With reference to the report in a recent edition of the Canadian journal Paediatrics and Child Health that the commonly-used weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is ‘persuasively linked’ to cancer, neurological impairment and reproductive problems:

(1)   Is it the case that pesticides with the same active ingredient are being used in Australia; if so, (a) at what level is the active ingredient known as 2,4-D and (b) is this use domestic or agricultural.

(2)   Is it the case that pesticides with the same active ingredient have been subject to reconsideration by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority; if so, is a draft report available for public comment; and (b) have any public health warnings been given, if not, why not.

(1) (a)   . Yes, 2,4-D is used in Australia at rates varying between 0.3 kg ae/ha to 4.5 kg ae/ha depending on the particular weeds that are targeted. (ae = active equivalent). (b). The vast majority of use of 2,4-D in Australia is for agricultural applications. There are 136 registered products containing the active constituent 2,4-D. Of these 4 products are registered for use by consumers in the home garden.

(2) (a)   . Yes, the 2,4-D family of chemicals is presently being reconsidered by the APVMA. The large set of scientific studies relating to human health risks is still being assessed by the Office of Chemical Safety in the Department of Health and Ageing. That assessment is expected to be finished by the end of 2006. At that time a draft report will be made available for public comment. On 18 April 2006, the APVMA’s Preliminary Review Findings (Environment), Part One: 2,4-D Esters report was released for public comment. The period of public comment closed on 31 May 2006. This report dealt only with environmental aspects. Some interim regulatory actions in relation to the herbicide’s effect on native vegetation and other crops have already been taken or are proposed. (b). The APVMA has not issued public health warnings in relation to 2,4-D use because such warnings are not justified by the existing understanding of risk. The health-concern claims made in the Canadian journal article (Paediatrics and Child Health) are not based on new research as suggested but only on an examination of older studies. These studies have been under examination by international scientific bodies and regulatory authorities for a number of years, and conclusions reached do not agree with the Canadian journal article’s authors. •       The United States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA) released its Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) for 2,4-D (salts and low-volatile esters) in 2005. EPA determined that all products containing 2,4-D as the active ingredient are eligible for reregistration. In 2004, the EPA concluded that “there is no additional evidence that would implicate 2,4-D as a cause of cancer”. In the 2005 report, it stated, “none of the more recent epidemiological studies definitively linked human cancer cases to 2,4-D”. •       The European Commission Standing Committee on Plant Health completed a re-evaluation 2,4-D (acid and ethylhexyl ester) in October 2001. The evaluation concluded that it may be expected that plant protection products containing 2,4-D will satisfy the safety requirements of the Council Directive. The commission concluded that residues arising from the proposed uses have no harmful effect on human or animal health and no unacceptable effects on the environment subject to conditions outlined in its re-evaluation. The APVMA, in consultation with the Office of Chemical Safety, has concluded that in view of recent international decisions supporting the safety of 2,4-D uses in relation to human health, there is no justification for issuing interim health warnings while the Office of Chemical Safety completes Australia’s own exhaustive assessment of the available scientific data during the remainder of this year. The following point should also be noted. The Canadian regulator was criticised for not examining each 2,4-D product formulation for the presence of dioxins. The APVMA will include that step during the course of its review.