Dr Alison Bleaney, co-author of the now much discredited “Scammel” report, loves to promulgate stories about the poisonous effects of chemicals below detectable levels (see Tasmanian Times letters 4 August and I think this was also published in one of our daily newspapers). She believes that oysters are perfect for bioassay of said chemicals.
I find it difficult to understand how she can prove this assertion. If the chemicals are below detectable levels how can she prove they have an effect? Weren’t the oysters tested at the time of the deaths – what was found? Dear Dr Bleaney, were you not taught the basic principles of investigative science during your medical degree? Don’t make unsubstantiated allegations without PROOF. Which scientific papers did you read which demonstrated to you that oysters are a suitable bioassay for agricultural chemicals of the type used in the George River catchment? At least give us some references in the literature (medical, not popular) so we can test your claims ourselves. If Dr Bleaney is so confident about her argument I ask her to submit a paper to the Australian Medical Journal.
Secondly, Dr Bleaney, could you please give us some statistics about inadvertent poisoning caused by prescription drugs issued by your colleagues? I have been told, on good authority, that this is quite a serious problem in Australia.
If, as she asserts, chemicals have been shown to have detrimental effects to humans below detectable levels, I do hope she is not prescribing any chemicals herself that may interfere with natural human function. I certainly hope she isn’t using any chemicals at all to control insects or clean instruments in her surgery because no doubt, in her view, these would present a hazard to her patients. I also hope that she discloses to her patients if she is in receipt of any inducements from drug companies to prescribe their products (including pens and other knick knacks) and that she fully discloses to all her patients in detail, the side effects and possible detrimental consequences of any drugs she prescribes. Perhaps Dr Bleaney could give us examples of how she applies the precautionary principle to her practise of medicine?
Finally, Dr Bleaney and co-authors should have declared their interests in the web publication. To which organizations do they have an allegiance? If the paper had been peer reviewed there would be no need to declare any allegiances because it would have stood the time-honoured test of credibility to enable its publication. Perhaps Dr Bleaney and associates could appraise TT readers of their affiliations.
I have been amazed that the AMA has given the Scammel report such strong support. Why have none of its members who disagree (or agree for that matter) with their peak body’s position spoken out? Perhaps there is suppression of free speech in that organisation? Are medical professionals being intimidated and suffering death threats in line with claims made against foresters? It must be true because I’ve made an assertion that it could be happening – that is the logic upon which this debate has raged!
All the agricultural chemicals in use are registered by the same body that registers drugs for animal consumption (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority) see
http://www.apvma.gov.au
It appears to me that the AMA thinks that registered agricultural chemicals are dangerous and, by default, is then saying that drugs registered for animal use must also be dangerous. How does this compare with the registration process for human drugs? Is that process equally flawed in their view?
The only useful thing about the Scammel report is the suggestion that chemical use should be audited. This is something that the major forest growers do as a matter of routine, including regular water testing (refer to article of Elliott and Hodgson in the most recent issue of Tasforests) and auditing of spray operations. It will be no drama for most forest organizations to supply this information, but it will be a huge imposition on agriculturalists. So once again, it will be the small businesses that will be hurt and take the brunt of the financial impact. These are the people that our “green” friends say they are so intent on protecting, while over-regulation is killing them.
If we are going to have inquiries into chemical use, why stop at agricultural and veterinary chemicals? We should look at human drugs and antibiotics. Here are a few questions for consideration. Who is responsible for over-prescribing antibiotics to the level that we now have rampant antibiotic resistance? Why did this happen? What inducements do drug companies provide to medical professionals to prescribe their products? How do these inducements relate to patterns of prescription? Do medical professionals disclose to patients that they have received inducements for prescribing particular brands of drugs? Do medical professionals fully disclose to patients all the side effects or other negative consequences of a drug they have prescribed? What happens to these drugs once they have passed through our bodies (or been tipped down the toilet) and entered the sewerage system and ultimately find their way into our water ways? Are these drugs dangerous below the usual levels of detection in humans and or oysters?
Perhaps I could start up an organization called Foresters for Medical Ethics and we could have a debate with Doctors for Forests – we’d have a lovely time tearing strips off each other. Would anybody really care? Would it make any difference? The fact is any form of biological science deals with probability, uncertainty and risk. If the precautionary principle, so enthusiastically advocated by Dr Bleaney, had been applied by Florey, penicillin would still be regarded as a reason to chuck an orange in the bin!
Declaration of interests: Peter Volker is a forest scientist with a PhD qualification, employed by Forestry Tasmania to work on the science of growing eucalypts and other genera in plantations. I was educated in Forest Science at ANU and Tasmania University and have worked in a number of public and private sector jobs in forestry over the past 26 years. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Foresters of Australia. I am proud of the timber industry in Tasmania and the thousands of workers who love and care for the forest which is their life and future. I believe (should that be know) that the forest industry is not perfect and is supportive of continuous improvement. I also believe that professionals in other industries should devote their energies to fixing the problems in their own area of expertise before lording over others with a “holier than thou” attitude. I believe that opinions are for conversation and facts are for publication, so I write the above piece in the spirit of conversation and will probably regret it as soon as I post it off to Lindsay T.
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think?
If you bounce,
tuffinlindsay@hotmail.com
Friday, August 6, 2004