Tag: The Countess of Mar

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To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will place in the Library of the House the three unpublished industry studies of the safety of the herbicide glyphosate relied upon by the European Food Safety Authority when it reached its decision that glyphosate is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.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what form of evidence of incapacity is acceptable for Personal Independence Payments claims when a person suffering from severe myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome, for which there is currently no treatment, has had no contact with any medical professionals or auxiliary practitioners for a considerable length of time.

Baroness Altmann

The Department encourages claimants to provide as much relevant evidence as necessary to support their claim. The “How your disability affects you” form and accompanying guidance sets out the range of information that can help the Department reach a decision. The guidance for Health Professionals also sets out sources of further evidence which could help inform their advice to the Department, this includes family members, carers or anyone else who supports them.

Before claimants are invited for a face-to-face consultation, all of the evidence held is reviewed and if, at that stage, a decision can be made on the paper evidence alone, then claimants will not be required to attend a face-to-face consultation. Alternatively, further evidence that might help inform the Department’s decision on the claim can be requested by the Health Professional.

If the Health Professional cannot provide advice to the Department at this stage, or where there is insufficient or no other suitable sources of evidence on which to make an assessment, claimants will be invited to attend a face-to-face consultation. This gives claimants the opportunity to put across their own views of the impact of their health condition on their everyday lives, ensuring that decisions reflect the best evidence. In some cases we carry out consultations in the claimant’s home.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 16 September (HL2047) regarding the Committee on Toxicology’s advice about toxic chemicals in food and the environment, when they intend to write to the members of both Houses.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Department for Transport’s officials are cooperating with the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment regarding the letter that clarifies the Committee’s position on cabin air. This is to ensure the Committee’s advice is represented in full and with clarity. The letters will be sent to the Members of both Houses imminently, certainly in November.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 27 April (HL7764), whether or not European Aviation Safety Agency certification standard 25.1309c, which requires warning systems for any unsafe operating system, applies to engine oil that leaks onto hot aircraft engines over which cabin bleed air” is drawn.”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

European Aviation Safety Agency certification standard 25.1309c does not require this. However the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) standard for engine certification, CS-E 510, requires that a failure analysis and safety assessment is conducted by the engine manufacturer to show that hazardous concentration of toxic products will not enter the cabin bleed air.

EU airlines are legally required to report any potential safety incident including where fumes or smoke are detected on board an aircraft. Although these incidents are rare, these reports are taken very seriously and reviewed thoroughly to identify any safety issues or trends.

Passenger and crew safety is of paramount importance. The Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority are constantly working to enhance safety standards.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 8 July (HL831), how many of the recorded fume or smell events during the 100 flights referred to in that answer were reported to the Civil Aviation Authority under the mandatory reporting scheme.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

No fume event occurred during this study (Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study, Cranfield University, 2011) which triggered the airline’s formal reporting procedures to the Civil Aviation Authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the Nordic Cochrane Centre complaint to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) over maladministration at the EMA dated 26 May in relation to the EMA report on the safety of human papilloma virus vaccine.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Whilst the issues raised in the Nordic Cochrane Centre document are a matter for the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we are satisfied that the EMA has adequate processes in place to manage any potential conflicts of interest of its scientific experts and to uphold the integrity and impartiality of its decision-making. There was consensus agreement amongst European Union Member States on the conclusions of the recent human papilloma virus vaccine safety review, and we have confidence in the outcome of this review.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 23 July (HL1538), whether workplace exposure limits apply legally to passengers as well as crew; and what evidence they have that damage to a foetus cannot occur from a single exposure at those limits.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Air passengers, and by extrapolation an unborn child, are within the scope of workplace exposure limits, which take into account susceptible groups and therefore would protect pregnant women.

No specific evidence was collected during the studies regarding damage occurring to a foetus from a single exposure at workplace exposure limits.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to amend Section 4:4 of The Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance (England) to exclude the first sentence that specifies certain medical conditions in order to ensure that eligibility is based on disability or ill health regardless of diagnosis.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Government has no current plans to amend the non-statutory guidance to local authorities about the Blue Badge scheme. As the guidance makes clear “Each application should be considered on its merits – not on a “one size fits all” basis. The final decision about whether an applicant meets the criterion is for the issuing authority to make.”.