News 
 National Rural News 
 Horticulture 
 General 
 Australia refuses to join ban on pesticide 

Australia refuses to join ban on pesticide

8/01/2009 1:59:00 PM
An internationally recognised highly toxic insecticide will continue to be used widely by Australian horticultural industries, despite New Zealand becoming the most recent country to institute a total ban.

More than 55 countries, including Britain, most other European Union members, and a number of Asian nations including the Philippines, Indonesia and South Korea, have outlawed the use of endosulfan as a pesticide for crops.

The New Zealand ban was prompted in part by a number of recent biosafety scares, including unacceptably high residues of the pesticide found in local and imported Australian produce last year.

NZ farmers have been given 12 months to surrender all stockpiles.

In October, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, to which Australia is a signatory, will consider elevating endosulfan to the final stage of assessment.

If passed, this would trigger a global ban.

But the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has said that while it is viewing the New Zealand decision "with interest" it would not be revisiting its 2005 review of the chemical's use.

Although that review introduced some restrictions, it ruled endosulfan still safe for use on a variety of crops, including tomatoes, carrots, beans, sweetcorn, peas, cereals, oilseeds, citrus fruit and cotton.

This stance has placed Australia in the minority of major economies still using the pesticide, along with the United States, Brazil and India.

The decision has angered campaigners, who have provided the Government with an extensive dossier of research pointing to the pesticide's status as a known hormone disrupter, capable of being handed down to subsequent generations through the placenta and in breast milk.

Studies in rats have shown effects on the kidneys, foetus and liver.

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, the co-chairwoman of the International POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutant) Elimination Network, said endosulfan has been scientifically assessed and met the criteria of a global persistent organic pollutant.

"Endosulfan lingers in the environment and our bodies," she said. "Residues have been found in breast milk and placenta.

"It is toxic and travels the globe ending up in places far from where it was applied."

Endosulfan has been blamed for more than 100 recent deaths and hundreds more serious birth defects in the southern Indian village of Padre, where the Government has been conducting regular aerial sprays of the pesticide for more than 20 years.

Australia's third largest agribusiness exporter, Nufarm, holds more than one-third of the shares in India's largest endosulfan manufacturer, Excel Industries.

Information provided by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority said instituting a ban similar to New Zealand's was unnecessary, because conditions governing endosulfan's use here had always been much tighter.

However, the co-ordinator of the National Toxic Network, Jo Innig, disputes this.

"The reality is the majority of uses in Australia are similar to those in New Zealand and other countries and the toxicity risks are the same no matter which way you look at it."

Late yesterday, the Minister for Agriculture, Tony Burke, said he would seek a briefing from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority on the difference between Australia and New Zealand's use of the pesticide.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Just like using GM seeds, Australia ties itself to the US chemical giants. It is left behind by the rest of the world. So frustrating.
Posted by Susan Anderson on 9/01/2009 6:49:22 AM
I'm not surprised. Australia is just a backwards third world country, at the best of times. Most of you continue to believe that that you can control the world's climate.
Posted by jaimie on 9/01/2009 7:04:56 AM
Why don't the campaigners concentrate on the US first and then the Australians will automatically follow suit.
Posted by Edward Metcalfe on 9/01/2009 7:05:35 AM
It beggars belief that the Australian government will not ban such an obviously poisonous chemical that is riddled through Australian industries, such as the macadamia industry and the cotton industry.

It has been proven particularly in the macadamia industry that not only will you get a better price per kilo for your nuts if you convert to organics, but that the production levels do not drop.

If you consider that the NSW Government has recently set up a Ministerial Advisory Council for Organics and a trial site in Bathurst, NSW, I am amazed how they continue to ignore endosulphans dangers and limited uses compared to the opportunities in the organic industry.

Posted by cath Ford on 9/01/2009 11:03:52 AM
A good source of information is the APVMA site. There is a whole paper on the subject, and as a matter of fact the use of that particular pesticide in Australia is very different from the use anywhere else.

Makes for good reading unless you want to sensationalise something trivial

Posted by Peter on 9/01/2009 11:36:52 AM
What a joke and shame on you pushing for the Australian ban. Endosulfan is one of the last chemicals left with good in crop residual and is essential for the control of many insects especially heliothis in cotton and lucerne seed crops.

A ban would simply be another step backwards for Australia agriculture. But we will stupidly follow because the majority of Australians think all chemical is bad and things should be organic not knowing if this happened the world would starve.

The APVMA does a good job and has already addressed issue with endosulfan.

As a user of the chemical we are very wary of all witholding periods. To finish, has anybody looked at China where thousands of tonnes of vegetables come to Australia? Will it ban its use.

Posted by Tommo on 9/01/2009 3:33:06 PM
The failure to have adequate environmental evaluations on chemicals entering the environment should be reason to have a reconsideration of the impacts. The survival of zooplankton in the food chain of the aquatic ecosystem should be seen as equally important for human survival.
Posted by Fishing for a living on 9/01/2009 8:43:09 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

RELATED ARTICLES

Q: In supermarkets, do you look to see if it's Australian-grown fruit and vegetables and foodstuffs?

Yes, most of the time.
(82.5%)

Yes, sometimes.
(11.4%)

No, it's not a big issue.
(6.2%)

Total Votes: 616
Poll Date: 06 Jan 09

MOST POPULAR

01 Jul 09 | The ridiculous ironies and double standards of both politicians and the media were on show for all to see with the ‘utegate’ scandal, online editor Michael Thomson writes, but he says no-one is the better for it.
Ray White Rural
 
Olssons supplement  competition
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
Rural Business Awards
 
Horse Deals Australia
 
Rural Bookshop


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...