Controlling Insecticides—II AERIAL PRECAUTIONS NOT MATCHED ON THE GROUND

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30480, 30 June 1964, Page 12

Controlling Insecticides —II AERIAL PRECAUTIONS NOT MATCHED ON THE GROUND

(By ALAN HARDCASTLE I The 1961 insecticide regulations were described by the chairman of the Agricultural Chemicals Board as giving more than adequate protection to the public. The 1964 regulations which have replaced them are described by the Minister of Agriculture as a model to the world.

The new regulations are a great advance upon the old. By virtually insisting upon pelleted or granulated formulations of “persistent” insecticides they remove the danger of drift from sprayed or dusted chemicals, particularly when spread by aircraft. In other respects, unfortunately, the regulations fall far short of the ideal. In 1960 after discussions between representatives of aerial top-dressing of the departments of Agriculture and Health, and of the Director of Civil Aviation, the civil aviation regulations were amended to prohibit the dropping of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and animal poisons by .any but a pilot who had, by study and examination, gained a "chemical rating”. An unqualified pilot who drops

an ounce of any agricultural chemical risks his licence; and the rule is enforced by Civil Aviation Administration and by pilots who are conscious of the importance of their qualifications. That legislation has been praised by the World Health Organisation and has been emulated by the Australian and United States Federal aviation authorities, among others. It has been commended also by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The Major Problems

Aerial operators in 1963 dropped more than 570,000 tons of superphosphate, much of it with insecticides, and applied more than 2,000,000 gallons of agricultural chemicals, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. But for all that massive showering from aircraft a far greater total —twice, perhaps three times as much —is applied by farmers, regular contractors, part-time applicators, and horticulturists, few of

whom have studied the matter as closely as aerial operators are required to do. Home gardeners add a not inconsiderable total. Opinion in official circles is that a “chemical rating” should also be required of contract operators, municipal employees (who are more concerned with herbicides and hormones), and those who do this work on a part-time paid basis. Individual commercial users might be reached through a voluntary study scheme such as that in Britain. Licensing? The Agricultural Chemicals Act provides for the licensing of persons engaged commercially in the application of insecticides; but it has not been Invoked except for aerial operators. No doubt, if the Government proposed to issue licences there would be an outcry about “regimentation” and interference with the individual. But this ’s not individual business. This is national business, worth £150,000,000 a year in meat and dairy produce alone, and closely affecting individual and public health.

Because of the ban against DDT dust and spray, many users will turn to the no-per-mit-needed insecticides listed in the regulations.. Several of these are so virulently poisonous that manufacturers warn that they should be applied only by operators wearing full protective clothing—respirator, overalls, rubber gloves, special footwear and goggles—which not many farmers possess.

To work without full protection would be to ask for serious trouble. So minute are the permissible dosages—down to as little as two or three ounces to the acre—that the calculation of correct solutions calls for a slide-rule accuracy. Only calibrated equipment will ensure work within regulation limits. The handling of such deadly pesticides as these is no job for anyone who is not fully informed and fully equipped. (To Be Continued)

POISONS IN THE SHED

One of the best things that the insecticides regulations and the poisons regulations have done is to put dangerous chemicals out of the home gardener's easy reach. "Persistent” compounds such as dieldrin and aldrin and virulent poisons such as TEPP (Hexone), parathion, and nicotine sulphate he has not been able to buy for some time; but there must be half-used bottles of those and other highly hazardous insecticides on a good many shed shelves. The amateur gardener will do himself a good turn when he pours them down the drain, along with the contents of bottles with labels so stained as to be unreadable. It is an offence punishable by a fine of £5O to possess a bottle of any insecticide in such condition.