PROTECT – INVESTIGATION
FINAL NOTE OF CHEMICAL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK SURVEILLANCE GROUP MEETING
ON 2 DECEMBER 2009 AT 1:00PM IN CONFERENCE ROOM 4, AVIATION HOUSE
ATTENDEES
Chris Livesey
(Chair)
Veterinary Laboratories Agency
Jo Payne
(JP)
Veterinary Laboratories Agency
John Caseley
(JC)
Food Standards Agency
Beth Dunn
(BD)
Food Standards Agency
Barry Maycock
(BM)
Food Standards Agency
Christina Baskaran
(CB)
Food Standards Agency
Steve Wyllie
(SW)
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Alison Gowers
(AG)
Environment Agency
David Harris
(DH)
Animal Health
Colin Crews
(CC)
Food and Environment Research Agency
Graham Urquhart
(GU)
Health Protection Agency
Martin Ball
(MB)
Health and Safety Executive (via teleconference)
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and, in particular, new member Graham Urquhart from the
HPA. Apologies for absence have been received from Alison Gleadle and Diane Benford (both FSA),
David Webb (VMD), Ruth Lysons and Trish Logie (both Defra), Paul Johnson (HSL), Chris Pidgeon
(PSD), Martin Rose (FERA) and Ovnair Sepai (HPA). Christina Baskaran was deputizing for Alison
Gleadle, Martin Ball was deputizing for Chris Mawdsley and Colin Crews was deputizing for Martin Rose.
MATTERS ARISING
Feedback from UKZADI
2. JC advised that one outstanding action from the last meeting concerned the question of feedback from
UKZADI in relation to the briefing paper presented on CHaIRS. The UKZADI Secretariat has since
confirmed that the report was received with interest, but there were no follow up questions.
Forward work plan
3. JC informed members that another action concerned additional items for the forward work plan. He
confirmed that topics put forward included arsenic surveillance, recycled material used as animal bedding
and further research on PFOS. The Chair queried the inclusion of PFOS, on the basis that this has now
been withdrawn from use. Members therefore agreed to remove this item from the forward work plan.
[FOIA s31(1)(g) and s31(2)(a) and (c)]
1
Metaldehyde incidents
4. JC referred to the metaldehyde incident discussed at the last meeting. An action arising from this
discussion was for HSE to consider the question as to whether the biocide approval process could provide
data that would help experts determine appropriate withdrawal periods for animals and milk during
incidents. HSE has responded that the approval conditions for pesticides and biocides take into
consideration the intended use of the product and are designed to prevent poisoning or contamination.
They cannot, however completely prevent poisoning or contamination which arises through misuse or
abuse of products. HSE added there is no requirement under current EU legislation for additional data to
be generated to assess the potential impact of poisoning of livestock, and that to ask for such data to
cover all eventualities would require a substantial increase in animal testing and place an onerous burden
on approval holders.
5. The Chair commented that livestock are occasionally poisoned by careless use of these approved
products, confirming they are not always used correctly or that accidents occur. BM commented that,
when FSA encounter food animal exposure, their toxicologists often cannot specify a precise withdrawal
interval, because of shortage of data and have to make conservative assumptions and extrapolations. SW
said that it would be very costly and time consuming to gather the range of animal data required and
queried whether there was any existing research that could be utilized. BM confirmed that FSA carried
out a full literature search, but the research found1 was of limited value, in this instance2.
6. SW suggested that when new cases come to light, that repeated sampling is carried out to ascertain
residue levels and rates of clearance. This suggestion was noted. The Chair suggested that serial
sampling would be helpful in some cases but not in others, depending how rapidly the particular chemical
is metabolized and excreted. A minimum of three serial samples on the same animals would be
necessary to produce useful pharmacokinetic data. JP confirmed that current VLA sampling advice to
vets3 following metaldehyde incidents in dairy herds was to instruct farmers to collect and freeze milk
samples at the first opportunity, for subsequent analysis, which is sufficient information for managing
metaldehyde incidents.
Classification of incident reports
7. JC referred to discussion at the last meeting about the incident reports from the VLA and how they should
be classified in future. It was confirmed that after consulting FSA security and legal experts, their view is
that, in this instance, the „Protect – Investigation‟ classification would seem the most appropriate. JC said
this was good news, as this means that VLA can now additionally e-mail the notifications to EA, HPA and
HSL who are not currently part of the gsi network, rather than send notifications to them by mail. FSA
security experts add that all recipients of this information need to handle and store the information
securely at all times. Since the last meeting VLA have updated their notification procedures accordingly.
[FOIA s31(1)(g) and s31(2)(a) and (c)]
1 For example, a study on the kinetics of metaldahyde in rats
2 BM also referred to case reports of metaldehyde poisoning in cattle, however this data was inconclusive in relation to levels of milk
contamination.
3 Ref: Veterinary Record article dated 7 November 2009
2
[FOIA s31(1)(g) and s31(2)(a) and (c)]
3
[FOIA s31(1)(g) and s31(2)(a) and (c)]
4
[FOIA s31(1)(g) and s31(2)(a) and (c)]
Communications issues – raising the profile of CHaIRS
8.
The Chair advised that the reason for including these two incidents in the agenda is that they highlight
continuing communications issues. He confirmed that CHaIRS provides a forum where such events can
be routinely reported to all members and that each member has their part to play to ensure that others
are kept informed. This was noted. The Chair added that with the group now a year old, it may be an
opportune moment to reflect on what has been achieved and also attempt to raise the group‟s profile.
With these goals in mind, the Chair suggested that an annual report should be produced covering the
work of CHaIRS and in addition consideration should be given to including CHaIRS material on an
external website4
9. The following comments were made by members regarding the above proposal:
JP commented that CHaIRS is not high profile enough within individual agencies.
AG advised that operational procedures should be amended to include contact being made with
CHaIRS where necessary.
MB suggested setting up an „invite only‟ government forum, to ensure that restricted / sensitive
information is protected.
GU offered to produce a briefing note to circulate within the HPA (with specific emphasis on
people responding to chemical incidents) describing the CHaIRS group. This might contribute to
the CHAIRS annual report, if appropriate.
JC supported the idea of including CHaIRS info on a website & producing an annual report; in
connection with the latter point he said he would look for some funding for this. He also agreed to
talk to other members of the FSA‟s Incidents Branch to ensure incident notifications are shared
with CHaIRS members, as appropriate
10. All the above points were noted. Regarding the production of a CHaIRS annual report, as a first step it
was agreed to consider the publicity routes and communication methods used by the HAIRS group.
ACTION: JOHN CASELEY
RAGWORT POISONING
11. The Chair introduced this agenda item, as follows:
Members will recall that a ragwort incident was discussed at the September meeting. Ragwort, which
is a controlled weed, is harmful to livestock and potentially a public health issue in food animals. At
that meeting it was agreed that, in terms of incident prevention, it would be useful to raise awareness
of the issue of ragwort poisoning and specifically promote the Defra Code of Practice. As a first step it
was agreed that the Defra Code of Practice should be circulated to all members. This was done on 13
October. Also it was agreed that LACORS and Natural England should be contacted to establish their
respective policies on ragwort control. The Secretariat has contacted both. Natural England has
provided an information note regarding ragwort management which has also been circulated to
members. LACORS has advised that the Weeds Act 1959 and related legislation do not fall within the
LACORS remit and as such there is no LACORS policy on ragwort control.
Unfortunately, the control of Ragwort is not straightforward so producing simple advice is a major
challenge.
4 The Food Standards Agency website was suggested, as the FSA provides the Secretariat for the group. Other Agencies could link their websites to
the FSA’s.
5
The Defra advice is sound and should be referred to as the “gold standard” but it is too long for an
advisory leaflet.
The Regulation has been thought through and seems appropriate, as it is allowing ragwort to spread
to other premises / land that is the offense. VLA find it irritating that horse owners and responsible
farmers seem to be pretty diligent about controlling ragwort but it only takes one landowner in an area
allowing their ragwort go to seed and everyone nearby has it the following year. The seeds seem to
have a very high germination rate.
Natural England will resist full control, as they defend the presence of Ragwort as part of our flora and
an essential plant for some insects. They want it to flower and propagate and advise farmers to
control it in their own pastures by good pasture management.
Local authority land is frequently contaminated with ragwort, such as grass verges and common land.
Control could have cost implications for ratepayers.
Ragwort may be particularly difficult to control on:
Nature reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), bearing in mind the Natural
England policy.
"Setaside" land
Headlands, field margins, hedgerows left fallow as part of Defra promoted "green policies".
Woodland and biofuel crops such as willow and miscanthus grasses.
Land managed for shooting.
Effective controls are generally either labour intensive or cut across the Natural England policy.
Herbicide treatment seems to require individual "spotting" of ragwort plants - limiting practicality
Biological control (Cinnabar moth) is still being developed
Manual removal of plants is only practical on small areas of land.
Ragwort seems to be a "semi-annual", as it apparently dies after flowering but if it is cut before it
flowers it is likely to regrow at least once or twice. However this suggests it will eventually die if it
is continually cut.
It is suggested that the easiest method of complying with the Regulation on grass verges, etc is to
cut the ragwort before it flowers. Cutting is not usually appropriate on farms (unless cut plants are
immediately collected and burned) as dry ragwort is much more palatable and cutting increases
the risk of poisoning of grazing animals and residues in food animal products.
It is very important that ragwort is not cut and included in hay or silage.
Ragwort has been controlled traditionally by allowing sheep to graze it. This seems to be
effective and does not usually cause poisoning but care would need to be taken in making
reference to this in official advice (e.g. include sheep as a control method but emphasise that it is
ultimately toxic and the sheep should also have access to good grass).
12. CC said that he was aware of research carried out in the US which indicated that beetle / moth control has
proved effective. Ensuring good land management is also important, including maintaining grass
coverage to prevent ragwort seeds germinating. Weedkiller treatments have been found to be less
effective than regular cutting, which has been shown to eradicate ragwort. The use of Citronella oil has
also been shown to be an effective natural treatment. A research study carried out by FERA showed that
alkaloid toxins disappeared from silage, suggesting they are hydrolysed, but JP commented that a recent
severe ragwort incident was caused by ragwort contaminated silage. Some data is also available on
alkaloid concentrations at different stages of ragwort growth; this showed that the alkaloids are produced
in the roots and concentrate in the growing areas of the plant, particularly the flowers. JC commented that
the Agency‟s Emerging Risk Unit are content for a short leaflet to be produced for farmers highlighting the
risks of ragwort.
13. SW advised that Natural England should be involved in any further discussions. It should be established
how far ragwort control can be taken before negative effects on wildlife occur. Exploration should also
take place to identify which management strategies are most effective, and whether there are any other
plants that can replace ragwort on SSSI and other fallow land, which are not harmful to animals. It was
6
agreed to hold further discussions on this issue with Natural England and Defra. JC agreed to co-ordinate
this.
ACTION: JOHN CASELEY
BLOOD SWEATING DISEASE
14. JP introduced this item, as follows:
This is a disease presentation (syndrome) which has been increasingly seen in Europe over the last 2
years and in the UK since 2009. It is seen in both beef and dairy calves which are 1 to 3 weeks old.
The calves appear to bleed from all orifices and multiple haemorrhages are seen internally. The
pathology is associated with bone marrow suppression which gives rise to decreased platelets initially
(thereby causing blood clotting disorders) and then a decrease in other cells, red blood cells giving
rise to anaemia.
Bone marrow damage can be caused by genetic, toxic, physical or infectious factors or be idiopathic
and include immunopathological processes. Various toxic aetiologies have been looked for and ruled
out.
There has been no indication of viral disease in the affected calves and the condition would not
appear to be 'infectious' as only one or two calves from a unit appear affected. The syndrome
is thought most likely associated with a colostrum reaction by the calf to maternal antibodies in the
colostrum. Antibodies associated with dam vaccination to Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus (BVDV)
and/or Blue Tongue Virus are being further investigated.
15. The Chair asked members for comments regarding this issue. SW commented that sporadic cases have
been seen on the continent since 2006. Since that time there has been an exponential increase in the
numbers of cases, however there is no evidence of zoonotic transmission. JP added that the increase in
numbers of cases has mirrored the increase in bluetongue vaccination, however there is no confirmed link
between the vaccine and blood sweating disease. SW circulated information on the disease from HAIRS.
It was agreed that the group would continue to monitor this issue closely.
AOB
16. AG advised that the EA‟s Waste Protocol Team are going to be looking at the issue of recycled wood
chips as animal bedding. The project team had suggested that it might be appropriate for a CHaIRS
member to sit on their technical advisory group. The Chair suggested that Martin Rose (FERA) has
previously expressed an interest in advising on this matter. MB added that Robert Hadway (Agriculture
Inspectorate) who is involved in work looking at bedding systems, may also be able to advise and should
be kept informed. MB agreed to provide AG with contact details, and AG agreed to keep the group
informed of developments in this work.
ACTION: MARTIN BALL (HSE) & ALISON GOWERS (EA)
17. JP referred to the Brampton recycling product, which has raised some concerns (particularly in relation to
dust inhalation). MB noted the article which related to a locally available product but added that they did
not have the resources to investigate all products and certainly not those that are only marketed on a
small scale. SW advised that the potential for animals ingesting recycled bedding material should be
considered, and also queried whether there is any generic advice available to the farming industry
regarding bedding materials. AG confirmed that the EA is currently developing guidance and is working
with VLA to produce an item for communication in their newsletter and will seek comments from CHaIRS
members regarding this in due course.
18. AG asked if it would be possible for a contact list for CHaIRS members to be circulated. BD confirmed a
list is available and will circulate to members.
ACTION: BETH DUNN (FSA)
7
NEXT MEETING
19. JC confirmed that the Secretariat will shortly be trawling around for suitable dates for the 2010 meetings.
The next meeting which will be in the spring will be via teleconference. SW requested that meetings are
not held during the first week of the third month of each quarter. This was noted.
ACTION: BETH DUNN (FSA)
INCIDENTS BRANCH
FEBRUARY 2010
8
