How our Governments Fail to Regulate the Use of Pesticides in Tasmania and Australia Generally
“.. The choice facing us is clear: either to continue with our chronic dependence on pesticides to the detriment of the environment, agricultural sustainability
and human health or, to give public health protection clear precedence. We have already done so with tobacco, lead and asbestos. Pesticides should be next.
Charles Caccia Member of Parliament for Davenport Ottawa, May 2000
http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/05-pre-e.html
A Working List - Regulatory Failures:
- Allowing the almost entirely unfettered and careless use of these toxic chemicals;
- Inadequate or non-existent measures to prevent offsite drift;
- Multiple regulatory power and oversight of chemical use vested in a single person with a conflict of interest;
- Economic assessments regarding the use of these chemicals have not been performed;
- Allowing the use of pesticides to increase dramatically;
- Failure to define what an 'unnacceptable risk' is;
- Allowing a large number of pesticide residues in the food we eat;
- Failure to take proper account of the special physical vulnerabilities of the developing embryo, children, the elderly and others;
- Failure to examine exposures to pesticides from all sources;
- Failure to assess and take account of the synergistic effects of chemical mixtures;
- Failure to thoroughly test all chemicals for their long term health effects before releasing them onto the market
“..It is claimed that aerial spraying is essential for profitable agriculture, though the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural & Veterinary Chemicals
in Australia (1990) discovered that evidence to support this claim had never actually been collected...”
http://www.nccnsw.org.au/member/tec/projects/tcye/detail/Agriculture/airspray_27.html
The Secretary of the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment - Mr Kim Evans - is also the Chair of:
- the Agricultural, Silvicultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council;
- Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research;
- Natural Resource Management Board;
- Devil Disease Research Group;
- Until recently (July 2005) on the Forest Practices Board.
And a Board member on:
- The Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (TAFI);
- Brand Tasmania;
- the Tasmanian Environmental Management and Control Board;
- He is also the Government’s representative on the Board of SALTAS, a company established to assist the development of the Tasmanian salmon
and trout industry. (http://www.utas.edu.au/tafi/TAFI_Board.htm)
And a member of:
the Australian Institute of Company Directors (http://www.utas.edu.au/tafi/TAFI_Board.htm)
Source: 'The many hats of Mr Evans'. Author, Paul Lime. Posted in July 2005.
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the-many-hats-of-mr-evans/
There has been a dramatic increase in pesticide use and this is in the context of a 10 fold increase in their toxicity
and effectiveness. (Pimental, 1997).
The concept of 'unnacceptable risk' has never been defined in any pesticide legislation in Australia.
Residues of 36 different types of pesticides were found in a range of commonly eaten foods in Australia. (The 20th Australian Total Diet Survey, 2003, carried
out by Foods Standards Australian New Zealand FSANZ).
Average Daily Intake (ADI)
The Average Daily Intake levels set for Australians don't take the following into account:
- varying sensitivity to pesticides, especially by children;
- our exposure to the same pesticide from exposures other than food;
- what happens when you add together all the pesticide residues found in the full range of foods we eat. ('The Chemical Time Bomb', Organic Gardener,
Autumn 2005).
The 'breakdown' myth:
'Pesticide products are usually mixtures of chemicals with 'active' ingredients and so-called 'inert' ones like solvents and surfactants.' It's generally
the 'inert' chemicals that dry once the product is applied, leaving behind the active residue to do its job.'Far from harmless, this invisible residue is designed to go on being toxic for some time.(Short K. (1994), Quick Poison, Slow Poison, 1994, ISBN 0 85881 127 8 and Colborn T, Dumanoski D. and Myers J. P., (1996) Our Stolen Future, www.OurStolenFuture.org, March 1996).
"A substantial number of agricultural pesticides such as organophosphates like Diazinon become even more toxic when they break down" (The Myths of Safe
Pesticides, Andre Leu). Diazinon, an organophosphate pesticide, was only recently restricted in Australia for this reason.
Once metabolised, some pesticides
have breakdown chemicals that are highly persistent such as DDT and its metabolites DDD and DDE which, despite a total ban since 1987, are still being found
in our food, including breast milk, today.' (Chemical Time Bomb)
Minimal Testing Done:
This issue is further complicated and worsened by corrupted testing in Tasmania.
Many of the 7,200 registered agricultural and veterinary chemicals used in Australia have not been thoroughly tested for their long-term health effects on people
or for their environmental impacts.. (chemical time bomb)
A lack of agreement over testing procedures has resulted in regulatory paralysis in dealing with
emerging concerns such as endocrine disruption. (Chemical Time Bomb).
Prior to 1993, when a federal pesticide regulator (the APVMA/NRA) was
established, assessment requirements for new agvet chemicals was less comprehensive and some existing pesticides were 'grandfathered' into the
Commonwealth scheme. As a result a lot less is known about older chemicals on the market. (Chemical Time Bomb).
Toxic breakdown products virtually ignored:
There is virtually no testing to detect the residues of the breakdown chemicals of agricultural poisons in our food. Additionally, very little research has been done
to determine safe intake levels for the breakdown chemicals of agricultural poisons. In consequence of the latter, there are virtually no safety levels to determine
the Average Daily Intake (ADI) for the toxic breakdown chemicals that contaminate our food. (The Myths of Safe Pesticides, Andre Leu).
Most pesticide products are mixtures of many chemicals. But it is generally only the 'active' ingredient that is individually tested to determine the health
effects and safety levels. (Chemical Time Bomb)
Pesticides are often applied as combinations of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and some of the synthetic fertilisers compounds. Any resulting synergistic
effects are not tested for. 'Synergistic' effects means that instead of 1 + 1 = 2, the effect of mixing chemicals may mean 1 + 1 = 60, or even 1,000, in terms
of toxicity. (Chemical Time Bomb).
Myth: Low Doses are Safe
Research by Warren Porter et al at the University of Wisconsin-Madison showed that combinations of low doses of commonly used agricultural chemicals
do significantly affect health'. Mice given drinking water with combinations of pesticide, herbicide and nitrate, at concentrations currently found in
groundwater in the USA, exhibited altered immune, endocrine and nervous system functions'. The effects were most noticeable when a single herbicide,
Atrazine, was combined with nitrate fertiliser'
Porter's research also showed that the influence of pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser mixtures on the endocrine system also causes changes in the immune system
and affects foetal brain development.' Of particular concern was thyroid disruption in humans.' These findings once again turn the 'dose-response' foundation
of toxicology upside down. (chemical time bomb).
The 'sound science' myth
The regulatory authorities have a long history that demonstrates their inability to anticipate the harmful effects of chemicals and to act in a timely manner when
evidence of dangers emerge. Look at the problems we've had with asbestos, mercury, lead, tobacco smoke, DDT, Dieldrin, Adrin, Chlordane, PCBs, Heptachlor,
dioxins and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)in general. With POPS some are still not withdrawn and this is long after credible evidence has been produced
demonstrating their damage.
Chemicals are assumed 'safe'
The onus of proof that a chemical is unsafe is place on ordinary people and their governments - not on the chemical companies. The industry and Government
supportes (which mostly includes our current regulatory authorities) insist that 'sound science' be used to prove a chemical is dangerous beyond doubt and this
occurs after the chemical is released into the market place and into our environment.
Industry-funded research
Chemical research is mostly funded by the industry - an industry not keen to fund studies that might result in revelations that jeopardise the market for their
products.Lack of Information about chemical use
No-one - not even the regulators - know what pesticides are being used, how much is being used
nor where they are used in Australia. A key question then is: Therefore what basis is risk assessed and managed? And: Can it be in any case,
given the lack of other vital information about toxicological effects and other?
"The only information that can be gleaned about pesticide use in Australia
are gross sales figures and some importation records." (The Chemical Time Bomb)
The special vulnerbility of children ignored
The unborn and our children should be of greatest concern to regulators of these dangerous products. It is recognised by the World Health Authority (WHO)
that children have a unique vulnerability to pesticide exposures. Children breathe, eat and drink more than an adult with respect to their body weight. They can
be exposed for a longer time and during highly sensitive periods, such as the embryo-foetal period, the first five years of life and adolescence when organs and
functions are developing. Their metabolism is different as is their awareness of risk. But it has been assumed in testing for toxicological effects that
children will have the same response to chemical exposure as a healthy adult male but simply at lower doses. Only sometimes are safety margins included in
pesticide assessments to account for difference but this adhoc approach really fails to protect children's health.
Reasons to act NOW to protect our children
Pesticide residues found in infant and toddler food. This was revealed by the 20th Australian Total Diet Survey FSANZ. The survey concluded:
"In general, the dietary exposure to pesticide residues was highest for the toddler age group. This is due to the high food consumption relative to body weight."
[In the next breath they appear to dismiss the findings by stating: "These results confirm that although infant foods contain pesticide residues, these are at very
low levels."(pg49).
The mean estimated dietary exposure to pesticide residues for toddlers in the Survey (p.32) included exposure to the following cocktail
of pesticides: Carbaryl, Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrfos-methyl, Fenitrothion, Iprodione, Methamidophos, Parathion-methyl, Piperonyl butoxide, Procymidone, Propargite,
Tebufenpyrad and Vinclozolin. These were only the pesticides tht were present at greater than 0.2% of the ADI. (Chemical Timbe Bomb, Organic Gardener,
Autumn 2005).
Many Chemicals Now in Our Bodies
A study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control found a cocktail of many toxic chemicals in the blood and urine of most Americans tested.(Short K. (1994),
Quick Poison, Slow Poison, 1994, ISBN 0 85881 127 8 and Colborn T, Dumanoski D. and Myers J. P., (1996) Our Stolen Future, www.OurStolenFuture.org,
March 1996, and Higgins Margo, Toxins are in most Americans' blood, study finds, Environmental News Network, Monday, March 26, 2001).
Chemicals in Breast Milk
A report just released by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council of Australia and New Zealand (January 2005)measured organochlorine pesticides
(OCPs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in breast milk samples from around Australia. The study found that "Levels of OCPs in Australian women
are low compared to international studies". On the one hand this is a reassuring finding, but what about those poor women and children in countries where the
levels are higher? The findings illustrate just how long a pesticide can keep on poisoning even after it's been banned.
Organic solvents commonly used in pesticide formulations have also been detected in human breast milk. A breakdown product of the widely used antibacterial
chemical Triclosan, which is found in toothpastes, deodorants, soaps, clothing and plastic kitchenware, has also been found in breast milk.
The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Chemicals in Products: Safeguarding the Environment and Human Health (2003) stated that:
"Where chemicals are found in elevated concentrations in biological fluids such as breast milk, they should be removed from the market immediately."
(The Chemical Time Bomb, Organic Gardener, Autumn 2005)
There is no 'safe' level of pesticides
Pesticide regulators and health authorities in Australia are still not responding to our childrens' and the general community's risk. The precautionary principle is
not being adhered to. Food from industrial farming is NOT safe to eat. Testing is not rigorous and is often not done at all. And scientific evidence tells us that
there is insufficient credible science to support claims by industry and Government that pesticide residues in food are 'safe'.
What you can do to protect yourself and your family
*Eat organically grown food.
*Find out the best source of drinking water.
*Don't use pesticides and find out what whether your neighbours use them, when and how.
*Most important of all - call for policy change. The contamination of our water and bodies will not stop without it.
Note:
'The Chemical Time Bomb' article published in the Australian 'Organic Gardener' Autumn edition draws heavily upon the the article entitled 'The Myths of Safe
Pesticides' written by Andre Leu who is the Chair of the Organic Federation of Australia. This article can be found at:
http://www.ofa.org.au/papers/Mythpesticidesv2.html
Where to find out more about pesticides
www.ourstolenfuture.org
And
'The Myths of Safe Pesticides' by Andre Leu, Chair Organic Federation of Australia. See: http://www.ofa.org.au/papers/Mythpesticidesv2.html