shepherd, a

former shepherd who was forced to retire in 1991 after his health was

damaged from exposure to OP sheep dip, was awarded £80,000

compensation in an out-of-court settlement by Lancashire County Council.

A further case in Dublin remains to be settled.

3.17 The Committee completed its evidence gathering exercise by meeting with

NIOPSA for the second time on 12 February 1998 prior to a meeting on

26 February 1998 with the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of

Health and Social Services, Dr Henrietta Campbell, who was

accompanied by Dr Skan of the Employment Medical Advisory Service,

and Mr McAllister, the Chief Environmental Health Officer for Northern

Ireland.

3.18 In her evidence to the Committee, Dr Campbell confirmed the setting up

of a Whitehall Committee on organophosphate products. This Whitehall

Committee, consisting of a high level group of officials from each

Government Department, has been formed to monitor the processes by

which information about OPs is shared among Government Departments

and to co-ordinate action across Departments. Dr Campbell also indicated

that the Government has pledged to fund further research, to examine and

remedy gaps in scientific knowledge regarding OPs and to examine the

procedures by which OP products are licensed. The Whitehall Committee

is scheduled to report in March 1998. Dr Campbell also confirmed the

creation of a Northern Ireland based diagnostic centre.

3.19 Dr Campbell went on to stress the need for more research into and more

evidence on organophosphates. She indicated that a review of all the

available evidence on the effects of exposure to OPs had been commenced

by the Chief Medical Officer in London. Dr Campbell said:

"It will bring together a comprehensive view of all the evidence that is

there and will let us know exactly what the issues are. The evidence

to date has not been conclusive enough for us to know with any

certainty what the real issues are. The report, first of all, will bring

together the evidence and show us what is there in fuller form, but

also I hope that it will show us where the gaps in the evidence are and

will help us to know what research needs to be funded and how we

can set up research programmes. The big problem is that the evidence

to date has not been conclusive."

3.20 The Committee notes that one of the top companies in Northern Ireland,

Randox Laboratories, is to join with a former GP who is now a leading

alternative therapist, to set up a programme which will attempt to identify

why soldiers suffering from Gulf War Syndrome are ill and to put forward

a treatment programme. The Committee understands that Randox

Laboratories have offered its services free, and that the company has an

enzyme test which detects levels of OP poisoning in the body.

Mr Peter Fitzgerald, Managing Director of Randox has indicated that the

company can do tests which are not routinely done in National Health

hospitals. The Committee welcomes and endorses this initiative which

could have far-reaching effects if it proves possible to solve the mystery of

Gulf War Syndrome. The Committee is also conscious that this research

into OP poisoning will assist others who have been exposed to OP

poisoning.

3.21 The most recent developments, commencing with Mr Michael Meacher's

paper, and progressing through the OP Information Network's meeting

with the MAFF Minister to the commitment given by Dr Campbell

regarding the creation of a diagnostic centre in Northern Ireland and the

apparent structured examination of the evidence relating to OP exposure,

is re-assuring - however it has taken a long time for Government to reach

this position. The Committee comments further on this in its Conclusions

and Recommendations.

4. CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The Committee congratulates NIOPSA on its advocacy of the case for OP

sufferers in Northern Ireland. The Association, formed in July 1997, has

provided the Committee with a wealth of information on OPs and OP

poisoning and has endeavoured to ensure that the Committee is fully

briefed on these matters. The Committee was most impressed by the

evidence given by those who actually suffer from the effects of exposure

to OPs and thanks them for making the effort to come to the Forum to give

evidence in a formal atmosphere - a journey and a stressful experience

which for some involved major effort. The Committee, having seen and

discussed the effects of OP poisoning with those affected, is convinced of

the connection between OPs and the ailments suffered by those exposed to

the chemicals.

4.2 The Committee regrets that it was necessary for NIOPSA to be formed,

however it has proved to be an essential focus for all those affected by OP

poisoning and who clearly have grounds for complaint against a system

which apparently refuses to acknowledge the nature of their illness.

4.3 The Committee has noted the criticisms levelled at Government about the

clear lack of information on OPs and their effects. In his evidence to the

Committee, Mr Ernie Patterson of NIOPSA indicated that having asked

the Health and Safety Inspectorate of the Department of Agriculture for

Northern Ireland for information on the long term effects of exposure to

OPs, he was sent three documents. The first document was produced by

the Health and Safety Executive, the second by the National Office for

Animal Health in conjunction with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate

and the third by MAFF. He stated that none of these documents covers

long-term effects of OP poisoning, but more unfortunately, the three

documents contradict each other in respect of the protection required when

handling sheep. One document states that gloves must be worn, one says

that gloves may be worn, and the remaining document indicates that

gloves are not required!

4.4 Further to this, Mr Patterson refers to Health and Safety Document MS17

'Biological Monitoring of Workers exposed to Organophosphorous

Pesticides', which was issued in 1981, revised in 1986 and 1987 and states

that the information regarding protective clothing and the dangers of

cumulative toxicity were never circulated to farmers, veterinarians or

doctors. This statement is reiterated in the BBC Factsheet 'Disaster - The

Chemical Scythe' which indicated that crucial medical and safety

information had been withheld. The Committee therefore shares the view

of NIOPSA and the OP Information Network that the information

provided by Government over the years has been inadequate. The

Committee also considers that Agrochemical Manufacturers have a duty of

care to ensure that full information regarding OP products is made

available to users. The Committee is therefore clear that in future free and

full information on OPs and on the effects of OP poisoning must be made

widely available.

4.5 The Committee is convinced that compulsory sheep dipping with OP

compounds required by the Government between 1976 and 1992 placed

farmers at risk. Some 500 farmers in the United Kingdom have now

attributed their ill-health to the use of OP sheep dip.

4.6 The Committee having raised the question of a Diagnostic Centre in

Northern Ireland to which doctors could refer sufferers from OP

poisoning, welcomes the assurance of the Chief Medical Officer,

Dr Campbell that such a Centre will be provided shortly. This news will

be welcomed by all sufferers, who in the past have been required to travel

to the OP Diagnostic Centre in Glasgow. However the Committee wishes

to see a detoxification centre provided for the treatment of chronic OP

poisoning cases and will press for such a Centre.

4.7 The Committee considers that the Government has dragged its feet over

the various issues posed by the use of OPs and the effects of OP

poisoning. The existence of the Zuckerman recommendations in 1951, the

Government's failure to act on them, and the continuing lack of clear

information to OP users and doctors are evidence of this.

4.8 The Committee has noted the recent change in approach by the

Government to OPs. In particular, the move to create regional diagnostic

centres, the increased activity in the research field, the creation of an

inter-departmental Whitehall Committee at senior official level, the

commitment to further research, the examination of the licensing

procedures for OPs, the activities of the Royal Colleges in finalising

up-to-date guidelines for doctors, are all actions which will be welcomed

by sufferers.

4.9 The Committee has also noted the call made by Mr Michael Meacher MP

in 1996 when Shadow Secretary of State for Environmental Protection for

a moratorium on the use of OP products in sheep dips. Dr Goran Jamal, a

noted neurologist who is leading expert on OP poisoning and who has

appeared in court to give scientific evidence on behalf of OP sufferers, has

very recently called for a moratorium on the use of OP based pesticides

when he attended a briefing at the House of Commons. Dr Jamal

indicated at this meeting that OP users could be at greater risk than

previously thought. It is the Committee's view that it would be foolish to

ignore the opinion of such an expert.

4.10 The Committee has also noted the success which has been achieved by OP

sufferers in recent legal cases. Successful cases have now been taken in

Australia, Hong Kong, Lancashire and London. However, the Committee

was surprised to learn that in one particular case, where a retired shepherd

had been awarded £80,000 some £40,000 was recouped in respect of

disability payments or sickness payments made to him by the Government

whilst he was unable to work. The Committee considers this action to

have been most unfair.

4.11 The Committee noted the evidence of Mrs Cherry an OP sufferer who

made a plea for doctors to take patients who are OP sufferers seriously.

The Committee also noted that in this case the possibility of the effects of

OP poisoning being passed from mother to daughter was raised. The

Committee considers that this is a topic which would be worthy of further

research.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 The Committee recommends that the Government should without any

delay conduct a Review of all aspects of the use of Organophosphorous

Compounds and Organophosphorous Poisoning including licensing,

conditions of use and the possibility of genetic transmission.

5.2 The Committee recommends that pending completion of this Review, and

acknowledging the advice of Dr Goran Jamal that OP users could be at

even greater risk than previously thought, a moratorium on the use of OP

based pesticides should be introduced by the Government.

5.3 The Committee recommends that the Government should, as a matter of

urgency, exhort chemical manufacturers to develop safer alternatives to

OPs, particularly since recent anecdotal evidence relating to the use of OP

based shampoos, fly sprays, domestic disinfestation products and garden

pesticides has highlighted possible further dangers.

5.4 The Committee recommends that Government must now take action to

ensure that information on OPs and on the effects of OP poisoning is made

freely available to all concerned - farmers, contractors, veterinarians,

doctors - and to the general public. The Committee further recommends

that the Government should not levy any charges for the provision of this

information.

5.5 The Committee recommends that the Government should initiate a public

awareness campaign to draw attention to OPs and the dangers attendant

on their use.

5.6 The Committee while welcoming the establishment of a Diagnostic Centre

in Northern Ireland, recommends that Government should also ensure that

a Detoxification Unit is also established as part of the Centre, and that

these Units are put in place without delay.

5.7 The Committee recommends that the necessary resources for the proper

working of the Diagnostic Centre and Detoxification Unit are provided,

and that necessary training and equipment costs are met. The Committee

further recommends that funding for a programme of clinical investigations

by independent experts of those claiming health damage from OP

exposure should be put in place.

5.8 The Committee recommends that the Government should through regional

Chief Medical Officers institute a programme for the toxicological

education of doctors, to ensure that General Practitioners can recognise

OP poisoning, and that patients suffering from the symptoms of exposure

to OPs are treated seriously.

5.9 The Committee recommends that those farmers, who in the past have

shown a complete disregard for the basic rules for protecting their health

during sheep dipping operations, should now cease putting themselves at

risk by obeying the Health and Safety instructions given to them about the

handling and use of OP compounds.

5.10 The Committee recommends to the Government that the following three

items of required action in relation to OPs which have been identified by

NIOPSA should be implemented:

- ensure that appropriate action is taken in order that no further cases

of OP poisoning occur;

- ensure that those already affected by OP poisoning receive

appropriate treatment and support;

- ensure that those whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated

by OP poisoning receive appropriate redress.

5.11 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Social

Services should monitor the research being conducted by Randox

Laboratories in Northern Ireland into the Gulf War Syndrome - in

particular the work which is being done to identify OP poisoning. The

Committee further recommends that the Department should ensure that the

result of this research when published is fed into the Government's work in

relation to OP poisoning for the benefit of all OP sufferers

• Organophosphate Insecticides - Their use by the Farming Community: A Report Prepared by Standing Committee D (introduced on 1998-04-03 10:01:00 - CREATE_FROM - e841143) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1998-04-03 10:01:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e841145) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1998-04-03 10:01:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e841148) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1998-04-03 10:01:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e841149) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1998-04-03 10:01:00 - POSTPONE_DEBATE - e841151) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1998-04-03 10:01:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e841152) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1998-04-03 10:01:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e841153) [view current proposal at this moment]