The Land That Provides A Living Also Brings Death

Sydney Morning Herald

Wednesday October 24, 2007

Ruth Pollard rpollard@smh.com.au

AGRICULTURE is one of the most hazardous industries on the planet. Workers run at least twice the risk of dying on the job as those in other sectors, and exposure to pesticides plays a large part in their short lives.

"It is a silent epidemic, it is an enormous, unreported, undetected problem," says Patricia Healy, a researcher in public health and occupational health and safety.

"But quite how significant remains unclear, because of almost insurmountable difficulties in documenting the true extent of pesticide poisoning in the agricultural workforce worldwide."

Healy, who with Neil Gunningham wrote Occupational Health and Safety Implications of Agvet Chemicals, says part of the problem is that the agricultural workforce consists mainly of the self-employed, family members or contractors rather than employees, meaning only a small proportion of work-related farm injuries result in workers compensation claims.

"Secondly, the available statistics refer almost exclusively to acute exposure and rarely capture work-related disease resulting from long-term, chronic exposure - not the least because of the long latency period between exposure and the onset of disease," they say in their report.

The International Labour Organisation describes the problem as "notoriously underestimated" and a "frequent occupational hazard", while the World Health Organisation estimates between 2 million and 5 million workers suffer pesticide poisonings each year, and 40,000 die, Healy's report says.

She is highly critical of Australia's legislative framework and its effect on farm safety.

It is overly complex, with more than 60 federal, state and territory acts, regulations, standards and codes of practice, marked by "cross-jurisdictional inconsistencies and overlaps".

"The practical problems of implementing and administering such a complex regulatory system are also considerably exacerbated by the lack of communication, liaison and co-ordination both between the involved government departments and agencies and with stakeholders."

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority's performance on the registration and testing of dangerous pesticides has also been called into question.

The insecticide mevinphos is an example. "First of all the evidence they used simply looked at a chemical and said, 'If it is used in a particular way everything will be OK'. What they didn't take into account is whether or not it would be used in that way."

Add to that, these pesticides are put onto the market with extraordinary requirements on their use that people do not comply with, she says.

"People are not going to use pesticides in that way; they are going to take short cuts, particularly if you are a farmer whose crop is about to be ruined, or a market gardener whose main language is Cambodian and you cannot fully understand the guidelines.

"Everybody knows that mevinphos is a very nasty chemical indeed, but if you are a farmer and your broccoli crop is ready to go to market and you are looking at financial ruin if you don't spray, you'll spray."

The agriculture lobby, through the National Party, has enormous influence in policy-making, and particularly in the Department of Agriculture, she says.

Those with concerns about the review and regulation of pesticides will inevitably find themselves hitting their heads against a brick wall.

"They are not going to get very far with a minister whose main concern is to maintain the agricultural industry," Healy says.

She describes occupational health and safety coverage in rural industries as woeful.

"It is a very difficult area to work in. WorkCover are very stretched for resources, and it is not an area that gets well covered. It is not unionised; the people are geographically spread out.

"The regular blood testing is, at best, hit and miss, while the time lag between low-level exposure to pesticides and when people get sick may stretch for years, meaning many cases of sickness may never be linked to pesticides," she says.

She describes the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority as a "reactive body" with a very limited role, reliant on industry funding, up against "bolshy industry groups - the farmers, the spray operators".

"We must realise that the main threat to people's health and safety is not the big, acute things. The main danger to our health and safety is the silent stuff, the pesticide poisoning, the use of toxic chemicals ... accumulated over years."

Lyn Fragar is the director of the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety.

She says there have been significant improvements to many dangerous farming practices. There have also been efforts to clear farms of potentially harmful products, while 200,000 farmers and farm workers have done chemical and pesticide safety training over the past five years, she says.

Yet she is worried there are still many chemicals to be reviewed that have not been subjected to the same scrutiny as newer chemicals.

Fragar is also critical of the testing regime that is meant to detect high or harmful levels of organophosphates in those who work on farms.

In one series of tests she and her team performed on market gardeners from the Sydney basin, they found no harmful exposure levels.

"We think that if we had a really good test it would show [harmful] exposure," she says.

"These flaws are reinforcing bad behaviour ... making people think their work practices are safe."

TOMORROW

The pesticides authority suspended high-volatile 2,4-D ester because it kills fish and native plants, then gave farmers in more than 30 shires permission to use it.

© 2007 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home