Tag: The Countess of Mar

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to relocate testing for Lyme borreliosis away from the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory; and if so, when they expect the move to take place, and whether the new laboratory will be ISO 15189 accredited at the time of the transfer.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department of Health, Public Health England (PHE) or NHS England do not hold information about which laboratories are and are not International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189 accredited. A list of accredited laboratories is held on the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) website and is the definitive list of accredited laboratories to which the Department, PHE and the NHS refer. Accreditation is covered by the Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) company until recently, and is now part of the UKAS scheme.

There is no intention to transfer the Lyme disease testing service from the Rare & Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL) to another laboratory. RIPL as a department will move from the Porton site as part of the PHE relocation scheduled to commence in 2018 but no decision on the exact date has been made. RIPL is scheduled to transfer to ISO 15189 in late summer 2016, when the ISO inspection team review the tests offered by the laboratory under ISO 15189. Until that time, the laboratory is operating under CPA in accordance with the transition process laid down by ISO.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 20 June (HL503), and in the light of the fact that there are no detection systems fitted in commercial aircraft to indicate the presence of fumes, how pilots or crew with little or no sense of smell are expected to be able to identify the presence of fumes in cabin air that might constitute a potential safety incident.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Anosmia (complete loss of smell) is rare and many of the medical conditions/medications which may cause this are incompatible with pilot medical certification. Hyposmia (reduction in sense of smell) is most commonly associated with acute or chronic upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) – crew who have a significant URTI should not be on duty.

Even if someone did have little, or no sense of smell, there are other indications of the occurrence of a fumes event, such as the presence of smoke or a visible haze. In addition, any fumes event associated with bleed air contamination would be distributed throughout the cockpit/cabin, so detection does not rely on the sense of smell of one individual.

Any pilot experiencing symptoms of possible cabin air contamination, such as eye or throat irritation, should follow the standard operating procedure and wear their goggles and oxygen mask, regardless of whether they can smell anything – particularly if they are aware that they have a poor sense of smell.

There is currently no evidence of toxicity as a result of fumes events that would justify installation of monitors (even if monitors suitable for routine use on aircraft were available).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-03-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there are any other circumstances in which 2,500/100,000 serious adverse events and 3,300/100,000 cases of autoimmune disorders, as reported by the human papilloma virus vaccine manufacturers, would be accepted in order to try to prevent the occurrence of 10/100,000 cases of cervical cancer.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Thorough reviews undertaken by health authorities, most recently by the World Health Organization in December 2015, across the world have found no evidence to support a link between the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine and the development of autoimmune and chronic illnesses. The safety of HPV vaccines was thoroughly evaluated prior to being licensed. Around three million girls have been vaccinated so far in the United Kingdom, with more than 80 million people vaccinated worldwide. As with any vaccine or medicine, all reports of serious adverse events following HPV vaccination are taken seriously and remain under continual review. However, such events are not necessarily due to the vaccine and coincidence can also be a factor. The available scientific evidence does not suggest that HPV vaccines are associated with these rates of serious side effects.

The aim of the vaccination programme is to prevent cervical cancer related to HPV infection and the best way to do this is to vaccinate girls and young women. The HPV vaccine has a good safety record, and surveillance shows it has contributed to a significant decrease in rates of infection with the two main cancer-causing HPVs. The UK programme is expected to eventually prevent hundreds of deaths from cervical cancer every year.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-07-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 11 July (HL873), whether ExxonMobil was consulted by, or supplied evidence to, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food and the Environment (COT) prior to the publication of the 2007 COT Statement and whether the results were conclusive.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) identified and evaluated over 400 references when producing their 2007 statement, called “Statement on the Review of the Cabin Air Environment, Ill-health in Aircraft Crews and the Possible Relationship to Smoke/Fume Events in Aircraft”. The evidence base consisted of data submitted by the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) and references identified as relevant by the COT Secretariat.

All evidence reviewed can be found listed at the end of the Statement. There are no references to ExxonMobil submitting evidence, or being consulted by the COT during the review.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-03-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the finding in the report from the Boston University School of Public Health in Cortex that research clearly and consistently” shows that exposure to pesticides and other toxins caused Gulf War Illness; and what bearing that report will have on the treatment of sick Gulf War veterans.”

Earl Howe

The Government greatly values the service of all 1990-91 Gulf War veterans. We have long accepted that the ill-health of some veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War may be associated with their service in the Gulf. In such cases, and where a link is proven, compensation may be claimed under the War Pensions Scheme, with appropriate medical care provided by the National Health Service across the UK.

The Department has funded extensive research into Gulf War illness including some research into rehabilitative therapies for those veterans with persistent symptoms. Our strategy on research topics and studies has been informed and overseen by independent scientific experts nominated by the Medical Research Council, taking account of published peer-reviewed international literature and international studies. We have no plans to undertake further research on Gulf War issues. We continue to monitor any Gulf War research that is published around the world, including in the United States.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-07-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is possible for members of the public who encounter a motor vehicle producing visible emissions to report the matter and if so, to whom should they report.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Members of the public can report excessively smoky lorries and buses to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency through their website (https://www.gov.uk/report-smoky-vehicle). There is no similar reporting system for cars or other vehicles. However all vehicles must meet strict standards before they enter service, as well as standards which must be maintained at all times while a vehicle is in service. It is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle meets the necessary limit requirements at all times.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-05-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the group led by Tom Rigby can expect a response to their question about the advice that was received by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from the Health and Safety Executive and the National Poisons Unit immediately prior to the end of compulsory dipping following the Revocation Order of 4 June 1992.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Defra officials have been investigating this issue since the meeting with the Sheep Dip Sufferers Group in November and sent information to Tom Rigby on 26 May.

The information follows up the actions from the meeting and includes news releases from MAFF and the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) from 1992 and 1993. These explain why the decision was taken to end compulsory dipping, and the conclusions of the VPC reviews of organophosphate sheep dips at the time.

A note of agreed actions from the meeting was also provided.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-05-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) view that three unpublished industry-sponsored carcinogenicity studies on mice played an important role in informing EFSA’s decision that the herbicide glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The European Food Safety Authority concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard in humans. This conclusion followed a very thorough consideration of a wide range of scientific data, including a number of studies on laboratory animals.

The mouse carcinogenicity studies were performed by independent testing laboratories and comply with the applicable OECD test guideline and Good Laboratory Practice. Carcinogenicity studies in mice are among the many EU data requirements for pesticides, and help to establish whether or not an active substance in a pesticide has carcinogenic potential.

Under the regulatory system for pesticides, studies are not published because of the danger that data may be wrongly used to support other rival applications for authorisation. However, requests to view the documents can be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-05-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will place in the Library of the House the three unpublished industry studies of the safety of the herbicide glyphosate relied upon by the European Food Safety Authority when it reached its decision that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans, namely the 2001 study owned by the Israeli pesticides company ADAMA Agan Ltd Carcinogenicity Study with Glyphosate technical in Swiss Albino Mice, the 2009 study owned by the Australian pesticides company Nufarm Glyphosate technical: Dietary Carcinogenicity Study in the Mouse, and the 1997 study owned by the Japanese pesticides company Arysta Life Sciences HR-001: 18 month Oral Oncogenicity Study in Mice.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The European Food Safety Authority concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard in humans. This conclusion followed a very thorough consideration of a wide range of scientific data, including a number of studies on laboratory animals.

The mouse carcinogenicity studies were performed by independent testing laboratories and comply with the applicable OECD test guideline and Good Laboratory Practice. Carcinogenicity studies in mice are among the many EU data requirements for pesticides, and help to establish whether or not an active substance in a pesticide has carcinogenic potential.

Under the regulatory system for pesticides, studies are not published because of the danger that data may be wrongly used to support other rival applications for authorisation. However, requests to view the documents can be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2015-11-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to emerging evidence relating to the appropriate level of dietary sodium intake; what meetings Ministers have had with scientists and others about that issue; and what representations they have received regarding dietary sodium intake.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The evidence base relating to dietary sodium intake was extensively reviewed in the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’s (SACN) report ‘Salt and Health’, published in 2003. In reviewing the evidence, SACN noted that the greatest benefits were likely to be achieved by taking a population approach to reducing salt intakes rather than through individual targeted advice. SACN continues to monitor average salt intakes through a programme of dietary survey work.

New voluntary salt reduction targets have been developed for 76 specific food groups that contribute most to people’s salt intakes and major retailers, manufacturers and caterers are working to meet these targets by December 2017.

SACN has also reviewed the evidence around the impact of low sodium intakes. It found no basis for changing the existing recommendation for a target reduction in average salt intake to 6 grammes per day for the adult population, equivalent to an average reduction of 2.4 grammes per day of sodium.

SACN’s ‘Salt and Health’ report is attached and can be found at:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-salt-and-health-report

Baroness Masham of Ilton has recently asked three questions about dietary sodium intake. Further representations have been received from the Salt Association. Ministers have not met with scientists and others about this issue.

“