Listen to sheep farmers
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.TWO important questions remain unanswered on the question of toxic sheep dips ("Reports back farmers' toxic sheep dip claims", 30 April). First, why has it taken so long to make available the research reports on sheep dips completed several months ago? Academic researchers have been told that the delay is due to the need to get the research peer-reviewed. Surely the priority for government is to make results available as soon as possible to those who may be affected by use, such as GPs, poisons units and employer and trade union organisations. If a drug had evidence of adverse effects, notification would be sent out rapidly. Sheep dips should be treated in the same way.
Second, why have the accounts of people possibly adversely affected by sheep dips apparently been dismissed by those responsible for the monitoring of human exposure to pesticides? Not all anecdotal accounts of suspected poisoning may prove correct but procedures should be put in place to ensure that Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, and Health and Safety Executive committees dealing with sheep dips do consider the experiences of people like the Laytons, whose account is reported in your paper.
These government committees and groups should also automatically contain community and workplace representatives, a step which would ensure greater openness and public confidence in the MAFF and HSE committees dealing with pesticides than has hitherto been the case.
Dr Andrew Watterson
De Montfort University
Leicester
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments