Use of chemicals

Press, 25 May 1989, Page 12

Use of chemicals

Sir,—l am sad to see that you have felt able to print the halfpage advertisement from the Apple and Pear Board (May 17). The statement that “Over the past decade the New Zealand Apple and Pear Board has led the world in reducing chemical usage” is not just misleading, but simply untrue. Some orchardists in New Zealand, and many more in overseas countries, are able to grow apples and pears organically, using no chemical sprays at all. They are producing fruit which the appealing youngster in the advertisement could really be given with confidence. If the Apple and Pear Board is leading the world in anything it is in how to fight an effective rearguard action against the wholly desirable abolition of pesticide spraying. — Yours, etc., JOHN M. DALY. May 17, 1989.

[The corporate research manager of the Apple and Pear Marketing Board, Dr J. FieldDodgson, replies: “No matter what your correspondent might say, the New Zealand Apple and Pear Marketing Board is committed to reducing pesticide use in the orchard to an absolute minimum, and stands by its statement that it has led the world in reducing chemical usage. The board is providing substantial research funds to investigate alternative methods of pest control and two years ago banned the use of Alar because of its possible link with cancer — no other pipfruit exporting country has taken this step to date. The board acknowledges the ability to grow pipfruit organically and has made provision for this fruit to be marketed in New Zealand. Unfortunately, because of existing quarantine requirements and quality standards demanded by importing countries, the board is unable to export organically grown fruit. Your correspondent’s last sentence is absolute nonsense, totally irresponsible and deserves no further comment.”]