Controlling Insecticides—IV ACTION REQUIRED TO PROTECT HOME FOODS

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30482, 2 July 1964, Page 12

Controlling Insecticides—IV ACTION REQUIRED TO PROTECT HOME FOODS

IB V

ALAN HARDCASTLE]

Foods for overseas markets are tested for insecticide residues. Not every lamb carcase or quarter of beef or pound of butter is tested, of course. That would be impossible. But the sampling is intensive enough to make probable the detection of any producers careless in the use of insecticides.

What of foods for our tables?

Differing residue levels, in parts per million, were sought for different foods at a recent international conference, said the chairman of the Agricultural Chemicals Board (Mr P. W. Smallfield). The aim of the conference was common standards for all

countries. A small tolerance might be allowed for some vegetables; milk and milk products might be given a nil tolerance, he said. Differing tolerances in New Zealand for vegetables, milk, meat, and other foods are stated in a table in the 1959

regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. These, of course, refer to the pesticides under notice five years ago. Questions Asked

tne New Zealand authorities are unimpressed by the views of eminent world authorities orr the dangers of pesticide residues in foods? Do they merely bow to overseas foibles and prejudices for the sake of protecting our overseas markets? New Zealand can hardly be the only country in step. More likely, laboratory facilities are inadequate for the responsibilities they should carry. Officials with whom the testing of horticultural produce' was discussed replied that the problem was most difficult because of the number of insecticides and the widely varying conditions under which they are used. They agreed that the only practicable safeguard lies in the deterrent risk of prosecution if harmful residues arc detected. Clearly, no tests, no deterrent. Horticulturists and market gardeners, then, are given a free hand because it is not feasible to frame regulations for them. But if horticultural products were an important part of our exports and a shipment happened to be rejected by overseas inspectors, no-one will doubt that a way would be found to design safeguards in the form of explicit regulations. As for town milk and meat from animals slaughtered at abattoirs, this is a straightforward-enough question of protecting the public’s health. (Concluded.)

Questions have been asked about the application of these tolerances to New Zealand vegetables. How often are samples of vegetables taken from markets and from shops for analytical examination? In what cities, towns, and districts has this been done? How much is now being done in this way? What is being done about the testing of town milk supplies? Is town milk tested for pesticide residues, as well as for bacterial level and such antibiotics as penicillin? There are 20 or more abattoirs in New Zealand. The same questions apply to meats from animals slaughtered at abattoirs for New Zealand tables. All meats from abattoirs are inspected by Government officials. Do these inspections extend to possible pesticide contamination? Questioned, the managements of the Wellington City Municipal Milk Department, the Hutt Valley and Bays Metropolitan Milk Board's treatment station, and the Wellington City abattoirs said that, to their knowledge, the tests made did not include examination for pesticides. Long-established market gardeners in the Wellington-Hutt Valley area said they did not know of them. If foods for our own tables are not tested, can it be that