Will Australia follow the American ban on Endosulfan?
By Joe Lederman FoodLegal Lawyers and
Consultants The United States
has announced a ban on the use of the pesticide Endosulfan. FoodLegal Bulletin
previously has written on this issue twice and about the need to review the
Australian position. In this article, we consider the current bottleneck in Canberra on this issue. On 9 June 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Authority
(‘US EPA’) announced that the United
States will ban the pesticide Endosulfan.
The US EPA stated that Endosulfan can pose unacceptable neurological and
reproductive risks to farm-workers and wildlife, and can persist in the
environment (see the release here). This move in the US
follows the earlier banning of the chemical in New Zealand by the New Zealand Environmental
Risk Management Authority in December 2008. FoodLegal Bulletin has previously written on this issue, in April
2009 in an article entitled ‘Australian regulation
of agricultural and veterinary chemicals: Who is having two-headed fish for
dinner?’ The case of the two-headed fish on Queensland’s
Sunshine Coast is now the subject of court
proceedings against a nearby macadamia grower who used the chemical. The US ban places pressure on the Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) which had previously concluded that a
ban of Endosulfan in Australia
was unnecessary. This followed a review in 2005 by the APVMA. The US EPA has stated that its announcement follows ‘new data’ showing
the ‘risks faced by workers are greater than previously known’. The APVMA has reacted
by a media release dated 10 June 2010 (click here)
noting the US EPA’s decision, but stating that: ‘The APVMA is not aware of any current evidence suggesting a
similar occupational health and safety risk to Australian farm workers. Tight
controls placed on endosulfan in Australia in 2005 addressed this
risk. Recent advice from the Australian Government Department of Health and
Ageing has confirmed that these controls adequately protect human health.’ The Australian
Government Department of Health and Ageing’s Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Health (OCSEH) issued a
report (current as of 31 March 2010), which maintained
that the acceptable daily intake of Endosulfan is 0.006 mg/kg bw. That report was
published online at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/E8F4D2F95D616584CA2573D700770C2A/$File/ADI-report-may10.pdf (Click here.) However, the APVMA has now acknowledged
the continuing environmental risks outside Australia and has sought advice from
the Australian government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts on ‘whether these risks trigger
legislation that might enable the APVMA to take action on endosulfan in
Australia’. An article in The Age newspaper in Melbourne on 11 June 2010 reported that the
review would take a month to complete. The questions FoodLegal asks are: Once again, when it comes to
examining the safety of agricultural chemicals and pesticides, Canberra is a follower rather than an
initiator. The current review has been prompted by a decision taken elsewhere,
and reveals a lack of initiative on the part of an important Australian
Government agency responsible for protecting Australians from potential adverse
health effects of agricultural chemicals affecting foods. In this instance, Australia has
yet to follow the lead given by 64 other countries that have already banned Endosulfan. FoodLegal Bulletin has previously commented on the failures of
Government accountability and the easy shifting of responsibility between a
multitude of separate Government authorities that are all involved in
decision-making processes without necessarily being found to be the ultimate
decision-makers. This point was made in an earlier issue of FoodLegal Bulletin
where we published a letter to the FoodLegal Bulletin editor received from FSANZ’s
Chief Executive Officer Steve
McCutcheon (in our June-July 2009 issue) stating that responsibility for initiating changes
in Australia’s Maximum Residue Limits lies with the APVMA. While FSANZ stated that it had to wait until the
APVMA takes action, because the use of Endosulfan in food production is not
considered a food safety issue which is not the responsibility of FSANZ, it now
seems clear that the APVMA is able to pass some of the decision-making responsibilities
further up the line to both the Federal Department of Health and Ageing (which
claims to rely upon its Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Health) as well as
the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. At this stage, because the US ban
is focused the environmental impact on farm workers and wildlife, it may still
be possible that Australian food exporters whose product has been grown with
Endosulfan on the farm to export to the US. However, that position could change.
© Lawmedia Pty Ltd,
June-July 2010
This is general information rather than legal advice and is current as of 30 Oct 2021. We therefore recommend you seek legal advice for your particular circumstances if you want to rely on advice or information to be a basis for any commercial decision-making by you or your business.