Recent research shows that the half-lives of many pesticides in Tasmania is more than double those listed on the material safety data sheets, due to the local cooler climate and soil characteristics. Letter from Dr Alsion Bleaney OBE and Philip J Tattersall .
The Editor,
Tasmanian Country,
93 Macquarie St,
Hobart 7000
June 16, 2008 (per email)
Dear Editor
We feel the article, "Anger over spray rules" that appeared in the June 13 issue of Tasmanian Country requires a response. As the management of natural resources is a whole of community responsibility we feel that certain matters should be placed before the readership.
That farmers and other pesticide users complain to the Tasmanian Government that 'minority groups' are being appeased by the new approach to pesticide use and regulatory control shows a complete misunderstanding of the issues. This is not about business plans or profit margins.
The issue at stake is the adverse impacts caused by the contamination of air, soil and water, crops, animals and people by toxic chemicals that are designed specifically to harm living cells. These chemicals can never be described as safe.
Recent research shows that the half-lives of many pesticides in Tasmania is more than double those listed on the material safety data sheets, due to the local cooler climate and soil characteristics. These pesticides are biologically active at levels usually below detection levels and their effects are often additive - the mixture (or toxic soup) effect. The potential for accumulation of pesticides in the food chain is increased. That the adverse effects on humans and other animals can be long lasting, produce effects years after exposure and can contribute to many diverse illnesses, diseases and cancers is surely of concern to us all. Currently there seems to be no industry or pesticide user awareness of mixture or very low dose effects. Those especially vulnerable to pesticides are foetuses, infants and children, and those genetically susceptible.
That businesses are presently allowed to diffusely pollute the environment and contribute to harm, suffering and illness is unacceptable. The 'minority groups' referred to in the recent media are in reality the majority; those who wish to be healthy and want their children to have good health.
All life needs water; water is becoming generally scarcer and more polluted as pesticide use continues year after year and concentration effects begin to take effect. The need and ability to source safe and non-polluted water will continue to gain importance. Holistic and protective approaches to water catchments are essential if water pollution is to be prevented. Pesticide use cannot be allowed to occur in a way that may pollute water or non-target areas.
Enforceable regulations that put the onus of safe and non-polluting practices onto the pesticide users are long overdue. Hand spraying of pesticides needs to be approached in the same manner, as soon as possible, in order to reach the same outcomes. Any other approach by the regulator is unacceptable to the majority of water users, who happen to bear the costs and consequences of pesticide pollution.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Alsion Bleaney OBE,
Secretary of BOD Catchment Risk Group -an organisation affiliated to
National Toxic Network
Philip J Tattersall
Secretary and Researcher
Tasmanian Community Resource Auditors Inc
Reproduced with permission
