The non-poisonous truth about pesticides

According to recent press advertisements signed by "prominent Australians and organisations”, dangerous pesticides are being used in Australia despite not being allowed in other countries. This information must be, and is clearly intended to be, alarming to the average Australian. Pesticides are inherently hazardous and the suggestion that cancer-causing chemicals are unnecessarily adding to that hazard will cause concern.

If the signatories to the advertisements, many of whom are not in fact prominent at all, were engaged in commerce or trade, they may find themselves in a court accused of misleading and deceptive conduct and facing huge fines. That's because their claims are false and a gross slur on Australia's farmers.

Agricultural chemicals are as tightly regulated as human pharmaceuticals. It takes many years and tens of millions of dollars to gain approval for a new chemical. Some people suggest that, because humans are not used as food and therefore residues not considered, the regulatory path is actually easier for human drugs.

Correct use is obviously vital. Take too many of your blood pressure tablets and you will feel a lot worse. Give them to your child or cat and they might die. Some have long-term consequences or leave toxic by-products in sewage.

The same goes for agricultural chemicals. They must be applied for the right reasons, at the right time, at the right rate. And when they are, the regulatory authorities have confirmed that they do not pose an unacceptable hazard to those using them, other people or the environment. Indeed, the purpose of the regulatory system is to ensure the hazard is acceptable.

What the advertisements claim is that in the case of a number of older chemicals, the hazard is not acceptable based on "current standards”. It does not describe these standards, nor is any reason given beyond the fact that the products are no longer sold in some other countries. It is nonetheless inferred, and the group's press release asserts, that it is for safety reasons as some are "suspected” carcinogens or "potential hormone disrupters”, although no evidence is offered.

The truth is quite different. The reason chemicals are still sold in Australia despite having been withdrawn in other countries is that our agriculture is different. We grow different crops, suffer different pests and have different agricultural conditions, so naturally we need different pesticides.

Companies that sell minor quantities of a product in one market but large quantities in another will naturally pull out of the minor market first. Thus there are products no longer sold in Europe but still sold in Australia, and vice versa.

The reference to current standards is a misrepresentation of the policy of regulators in some countries (including Australia) to encourage the updating of data on approved chemicals to the same standard required of new chemicals. A product approved 30 years ago, for example, would have been assessed based on the technology of the time rather than current technology.

In a number of cases the cost of generating additional data to meet these standards has exceeded the commercial value of the chemical, so the manufacturer has opted to withdraw it from the market. Some chemicals are no longer on the market anywhere for that reason, while others have been withdrawn from individual markets.

But this says nothing about whether they are dangerous or not. Indeed, a product that has been used for 30 years will be very well understood and additional analysis to fill a data gap is highly unlikely to throw up any unknown problems.

Further, there are also numerous instances where regulators have opted to ignore gaps in the data because the product is too valuable to the agriculture industry and no real alternative is available. The requirement to conform to current standards is not absolute; food production comes first.

One of the signatories to the campaign is Choice, which showed its hand by claiming: "There are more than 80 chemicals and pesticides used every day in Australia that are banned in Europe.” That statement has now been removed from the organisation's website but it illustrates the lack of integrity behind the campaign.

That is a shame. Choice is relied on by many Australians for unbiased consumer advice, on things like choosing a washing machine or buying health insurance. The public would like to think it knows what it is talking about. Unfortunately, by joining this campaign it not only misleads consumers but casts doubt on the integrity of all its advice.

If the products of concern to Choice and its fellow advertisers were removed from the market in Australia, farmers would struggle to control pests in their crops. The costs of production would rise, forcing prices up to consumers and reducing quality. Production would decline, reducing exports and encouraging imports.

Farmers would also be compelled to resort to older style methods of pest control, including tillage. This is not only costly but encourages erosion and soil degradation as well as requiring the consumption of more fuel.

Ironically, most of those named on the advertisements would be able to cope with higher food prices. They are nearly all well paid and depend on the public sector rather than private enterprise for their living. By the time they felt any pain, a lot of Australians would have suffered a serious drop in their standard of living.

The best thing consumers could do is ignore them and hope everyone else does as well.

David Leyonhjelm works in the agribusiness and veterinary markets as principal of Baron Strategic Services and Baron Senior Placements.