Controlling Insecticides—I DANGERS TO HEALTH AT HOME, MARKETS ABROAD

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30478, 27 June 1964, Page 12

Controlling Insecticides —I DANGERS TO HEALTH AT HOME, MARKETS ABROAD

[By

ALAN HARDCASTLE]

“Under the present regulations in New' Zealand the public are more than adequately protected.” That assurance was given by the chairman of the Agricultural Chemicals Board some 18 months ago to allay concern aroused by Rachel Carson’s forceful warning in her book, “Silent Spring,” of the dangers of misuse and excessive use of insecticides. That assurance has not been sustained.

The regulations then in force have been revoked and replaced by the Agricultural Chemicals (Insecticides) Regulations, 1964. They impose more restrictions on commercial use; horticultural use is brought directly within their scope; home gardeners are restricted to a narrower range of readily-accessible insecticides. These regulations come into full effect on July 1. Lucidity is not a characteristic of government regulations; and the insecticide regulations are so involved that without explanation they are well-nigh unintelligible. The board has therefore issued a pamphlet, “Vital Information for All. Users of Agriculutral Chemicals,” to interpret them.

The emphasis in the pamphlet is upon safeguarding foods for export—naturally so, because of their great economic importance. There is not, in fact, one word of Information for the 200,000 and more home gardeners and amateur growers, who are substantial users of insecticides and are the least informed and probably the most careless users. “A few careless users could jeopardise our overseas markets for meat and dairy produce, which in 1962 returned over £150,000,000,” states the chairman of the board (Mr P. W. Smallfleld), in appealing to fanners to exercise care. Misuse Though it believes Rachael Carson went too far in her crusading zeal, the board has repeatedly warned that misuse of chemicals is dangerous. If they had not been misused, it would hardly have been necessary to reinforce regulations regarded as “more than adequate” 18 months ago. They have been misused through “slap-happy" handling, through failure to read labels and follow directions, and through honest inability to work out, measure out, and apply correct quantities, which may be as little as two and three ounces per acre. They have been misused intentionally—“wilful transgression” is the chairman’s term—to gain a supposed advantage A bit more has been added to the permitted application rate “to make sure.’’ The explicit conditions that animals shall be kept clear of treated pastures for minimum periods have been ignored. Insecticides have been applied without permits. The consequent danger to New Zealand’s reputation as a food producer is increased by the inadequacy of the facilities to police the regulations. The Department of Agriculture. has not enough field inspectors, and laboratory checking facilities are Insufficient. Education can go

only so far: laboratory detection of chemical residues above tolerated levels is an essential' safeguard. The economic perils of carelessness will grow as world opinion becomes mpre critical of these chemicals, as is happening in Britain and the United ■ States—and especially if pressure groups use public concern about residues to block the entry of New Zealand foods into their countries.

New Regulations The 1964 regulations tackle the misuse problem more directly than the old, by putting out of easy reach al) chemicals which are likely to create residues in foods. Such insecticides cannot now be purchased unless the farmer or other user lodges with the vendor specific permits issued by officers of the Department of Agriculture. In some circumstances the consent of the Minister is required. DDT-super dust, the mainstay against the grass grub under the 1961 regulations, may not now be used except by permit because of the drift of fine particles. Pellets or granules (not then available in quantity) do not drift; they fall through the grass blades, lessening the intake of chemicals by grazing stock. The farmer is now restricted to using DDT, pelleted or granulated, for general purposes. If he wants to buy DDT in any other form, he must produce a permit. He requires a permit, also, for any other of the 13 listed “persistent” chlorinated hydrocarbons, in any formulation. There are 20 other named insecticides, mostly organic phosphates, which he may Use without permits; but' conditions apply to the use of each of these. The maximum dosage and the minimum periods within which animals may not be returned to pastures are fixed for each.

In general, the organic phosphates are less persistent than chlorinated hydrocarbons—DDT, diedrln, lindane, etc. —but they are more toxic. Several on the “no permit” list are extremely hazardous and poisonous.

Market-Garden Use

The horticulturist the grower of vegetables, grapes, fruit seedlings, even cut flowers —is in a very different position. He, also, is prohibited from spraying or dusting chlorinated hydrocarbons; but he can use all these insecticides in pellet or granulated form—whereas the farmer is restricted to one, DDT—or any other insecticide outside the two main groups. And all, except spray or dust hydrocarbon, may be used without permits. More, he can put on as much as he likes and when he likes, irrespective of when he sends, his produce to market. He may even, if he chooses, use one of the “systemics,” a family of insecticides which actually penetrate and pervade plant tissues so that the plant itself is death to sucking and chewing insects.

There is nothing in the insecticides regulations to stop a market gardener from spraying a crop of cabbages, or whatever it may be, at eight in the morning and having them on the market floor by noon, fresh and dewy—with poison dew. Granted that this is an extreme reading of the regulations; but this is what Table 4 of the Agricultural Chemical Board’s information pamphlet appears to approve. Granted, too, that labels

may clearly specify minimum Intervals between application and harvest: but label advices are not enforceable regulations. Misuse, however arising, by farmers has caused the board serious concern. Horticulturists are not free of human failings, either. Revision Needed

One may wonder how the Agricultural Chemicals Board came to include such an interpretation in its information pamphlet, appearing, as it does, to insist upon strict safeguards for foods for tables 12,000 miles away while giving the grower of foods for your table and mine an “open go.” The board had no option; it did not write the regulations within which it has to work. The board stated what the regulations say users may do and what they may not do. The use of agricultural chemicals —insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, animal poisons—is hedged about by a maze of interacting acts, regulations. Gazette notices and qualifications. The 1964 insecticide regulations by themselves are barely intelligible; without reference to other relevant legislation they are largely futile.

What is needed is a complete revision of the mass of legislation, some of it dating back to the years before all these complex insect, plant, and animal poisons were loosed upon the world. Other aspects of the insecticide problem will be discussed in later articles.

(To be continued)