Australia's APPARENT response to the report on 2,4-D containing excessive dioxin levels

On July 22, Australia's ABC's 4 Corners program covered the improper chemical spraying practices in Australia during the 1970s as well as the use of “Agent Orange” during the Vietnam War, but concluded with the claim that dioxins (known carcinogens) continued to be found in 2,4-D imported from China today, and expressed concern that the regulator, Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority (APVMA) was not taking adequate precautions to prevent the importation of such chemicals, some of which may not be cleared for Australian use. 

The principle offending chemical in “Agent Orange” was the herbicide 2,4-5T which was banned in 1973 because of its high dioxin content, therefore no further discussion on this subject is necessary.

APPARENT Pty Ltd is one of the largest Australian importers of 2,4-D from China.

The product independently analysed by the ABC was not an APPARENT product, nor was our label shown on the program.  However, we would like to use this opportunity to emphasise that APPARENT 2,4-D 625 is of the highest quality and does not contain dioxins.  Six sources of Chinese-produced 2,4-D are cleared for use in Australia by the APVMA, and APPARENT is the owner of one of these sources (Jiangsu Good Harvest-Wein Agrochemical Co Ltd).  Other Australian companies are free to use the APPARENT source. 

We asked Good Harvest to reconfirm that its 2,4-D acid contains no dioxins and the company responded that “there were no detectable dioxins in its 2,4-D.”  One reason for the absence of dioxins is the age of Good Harvest’s 2,4-D plant which was only commissioned in 2013.  Similarly, our previous supplier (Changzhou Wintafone) produces 2,4-D acid in a plant that was commissioned in 2005.  Dioxins are not found in 2,4-D produced in modern plants.

It is regrettable that the program claimed dioxins were found in generic 2,4-D imported from China or India because the majority of 2,4-D sold in Australia is sourced from these two countries without any problems.  It is also regrettable that the program identified 2,4-D as a significant source of dioxins when the evidence suggests otherwise.  APVMA, in its response to the program, published the 10 major sources of dioxins in Australia from the “Inventory of Dioxin Emissions in Australia” (Source: National Dioxins Program Technical Report No. 3, 2004).  The 10 sources comprised 96% of the dioxins found in Australia and the list did not include any pesticides.  “The inventory did not consider the presence of dioxin in pesticides as the levels were considered to be very small”, according to the  APVMA.