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.