" why don't we follow the EU, representative of the oldest and wisest Western societies, and apply the precautionary principle to all human activities?". The EU, representative of the wisest Western societies? Romania? Malta? Spain? Portugal? Slovenia? Bulgaria? Italy? Greece? Cyprus?
"the researchers found a strong association between the increased number of birth defects in children of women whose last menstrual period occurred in April, May, June or July and elevated levels of nitrates, atrazine and other pesticides in surface water during the same months"
I am sure the researchers would also have found a strong association between the increased number of birth defects in children of women whose last menstrual period occurred in April, May, June or July and increased consumption of icecream and diet drinks during the same months.

The previous poster highlighted the fact that correlation is no evidence of causation and I wish to highlight this again.

The comparison of the 40 ppb dietary intake with the 2ppb who standard for water is an apples and oranges comparison. These numbers have different uses and with the style of studies for safety of atrazine and other chemicals, the setting of a standard for total dietary intake is the more astute regulatory system.

Caution is also needed in interpreting overseas studies on atrazine mobility in soils. Australian studies have shown far less mobility than have been reported overseas.

The harping on the source of data for regulatory decisions seems to ignore the availability of alternative sources of collaborative data and the risk to a corporation of submitting incorrect data, even inadvertently, of having all there sales suspended with the likely result of the company being bankrupted.

Some intellectual sleight of hand here, when Kellie actually mentions the guideline value for Australia being the same as the EU (which it is), and then proceeding to show how it actually wasn't, even when the WHO guidelines do not mention the "health value" or even a recommended maximum allowable limit.

Th APVMA ahs a FAQ sheet:
http://www.apvma.gov.au/chemrev/downloads/atrazine_faq.pdf

Somewhat different to what Kellie was arguing.

But the most ironic thing in this is that the continued use of Atrazine has been championed by anti-GM campaigners in the face of a demonstrably far less toxic alternative, glyphosate. Julie Newman, a well known anti-GM campaigner, has been quite an advocate of the use of Atrazine.

Hi
This is an important article. It shows the folly of spraying poisons on our food. I am an anti-GM campaigner and I do not support the use of pesticides. The whole development of the current extremely flawed food system explains why some farmers use pesticides to grow broadacre crops. There are other ways to grow crops but farmers need to be supported to change. Currently they are supported to use chemicals.

The folly of this can be shown by reading the site linked to the book "Our Stolen Future" http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/bookbasics.htm This explains how we are all affected by the addiction to chemicals. Health, behaviour, fertility and intelligence are potentially all affected.
Best wishes
Lillian

Kellie, is reading comprehension not your strong suit? Australia has two guidelines for atrazine for two different purposes. The 0.1 ppb guideline value is to alert water companies to the potential of contamination. The 40 ppb value is what is considered a level of concern for health. Put simply, water with between 0.1 ppb and 40 ppb is not considered of concern for health, but water companies should identify and eliminate sources of contamination. I think this is the precautionary principle applied.

The reason atrazine's registration was withdrawn in the EU is because people in Europe drink ground water. People in Australia, for the most part, don't. Of much more concern in Australia is atrazine in river systems and dams and the APVMA has changed the registration to reduce this risk.

The association between pesticides in surface water and birth defects in the paper cited are very slight. Odds ratios for 11 of 22 birth defects looked at were between 1.006 and 1.027 (an average increase in risk of 0.6% to 2.7%). The other 11 birth defects did not show an association. Of the ones that did, the odds ratio was different to 1.0 in only 4. So for 4 out of 22 birth defects, a greater risk was identified. You would expect 1 of these differences to turn up by chance. The conclusion, there is a weak association between atrazine in surface water and 4 birth defects in the US that might increase the risk of birth defects by less than 3%. Presumably the good news is that as atrazine use in the US has gone down in the last decade, the risks of these birth defects will have declined as well.

Is it relevant to Australia? Probably not. Australia uses much less atrazine than the US, so concentrations in surface water are less.

"This explains how we are all affected by the addiction to chemicals."
I agree completely Lillian: let's get rid of chlorine in our water supplies.

Why do we not share testing facilities with the EU instead of doing all our own testing?
There are many chemicals in use in Australia which are banned in the EU countries, is this because Australians are more resistant to the effect of chemicals or is it that the people who make money from supplying chemicals have more influence in Australia?

"First Evidence That Weed Killers Improve Nutritional Value Of A Key Food Crop"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090708094830.htm

Lillian - if agriculture abandoned the use of pesticides the world would starve.

Peace, in effect Australia does share testing facilities with the EU, at least as far as health effects go. The same toxicity data package is used to regulate pesticides throughout the world. The difference between the EU and Australia is that the EU now uses a hazard approach to regulation, whereas Australia and every other country in the world uses a risk approach.

Unfortunately Kellie you’ve got it completely wrong, and fallen into common misunderstandings about the Precautionary Principle. That principle – as you should know – states that “lack of full scientific certainty should not preclude regulatory action in circumstances where there is a risk of serious and irreversible ecological damage”. It does not say that any risk needs to be prevented, and has nothing to do with either “balance of probabilities” or “beyond reasonable doubt".

Australia actually has much stricter standards than even the Precautionary Principle. Chemicals can’t be registered unless the APVMA is satisfied that the present no unacceptable or unmanageable risk to human health, worker safety or the environment. This is a very high standard of safety, much higher than precaution, as it actually investigates the real impact of the chemical.

You’ve also quoted Tyrone Hayes with approval? He’s well known for being anti-atrazine, but if you read the literature, none of the results that he reports, whether it be with frogs, reproductive toxicity or cancer have ever been reproduced by another laboratory. This raises serious questions about his work.

Australia has a strong regulatory system that protects Australians from the undesirable impacts associated with all chemicals. Constant, unfounded claims of health risks that continue to be shown to be false only unfairly raise concerns within the community, causing unnecessary concern, and diverting scarce resources from real community health risks.

If there is a true health concern, then the regulator must take action. But at the moment, there is not any reliable evidence of harm – especially at the very low levels stated.

"The reason atrazine's registration was withdrawn in the EU is because people in Europe drink ground water. People in Australia, for the most part, don't."

Agronomist

Your persistence in peddling disinformation is astonishing.

Fifty percent of public water use in the metropolitan area of Perth is drawn from groundwater.

"Of much more concern in Australia is atrazine in river systems and dams and the APVMA has changed the registration to reduce this risk."

Seemingly you are unaware that river contamination is very often a result of hazardous groundwater plumes moving off-site?

How has a changed "registration" reduced the risk Agronomist? Do the APVMA (notorious for its lack of caution)supervise "registered" users of atrazine?

"Investigation of Ground Water Contamination by Fenamiphos and Atrazine in a Residential Area: Source and Distribution of Contamination:

"ABSTRACT

"Ground water in a residential area of Perth, Western Australia, was contaminated with fenamiphos and atrazine, probably as a result of the storage and handling of these chemicals at a residential properly.

"Sampling of existing wells indicated that atrazine and fenamiphos concentrations in ground water beneath a neighbouring property were 2000 and 1000ug/L, respectively.

"Contamination posed a public health threat to nearby residents with private wells.

"Ten years after the spill, contamination is still present in toxic levels in groundwater at a distance of 300 metres from the spill site.

"Investigations at other pesticide mixing sites in WA detected a range of pesticides in groundwater including:

"Atrazine, chlophyrifos, diazinon, dimethoate, fenamiphos, maldison, aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin and heptachlor."

("Stephen J. Appleyard earned his Ph.D. at the University of Western Australia. He is a project geologist at the Geological Survey of Western Australia (100 Plain St., East Perth, WA 6004, Western Australia)

No marks for guessing why the Swan and Canning Rivers are on life support.