Clean and Green, that’s what I always say….

Can’t beat a good old fashioned dose of DDT, throw in a drop of Chlordane a pinch of Heptachlor and wizz her into Tassie lickety split.

Think I’ll put it all in boiling water to kill the nasties….well plenty in Tassie have to boil their water anyhow…extra flavour they tell me.

Ahhhh…..yummy Tumouric Soup for entree, followed by Steak Dieldrine and a crispy Toxifennel salad, finished off with a nice hot cuppa of 2,4,5-T for two.

Waiter….I say waiter…waiter…..damn service????

A few years ago I asked the then DPIWE Minister what monitoring was done in Tasmania for persistent organic pollutants (dioxins, PCBs, organochlorines, etc) in sea-run salmon and trout. At the time that I wrote to him there was nothing published or easily available on the public record.

I believe it is still the case.

You virtually need an FOI request to get the data.

In a recent global survey of significant pollutants in salmon products from both wild-caught and aquacultured stocks, Tasmania was noticeably absent and I wondered why. Caveat emptor!

How safe are chemical residues in Australian food?

The Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority says:

“As part of that assessment process using data submitted with the registration application [from the pesticide manufacturer..BR], the APVMA also determines the likely level of chemical residues remaining at the time of harvesting or
slaughter [How?? ]. Drawing on this information the APVMA recommends Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). ..”
http://www.apvma.gov.au/residues/residue_questions_and_answers.shtml

Compare this statement with the article entitled ‘Did Someone Tell You That ‘Threshold Limit Value’ Indicates Safety?’ from the ‘Journal of Pesticide Reform’ Fall 1989

Extract:
“The next time someone cites a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for some toxin as being an official, scientifically determined ‘safe’ exposure level, ask to see the data on which the number is based and back up the reasonableness of your demand with a 1988 article from the ‘American Journal of Industrial Medicine’ entitled ‘Corporate Influence on Threshold Limit Values’ by Barry Castleman and Grace Ziem.  ..

As Castleman and Ziem document in their article, the ‘data’ on which many TLVs are based are suspect, nonexistent, or at odds (in favour of the industry) with other, uncited data.”

This article goes on to explain that people employed in the chemical industry were on the assessment panels. With ‘primary responsibility for reviewing documentation in developing TLVs borne by corporate representatives for major products of their own companies and new products about which little or nothing had been published.”

“The 1986 TLV Documentation shows that for 89 chemicals the committee placed important reliance on unpublished corporate communications and for an additional 15, the committee relied SOLELY on unpublished corporate communications. (the authors were counting as ‘published’ almost ANY information, even if it was from a manufacturer’s safety data sheet or an unsuported statement published in a text by a corporate health professional.)

‘minutes of the TLV committee not available to the public…’  ‘the TLV committee retains no systematic documentation of their decisions’...‘most of these important unpublished corporate communications are now unobtainable in written form’...‘frequently consisted of nothing more than a telephone conversation’...‘a vague reference to some worker survey’...‘never acknowledged the reality of blatant conflicts of interest’...‘worker advocates/exposed persons and unions not offered a chance to participate’....

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj

More information related to my above post at:

http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn128.htm

“The next time someone tells you their project is going to meet all state and federal standards, look into it very closely. You may be unpleasantly surprised.”

and
June 14, 2001
http://www.pattonboggs.com/news/detail.aspx?news=121

“..The subcommittees that develop ACGIH TLVs assign the analysis of the scientific literature to one person to determine if a TLV is needed or if changes to an existing TLV are justified. There are no criteria published for making this crucial determination. There is no outside peer review by experts of the TLV proposal or the documentation that underlies it. Nor is there a public hearing for the recommendation to permit open discussion. While there is a generous one year opportunity for written comments on a proposed TLV, the opportunity for in person scientific discussions and presentations to the TLV Subcommittee and Committee, which at one time was routinely available, has been prohibited in recent years.

Recommendations for TLV adoption are formed by the TLV Subcommittees in closed session. There are no minutes of the meetings, and the documents and scientific evidence considered or rejected at the meetings are not revealed. Even the names of the members of the TLV Subcommittees are undisclosed. ...”