‘Mould more dangerous than meth’ Q&A
Gluckman report casts doubt on danger of exposure to drug’s residue
Ameth-testing company has hit back at claims the industry helped drive fears about methamphetamine contamination in homes. Simon Fleming, director of Meth Xpert, which offers meth-testing services, said the industry had worked from government-released meth standards such as the Ministry of Health guidelines, which were then superseded by the New Zealand Standard last year.
“The industry hasn’t beaten it up, it’s basically been going off the standard the Government has produced at the time, and we would welcome any review of the standard at the time.”
Chief science adviser Professor Sir Peter Gluckman has produced a report for Housing Minister Phil Twyford which says there is no evidence that third-hand exposure from methamphetamine smoking causes adverse health effects.
Gluckman said people were more at risk from mould in their home than
Why are we talking about this?
A report from the Government’s science adviser says there’s no evidence that methamphetamine smoking contaminates a house, despite previous claims that it did. The report by Sir Peter Gluckman says buyers need only have health concerns if the house has been used to make methamphetamine.
What difference does this make?
A huge difference for many house buyers, sellers and renters. Buyers have been avoiding homes with any trace of meth contamination, which can sink a property’s value, and estate agents have faced
they were from meth contamination.
“In terms of (housing), mould is far more dangerous than meth.”
The report has found that remediation in most cases is needed only in homes that have been former clan labs producing the drugs and where meth has been heavily used.
“I can’t see the point of testing, fullstop, unless the police or the forensics suspect it has been a place of synthesis,” Gluckman said yesterday.
His report says meth levels that exceed the current standard of 1.5mcg/100cm2 should not signal a health risk and exposure 10 times higher (15mcg/100cm2) would also be unlikely to have any adverse effects. disciplinary action for hiding this fact on behalf of vendors. Housing New Zealand has spent more than $100 million over four years in drug testing and remediation, evicting tenants and leaving many properties vacant.
Has testing been a waste of time?
Yes, according to Housing Minister Phil Twyford, who commissioned the report, and NZ Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell, who accuses the meth testing industry of creating panic. Unsurprisingly the industry disagrees — and has support from public health researcher Jackie Wright, who in her
Twyford said he commissioned the report because of the anxiety about meth contamination and the testing and remediation industry that had grown as a result.
“There has been a widely held perception that the presence of even low levels of meth residue in a house poses a health risk to occupants. As a result, remediation to eliminate contamination has been an extremely costly business for landlords and an upheaval for tenants being evicted at short notice.”
NZ Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said the panic around exposure to third-hand methamphetamine had grown out of PhD found health effects from meth residue, regardless of whether whether the house was a meth lab or had been smoked in.
So what is the danger level?
The current standard is 1.5mcg/ 100cm2. The Gluckman report says this is not a health risk and even exposure 10 times higher (15mcg/ 100cm2) would be unlikely to have any adverse effects. Wright says her study found effects within the 2-20mcg/100cm2 range.
all proportion to the actual risks.
“The message that testing is only warranted in very few cases needs to reach every Kiwi homeowner, landlord, tenant and social housing provider. When this report sinks in, we can expect to see demand for testing to drop right away,” he said.
“Since this shameless testing industry took hold, Housing NZ alone has spent $100 million over four years for testing and remediation, evicted countless tenants and had properties sitting vacant.”
Fleming doubted the report would put meth-testers out of business.
“It doesn’t take away the need to test houses.”
Jackie Wright, a public health researcher at Australia’s Flinders University, completed a PhD into the health effects from meth labs.
She said there are documented health effects from meth residue at levels as low as 2mcg/100cm2, and levels often did not depend on whether the house was a meth lab or had been smoked in.
Wright said information she contributed to the Gluckman report had been ignored.
“We do see and we’ve documented health effects in people living in properties with residues in that 2-20mcg/ 100cm range.
“It’s not correct to say [evidence] doesn’t exist, it does exist and its been documented,” she said.
Wright could not say at what level meth became harmful.
“I can’t tell you right now. We’re trying to establish that using the research that we’re doing.
“But we’re certainly see health effects when we have methamphetamine residue levels anywhere between 2 and 20. In that range we absolutely see health effects, especially in small children.”
Wright said if people were concerned about meth contamination, they should still get their homes tested.
“Absolutely, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be.”