We like to think Australia is a beacon of clean agriculture, with healthy crops, free ranging animals and fruit and vegetables bursting with nutrition, but how accurate is that image?
Australian food rides on the back of a healthy ‘clean and green’ reputation for naturally grown produce, but there is a hidden epidemic of chemical use that does not meet international standards, overseas sources claim.
According toThe Guardian, a range of chemicals used in Australia are banned across the world. And it’s not just one or two. The Guardian claims at least 70 chemicals in use here are banned in the EU, UK or the US.
They include paraquat, which has been linked to Parkinson’s disease, and the common herbicide atrazine, which interferes with reproduction and may cause cancer, The Guardian reports.
Read: Polio cases emerge overseas and Australia starts testing
The issue came to light during talks for a proposed trade deal between Australia and the UK, which highlighted the glaring difference in food standards.
UK activists have attempted to have the proposed deal blocked on environmental grounds, with UK farming and environmental groups joining together to file a formal complaint under the Aarhus Convention. That international agreement covers the EU and central Asian states and provides the public with rights relating to environmental standards and transparency.
The group claims Australian standards allow chemical levels up to 200 times what would be allowed in the UK and that Australia has 144 licensed pesticides, whereas the UK allows only 73.
In reply, agricultural lobby group Croplife said Australia’s unique farming practices made it necessary to use more chemicals.
Read: Overuse of asthma inhalers ‘potentially toxic’: researchers
“There’s a big difference between farming 1000 kilometres from Perth and on the urban edge of London,” said Croplife chief executive Matthew Cossey.
Croplife claims Australia has a higher insect burden and common farming practices such as low-tilling and no tilling – where the soil is only lightly disturbed – means more weeds and thus requires more chemical applications.
While there are no doubt financial fears about the deal – naturally UK farmers don’t want to compete with overseas produce – the signatories to the legal action also voiced concerns about our environmental standards.
House of Lords crossbencher Lady Rosie Boycott referred to our “abysmal record” in relation to pesticides.
“The government’s own advisers conceded that overuse of pesticides in Australia would give their farmers a competitive advantage over the UK’s,” she said. “Australia uses many more highly hazardous pesticides than the UK, many of which are banned here on health and environmental grounds. How will UK consumers be protected?”
Read: Five drugs that changed the world
Australia’s regulatory schedule has also come under criticism. In the EU, chemicals must be reviewed every 10 years and every 15 years in the UK, however in Australia, chemicals can remain on the market indefinitely and there are products that have been under review since the 1990s.
The regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), said the delays were due to more information about the chemicals becoming available and other chemicals jumping the queue to be made a priority.
A Senate inquiry into the APVMA in 2019 found its capacity had been severely compromised following its move to Armidale, a change instigated by then agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce.
Are you concerned about the amount of chemicals used in agriculture in Australia? Should we fall into step with the rest of the world’s standards? Why not share your opinion in the comments section below?
From the perspective of someone who worked in government on pesticide safety until quite recently, I can say that Australia has world’s best practice for assessing pesticide safety. However, the APVMA is compromised by staff shortages across several areas which means that it prioritises reviewing pesticides according to risk and as new information becomes available; it cannot resource systematic reviews. I should emphasise that even though the EU and UK are mandated to review pesticide safety every 10 or 15 years, not every member state of the EU has the capacity to do so nor are changes made unless there is new safety information or there is social and political pressure to make changes. The APVMA toxicologists who assess the safety of pesticides in Australia are skilled by international standards. Pesticide reviews take time and people but rather than address the APVMA’s critical resource shortage at the time, the past agriculture Minister initiated an independent review of the APVMAs internal processes. The panel tasked with the review released its report last year. The panels consultation process, its draft interim report, and its final report was widely criticised by health departments and regulators across Australia. They felt that while some recommendations were reasonable, the reports emphasis on the speed of getting pesticides to market and push for more industry self-regulation undermines the safety first approach of the APVMA and regulators. I hope that with the change of Government, the recommendations in the report with the potential to undermine safety are not adopted. Find the report here. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/agvet-chemicals-review-final-report.pdf