Debunking the meth myth
SIR Peter Gluckman has scuttled a myth which caused hundreds of state house tenants to be evicted and has cost Housing New Zealand and private landlords millions of dollars.
The Prime Minister’s chief science adviser released a report into methamphetaminesmoking residue on household surfaces, which found no evidence that thirdhand exposure causes adverse health effects.
New Zealanders were sucked into the hype surrounding methamphetamine, or P, use and only now are the real facts emerging.
Sir Peter says black mould in houses is more dangerous than meth residue.
An industry of methcleaning companies was built to provide landlords with testing and remedial processes. An industry which to all intents and purposes was built on a lie.
There has been a widelyheld perception the presence of even low levels of meth residue in a house poses a health risk to occupants.
Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford says noone is underplaying the social damage caused by meth. But there should be a scientific basis for what are acceptable levels of meth in the current New Zealand context. The remediation of houses should be proportional to the established health risks.
This is a comprehensive, uptodate and plain English report about the risks of meth exposure for people living in houses where meth was manufactured and for those in which meth was smoked.
In December, Mr Twyford commissioned Sir Peter to assess all the available scientific and medi cal literature about the risks of exposure to meth residue.
It was a pity the last Nationalled government did not use Sir Peter’s expertise on this issue when it was in power. Under National, Housing NZ spent about $100 million over four years for testing and remediation. It evicted countless tenants and had properties sitting vacant.
This caused unnecessary stress to vulnerable families, some of them ending up living in cars or tents.
It is hard to understand how the previous government let the situation get so out of hand, when a good scrub with hot water and soap may have been enough to clean houses where meth was smoked, rather than manufactured. This report has come too late for some.
Mr Twyford has promised the vacant houses will be immedi ately made available to needy families, just in time for winter.
The Property Investors Federation says the high cost of meth testing and cleaning rental properties is adding to the cost of providing rental homes in New Zealand. There is now hope some rental costs will reduce, although a shortage of rental properties may not allow that to happen.
What happens next will be important. There is no indication people will be compensated for the thousands of dollars they may have spent cleaning up a nearly nonexistent problem.
The message testing is only warranted in very few cases needs to reach every homeowner, landlord, tenant and social housing provider.
A review of how the meth testing and treatment industry was allowed to gain such traction is something to be considered.
The Government is facing criticism about the lack of progress on affordable housing and there are even ludicrous suggestions Sir Peter is helping Mr Twyford free up state houses. Many questions are yet unanswered from the meth testing and realestate industries and attention will soon turn on them both.
An update of regulations needs to require much needed scientific rigour across the entire testing industry.
A public consultation document on meth regulation is expected later this year. In the meantime, property owners and those looking to rent can sleep a bit easier knowing scientific evidence has finally been made available showing risks of contamination are low.