Agenda item

            The Committee considered the following report:

“1.0      Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       On 10th August 2018, jurors in a US court found in favour of a groundskeeper who claimed that Monsanto’s Roundup had contributed ‘substantially’ to his terminal illness and ordered the company to pay $289 million (£226m) in damages. It also found that the manufacturer, knew of the product’s potential health risks as a ‘possible carcinogen’, and acted ‘with malice or oppression’ by failing to warn users.

1.2       Further to this case, the purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of the Council’s current use of Monsanto’s Roundup and other similar products, the regulatory regime for these products and the Council’s health and safety management arrangements for their use.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       The Committee is requested to note the contents of this report.

3.0 Main Report

            Council Use

3.1       The Council’s Parks Service currently uses a number of weedkiller products which are based on the active ingredient glyphosate. These include Roundup 450, Nomix Dual and Nomix Hilite. These are primarily used for treatment of invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed and perennial and annual weeds in our parks and open spaces.

3.2       Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill most plants. Glyphosate is rarely used on its own in the field and is an active ingredient in a range of broad spectrum herbicide formulations. Herbicide formulations such as Roundup include a variety of other chemicals and additives to help glyphosate work and extend the product’s life shelf.

3.2       As Green Flag Award winners, the Council’s use of weedkillers, including glyphosate based weedkillers, has significantly reduced in recent years as the Council has developed more environmentally friendly approaches to parks management.

            Glyphosate approval process in Northern Ireland

3.4       In order for glyphosate to be used in the EU, authorisation is required under the terms of the EC Regulation 1107/2009, Plant Protection Products. This process involves all Member States, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission.

3.5       When a company submits approval for an active ingredient such as glyphosate, the EFSA carries out a peer review and sends its conclusion to the European Commission. On the basis of the EFSA’s review, the European Commission decide whether to authorise the substance.

3.6       Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potentials to mammals.  However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’.

3.7       Consequently, the IARC conclusion triggered a reconsideration of the evidence on carcinogenicity in the EU evaluation. The EU renewal process was the first comprehensive regulatory assessment of glyphosate conducted after the IARC evaluation. In November 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) found it ‘unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans’ based on a ‘large body of evidence’ including ‘key studies not considered by IARC’ that remain unpublished.

3.8       Following these divergences, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) was asked to assess the hazard properties of the substance before taking a decision on its potential renewal at EU level. It concluded in March 2017, on the basis of the evidence used by EFSA, that glyphosate did not class as a carcinogen.

3.9       In July 2017, the Commission proposed to renew the approval of glyphosate for 10 years. In the face of opposition by some Member States, the Commission proposed, in early November 2017, a five-year renewal. On 12 December 2017, the Commission adopted the act to renew the approval of glyphosate for 5 years.

            Council health and safety management arrangements for glyphosate based products

3.10      In accordance with our statutory obligations under the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (NI) Regulations 2003 (as amended), all chemicals used within the Council are required to have a COSHH Assessment. 

3.11      The COSHH assessment identifies the hazards associated with the product, who may be exposed, how they may be exposed and the controls required to safely use the product. 

3.12      COSHH assessments have been completed for all the pesticides in use within the Council which contain glyphosate as an active ingredient. These include:

3.13      When conducting these COSHH assessments, reference is made to the product’s Safety Data Sheet (SDS).  By law suppliers of chemicals must provide an up to date safety data sheet if a substance is dangerous for supply. Safety data sheets provide information on chemical products that help users of those chemicals to make a risk assessment. They describe the hazards the chemical presents, and give information on handling, storage and emergency measures in case of accident.

3.14      None of the Safety Data Sheets for glyphosate based products used by the Council have classified them as carcinogenic. 

3.15      As a result of the COSHH assessment process, these products are currently approved for use within the Council on the basis that the recommended control measures are followed.  These control measures typically include the wearing of chemical resistant gloves to EN 374 standard; suitable protective overalls and rubber boots during application; suitable respiratory protective device and chemical resistant goggles if exposed to vapour/spray.

3.16      Furthermore, the Park’s service risk assessment for the use of pesticides stipulates all staff carrying out spraying must have relevant training (PA1, PA6) to ensure they are competent to carry out the task.

            Alternatives to Glyphosate based weedkillers

3.17      As advised, the Council currently use a number of glyphosate based products.  The alternatives to this would include:

3.18      1.  Use of contact herbicides in place of glyphosate based    products Contact herbicides are not as effective as glyphosate based herbicides as they do not kill the root        system and therefore would require repeat treatment and      additional resource. Contact herbicides can be more           expensive.

3.19      2.  Use of alternative practices such as strimming, mulching,            hoeing and hand weeding in place of weedkillers ;

            Use of alternative practices would be more labour intensive and would require additional resource. The majority of perennial weeds treated by Parks Operatives are on hard surfaces so hand weeding would not be possible as a control measure.

3.20      Glyphosate is the only recommended control mechanism for the control of Japanese Knotweed so therefore no alternative is available.

            Financial and Resource Implications

3.21      At this stage, there are no financial or resource implications however should alternatives to Glyphosate based weedkillers be used in the future, additional budget would be required for the purchase of contact chemicals and/or additional resource to apply alternative practices. Exact costs would have to be explored.

            Equality or Good Relations/Rural Needs Assessment

3.22      None.”

            The Committee noted that, as agreed earlier in the meeting, further consideration to the use of glyphosate based weed killers and possible alternatives would be given when considering the Motion in respect of Green Spaces.