Message Board - Health & Safety: R.E.A.C.H.
29 Nov 2009 by aturnbull
As most groundsmen/greenkeepers know, there are plans by our legislators to further reduce the number of pesticides for amenity use. What many turf practitioners do not realise is the increasing amount of regulations that affect producers of products. One major regulation that came out last year is a new European Union regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals. (REACH). REACH came into force on 1st June 2007 and replaces a number of European Directives and Regulations with a single system.
I would ask everyone to have a look at http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/index.htm.
As a relatively small producer of organic feeds I am not overly affected, but still have to abide by these regulations. Anyone else from the supply side of the industry care to comment?
Best regards
Andy Turnbull
29 Nov 2009 by Steve63
and this affects the local cricket groundsman, how?
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
29 Nov 2009 by Mike
Link didn't work for me Andy - try this:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/
Mike
29 Nov 2009 by aturnbull
Hi Steve
It explains the reasons why manufactures and suppliers are cutting the number of products for looking after your cricket ground. It also has implications for every business or organisation that uses chemicals, even for cleaning toilets and drains.
As an industry we are used to completing Risk Assessments, but this seems to put more onus on every user to supply further details.
See: www.hse.gov.uk/reach/resources/users.pdf
I am not an expert on REACH, just someone trying to fulfill the requirements and thought everyone should be aware of these obligations.
Thanks for the info Mike.
Andy Turnbull
29 Nov 2009 by jontaylor
Andy,
REACh doesn't explain the reduction in number of products. If your suppliers are telling you that then you need to ask yourself what else they are being economical with the truth about.
No substance has yet hit the deadline for REACh dossier submission and so at the moment all suppliers can still provide the same products they always have, so long as they complied with some relatively simple administrative requirements. If they didn't comply wuth these requirements- then ask yourself what other laws they don't comply with. REACh was very well signposted and industry has had many years to prepare.
In future you should find that all products from reputable EU based suppliers are still available, unless those product contain certain nasties. Where I will predict the biggest impacts are products imported from outside of the EU. But even then, if the tonnage of individual components does not exceed 1T per year per importer, then there is no impact.
If you use more than one tonne per year each of "substances" for purposes other than those covered by the suppliers/manufacturers data sheets, then you will have responsibilities under REACh. But most of us won't.
The vast majority of us should see no impact - other than a possible price increase to cover what is effectively another "green" tax.
The ciderman rolls
30 Nov 2009 by GaryA
Andy - I'd say that although REACH is important it is arguable that more important for the groundsman, greenkeeper, local authority man, contractor (especially so the latter two) is the implementation of the EU's Thematic Strategy on the use of Pesticides together with the Sustainable Use Directive and Water Framework Directive.
Whilst we are seeing the reduction of available active ingredients on the market there will be new ones come along, just not so many as previously.
Gary
Be Just and Fear Not
18 Dec 2009 by barry glynn
If materials are available, why dont the small groundsperson just ignore the balls*it peddling Euro tw*ts? I bet thats what the French would do. Yet another example of why we should never have entered the EU.
I mean, what does this actually mean?
"the implementation of the EU's Thematic Strategy on the use of Pesticides together with the Sustainable Use Directive and Water Framework Directive."
How long have groundsperson used , for example, carbedazim and what harm has it actually done to anyone?
The EU is full of people trying to justify their balls*it jobs by coming out with such cr*p.
Now we have Gordon Brown wearing his Tony Blair "Im going to save the world" hat by giving 6 billion of our money away to China and the suchlike. Money we havent got. He should be concentratinng on gettinng us out the cr*p he has helped to put us in.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
18 Dec 2009 by Grassman2011
Barry, how would a politician answer those questions ? You have my vote next March, April or will it be May ?
18 Dec 2009 by barry glynn
They would answer the question in the same manner they answer every question,i.e they would ignore it, lie and waffle.
Trouble is, I have no better system in mind to replace them with.
Actually I have some the qualities required for a politician, I am opinionated and like the sound of my own voice 
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
18 Dec 2009 by GaryA
Barry - whilst I agree with you regarding groundsmen using products safely without causing problems and the Euro beurocrats who seem to thrive on peddling ***** the fact of the matter is that pesticide use is only going to be more and more in the public spotlight and legislation, no matter how crap and unscientific it may seem/actually be, we as groundsmen and greenkeepers will have to adhere to ever-increasingly stringent measures.
Those in Local Authorities who have responsibility for the weed control on highways, footpaths, amenity areas will be under even more pressure.
In a nut shell the Thematic Strategy is about reduction of pesticide use as is the Sustainable Use Directive. The Water Framework Directive is aimed at reducing water pollution.
Whatever we think about Europe we get most of our laws from them. One example to consider is how the industry behaved with regard Diuron, a cheap, effective residual herbicide that was revoked recently - we were told repeatedly that if we didn't stop over-spraying it abd spraying it where it wasn't aupposd to go then they would take it off us. What happened? The stuff continued to be sprayed all over the place like it used to be until the water companies said ******** to you, we're not paying for cleaning it out of drinking water anymore and guess what - it was revoked or "banned" as some like to say.
Sorry if what I wrote sounded bullshitty and politiciany - those that know me will vouch for the fact that that is not me and not what I'm about. Working for who I do means that the gubbins included above is what we have to know about so we can pass it onto our customers so they don't fall foul of any of it.
2 years ago we very nearly lost the use of pesticides in public place thanks to those nice people in Europe - thankfully that didn't materialise but there was/is a very big 'but' - and that is that we, as an industry, will have to and be sen to be tighten things up even further with regard the use of pesticides.
Gary
Be Just and Fear Not
18 Dec 2009 by barry glynn
Gary
There's not a lot to be said about getting old, the body starts packing up and you start running out of money. But there are some advantages. One is, I dont give a sh*t about the type of rhetoric that you have to involved in, as in above. I have a pathalogical hatred of people who originated such b*llock speak. If "thematic strategy" and "the sustainable Use Directive" means the reduction of pesticide use and reducing water pollution, then why not say it!!!
I know this is never going to happen. One reason is that in the UK we make bu**er all now and a lot of people make a living out of shuffling emails around and attending meetings.
I am so glad I am finally eeking out a living doing something that is involved in producing something , albeit out of the land and not of value in terms of export or profit.
I am but a grain of sand in the importance of the industry but it winds me up to see all the cr*p the industry has to put up with. We live in a sue culture and we have our great friends across the Atlantic to thank for that and most of the other rubbish that goes with it.
Nothing stays the same forever and it is important that the public are protected from nasty stuff.
But where will it all end up?
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
19 Dec 2009 by GaryA
Again, find it hard to diasagree with you, Barry. I regularly find solice on my bowling green but that's not happening this morning and even more frustrating is that this afternoon's rugby is extremely unlikey to go ahead.
Go well
Be Just and Fear Not
19 Dec 2009 by barry glynn
Well Gary. Im happy,spiked my square last Friday, so these frosts are getting nicley down into the soil and the cricket is on the tele, happy days!
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
21 Dec 2009 by Steve63
Nothing from manufacturers/importers/suppliers yet then?
As end users of chemicle products the REACH legislation should only have beneficial changes, i.e. improved data sheets + information. As most of the products that we use are specific to our industry and therefore already come with good data sheets and directions I do not envisage this directive having much direct influence on the end user, just ensure that you have an accurate inventry of chemicles and the relevant information about them.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
22 Dec 2009 by IGS
REACH!
Whether you like it or not is here and will cost money...
The costs of the compulsory registration and on costs will be passed onto the client -
REACH has its place but also negatives. For example;- A large company manufacturing Phosphite (PO3) liquids that are very good at warding off diseases and therefore reducing / omitting the need to apply 'poisonous pesticides' have ceased production as there sales were not adequate to cover the registration costs. The costs are / would have been in the region of several 100's of £1000/-.
This is the dilemma that actually supports the use of pesticides.
REACH went through the EU approval as submitted by and when Finland held the presidency, I believe no one thought much about it and the motion was not really questioned. France estimated that it will cost their country over £360 million to implement.
How many people would that feed? France is only one country in the EU
Control of substances hazardous to health is needed but these taxations are a burden on most of us as we all end up paying.
Some of the ingredients in products such as diet carbonated soft drinks are hazardous however, the income that these manufacturers make from the sales of such products is so high they can afford to the registration fees.
George Orwell (Eric Blair - I'm sure / hope no relation to probably the most hated man in the universe) must be quaking in his grave at the under sight that he imagined life would be like after 1984 as it is magnitudes worst
Happy Christmas to all
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
