A recent so-called ‘investigative reporting’ series published in The Guardian has challenged the integrity of Australia’s agvet chemical regulatory system, writes Matthew Cossey*.
But a simple fact checking exercise shows this is nothing more than an anti-science agenda against modern, science-based agriculture dressed up as journalism.
This series, focusing on the differences in global registration of pesticides, relies on a statistic which is verbatim regurgitation of propaganda from activist organisations in the UK. This is not a reputable international authority or scientific institution.
Granted Australian farmers have access to more products than their British counterparts. That number, however, is less than 20. To arrive at the conclusion that “Australia authorises 144 highly hazardous pesticide (HHP) ingredients compared with the UK’s 73,” The Guardian disregarded the internationally accepted classification of HHPs developed by the UNFAO and WHO, instead substituting the arbitrary definition posited by an anti-chemical group.
The nation deserves better reporting of complex science and its associated regulation. The Guardian has not only managed to widen the gap between consumers and Australian farmers, but also discredit global safety and trade standards which both Australia and the UK recognise.
These standards acknowledge there is no one-size-fits-all approach to farming globally, especially when it comes to weed, insect and disease management. Each country has its own environmental conditions that require different farming practices. Hence the UK’s maximum residue limits (MRLs) already include import tolerances for chemistry used in Australia and other countries.
Listing the number of chemicals detected in food tells the consumer nothing of safety. The approach which is used by activists in the US has been resoundingly ridiculed and discredited by experts globally for failing to mention that any pesticide residues found on fruits and vegetables remain well below safety limits.
What The Guardian should publish is the new research showing even the highest levels of glyphosate detected in Australians are at least 1000 times beneath acceptable daily intakes. Amounts that the researchers emphasise are insignificant and biologically irrelevant, and indicate farmers are doing a terrific job of following label directions.
According to the FAO and the OECD, Australian farmers use less pesticide product per hectare than the UK and many of their global counterparts. In fact, Australian farmers use 95 per cent less pesticide per hectare now than in the 1950’s to control insect pests, weeds and diseases. This improvement is the result of significant innovations in chemistry through major investment in research and development over many decades.
To suggest farmers could simply utilise “alternative” methods with no loss of crop production or quality is false and naïve. The UK relies on imports for at least 46 per cent of its food from other countries. In contrast Australia produces enough food to fill over 90 per cent of its own shelves and export over 70 per cent of production. That cannot be taken for granted.
If ever there was an example of how an activist campaign can threaten perfectly safe and reliable food supply, this is it. What could have been an opportunity for an in-depth analysis of public policy surrounding the regulation and use of pesticides in Australia, instead incites consumer fear of fresh, nutritious, high-quality and safe Australian produce.
Journalism that throws decades of scientific data into the ‘too hard basket’ when it doesn’t align with what the reporter has to say – rather than what readers need to know, must be rejected by the Australian public.
The facts:
- Agricultural chemical products must meet the APVMA’s safety standards for use and for the environment before they can be sold to Australian farmers and other users
- The APVMA looks at all new data and scientific information about the ongoing safety of a registered product
- Where there is a genuine basis for a health or safety concern of a product the APVMA immediately restricts the product – sometimes fully suspending the use – until a review is completed
- The APVMA assesses products specifically for the Australian environment, local pests, our farming practices and proximity to residential areas. That’s why different products are registered for different markets
- The APVMA sets MRLs in food in line with internationally agreed standards under the UNFAO / WHO Codex. These standards recognise that good agricultural practices vary in different environments
- The UK already has import tolerances for agricultural chemicals not used in the UK and Australia strictly adheres to this
- MRLs help enforcement agencies monitor whether an agvet chemical has been used as directed to control pests and diseases in food production.
*Matthew Cossey is CEO of CropLife Australia.
