Australian government caught spraying highly-dangerous, illegal chemicals on fragile wetlands

[bℓσωηG]

Australia is often reputed as having one of the most effective regulatory systems in the world for ensuring the safe use of chemicals. But it recently came to our attention that a regional government body in the state of Queensland has decided to develop its own endocrine-disrupting herbicide solution, which it is now spraying across large swaths of the area's coastal region to target an invasive weed species, that is also poisoning plants, animals and potentially even humans.

The government body is known as the Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC), and the chemical product in question is known as "Gloricide." According to an insider tip, local officials from SCRC developed the solution several years ago without consulting an official chemical engineer, and without compiling a valid Material Data Safety Sheet (MDSS) in accordance with federal laws. The council also failed to gain a permit for the solution's use, which technically makes it illegal.

Gloricide reportedly contains a dangerous mixture of both metsulfuron methyl, a highly-toxic herbicide, and 2,4-D, a major toxic component of "Agent Orange" that the Dow Chemical Company is currently trying to deregulate for use on genetically-modified (GM) corn (http://www.naturalnews.com). Together, these two chemicals are supposed to target an invasive weed species known as gloriosa lily, but they also mimic estrogen and have the capacity to disrupt hormone balance in humans.

Gloricide has never been properly safety tested, it turns out, and many say it does not even work at eliminating the gloriosa lily, an estimate that happens to be backed by science. And yet, at the same time, Gloricide is needlessly putting numerous desired plant and animal species at risk, including endangered species like the chemical-sensitive acid frog, which resides all along Australia's Sunshine Coast.

"Gloricide is very dangerous to the health of all animals, especially frogs that absorb the chemical through their skin," explains a petition trying to ban the use of the unapproved chemical. "The council has created this toxic chemical cocktail without testing it and is using it without care or caution. We are breathing in this toxic chemical when we go to the park and swimming in it when it leaches out through the dunes into the ocean."

Former environmental director fired for refusing to poison Australia's wetlands Back in 2011, the director of an environmental company contracted by SCRC to apply Gloricide was fired for refusing to spray it throughout Australia's sensitive dune network. Adam Presnell, former director of ATP Environmental, told the media at the time that Gloricide was being used "widely and indiscriminately," and that the chemical solution creates a "massively high risk to life and the environment."

"There is a highly risky culture emerging in council and in the bush regeneration industry, and is starting to closely resemble chemical cowboys -- kill it with chemicals any way you can, ask questions later," explained Presnell to reporters, noting that the chemicals used in Gloricide are especially toxic to aquatic animals.

As far as we can tell, Gloricide is still being used in the Sunshine Coast without approval, and the national government of Australia is doing little, if anything, to stop it. Various state and federal government bodies claim that the issue is outside their jurisdiction, which means SCRC is free to continue haphazardly using the toxic chemical blend without penalty.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039042_Australia_chemical_spraying_wetlands.html#ixzz2KcV2NyGL

Edited February 11, 2013 by bℓσωηG

[∂an]

thats f#*@#d, but thanks for bringing it to attention.

[tarenna]

Whilst the article is quite correct in flagging the high toxicity of 2,4,D it is absolutely wrong in claiming "metsulfuron methyl, a highly-toxic herbicide". To the contrary metsulfuron methyl has a very low toxicity and is not even classified as a poison in the SUSDP:

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter,nsf/Attachments/EGIL-57A2NL/$FILE/METSULFURON-METHYL.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metsulfuron-methyl

Other assertions such as "including endangered species like the chemical-sensitive acid frog, which resides all along Australia's Sunshine Coast." show a lack of accuracy and raise serious questions about the reliability of the article. Presumably this statement refers to the Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula), Wallum Sedge Frog (Litoria olongburensis) or the Wallum Rocket Frog (L. freycineti) that inhabit the "acid swamps" or wallum country of NENSW and SEQ.

[Torsten]

Like most articles on that website this one is retarded and preys on the stupidity of its readers. It uses minor scientific factoids to distort the truth and whip up hysteria. This crap is no different than the news on commercial TV.

The council did not make a new chemical. They simply combined two that are already existing. Both are registered herbicides and are authorised for uses similar to the one described.

Just to put this into perspective. if the council had sprayed each chemical separately even just seconds apart, then no law would have been broken! Most farmers use combinations of herbicides to get the results they need so this is far from an isolated case. Many such 'practical blends' end up being commercially available.

The constant reminder of 2,4-D being half of agent orange is retarded too. Water also makes up over 50% of coca cola, but that doesn't mean water is evil! It was the other half of agent orange that made it so notorious. 2,4-D is actually not so bad. While it has too much of an acute toxicity for me to want to work with it, it has a short halflife and doesn't accumulate. In both regards it is far safer than most of the other products that would be used in its place.

The main problem I see with what they were doing is the location. Most herbicides are not allowed near water courses and wetlands for good reason. Then again, there won't be much biodiversity in the wetland if the glory lily takes over.

[ThunderIdeal]

^

but still.... if disrupting that particular weed is a huge operation the SCRC wishes to undertake with a cocktail that isn't approved for that situation... maybe they could have sought a temporary permit from the AVPMA to cover their own backside.

i've only identified glory lily once, but apparently it's rampant in coastal dunes and dry sclerophyll.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ThunderIdeal

[bℓσωηG]

Surely there's enough unemployed youths sitting around on the sunny coast bored, to be able to start some sort of physical removal / weed eradication program...

[ThunderIdeal]

that might fly if you could import a chinese workforce

importing one exotic to control another leave that stuff to the CSIRO

[goneski]

I don't trust a word of anything posted on Natural News... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

[whitewind]

I lost count of the number of times that RationalWiki article mentioned "woo". Is that a rational, scientific term? It is very aggressively written; though it may be right, I find that style extremely off-putting, it gives the impression of extremism - even to the point of attacking the cartoons and how rubbish they are.

I'm not so sure it's as rational as it makes out to be!

[LokStok]

Rationalwiki is more an ultra-conservative group-blog than a 'wiki' style encyclopedia

[goneski]

'ultra-conservative'... lol.. I love when people attempt to pigeon-hole things as though there's some underlying political agenda.

The reason for the style in which pages like rational wiki are written is because such charlatans provoke and invite mockery and ridicule.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/25/mike-adams-discovers-the-placebo-effect/

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/12/14/mike-adams-couldnt-go-6-hours-without-promoting-an-insane-conspiracy-theory-about-this-school-shooting/

In addition, his dismissal of cancer and advocacy of 'alternative' medicine is extremely dangerous. Kinda like the AVN telling people not to vaccinate their children.

It's little more than fringe 'Big Pharma' conspiratorial garbage, and unfortunately naive people are sucked in and actually believe him, rejecting conventional medicine

quite probably to the detriment of their health.

Oh, he's also a HIV/AIDS denialist, denies germ theory..

Of course, the natural response is that such criticisms are the rantings of 'brainwashed puppets' of BigPharma.

It's hip to be alternative and stay out of the mainstream, especially when it comes to medicine!

Edited February 16, 2013 by SYNeR

[indigo264nm]

I don't trust a word of anything posted on Natural News... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

I don't trust a word of anything posted on Rational Wiki http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/RationalWiki

[LokStok]

It's hip to be alternative and stay out of the mainstream, especially when it comes to medicine!

do you really think that anyone makes descisions about their health and medical treatments based on

how cool or "hip" they perceive that may make them appear.

your kidding, right?

[goneski]

It wouldn't surprise me, given how gullible and suggestible some people are when it comes to "news sources" like Mike Adams / Natural News.

Given how people seem to lack the most rudimentary of critical thinking skills.. And given how group mentality is such a basic area of social psychology...

You do realise this is how culture works, right?

I could go on and on..

There seems to be no shortage of people blindly following "alternative" therapies (i.e. placebos) and rejecting conventional medicine in the process.

I think at that point, it's safe to abandon all hope, look at humanity and realise that anything goes and draw the conclusion that stupidity knows no bounds.

So, to answer your question -- no, I'm not kidding.

Edited February 16, 2013 by SYNeR

[bℓσωηG]

Council accused of using cocktail

AN ENVIRONMENTAL contractor claims Sunshine Coast council dumped him after he refused to treat aquatic weeds on sensitive dunal systems with a highly dangerous and illegal chemical cocktail.

ATP Environmental director Adam Presnell yesterday said the council had developed a product called Gloricide that was being used "widely and indiscriminately" in aquatic systems - particularly in coastal bushland conservation reserves - to control gloriosa lily.

The environmental scientist described Gloricide as being "massively high risk to life and the environment".

"There is a highly risky culture emerging in council and in the bush regeneration industry, and is starting to closely resemble chemical cowboys - kill it with chemicals anyway you can, ask questions later," he said.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority emailed Mr Presnell this week to say it is investigating his claims and will get back to him "as soon as feasible".

Mr Presnell, who is now out of work and had to retrench his three employees, said the use of Gloricide was contrary to the product's material safety data sheet.

He said the combination of formulas used in the product - which he had refused to touch - were not being used anywhere else in the world. He was left with severe headaches after using Metsulfuron-methyl, just one of the formulas used in Gloricide.

Mr Presnell said Gloricide also contained 2,4-D and Chemwet - two chemicals that were extremely hazardous to aquatic organisms.

He denied his decision to speak out was in revenge for losing his contract., saying he was shown the door after making numerous complaints.

Peter Nagel, council team leader for natural areas, said Chemwatch had developed Gloricide's MSDS.

Mr Nagel said the council had also been given an off-label permit to use the herbicide that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority had approved.

"A detailed work procedure has also been developed to ensure the application of the herbicide is undertaken correctly and appropriately," he said.

Just searched for the subject at sunshine coast daily newspaper and found an article from September 2011. Someone lost his job at the council for refusing to spray the shit.. good for him... I remember how many green tree frogs were in the sunny coast wetlands , they'll probably blame their decline in numbers on global warming.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/council-accused-of-using-weed-cocktail/1114882/

Edited February 16, 2013 by bℓσωηG

[Torsten]

SYNer, the reason why bogus therapies get so much traction is the same reason why people will buy from advertising that quotes subjective experiences. Many people can't relate to statistics - especially those who never studied science. Then they see the disasters sometimes caused by modern medicine and seek refuge where in conepts like 'nature is best', etc.

The other reason is because science has been corrupted. Even leaving aside any accusations of Big Pharma conspiracies, the very process of suppressing negative trial results has udnermined the trust these trials are supposed to give us. How can it be that 25 years after the first SSRI trial was evaluated we are finally realising that the data was all wrong and has been maintained wrong for all these years simply for the sake of profits? How can you expect people to trust such a system?

And then there is the obvious problem of no profit without patent. It is simply not possible that this has no effect on the outcome of therapies offered.

The medical profession with its default denial and the pharma industry with its profit motive have created this situation. The retards that run websites like naturalnews just fill a void that has been created.

Thunderideal - not that I am in favour of what the council did, but if the mixing is the only real offence here then you have to wonder why bother pursuing this? Like I said, if they had two guys following each other with the two chemicals separately then that would not have been against the law - but would have cost twice as much.

[ThunderIdeal]

blowng he didn't lose his job, he was a contracting scientist who lost his contract with council. for better or for worse, it's easy to see why.... they don't want to pay him to make complaints against them.

the avpma minutes last october show that they're looking into "gloricide". in the same month aph.gov.au has a document challenging the avpma to please explain their apparent lack of enforcement re: gloricide in queensland.

gloricide appears to be a real herbicide (not a cocktail) which isn't registered for use in australia.

the last bit in your article, a statement from SCRC natural areas, the council had also been given an off-label permit to use the herbicide that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority had approved. "A detailed work procedure has also been developed to ensure the application of the herbicide is undertaken correctly and appropriately," if true, would render the activity legal.

and they did indeed get a permit, pasted below

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You searched for permits using the following criteria.

Pest/Purpose contains "GLORIOSA" States: QLD

[1] permits were found.

Current permits are available in PDF format (for which the Adobe Acrobat reader is required) by clicking on the PER number, or in Word, by clicking on the (DOC) next to the product of interest.

Back to Main Search Page

Permit ID

Type

Description

Status

Date Issued

Expiry Date

PER5763 AG 2,4-D & Metsulfuron - Methyl / Coastal Sand Dunes / Gloriosa superba L (Glory lily) EXPIRED 10-Mar-03 31-Mar-08

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but it expired 5 years ago and i'm pretty sure there is no current permit on the avpma database although if the permits database is anything like PUBCRIS then the permit might be on there but hard to find.

worth noting there are current permits to use metsulfuron-methyl in waterways but not for that weed and possibly not for that area. 2,4-d in certain situations is approved for use in waterways, but i can't be searching this shit all night.

as a "chemical cowboy" my educated and hastily researched guess is:

1. they are breaking the law in a fairly serious way (unregistered herbicide) but 5 years ago they weren't breaking the law

2. most herbicide applications involve some degree of lawbreaking

3. perhaps the environmental fallout is unusually and unnecessarily high, or perhaps it's no worse than everything else going on

further

4. quite a few people have a disproportionate fear of herbicides

5. quite a few people see a herbicide operator and decide he is 'indiscriminate and reckless'

6. herbicide operators aren't paid very much and you get what you pay for

7. herbicide operators are exposed to many times more herbicide than anyone else

8. your laundry detergent is probably pretty harmful to waterways too, etc etc

honestly, it's easy to sit there with no chemical on your hands and say that it's all wanton environmental destruction, but unless somebody proves that weeds aren't so bad afterall you may as well get used to it, and until there is decent money in the job or severe enforcement of the rules there will always be some sloppy work going on.

Edited February 16, 2013 by ThunderIdeal

[ThunderIdeal]

let me clarify some things, product registrations are handed out for each PRODUCT, not the actives, so gloricide is a product, and an identical product called DestructoSchnizzle is a seperate product requiring it's own registration.

permits don't work that way, so a product with the same rate of the same actives in the same formulation will also be permissable under the temporary permit. this is making me start to suspect that SCRC could no longer import gloricide or an identical product after their permit expired, so they probably WERE MIXING THEIR OWN.

registered products are only allowed to be used according to the label, so this includes what plants you target, and where you spray it. mostly the labels deal with crops eg pasture, grains, orchards. some will have pretty broad situations like 'spray annual weeds in non-agricultural areas, roadsides, drains and waterways' or similar. i guarantee some of the countless registered glyphosate products will say something like that, and other identical products will not.

as soon as you go outside of what the label permits, or what your temporary permit allows, you're not following the law.

just another little jab for the naysayers, how certain are you that frogs aren't dying because glory lily is taking over their environment. not very likely i know, but it illustrates how easy it is to blame the guy who is actually TRYING TO FIX THE ENVIRONMENT when you don't really know much about the issue (granted, the scientist who lost his contract probably knows a thing or two).

Edited February 16, 2013 by ThunderIdeal

[ThunderIdeal]

and another thing!! lol

singapore daisy is a ravenous weed alongside SEQLD waterways (also in gardens and other areas, since spray applications never slow it down). the only thing registered to target singapore daisy is metsulfuron-methyl, probably because it's the only modern herbicide that effectively kills it.

operators with a knapsack full of glyphosate will therefore shake a few granules of brush-off into the mix when they have multiple targets including singapore daisy. that's the kind of illegal but practical thing that goes on in the field.

to be perfectly up-front i've made gloricide myself a few times (didn't spray near waterways but might have after consulting label and msds), with far less background knowledge than i gained during this thread. no regrets here, maybe i should have used straight roundup or sent a few meters of healthy soil to landfill with all of the unnecessary diesel burning and lasting soil damage that would have entailed. instead i applied some scary chemicals which were adsorbed onto soil colloids and broken down by the environment. i must be some kind of ignorant yahoo to perform my work efficiently like that! if i was a scientist maybe i could figure out a better approach, or maybe i could join the chorus of unhelpful whiners.

sorry about the tone of my post, i'm presenting one side of the argument, take it with a grain of salt

[ThunderIdeal]

Thunderideal - not that I am in favour of what the council did, but if the mixing is the only real offence here then you have to wonder why bother pursuing this? Like I said, if they had two guys following each other with the two chemicals separately then that would not have been against the law - but would have cost twice as much.

this isn't quite the case as my posts have now shown but i wouldn't be surprised if the AVPMA feels the same way (and now they're in the spotlight for letting it happen)

why didn't council just renew their permit!!!!!!!!!! or did they try and fail? maybe an oversight.

i guess councils and spray operators are in the same boat, they're sloppy because if they were highly-skilled they'd be somewhere else earning better money. you can't honestly expect a council to be some highly streamlined operation that constantly audits itself for total compliance with EHS, OHS etc. like most organisations they're already suffocating under piles of compliance without sniffing out more. if you think council is bad (and australians tend to), if you think tradies are shoddy ripoffs, just be thankful they use their discretion and cut a few corners. the way OH&S has gone in queensland at least, your house would never get built if the guy building it was compliant, and you'd never see council undertaking any works because they'd be hiding at HQ wearing foam hats, forming committees to tackle the 200% increase in papercuts which coincided with the latest 200% increase in paperwork, nutting out a safe operating procedure for reading safe operating procedures, and hiring a contractor to install extra foam on the walls and cart all of their tools and machinery to the tip in case somebody stubs their toe on the loader while undertaking a pre-start check.

i'm freakin' out man! we of all people know that doing the right thing and following the rules are two different things.

[ThunderIdeal]

fuck, brush-off isn't even registered for control of singapore daisy. it just happens to be identical to the product that is. shall i dob myself in or will one of you?

[whitewind]

Thanks for your candour TI. AVPMA by their own admission (I spoke to someone at my last course that is) have been traditionally cautious about producing off-label permits which has caused operators a great deal of concern and probably increased the levels of illegal (although possibly safe) spraying and distrust of the system by knowledgable people. The problem with noxious weeds is trying to get a balance between using effective chemicals that arent damaging to the environment and environmental protection. It's a bit like using chemo to attack cancer, it's considered necessary to create some damage to the surrounding system in order to protect it from the malevolence of the cancerous cells. In AVPMAs defense, regulation is roving all the time and it's better to have an over strict regulatory system than no regulation at all.

It seems unlikely that council couldn't get a permit from AVPMA so I think it's a database problem most likely, but I might be wrong. There are some supervisors out there who are ridiculously incompetent and are quite happy to put their staff at risk

[ThunderIdeal]

maybe they couldn't? or maybe it was incompetence/laziness/underfunding. as torsten and myself have established, herbicide cocktails are so commonplace that even the immense brisbane city council doesn't overly fuss about what their operators are mixing as long as the work is being done efficiently. my pesticides teacher was very serious and a bit anal which is why i have a good idea about the obligations of anybody undertaking commercial spraying... he drilled the knowledge in, one boring lesson after another. i'm not sure about the difficulty and expense of getting a temporary permit (or how dire the need has to be) but i reckon it'd be closer to the extreme end of the scale, involving for example surveys and studies and eggheads.

at least the queensland DPI requires would-be commercial operators to complete a two day course with a written exam. nobody really worries about it though, and it requires frequent, costly renewal. mandatory logging of spray jobs is a joke. nobody wears all of the PPE advised on the label and if you tried to in the brisbane summer you'd soon STOP trying. herbicide spraying IS breaking the law so the real issue here i guess isn't to do with the law, it's to do with reducing environmental impact. if they didn't research a strategic approach (IPM anybody?) before committing to a massive project in the wetlands, that would probably make them jerks.

[whitewind]

The training is different in NSW it's a one day course, good teaching with with guarantee of pass and no written exam. There were quite a few market gardeners in the course and I now worry about my food supply! Apparently they would rather everyone who is going to spray does the course and learn something rather than people not doing it for fear of failure.

I don't know about different councils but where I work they are really strict about following the rules and getting the paperwork done right - it's a refreshing change. Outsourcing is a different matter though I remember that during an asbestos scare.. It's more about covering ass, sadly, so long as the paperwork is done and it all looks good, then they can turn a blind eye and claim no knowledge later if it goes wrong.

[ThunderIdeal]

i reckon spray logs are a waste of time unless you're using huge or indiscriminate equipment eg booms or foggers. the important paperwork is the bit you read, so you can spray properly. what is ever going to come of a knapsack in thoughtful hands? it's literally crazy that somebody paid to spray a weed on the footpath is expected to keep a record of it for about four years and they MAY WELL GET PINGED for it when somebody complains about the scary chemical that made their dog sick and gave them a migraine. i've had to produce logs before, the breathing difficulty complaint was surely caused by the chopping, general ruckus and blowing. meanwhile landowners could do whatever they want and never get pinged, unless the neighbour cops drift or they cause something like a fish-kill.

i dunno, the rules are pretty good for the most part but registered uses are aimed at the people who line the chemical factories pockets.... the farmers. i think these laws are mainly to restrict the big boys, the laws also cater to the needs of those businesses (if you want to sell chemX to control weedY in cropZ then you go the expense of getting permission to write that on the label or you could miss out on millions in chemX sales). now say you want to sell gloricide to control glory lily in australian coastal areas. you may as well not bother since you'd be lucky to sell 100 more drums to rangers and such for your effort.

or maybe you'd be lucky to sell 1 extra drum, because those rangers etc were already using it even though it wasn't approved for that situation (or in the case of gloricide they're already mixing their own).

it's a typical variant of any number of controlled substances conundrums. overall we'd be far worse off without AVPMA.