The Advisory Committee on Pesticides provides independent advice to Ministers on matters relating to the regulation and use of pesticides, including applications for approval of new products and reviews of existing approvals. It usually meets in closed session (because of intellectual property and commercial secrecy considerations) approximately six times a year in York.
At its meeting held on 25 January 2011, the Committee discussed the following issues:
Chairman: Prof J G Ayres
Members: Prof C Brown; Dr J Cocker; Ms J Dean; Dr C Harris; Mr P Jackson; Dr A R Leake; Dr G M McPherson; Prof P Matthiessen; Prof C Ockleford; Dr W Parker; Dr A Povey; Dr H Rees; Prof R Smith; Dr S Waring.
Apologies: Prof G M Hawksworth
Written comments received from: Prof G M Hawksorth
Representatives from the following Departments and other organisations were present: The Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD); Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra); Food Standards Agency (FSA); Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA); Welsh Assembly Government (WAG); Department of Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute Northern Ireland (AFBINI); Health & Safety Executive (HSE).
At its meeting on 25 January 2011, the Committee discussed the following issues:
1. Agenda Item 1: Minutes and Detailed record of discussion
1.1 a) 346th Meeting: Minutes [ACP 1 (347/2011)]
1.1.1 Agreed as drafted subject to one minor amendment. (link to minutes of 346th meeting)
1.2 b) 346th Meeting: Detailed record of discussion [ACP 2 (347/2011)]
1.2.1 Agreed as drafted subject to one minor amendment.
2. Agenda Item 2: Secretary’s Report [ACP 3 (347/2011)]
2.1 The Secretary to the Committee reported on the recommendations made at previous meetings.
3. Agenda Item 3: Matters arising
3.1 a) Application for first inclusion of tagetes oil and thyme oil in Annex I of 91/414/EEC and for UK provisional approval (PPPR), in the product ‘Bug Oil’ formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate containing 5.53 g a.s/L tagetes oil and 5.53 g a.s/L thyme oil [ACP 5/2 (347/2011)]
3.1.1 One Member declared a personal specific interest, and left the Meeting for the duration of this discussion.
3.1.2 Following discussions at ACP 346, Members received a report containing the summary of requirements relayed to the applicant. A letter from the applicant, questioning a number of the requirements, had been received, but it had arrived too late for consideration of a comprehensive response. Members agreed to consult by correspondence, and a formal response would be prepared.
3.2 b) Future of the ACP [ACP 5/4 (347/2011)]
3.2.1 Members discussed the reconstitution of the ACP, and were informed that there were still a number of issues to be addressed. CRD and the Secretariat would continue to work with Defra, and report back to the Committee.
3.3 c) Should ACP take responsibility for selected biocides? Comparative risk assessment with reference to rodenticides. [ACP 5/1 (347/2011)]
3.3.1 The ACP agreed that it would be appropriate for its role to include consideration of biocides. It would need to be determined whether all biocides should be considered, or just those that come under the current ACP remit. Discussion with Defra, CRD and HSE should continue.
3.4 Other Matters Arising [ACP 5 (347/2011)]
3.4.1 The Secretary reported on matters arising from previous Meetings.
4. Agenda Item 4: Application for first inclusion of Penflufen in Annex I of 91/414/EEC and for UK provisional approval (PPPR), in the product ‘BYF 14182 FS 050’ formulated as a flowable concentrate for seed treatment containing 50 g a.s/L penflufen [ACP 7 (347/2011)]
4.1 Two Members declared non-personal, non-specific interests in this item.
4.2 One Member provided written comments.
4.3 The Committee considered an application for a commercial level of approval for the use of ‘BYF 14182 FS 050’, a flowable concentrate for seed treatment (FS) formulation containing 50 g a.s/L penflufen (a new carboxamide fungicide) for use as a potato seed treatment for control of seed borne Rhizoctonia solani. The UK is also the Rapporteur for inclusion of this active substance in Annex I of 91/414/EEC.
4.6 Members considered the CRD evaluation was well balanced, but that a more precautionary approach on possible carcinogenicity may be appropriate. Members agreed to consider this further by correspondence as there were some points in the data that required further clarification. Once these points were resolved the human risk assessments could be completed.
Members agreed that the chemistry, methods, residues, environmental and efficacy evaluations were acceptable although some minor points needed to be addressed.
4.7 The Committee agreed that no advice could be given for this active until the outstanding toxicological issues are resolved.
5. Agenda Item 5: PIAP Reports 2009-2010 [ACP 9 (347/2011)]
5.1 Members received the 2009/10 Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel (PIAP) reports, and noted that as had been remarked in previous discussions, most reports concluded there was insufficient information. Members agreed to contact the Chairman of PIAP to determine whether it was possible to provide greater clarity in these reports as to why this conclusion had been reached.
5.2 It was noted that there still seemed to be many reports associated with boom spraying, and the ACP agreed to write to the Pesticides Forum to discuss raising awareness of the code of practice.
5.3 The Chairman would write to the Chair of PIAP detailing issues raised by the ACP.
6. Agenda Item 6: The ACP Annual Report 2010 [ACP 12 (347/2011)]
6.1 Members considered the first draft of the 2010 ACP Annual Report, and agreed to forward suggestions for additions and amendments to the Secretariat.
7. Agenda Item 7: Update from the ACP Working Groups
7.1 The Chairman provided a brief update on the work of the Bystander Risk Assessment (BRAWG) and the Pesticides Adverse Health Effects Surveillance (PAHES) Working Groups.
8. Agenda Item 8: EFSA Public Consultation on Guidance on risk assessment concerning potential risks arising from applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies to food and feed [ACP 17 (347/2011)]
8.1 Members were concerned about the short timescale for responses to this consultation, and the fact that the ACP had not been invited to respond directly. The Committee agreed to consider responses by correspondence, and the Secretariat would draft a response to be submitted before the closing date.
9. Agenda Item 9: Date of next meeting
9.1 ACP 348 on Tuesday 15 March 2011, commencing 11.00am, at Foss House, York.
10. Agenda Item 10: Any other business
10.1 The Committee considered items for information received since the last Meeting.
J G Ayres