CHAIRMAN DEFENDS INSECTICIDE TESTS

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30499, 22 July 1964, Page 11

CHAIRMAN DEFENDS INSECTICIDE TESTS

“In my previous press statement I tried to give the public a balanced account of the use of insecticides,” said the chairman of the Agricultural Chemicals Board (Mr P. W. Smallfield), “but Mr Alan Hardcastle contends that I have not answered his questions. "His main criticism is that the board's pamphlet, ‘Vital Information for All Users of Agricultural Chemicals,’ is devoted wholly to safeguarding meat and dairy produce for export and that the home gardener is overlooked. He claims that other unanswered questions are that the legislation requires revising, that unqualified users are allowed to apply dangerous materials, that the board ignores the dangers to birds and fish, and that the testing of vegetables, town milk, and abattoir-killed meat is not discussed. Mr Smallfield said the pamphlet was merely an explanation of the 1964 regulations and that its scope was restricted to the provisions of those regulations, which were primarily concerned with control of the sale and use of chlorinated hydrocarbon (insecticides, with a view to re* ducing the possibility of contamination of meat and dairy produce. Users of agricultural chemicals appeared to find the pamphlet useful, for it was in considerable demand. “Users are familiar with the chemicals named, and I have not heard any complaints from them, but persons unfamiliar with the subject may find the pamphlet difficult to follow. It was designed to cover procedures in the 1964 regulations that were complicated by the fact that holders of dust-type D.D.T. superphosphate were allow’ed until June 30 to apply stocks bought before January 31. New Bulletin “Now that this proviso is no longer a factor, the Agricultural Chemicals Board is preparing a new bulletin which will be simpler than the previous one. “The main danger arising from the use of these insecticides is that they accumulate in animal fats (meat and dairy products). They do not accumulate in plants, but. there may be residues on recently-treated vegetables or pasture. This fundamental difference between animal and vegetable products is demonstrated by the results of a survey in the United States of the D.D.T. in human fats. The D.D.T. content of fat of people on a mixed diet, including meats, was about three times that of a group whose food did not contain meat,” Mr Smallfield said. Tests Of Vegetables “It is therefore considered quite logical to give more attention to testing meat and butter than vegetables, but this does not mean that vegetables are not tested. The department of Scientific and Industrial Research has made extensive investigations of the insecticide residues of fruit and vegetables at harvest, and on the basis of this work it is firmly believed that there is no significant residue problem. “Furthermore, inspectors of health take check samples of vegetables, particularly if they have reason to believe that there might be insecticide residues, and analyses have confirmed that present horticultural practices do not result in breaches of the Food and Drug Regulations, which have been in operation for several years. “Horticulturists have learnt how to use insecticides safely, including the systematic organophosphates, which have been available for some time. Sound horticultural practice, backed by good advisory services and satisfactory control of labelling, has proved adequate. "On the other hand, analyses of meat and dairy products indicated that the agricultural use of insecticides on farmlands was not entirely satisfactory. The 1964 regulations were, therefore, introduced to prevent the chlorinated hydrocarbons being used in any way likely to result in the contamination of pasture and fodder crops.

“These regulations restrict the purchase and application by all users of chlorinated hydrocarbons, except for some materials in prill or granular form. However, there was no

need to interfere with the satisfactory use by horticulturists of other insecticides, and there was no need in the pamphlet to refer to the use of these other materials by horticulturists,” said Mr Smallfield. “The board itself does not do any residue testing, but is guided by the results of work by the Departments of Scientific and Industrial Research, Agriculture, and Health. Publication of the details of analytical work is a matter for the departments concerned and not the board. “Concerned” "Mr Hardcastle is concerned that reference to the home gardener was left out of the 1964 regulation. Since the activities of the home gardener do not contribute to the contamination of pasture land, this was not necessary. He is protected by the proper labelling of home garden packs of chemicals, and the Department of Agriculture provides a wide range of pamphlets on home gardening giving up-to-date information on disease and insect control and on the rational use of chemicals. All the information he requires is available to him if he will read the necessary directions. “Mr Hardcastle considers that legislation on agricultural chemicals should be revised, but he is not specific on the changes he thinks necessary. I suggest that a close study of present legislation and awareness of the fact that the whole question of the use of agricultural chemicals and the significance of residues is in a state of flux, shows that the matter cannot be finalised at present. The position may be clearer when international agreement is reached on acceptable residues, but even then advancement of knowledge and the formulation of new products will require continual revision of legislation. The position is never likely to be static.” Mr Smallfield said that another criticism was that unqualified people were permitted to use dangerous materials. The 1964 regulations merely restricted the use of certain materials. They did not give any more freedom to use other materials than previously existed. The Agricultural Chemicals Board recognised the need for further education of users of chemicals and had staff engaged on this work. Safe Use “The board has been accused,” he said, “of ignoring the effects of agricultural chemicals on birds and fish. A function of the board, as defined in the Agricultural Chemicals Act, is to consider the safe use of agricultural chemicals. The board considers that this empowers it to inquire into the effects of agricultural chemicals on birds and fish. One of the board’s committees, which includes technical officers with expert knowledge of the protection of birds and fish, has investigated this subject and the board is to consider its report at its next meeting. Facts are wanted on this important subject and the board is fully aware of the need for research on all aspects of the problem, but recognises that any worthwhile investigation would need much public money. “Mr Hardcastle raises the question of testing town milk and abattoir-killed meat. Surveys have been made of insecticide residues in town milk. The recent regulations were introduced in the light of residues detected in meat and butter, and the new agricultural practices resulting from the introduction of these regulations should prevent contamination of pastures, whether grazed by dairyherds producing milk for town supply or for butter. “With very few exceptions, the stock killed in abattoirs are fattened on the same pastures used for fattening stock which go to the meat works Therefore, the testing of the meat at the works would bring to light any contamination of the food on which stock are fattened. However, separate tests are made on abattoir-killed meat. Main Effort.

“It should be clear that our main effort is' devoted to detecting residues in meat and butter, which are foods susceptible to contamination and which are important in the diet of the average New Zea lander.

“If the public want more money spent on insecticide work, it could well be argued that in the long run this money would be better used

on intensification of research work on insect control so that we may more readily find substitutes for the persistent control so that we may more readily find substitutes for the persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons which leave undesirable residues in our food. Already alternatives to D.D.T. have been found for some of its uses, and research work is continuing as fast as facilities permit,” Mr Smallfield said. “This problem of the use of agricultural chemicals is a world one and in advancing procedures for their more rational use the board depends on research work carried out both in New Zealand and overseas. Since it was established in 1960 the board has done much to provide users with information on the correct use of chemicals to prevent contamination of food and to encourage research and investigation. “The board also recognises the value of getting the cooperation of users and the public in its work and in the acceptance of any new procedures dictated by the advancement of knowledge and the availability of safer chemicals,” his statement concluded.