Roundup and 1080 not up for review
The Environmental Protection Authority has promised to get tough on some commonly used chemicals but critics say it should have included glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
The EPA said it would reassess 40 chemicals from over 700 on a chemicals priority list, most of them used in agriculture although some are also used around the home.
The group to be targeted does not include neonicotinoids either, a family of chemicals that has been blamed for a big reduction in insects.
The EPA said it had decided not to immediately reassess a number of chemicals that concern the public, such as 1080, triclosan which is used in a range of personal care products including toothpaste, glyphosate, neonicotinoids, and methyl bromide.
Chemicals on the list include well-known names such as the herbicide paraquat and the insecticide maldison, and pyrethroid insecticides such as cypermethrin and permethrin used in home insect repellent sprays.
These sprays are not used on skin, but rather applied around a home or on furniture and fabrics to kill pests.
Paraquat is often used as an alternative to glyphosate.
The work won’t be cheap – reassessments can cost more than $1 million each. The EPA said it was funding its initial reassessment work by reprioritising its current expenditure, and was in discussions with the Government on longer-term funding.
‘‘[Glyphosate and neonicotinoids] do not appear on the list because, based on their hazard profile and their risk to human and environmental health, they do not meet the priority criteria.
‘‘When compared directly to other chemicals we have screened using the same methodology and criteria, there are a large number currently being used in New Zealand, which present a greater risk to human and environmental health,’’ the EPA said.
Professor of Toxicology at Canterbury University Ian Shaw said he differed with the EPA over whether glyphosate was a danger to human health.
‘‘I think that the evidence that glyphosate is possibly a carcinogen in humans is robust. I favour categorising glyphosate as hazardous and reassessing its regulatory status in New Zealand.’’
In a recent landmark court case in the United States, a groundsman with terminal cancer was awarded $440 million after a jury found Roundup caused his cancer.
The EPA has ranked 727 chemicals with an A to F ranking, with A being the most harmful. Glyphosate has been given an E rating (low risk).
The lobby group that operates on behalf of the agricultural chemicals industry, Agcarm, said the approach being taken by the EPA was ‘‘reasonable’’.
‘‘It’s sensible to retain low-risk products to manage pests and diseases, especially when there are no better alternatives. In fact, often, the alternative options are worse,’’ Agcarm chief executive Mark Ross said.
When the EPA reassessed chemicals it had to take into account their benefits to New Zealand, and it had to take a scientific risk-based approach in consultation with industry.
‘‘There can be no political, social or media interference,’’ Ross said.
Horticulture New Zealand chief executive Mike Chapman said it was ‘‘business as usual’’ for the EPA. ‘‘As the independent regulator, EPA makes the rules and growers follow those rules.’’