THE SUNDAY Tasmanian (29/5/2005) and the Guardian Weekly (June 3-9) carried stories pointing to recent scientific studies warning of the potential dangers, for unborn boys, of phthalate chemicals commonly used in products including plastics, cosmetics and toys.
There is increasing concern in the scientific community about these substances which are termed endocrine-disrupting chemicals or EDCs.
EDCs, which elevate oestrogen levels, have been associated with possible increased risk of breast and prostate cancer.
People should also be aware that the herbicide atrazine (and it’s closely related cousin in the triazine family, simazine) is a common contaminant of ground, surface and drinking water in Australia.
These chemicals which are used extensively in plantation forestry and in intensive cropping are potent EDCs.
Their use has recently been banned by the European Union (EU).
The use of the triazines in Australia is controlled by the the Agricultural Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).
After years of scientific review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided in late 2003 to permit ongoing use of atrazine with no new restrictions.This move stunned the scientists as until this time its reported findings suggested it would, like the EU, ban it.
The primary producer of atrazine, Syngenta Crop Protection, filed a petition that hormone disruption cannot be considered a “legitimate regulatory endpoint at this time” because the government had not settled on an officially accepted test for measurement.
The petition was submitted under little known legislation known as the Data Quality Act which was written by an industry lobbyist and has become a powerful weapon for companies to block regulation of their products or practices on the basis of possible public health or environmental risks.*
In Australia, the APVMA claims to be independent though it is financially reliant on chemical companies.
The EPA’s report on atrazine and that of the APVMA are strikingly similar.
A spokesman for the APVMA says this was due to “moves towards international harmonization”.
In a recent interview with the Australian Financial Review (May 7-8) US expert Professor (Integrative Biology) Tyrone Hayes made this comment: “Australia is allowing 400 times the amount of water contamination (with atrazine) that we found in castrated amphibians and fish — there is no way I’d be drinking the water”.
It seems the ‘precautionary principle’ has been superceded.
Dr Frank Nicklason is a Staff Specialist Physician at the Royal Hobart Hospital.
*See Washington Post 16/8/2004;Page A01
Earlier: Long term chemicals
Brenda Rosser
June 9, 2005 at 08:04
Some history of the pesticide crisis in Tasmania:
http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj/
Davies et al studies of 1994 in Tasmania:
“In Tasmania in 1994, 20% of water samples were contaminated with Atrazine and Simazine at concentrations reported to cause sub-lethal impacts on biota (20 –100 ppb) and 28% of samples had concentrations within the range reported to cause mortality (20 – 500 ppb). [Reference: Davies, P. E., L. S. J. Cook and J. L Barton (1994). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 1994, 45, 209-26] At that time approximately 27,000 hectares were under hardwood plantation in Tasmania using 40 tonnes of Atrazine and 5.5 tonnes of Simazine per annum. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2003, 208,000 hectares were under plantation of which 129,000 hectare were hardwood.”
[Extract from the Australian Toxics Network submission to the APVMA on the review of Atrazine, 2004]
“DR DAVIES: If you were having a continuous application within a larger catchment on different parcels of land and you’ve got a persistent chemical then it’s not surprising that you’re going to pick up residues of that chemical over – over quite a period of time.”
[Reference: ‘Tasmania Name Your Poison’ Channel Nine Sunday Program 26th September 2004).
Environment and Heritage Report, 2005:
[Senator] “Heffernan believes there is widespread contamination of waterways. He has the support of a Department of Environment and Heritage report that detected measurable contamination in ever state except the Northern Territory. “Pesticides were detected in 20 percent of samples indicating significant contamination,” the report says…” (Reference: ‘The cancer scare around a common chemical’ ,Australian Financial Review, Page 26. May 7-8, 2005.Julie Macken).
Dr Alison Bleaney
June 9, 2005 at 15:42
If one does not even attempt to evaluate contributing factors when an impact has occurred let alone generally assess for potential risk, then there is no way to define a problem with a toxic substance other than with an end-point such as death.
Even in this event the controlling authorities would maintain their position of having to be absolutely convinced of the cause of death before they would take any action.
Despite the assertions of the governmental administrative bodies (Federal and State), the precautionary principle does not apply with regard to the use of pesticides.
This is 2005, Tasmania, Australia.
Dave Groves
June 9, 2005 at 21:58
The “are you a Martian quiz?â€
Spot the odd one out
1.Clearfell
2.1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate)
3.Napalm (diesel gel)
4.alpha-cypermethrin
5.Chlorothalonil
6.Simazine
7.Atrazine
8.Sulfometuron-methyl
9.Terbacil
10.Chlorine Dioxide
11.PM10 emissions
12.organochorides
13.clean and green, pristine, sustainable
14.numbers 1-12
If you guessed 13, you are from Mars.
If you guessed 14, there is still some hope for Tasmania.
Brenda Rosser
June 11, 2005 at 06:08
Can we wait for the bureaucracies in Tasmania to take action to protect our health and lives?
The Environmental ‘Protection’ Agency in the US is currently being sued by United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO, NRDC, Clean Water Action and Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. “The plaintiffs charge that EPA has failed to consider farm kids’ heightened exposure risks when setting allowable pesticide standards for food. Under the 1996 law, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), EPA is required to account for specific factors when setting tolerance levels for chemical pesticide residues that consumers and “major identifiable subgroups” of consumers may be exposed to.”
The same situation arises in Australia with inadequate account taken of the special vulnerability of children and developing embryos.
Further the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC) initiated action against the EPA in February 2005 on the basis that the EPA illegally negotiated the outcome of its atrazine review in private meetings with Syngenta. The same compromised documentation from that review emerged in Australia when the APVMA carried out their ‘review’ of the same chemical.
“”We can no longer wait patiently while we hear every day from communities and individuals directly affected by toxic pesticides,” said Margaret Reeves, Ph.D., senior scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America. “It’s time to light a fire under EPA to force it to act to protect farm children’s health.”
In Tasmania we are all ‘farm children’.
http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj
Dave Groves
June 11, 2005 at 13:18
A recent motion was put to the parliament by TRAC via “the Greens†to establish an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Tasmania.
Tasmania is the only state in Australia that does not have an EPA.
It was rejected by both Labor and Liberal.
Speaks volumes about what these politicians think about the people of Tasmania.
Twelve months or so until election time!