Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol 35 no. 4. 22 March 1972

Nz Government Responses:

Nz Government Responses:

The Agricultural Chemicals Board is charged by statute with being vigilant on behalf of the public health in matters such as this. The chairman of the Board, Mr Clark, has calculated that this accidental drift of aerially-sprayed 2,4,5-T could give a pregnant woman a daily dose comparable with those known to cause foetal abnormalities in animals. This means that there is one clearly feasible way in which 2,4,5-T could cause human birth defects. There exists, therefore, a clear case for public warnings and for restricting human exposure. Mr Clark, however, has never publicly rescinded his statement of 5 Dec 1970: "There is no evidence to show that foetal abnormalities in humans could be caused by 2,4,5-T. This statement was affirmed by the Registrar of the Board, Mr B.B. Watts, who on 12 Dec 1970 said that the latest reports received by the Board showed no evidence to suggest that 2,4,5-T is in any way hazardous to human health. These claims have been re-affirmed in subsequent broadcasts by both Mr Clark and Mr Watts. Furthermore, they persistently state that there is no evidence that humans have been harmed by 2,4,5-T. This statement is irrelevant, misleading and just plain incorrect. It is incorrect because in fact a select commission from the American Association for the Advancement of Science did find in Vietnam, where large areas have, been heavily sprayed with 2,4,5-T (though not so heavily as parts of the Waitakeres) some evidence of increased birth defects. "Time" of 10 May 1971 quoted an American doctor in a Saigon hospital as saying that every doctor he knew in South Vietnam believes there's been an increase in birth defects in the sprayed areas. The New York Times Weekly Review (Melbourne edn.) of 10 Oct 1971 stated: "There has been a significant increased incidence of birth defects among Vietnamese infants in the wartime years but a paucity of medical records prevents absolute verification". There is, then, no final scientific proof but there is certainly, contrary to Messrs Clark and Watts' repeated statements, some evidence that humans have been harmed by 2,4,5-T. Fur- page 7 thermore, their statements are misleading in that they imply reliable statistics exist on which pregnant women got exposed to 2,4,5-T and which bore defective babies, whereas in fact even the NZ government (let alone the Saigon one) keeps no good records on either. And thirdly, the most important objection to the statements is that they are irrelevant, because they Imply that, wher there is clear evidence from experiments on animals that a chemical could cause human birth defects at dose levels to which women could be exposed, the public should continue to be involuntarily exposed to this risk, pending proof of actual damage.

The main point is that the public ought to be protected from a risk which is already known for certain to be significant. Suppose that thalidomide had been shown by pre-sale tests to cause deformities in several species of mammal at doses which women would take. Would anybody then advocate the release of thalidomide for public consumption? of course not. Yet our Messrs Clark and Watts are in the position of advocating a similar exposure risk. To make things even worse, they ignore the distinction that at least thalidomide was of some benefit to and was voluntarily taken by women, whereas aerial spraying of 2,4,5-T can result in involuntary poisoning, with no compensating benefits to the victim.

The only action taken by the Agricultural Chemicals Board to protect people from the risks attendant upon spraying of 2,4,5-T is label amendments which have been and are being made. At present, one can buy from the Food department of a large Auckland store a bottle of 2,4,5-T which is not even labelled "Poison", and bears no warning of the possible hazard to health. Proper labels would be welcome; but they scarcely begin to meet the need. If your wife gets dosed with 2,4,5-T from your neighbour's aerial spraying, she can hardly be helped by any label which may have been on your neighbour's bottle.