View report page

APPENDIX VI (continued)
It should perhaps be emphasized that the use of tracers is not suggested as affording a means
by which a foodstuff could be condemned; it is solely to indicate to an analyst, or, if possible,
to a sampling officer or even to the consumer, which particular pesticide, should be looked for
and which would be absent.
The use of tracers of the insoluble kinds mentioned in the first two groups above would not
be suitable for use with systemic insecticides. But in view of the fact that insecticidal compounds
can be produced which are absorbed by the plants through leaves and roots it would seem
likely that other systemic chemical compounds could also be devised which could be utilised
as tracers for such insecticides. Obviously, experiment would be necessary before suggestions
could be made; but it is thought that the problem might be well within the capacity, if not within
the present highly specialised knowledge, of the research organisations of the manufacturing
companies.
It is submitted that for the protection of the public the compulsory addition of suitable
tracers should be considered as an alternative to banning the use of potentially toxic pesticides.
(3) Advisory Service
It is suggested that where no legal standards have been laid down Local Authorities should
be kept advised by the Central Government on the following matters:—
(i) If the use of tracers is adopted, as suggested above (2), which tracers are specified for
each permitted pesticide;
(ii) If the number of pesticides is restricted, as suggested above (i), which ones are permitted;
(iii) Maximum safe limits, based solely upon public health considerations, for all permitted
pesticides in food.
It is recognised that a weakness of any system put forward for controlling the use of pesticides
in this country would lie in its inability to cover imported produce.
It is felt, however, firstly, that if the system suggested above could be successfully applied
in this country the public would, at least, be able to rely upon home-grown produce. Secondly, that
since Great Britain is one of the major exporting countries for agricultural chemicals its application
to pesticides for export as well as to those for home use would automatically extend the
same system of control to a substantial proportion of imported produce.
Thirdly, it has been made abundantly clear, in numerous papers and speeches, as for example
at the International Conference at the Pure Food Centenary last year (where these proposals were
first made public), that other countries are faced with precisely the same problems; and, indeed,
that public health administrators elsewhere are equally disturbed and actively seeking a practicable
solution.
It is hardly to be expected that any drastic proposals for pesticide control would be adopted
internationally without adequate trial. But if the system proposed were adopted and found satisfactory
in this country there is little doubt that it would receive careful consideration by F.A.O.,
and its adoption by the major chemical manufacturing countries should automatically extend the
cover to the more agrarian countries and place the Port Health Authorities in a position to insist
upon its application to all Imported produce.