The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Bystander exposure: does the current regulatory approach provide adequate protection?

Bystander exposure: does the current regulatory approach provide adequate protection?
Bystander exposure: does the current regulatory approach provide adequate protection?
In September 2005, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) published a report, which among other things, recommended the introduction of a compulsory 5-metre buffer zone next to residential properties to provide added protection against possible health risks from spray drift (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 2005). In contrast, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) has advised that a buffer zone of this sort would be a disproportionate response to scientific uncertainty, although it might be justifiable simply on the grounds that many people do not like pesticides being sprayed right up to their boundaries (Advisory Committee on Pesticides, 2005). This paper summarises the methods that currently are used to assess health risks to neighbours and other bystanders, and examines why two eminent and independent committees have come to differing conclusions on the need for added precaution.
pesticides, regulation, risk, uncertainty, exposure, bystander, toxicity
1743-1026
62-64
Coggon, David
2b43ce0a-cc61-4d86-b15d-794208ffa5d3
Coggon, David
2b43ce0a-cc61-4d86-b15d-794208ffa5d3

Coggon, David (2006) Bystander exposure: does the current regulatory approach provide adequate protection? Outlooks on Pest Management, 17 (2), 62-64.

Record type: Article

Abstract

In September 2005, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) published a report, which among other things, recommended the introduction of a compulsory 5-metre buffer zone next to residential properties to provide added protection against possible health risks from spray drift (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 2005). In contrast, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) has advised that a buffer zone of this sort would be a disproportionate response to scientific uncertainty, although it might be justifiable simply on the grounds that many people do not like pesticides being sprayed right up to their boundaries (Advisory Committee on Pesticides, 2005). This paper summarises the methods that currently are used to assess health risks to neighbours and other bystanders, and examines why two eminent and independent committees have come to differing conclusions on the need for added precaution.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: April 2006
Keywords: pesticides, regulation, risk, uncertainty, exposure, bystander, toxicity

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 61732
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/61732
ISSN: 1743-1026
PURE UUID: 26e76486-abce-4c66-a463-bf1325443837
ORCID for David Coggon: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1930-3987

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Sep 2008
Last modified: 10 Dec 2019 01:53

Export record

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×