Governor’s Bay meeting on toxic-spray use

Press, 17 April 1978, Page 2

Governor’s Bay meeting on toxic-spray use

Residents of Governor’s Bay and Allandale will meet at Governor’s Bay tomorrow to hear a progress report by a committee of residents set up to investigate effects of 2,4,5-T in the area. The committee wrote to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Maclntyre) in October last year seeking a restriction on spraying of the chemical in the area, but the Minister replied that it was a matter for the local'

authority. At the meeting of the Mount Herbert County Council last month the committee put its case for the restrictions, and the council is expected to give its deciion at this month's meeting.

In a statement yesterdav., the committee said that al-| though there was conflicting. evidence on the health effectsl of the weedicide the manufacturers had seen fit to advise against spraying near springs and water-catchment areas.

The concern about spraying arose after aerial spraying took place last September. The committee said that stored rainwater accounted for more than 90 per cent of domsetic water needs in the area, and house roofs were the only catchment available to most residents. ‘‘The refusal of the Minister of Agriculture to act was on the ground that applicators could ‘spray right up to a susceptible area.’ but the committee has uncovered instances where in spite of al! precautions by experienced I

■ operators spray drift has still occurred. Members of the I committee also question why it was necessary to have a ; Government regulation prohibiting aerial spraying within five miles of vineyards if operators are as good as the Minister suggests. “Members of the Mount Herbert County Council questioned the deputation as to why concern should exist about 2,4.5,-T when a Health ' Department report had [ cleared the chemical. This matter was also mentioned jin the reply received from the Minister and the deputation acknow’ledged the weight , of the argument. It felt, however, that in light of recent overseas evidence which was

not available when the New Zealand report was prepared, sufficient doubt existed to justify concern. “It was also suggested to the council that as medical experts could not agree on the subject the public could only take the safe course and

j avoid exposure to risk. The (view was expressed that the natural desire for a supplv of uncontaminated drinking water was sufficient justification alone for restrictions on i spraying.” The committee gave ’he council a letter from the Wel- ; lington Regional Noxious Weeds Committee which it ■ says said that aerial sprav- ) ing was risky in built-up areas, and that it was the i authority’s pi I icy that no aerial application of hormone sprays be allowed close to t built-up areas.