You may have been hearing a lot of speculation lately about some issues a fish hatchery in Noosa has been having in relation to what it alleges to be pesticide poisoning of its fish stock. I certainly have, and I have been reading many conflicting views on what is alleged to have happened. So I came in this morning after having read a few more mistaken observations to try and set the record straight, mainly to satisfy my own curiosity, but also in an effort to clear up any misconceptions about certain pesticides that might be out there.
Presently, the case being reported on is before the courts. It involves the owner of Sunland Fish Hatchery, Gwen Gilson, seeking compensation from a neighbouring macadamia farm, for allegedly drifting chemicals into the water which in turn she relies on to raise her fish. The main chemical in question is carbendazim, a fungicide. The owner reports incidents of two headed fish and other deformities occurring, as well as many fish deaths. She also goes on to blame the alleged spray drift on the death of three horses, the family dog and her own liver problems (see the full story here).
Consequently, a number of news agencies have jumped on the story, but unfortunately, in some cases, the reporting has been fairly one sided. For example, 60 Minutes, who I normally hold in quite high esteem for their high quality reporting, ran a story some weeks back that was fairly biased on the issue. This has resulted in the farmer, Troy Zeisemer, considering taking legal action for defamation against the network. The story run by 60 Minutes was also met with a response from CropLife Australia who stated the “The program aired tonight by 60 Minutes was regrettably full of half-truths, deception and exploitation”. You can read their full response here.
Again, as recently as this morning, I have noted the WWF now using the story to push an anti endosulfan agenda on Twitter (http://ht.ly/1X1Rc), which is disappointing because, as mentioned earlier, the chemical in question in this case was carbendazim. Additionally, the APVMA has gone as far as to expressly rule out any involvement of endosulfan in the potential cause of fish health issues (see http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/our_view/2009/2009-11-25_endosulfan_ruled_out.php). This is not to say that endosulfan doesn’t have issues; because it does. That however, is a separate matter in itself. To use the fish hatchery story to push the banning of endosulfan is erroneous.
I would make the point that in my previous agricultural experience, I have witnessed the majority of farmers being fantastic environmental custodians of their properties and surrounding catchments. Pesticides are an important tool to that enable Australian farmers to continue be some of the world’s most efficient producers and be early adopters of conservation tillage methods. This is not to say, that if there is a problem with a pesticide, then it should be investigated and possibly taken off the market. Of course this should always happen. In the meantime though, the media should endeavour to report on stories such as this in a much more balanced fashion in order that an appropriate outcome can be reached for all. I will be following this case with much interest now, and welcome any feedback or discussion on the issue.
