Letter: Cancer, lice and advice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr Andrew Watterson
Sir: The recent decision, based on "prudence" and the precautionary principle, to place the headlice treatment carbaryl on prescription-only sale is to be welcomed ("Cancer link leads to ban on sale of headlice remedies", 8 November). Carbaryl was first synthesised in 1953 and reports about its carcinogenic effects appeared in 1970. Other information about possible mutagenicity, reproductive, neurological and immunological effects of carbaryl has been available for at least a decade. It seems strange that the new policy had to be triggered by more evidence from the manufacturers about carcinogenicity tests in laboratories and not by our regulators acting on existing data and knowledge of data gaps.
What will now happen to those agricultural, horticultural and public- health workers who still use carbaryl on crops and for various pest-control purposes?
In the US data sheets on carbaryl do indicate the substance may cause mutations and may present reproductive hazards. Users there have some form of informed consent about which pesticides they choose to purchase. At the very least similar labels should be attached to the product in the UK for all its uses. This has not led to the cries of scaremongering referred to by your newspaper in the UK. If people are better informed about potential and known hazards, if they are told that the science is often unclear or contradictory, they are less likely to be "scared" and more likely to find out about hazards and accept the tentative advice of experts.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Watterson
Director
Centre for Occupational and
Environmental Health Policy
De Montfort University
Leicester
8 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments