PESTICIDES

Another resident who gave evidence, Richard Bruce, has been recording cases of cancer, leukaemia, Parkinson’s and other illnesses on the Isle of Wight for years (see box on page 56). Bruce himself has been exposed to pesticides through both his occupation and from living surrounded by sprayed fi elds, and now suffers from long-term neurological damage, while his wife Shirley has had breast cancer. Bruce’s local GPs also gave evidence to the RCEP in support of Bruce’s case, adding further concerns about similar illnesses among other islanders. Among the many witnesses, Downs played a major role. She made a presentation to the RCEP’s public meeting in September 2004 and gave oral evidence to the Commission a few months later. The RCEP recognised her as an expert as well as a witness, asking her to peer-review their draft report before publication – something no other lay person has ever been asked to do. On 22 September 2005, Professor Tom Blundell, then chair of the RCEP, delivered the judgment Downs had been waiting for. The mathematical model used by the regulators was indeed deeply fl awed, as Downs had previously identifi ed, and the chemicals approved under it were potentially dangerous to at least a million people in rural areas. He said farmers should become obliged to warn anyone at risk of exposure – residents, workers, walkers and schools – whenever they planned to spray. Plus, they should keep public records of all the chemicals used and be prepared to show them to anyone on demand. Blundell also wants the government to carry out a full epidemiological survey to fi nd any links between pesticides and chronic ill health. It was the kind of result far beyond what professional environmental groups such as the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) had been able to achieve, and they have relatively huge budgets compared with what Georgina has been working on. It was also one that industrial farmers and the agrochemical industry have been dreading. Any data showing that pesticides can damage health would leave them vulnerable to the same kinds of compensation claims that have beset

companies promoting tobacco or, in the past, using asbestos. Such a result means Downs has won herself a reputation – and powerful enemies as well as friends. But whatever people think of her, they can’t ignore her, as witnessed by Farmers Weekly’s recent decision to include her in a list of the top20 power-players in UK farming. Meacher, now a backbencher, is full of praise for Downs, albeit glad he is out of her way. He said: ‘Georgina Downs is a phenomenal campaigner, the like of which I have never met. She is the kind of

Lower: Aerial view of Georgina Downs’ house (the red dot, circled). The yellow line marks a fi ve-metre buffer zone

Upper: A crop-sprayer passing by a house owned by the photographer (Vincent Fallon, Essex)

THE ECOLOGIST 055
PESTCIDES

person ministers dread because they are so persistent. But you cannot ignore her because she knows her subject, and what she is saying makes absolute sense.’ Blundell also praises her.

PESTICIDE POISONING: THE EVIDENCE Over the last fi ve years, Georgina Downs has received thousands of emails, letters and

telephone calls from rural villagers all over the world testifying to local clusters of acute

and chronic illnesses and diseases. They are all united by the fact that their villages are

surrounded by fi elds that are regularly sprayed with pesticides. The following are a

fraction of the total, but serve to illustrate their stories well.

■ Over the last 10 years, Richard Bruce has been recording reported illnesses in his rural

village of Thorley, on the Isle of Wight, along with reports from other nearby villages

that are surrounded by sprayed fi elds. He has amassed over 242 reports of illnesses and

diseases, including 106 cases of cancer, of which 40 – including cases of breast, stomach,

bowel, brain, lung, skin, throat, mouth, liver, pancreas and testicular cancers – and 18

neurological diseases – including Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease (MND),

multiple sclerosis (MS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) – were reported in his own

village. Other conditions include leukaemia, asthma, diabetes, joint and bone problems,

as well as 14 patients with serious heart disorders. Many of these conditions have

occurred over the last few years, with a number of them affl icting young children.

■ A small hamlet of 12 houses next to sprayed fi elds in North East Essex has seen fi ve

cases of cancer – one brain, one testicular, one breast and two skin cancers – as well

as other conditions, including liver problems, over a period of only fi ve years. Other

diseases reported outside of that time frame include Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis,

labyrinthitis (infl ammation of the inner ear), epilepsy, miscarriages, asthma and

acute allergic reactions.

■ A Worcestershire village has reported four cases of leukaemia, nine cases of cancer,

including of the breast, prostate, bowel and skin, and six neurological diseases in just

50 properties – again over a fi ve-year period. In addition, a number of dogs that had

walked through fi elds shortly after crop-spraying have died from cancer. There have

also been reports where entire ponds of fi sh have died following spraying.

■ Lamberhurst, Kent, has seen 38 incidents of chronic illnesses within a two-mile radius

that include cancers (including of the breast and stomach), brain tumours, arthritis,

strange blood disorders, lupus, fi bromyalgia (widespread musculoskeletal pain) and ME

(myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome), including three cases in one

house alone surrounded by sprayed fi elds).

■ In Coleby in Lincolnshire, 10 schoolchildren suffered from vomiting, headaches, fever

and extreme rashes over the course of a few days. Their school is located next to sprayed

fi elds, and the attacks occurred during the height of the spraying season.

■ In Blackwater, on the Isle of Wight, there were fi ve cases of breast cancer in this tiny

hamlet surrounded by sprayed fi elds.

■ Wellingore, in Lincolnshire, had four cases of cancer and two cases of leukaemia, all

within a small area surrounded by pesticide-sprayed fi elds.

If you live in a rural area where pesticide-spraying takes place, please get in

touch with Georgina at georgedownsuk@yahoo.co.uk.

056 THE ECOLOGIST

He said: ‘She is a lay person, but she has provided us with a huge amount of information, and it is always accurate and useful.’ However, even though the RCEP report has vindicated Downs, she is very concerned that its recommendation that farmers observe fi ve-metre ‘no-spray’ buffer zones alongside residential property and other buildings, in an attempt to decrease the likelihood of exposure for residents and bystanders, could ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the report. And as ever, she’s absolutely right. In principle, the idea of buffer zones is a good one, but why fi ve metres? The RCEP is supposed to be a strictly scientifi c body, so one would expect it to have good research-based evidence to show that spray concentrations drop rapidly over this distance. In fact, the opposite is true. There is extensive research into the way chemical sprays disperse in the air, and all show that they can spread over huge distances. One reputable study carried out in California showed that pesticides could be detected up to three miles away from treated areas. Many such chemicals have been detected as far as 25 to 50 miles away from the point of release. Another study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association linked pesticides used on farmland near schools with outbreaks of acute illnesses among pupils. A wealth of similar studies have convinced seven American states to impose no-spray buffer zones of up to 2.5 miles around schools. So why did the RCEP recommend a buffer zone of just fi ve metres? According to the RCEP, it was guided by evidence from the Silsoe Research Institute, a government-funded centre for agricultural science that has since been closed down. It had done research on how chemical sprays, in the form of droplets, can drift, and on technological issues such as the design of spray nozzles. It had not, however, carried out any research into longer-term exposure issues such as those that Downs had been raising. Chemical sprays can, for example, settle out of the air, only to be reactivated by subsequent wind or rain. Nor had it looked at volatilisation or the longdistance spread of such chemicals. Above