Updates British Horse Society exaggerating ragwort toxicity 10,000 times and Dogs info

 You know, there is an awful lot of work that goes into this, It isn't just a matter of writing stuff. There is an awful lot of reading. Just to discover the facts about small doses of ragwort having no effect was extraordinarily difficult. It must have involved at least 1000 and possibly nearing 2000 miles of travel to get the actual documents. Of course I will have used that opportunity for other research but it is a lot of work. I have located some more sources of information recently so there will be more coming out.

A colleague suggested recently that I was probably amongst the most knowledgeable people alive about ragwort. It actually caused me to stop and pause, I'm rather reluctant to accept it, but If I look at it honestly with approaching two and a half decades of work on this , and dedicated reading of the literature I can see why someone might think so.

One of the things I am writing about today is the updated information on the British Horse Society exaggerating the toxicity of ragwort by ten thousand times. Yes, this actually happened and I've got the evidence to prove it. It wasn't just sloppy writing in what they said as they used a term with a precise scientific meaning incorrectly. They called it extremely toxic, but that has a meaning and I've got the  literature sources for the toxicity, sources of what is extremely poisonous in chemicals and the mathematics proves it correct. It is all documented on my updated web page on this issue .Ragwort is not extremely toxic.

The other update is about dogs and ragwort. Yes, ragwort is poisonous to dogs, but it is not dangerous to them, there is no likelihood of exposure.   The idea that dangerous and toxic  not always  being the same is, it would seem, invisible to some people. As I keep saying everything is dangerous in sufficient quantity and I actually know someone who was found unconscious by a concerned relative and who spent several weeks recovering in the local intensive care unit. The cause was medical issues which caused them to drink too much water!

And yes I've done my research, there is no reliable test for ragwort poisoning, There are toxins in moulds which could easily grow on dried dog food quite invisibly and they are in the words of an article in Nature, a top tier scientific journal, "indistinguishable from ragwort poisoning."

It is important to note here, It isn't just my research. A colleague, a CEO of a conservation organisation, went to a meeting and discovered it directly from a veterinary professor. 

There is also a critical fact there is actually a standard veterinary textbook on things toxic to cats and dogs and it has no mention of anything connected to ragwort. Here is the link to the updated page https://www.ragwortfacts.com/ragwort-dogs.html

Well that just rounds things off for today. There is more to come. I've recently discovered a cache of old magazines with a mixture of nonsense and rebuttals from scientists and experts. I'm sure that will provide a few new web pages and some postings here. Only 800 miles of travelling for this lot, what a bargain!

DEFRA Corrects Ragwort Guidance on Fines Under the Weeds Act

Following a formal complaint I submitted earlier this year, DEFRA has now corrected wording on its ragwort guidance page concerning fines under the Weeds Act 1959.

The original wording implied that compliance with the Ragwort Code of Practice could “help you avoid fines”. In isolation, this created the impression that landowners faced a general risk of fines if ragwort was present on their land and that following the guidance prevented those fines.

This was misleading because the enforcement mechanism under the Weeds Act 1959 operates through a specific legal process.

Under the Act, action begins with the service of a Control Notice. Only if such a notice is served and subsequently breached can enforcement proceedings potentially lead to fines. There is no automatic liability simply because ragwort is present.

DEFRA has now amended the page to reflect this structure. The relevant sentence now reads:

“If you have been served a control notice under the Weeds Act 1959, but you can show you have since adopted control measures which comply with the guidance in the code of practice, this can help you avoid fines.”

This correction restores the correct sequence of enforcement under the law by making clear that fines only arise in the context of a served Control Notice.

The distinction is important because inaccurate descriptions of ragwort law are frequently repeated in social media posts, advertisements for weed-control services, and campaigning material. When government guidance is unclear, it can unintentionally reinforce those misunderstandings.

Clarifying the legal position helps ensure that discussions about ragwort management are based on the actual structure of the law rather than assumptions about general legal duties or automatic penalties.

I am grateful that DEFRA reviewed the issue and updated the wording accordingly.

Accurate public guidance is important, particularly where legal obligations are concerned, and this change helps ensure that the Weeds Act 1959 is described correctly.

 Just to explain the law here. I've put in this section to explain it in more detail.

The enforcement mechanism under the Weeds Act 1959 operates through the service of a Control Notice.

A Control Notice is a formal legal notice issued by the Secretary of State (in practice through officials acting on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). It can be served on the occupier of land where specified injurious weeds are considered to be growing in a way that may cause agricultural harm.

The Act lists five species as “injurious weeds”, including common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). Injurious here is a legal word that means harmful to the interests of something, Injurious weeds are, or were in 1920 when the term was first written into law, Weeds that are harmful to the interests of agriculture. It has nothing to do with causing an injury, Many of the other can be found in books on foraging for humans as wild foods. They are in fact edible. Ragwort of course isn't

The purpose of a Control Notice is not to impose an immediate penalty. Instead, it is a direction requiring the occupier of the land to take specified steps to prevent the weeds from spreading.

A Control Notice typically:

• identifies the land concerned

• specifies which weeds must be controlled

• sets out the measures required

• gives a time period in which the work must be carried out

Importantly, the Weeds Act does not create an automatic offence simply because these plants are present on land.

Enforcement action only becomes possible after a Control Notice has been served.

If the occupier fails to comply with the notice, two forms of enforcement may follow:

Prosecution for non-compliance

Failure to comply with a Control Notice is an offence that may lead to a fine.

Default action by the authorities

The authorities may carry out the required control work themselves and recover the costs from the occupier of the land.

In other words, the sequence under the Act is:

A Control Notice is served

The occupier is given an opportunity to carry out the required control measures

Enforcement action is only possible if the notice is ignored or breached

This means that the presence of ragwort on land does not by itself create legal liability. Enforcement under the Weeds Act arises only through the formal process of issuing and enforcing a Control Notice.

Key points: Ragwort enforcement under the Weeds Act

• The Weeds Act 1959 does not make it an offence simply for ragwort to grow on land.

• Action under the Act begins with the service of a Control Notice requiring the occupier to take specified control measures.

• The occupier is given time to comply with the notice and carry out the required work.

• Fines can only arise if a Control Notice is served and the occupier fails to comply with it.

• If a notice is ignored, the authorities may either prosecute for non-compliance or carry out the work themselves and recover the costs from the occupier.

In short: no Control Notice then no enforcement under the Weeds Act.