A response to: Draft regulations for aerial and ground spraying, HERE
The policy objective was ” to improve chemical use practice in Tasmania so as to better protect the community and the natural environment from chemical contamination, without imposing an unreasonable regulatory burden upon chemical users.”
Surely the main aim must be to protect both humans and the environment from exposure to those biocides (pesticides) that adversely affect health.
The Tasmanian Government had a wonderful opportunity which it attempted to articulate in its “rationale” statement; to produce regulations which would take account of current science, embrace EU methodology, remove the most dangerous products immediately, make adequate multiple water and population buffer guidelines mandatory. However it did not follow through and disappointingly, despite starting along the path, seemingly lost courage, lost the way and “bottled it”.
Water and food contamination, and all bystander exposures to biocides are the main issues. People should not have to flee from their own homes and properties to avoid poisonous chemicals.
It has also been recognised that “…the majority of catchments in Tasmania are used by humans for drinking purposes (even if only for individual properties), making it very difficult from a practical and compliance perspective.” And we all know that “…agriculture, urban areas and water catchments in Tasmania are in much closer proximity than on the mainland because of our small size and topography.”
Why is there no Department of Water, separate from the dominant polluting primary industries?
Why then will the approx 77 most dangerous pesticides used in Tasmania (of approx 130 used) not be removed immediately from use? Why is the proposal only for 6 pesticides to be at levels at or below 0.1micrograms/L in water? The answer is that there is no understanding shown in these reforms of low dose effects, mixture effects and those of endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Application of pesticides – aerial more so than ground spraying – will and does readily go many hundred of kilometres off-site. How will these proposed regulations possibly prevent this?
Water is water whether it is my or your water – ground water or surface water- it ends up in rivers, the sea and back to rain …back to someone’s water.
It is therefore illogical and short-sighted to legally allow some waterways to be polluted but not others; to allow all pesticides to be present in waterways; to allow already polluting industries (agriculture and forestry) to continue ‘as they are’ for the next 5 years.
All pollution has to go somewhere – we are still living with the legacy of DDT.
There is no mention of policing or enforcing any of these proposals; what would that look like?
Premier Lara Giddings said in Dec 2009 that three out of every four Tasmanians suffer from a chronic health condition like cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma and diabetes which renders many of them unable to hold down a daily job and sees many of them struggle with simple daily tasks. (Damien Brown Mercury 7/12/2009 page 14).
Tasmania will not claim the ‘clean and green and clever’ ground if it continues to treat its citizens with this type of arrogant and contemptuous half-baked approach – already 6 years in the making and with no end in sight.
Enough is enough.
Dr Alison Bleaney
TPEHN / BODCRG http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pollution_Information_Tasmania
25/5/2011
• Draft regulations for aerial and ground spraying fails to protect the Tasmanian community
Environment Tasmania has today expressed disappointment at the State government’s proposed regulations for managing ground and aerial spraying of pesticides as they fail to take strong action to protect drinking water and public health.
The draft regulations still allow for the aerial spraying of approximately 80 dangerous pesticides that have been prohibited in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and 24 other member countries of the European Union. [1]
“Even low doses of these dangerous pesticides that are currently aerial and ground sprayed in Tasmania have adverse short- term and long term effects on environmental and human health”, said Dr Alison Bleaney of ET member group the Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network.
“When pesticides are applied, more so through aerial spraying than ground spraying, they can drift hundreds of kilometres and they make their way into our waterways and homes. The proposed regulations do not incorporate appropriate measures to ensure this does not happen”, she continued. [2]
“Pesticides are used for multiple purposes including agricultural production, forestry, by local councils to control weeds and to groom golf and race courses. These new regulations need to address all pesticide users” said Dr Phill Pullinger Director of Environment Tasmania.
“In regards to pesticide use, State Government regulation currently allows the aerial spraying of especially highly dangerous toxic insecticides. A critical part of the ‘Statement of Principles’ agreement is the development of an integrated-catchment management framework and associated governance and regulatory reforms. We believe that reforms are needed to ensure that drinking water and homes are protected from spray drift from the aerial and ground spaying of pesticides,” he continued.
“The state government needs to demonstrate its commitment to catchment reform and the safety of the Tasmanian community by taking real action to implement strong regulations that limit and control the use of dangerous pesticides,” he concluded.
Dr Phill Pullinger
Director
Environment Tasmania
The Conservation Council
