Agenda item

For the committee to consider its recommendation to full Council following a review of the matter referred to Scrutiny of Health Committee in February 2024 as follows:

“To reduce the budget for mowing and spraying by at least £100,000 a year and to cease all purchases of any products containing glyphosate or neonicotinoids”. 

Report presented by Jonathan Clubb (Head of Parks and Grounds), Richard Marr (Area 4 Manager, Highways) and Victoria Turner (Public Health Consultant).

The Committee considered a report from Jon Clubb (Head of Parks and Grounds), Richard Marr (Area Manager, Highways), and Victoria Turner (Public Health Consultant), outlining the Council’s use of glyphosate and providing an overview of wider implications for public health.  Councillor Brown, as the mover of the original motion, was also invited to speak after the discussion to reiterate his original points.

Currently glyphosate was used by Parks and Grounds for weed control in open spaces, and Highways on kerbs, footways, and paved areas.  The information on the potential threat to human health was summarised, there being no consensus on its impact.  Glyphosate was categorised as probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization in 2015, but other large-scale evidence reviews since that time had not confirmed this.  The Bayer glyphosate case in the United States was referenced, and it was highlighted that in many of the lawsuits the issue was the failure to adequately warn users about health risks, rather than the health risks themselves.

Alternatives such as water and hot foam, vinegar, or manual treatment were discussed, but these had limited effectiveness because of their failure to attack the root systems, necessitating repeated treatments.  Limited tests had been carried out by NYC, but service research concluded that overall, a move away from glyphosate-based treatment would cost between four and ten times as much.

Members discussed operational details of the council’s use of glyphosate, and officers confirmed that use by Parks and Grounds was almost exclusively on areas of hard standing and important high-traffic areas, such as around gates and access points, rather than on green spaces and flower beds.  For Highways use, the consequences of failure to control weeds were discussed, including potential for increased trip hazards on pathways, and eventual damage to structures as weeds became more developed.

Some members felt that even an inconclusive link to carcinogenesis represented an unacceptable risk, but others argued that the risk was in line with other known risk factors common in everyday life.  It was felt that a rejection of glyphosate by NYC, at a time when it was not banned nationally and was still available commercially for use by the public, would be incongruous.  The risk of weeds developing if alternative methods such as manual removal were adopted, and then being proactively sprayed by members of the public, was also considered.  It was also felt that it would not be possible to meet the aims of the original motion in reducing the spend by £100,000 by ceasing purchase of glyphosate, since the alternatives to glyphosate were less efficient and more expensive and might lead to an increased cost.  However, members remained concerned about any potential health risk and asked officers to keep the committee updated on regulatory developments if future research disclosed health risks.

The committee thanked Councillor Brown for his original motion, which had prompted a useful debate and highlighted important issues.  Officers were also thanked for their time in researching and presenting this complex issue to the committee.

Resolved:  It is recommended to Full Council that,

a)    having considered the reports, and having examined and debated the competing evidence on the safety and usage of glyphosate, the motion not be upheld. 

b)    the Highways and Parks and Grounds teams’ efforts to minimise usage of glyphosate, and explore alternatives, be supported.

c)    the efforts to reduce risk to operatives using glyphosate are minimised by the use of appropriate PPE, adequate and up-to-date training, and the use of Continuous Droplet Application where possible, be supported.

d)    it be noted that the reduction of the current total budget by £100,000, from its current level of £144,000 by ceasing purchase of glyphosate, cannot be supported as there are no appropriate alternatives which would maintain highways and parks at their current standards.