Australia: Heat on govt to change pesticide laws

A petition was signed by a number of groups, including consumer protection group Choice, the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) and the National Toxics Network, urging the government to urgently change current pesticide laws.

The Declaration for Safer Australian Pesticide Laws expresses serious concerns about the way pesticides are regulated in Australia and about the implications for human health and the environment.

And the push has attracted high profile support, with signatories including environmental crusaders Tim Flannery and Erin Brockovich; celebrity chefs Julie Goodwin, Ben O'Donohue and Teresa Cutter and horticulturalist and television presenter Peter Cundall.

The petition centres on the fact that pesticides that are still registered for use in Australia are no longer authorised in Europe, because of potential risks to human health or the environment.

"To say a chemical is unsafe in Europe but safe in Australia is like saying smoking causes cancer in Europeans but not Australians,” said WWF Australia spokesperson Juliette King.

The petition claims there are more than 80 registered pesticides in Australia that are banned in Europe, and that of these, 17 are suspected carcinogens.

And the petition has several crucial farm chemicals in the gun, including widely used herbicides such as paraquat and diuron.

There has been strong opposition to the petition from the farming and biotechnology sectors.

The National Farmers Federation (NFF) accused the petitioners of running a ‘scare campaign’, and said there was a distorted interpretation of the facts.

"A campaign being run by various health and consumer groups is inaccurately claiming that Australia is using unsafe pesticides in food production,” NFF Vice-President Duncan Fraser said.

"This is completely false – agricultural chemicals available for sale in Australia are subject to a world-class scientific risk assessment by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) that regulates how and where these chemicals can be used.

Mr Fraser said it was not comparing like with like when looking at what was banned in Europe, as there were different farming systems in place.

"For instance, making simple statements that chemicals are banned elsewhere doesn’t take into account the fact that the chemicals used in Australia may not be appropriate for overseas farmers.

"That can be due to differences in pests, weeds and diseases, differences in production systems, and differences in environmental conditions and is why a country-specific, science based system is required.”

Biotechnology advocate CropLife is also disappointed with the petition, labelling it ‘misleading and deceptive’.

It said that without careful use of chemicals, more than half of Australia’s food production could be wiped out.

CropLife’s chief executive Matthew Cossey said all chemicals in Australia had been tested according to Australian conditions.

"CHOICE only undermines its own integrity by suggesting that chemicals not available overseas should be removed from Australia’s market.

"Differences in product availability are often also due to the commercial decisions made by manufacturers and registrants. It is not a reflection on the health or environmental risks associated with a product.”