Adverse Experience Reporting 2,4-D and Metsulfuron Methyl

Adam Presnell made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

The request was partially successful.

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority,

Please provide all correspondence you have received regarding Health related and Environmental Adverse Experiences Reported by Australians in relation to 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl since 2010.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Adam

Thank you for your request.

As this is a request for documents in possession or custody of the APVMA that relate to an approved active constituent or registered chemical product, it must first be dealt with under section 8W of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code (Agvet Code) as scheduled to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, instead of under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

This is because paragraph 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act provides that the right of access to documents does not apply to documents that are open to public access, as part of a public register or otherwise, in accordance with another enactment, where that access in subject to a fee. Section 8W of the Agvet Code provides for such a scheme.

Accordingly, you should email your request to [email address]. An APVMA officer from the Case Management and Administration Unit will be in touch with you shortly thereafter to progress your 8W application.

In the meantime, there is a substantial amount of general nformation freely available on the APVMA website in relation to the Adverse Experience Reporting Program (AERP), found here at https://apvma.gov.au/node/10946. In relation to AERP reports from 2010 onwards specifically, you may wish to focus on the first four reports listed on the webpage. You may wish to check that information first before submitting your 8W request.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

I went been through the APVMA's Adverse Experiencing Reporting prior to making this FOI request.

The reason for this FOI is because i could not identify my Adverse Experiencing Report in the APVMA's documents. Henceforth, the FOI request was worded to provide; not the information you have investigated and uploaded to your Report but the actual correspondence you have received in regards to reports of Adverse Experiencing you have been notified of, particularly in relation to 'GLORICIDE', 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl.

When attempting to lodge my correspondence documenting an Adverse Experience, i was refused numerous times by the APVMA. Therefore i had to go to the Minister in an attempt to have my Experience documented. Failing the Ministers help in having the APVMA register my Experience, the PM at the Time MP Gillards Office, submitted the Experience and i was notified that the APVMA has finally accepted the report.

Being that the APVMA and Minister of the APVMA refused to register my adverse Reaction Experience on multiple occasions, and being that the APVMA's reporting on Adverse Experiencing includes no incidence of Metsulfuron Methyl, it is presumed that the APVMA has not registered or reported this experience. This is why i have asked the APVMA to provide correspondence it has received in relation to these chemicals and not the correspondence it has chosen to document. Please be clear about this.

Notification to the APVMA in regards to adverse Health Effects and Adverse Environmental Effects are requested. I appreciate your timely query of this FOI, however you have misunderstood the nature of the request and i require the information requested. I do not wish to receive the information the APVMA has chosen to published.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Thanks for your reply Adam

Your request as presently worded will capture any correspondence received by the APVMA in relation to adverse experience reporting related to the named active constituents, regardless of whether it was published or not and regardless of who in the APVMA received it. It must, as presently worded, be processed under '8W' as it is carved out of FOI, as described below.

I am happy to assist you in order to come up with a different scope to more directly target the documents you seek access to. I find it easier to assist by phone, as email is cumbersome for these purposes.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

I wish to receive correspondence in relation to an 'Unregistered Chemical Product' used illegally and unapproved active constituents the APVMA was notified of as per Senate Estimates May 2013 i.e. 2,4,5-T and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one.

The legislation states:

8W Access to certain documents in the possession or custody of the APVMA

(1) A person may, in writing, apply to the APVMA for a copy of, or extract from, a document (other than a document in any part of the Record or Register) in the possession or custody of the APVMA in relation to an approved active constituent or registered chemical product.

This FOI request falls outside the scope of the Act and is sought under FOI please. The APVMA cannot possible report on Adverse Experience Reports for Unregistered Chemical Products and continue to protect the perpetrators, so the correspondence the APVMA has received in relation to these are critical to the nature of this FOI request.

The Act does not prohibit the information on an approved active constituent or registered chemical product being released under FOI laws and it is in the public interest that this information is documented on the public record.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority


Attachment Lex 5044 FOI Adam Presnell Unregistered product and unapproved actives Notice of intention to refuse Signed.pdf
269K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Adam

Please find the APVMA's notice of its intention to refuse this request enclosed.

Please read the notice carefully and I strongly encourage you to telephone me to discuss revising the scope before submitting a response.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

The APVMA has asked me to clarify my request. Here it is:

I request information and/or correspondence in relation to an 'Unregistered Chemical Product'. The APVMA claims in the intention to refuse the FOI request that the product is 'unnamed', this is not true. The product is named GLORICIDE as per the MSDS and the Trial Reports by the company responsible for naming it, researching it and producing it, the SCRC. The name of the chemical was subsequently provided to you directly in correspondence dated the 15th March, it is highly negligent to not recognise it by name after it has been named and you have been informed of its name.

The APVMA does not recognise it by name, as you suggest in your response, because it is 'unregistered' and 'unregisterable', but for the APVMA to say its 'unnamed' is considered 'contemptuous' and will cause further death by not acknowledging the Product or its MSDS and Research Reports and not investigating the illegal use of chemicals under its Permit System/jurisdiction and prosecuting those responsible both inside the APVMA for failing to investigate/regulate/prosecute and outside the APVMA.

Please be clear this Product is killing and maiming people and its use is being regulated by the APVMA Act and associated Permits including 11463 and/or 7250, however the APVMA is refusing to investigate it, acknowledge it, regulate it, let alone recognise it by name. I hope this clears up the naming issue in regards to accessing the information requested under law.

The FOI officer will not probable not see it filed under a Registered Chemical, because GLORICIDE is not registered and has likely never been attempted to register due to its impossibility to register due to it being a known carcinogen tht includes banned substances. The Product is named GLORICIDE and it is not registered by the APVMA but is/has been used under the APVMA Act etc and associated Permits.

I know for a fact that the APVMA has received Adverse Heath Reports and/or information relating to GLORICIDE and/or mixing 2,4-D and metsulfron methyl etc. Correspondence from the PM's office has confirmed this and this matter has been documented on the Public Record by various senators in Senate Estimates the past 5 years, which a simple check on the Australian Government Website and Senate Hansards and the APVMA's records will indicate. Your 'intention to refuse letter' just mentions one Senate Estimate hearing, this information spans many Senate Estimates and (unpublished) Questions on Notice by your Minister, and correspondence you have received over the past 5-6 years, as i am sure you are aware.

The nature of this request is to identify documents held in relation to this so called unnamed chemical product GLORICIDE, as per a letter to you 15th March. This request is also in relation to the use/manufacture of chemicals manufactured/created by making GLORICIDE including: 2,4,5-T; 2,4-D methyl Ester and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one. The request also includes Adverse Health Reports received by the APVMA on registered chemicals including 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl.

I sincerely doubt the APVMA would publish adverse health reports for an illegal unregistered chemical, therefor the original inquiry was worded to include what information, correspondence etc. complaints it has received in relation to a product known as GLORICIDE and/or in relation to mixing 2,4-D and metsulfuron methyl and 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D methyl Ester and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one.

All the information in this letter is relevant to dismiss the concealing and contemptuous arguments to refuse to provide this information by claiming the product is 'unnamed'. The product has been named on the public record through senators questions to Senate Estimates committees, many letters to the APVMA and the manufacture of a MSDS and various scientific reports.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Thanks Adam

Just to be clear, your scope referred to an 'unregistered chemical product' and we were seeking clarification of which product you were referring to, as these are innumerable. Put simply, we did not know what you were referring to. In no way was this meant to dispute the name of said product below.

We will have a look at your revised scope and be in touch with you in due course.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

The name of the product GLORICIDE was stipulated in correspondence dated 15th March. The basis of the 'intention to refuse' letter you sent was relating to an unnamed chemical that wasn't specified.

An Adverse Health Report for GLORICIDE has been submitted but has not been documented or reported by the APVMA, as have Adverse Health Reports for 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl. I don't think you could register an adverse Health Report for an unregistered Chemical Product used illegally with the consent/blind eye of the APVMA

As you can imagine i am well versed in the tricks the government plays in covering up their deliberate negligence and this unnamed product trick is just one of many. But i am glad that you agree that Unregistered Chemical Products are commonplace, now you just need to investigate why 'unregistered chemical product' are being used under your permit system and under your jurisdiction totally illegally.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Thanks Adam
Once again, we will have a look at your revised scope and be in touch with you in due course.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Adam

Just to clarify that this now represents your revised scope:

‘…correspondence in relation to Gloricide used illegally and unapproved active constituents the APVMA was notified of as per Senate Estimates May 2013 i.e. 2,4,5-T and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one.’

Kind regards

Paul

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

The original scope of the request to provide information you have received regarding
Health related and Environmental Adverse Experiences Reported by Australians in relation to 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl since 2010.

The scope of the request has been extended to include Health related and Environmental Adverse Experience for the chemicals: 2,4- Methyl Esters, 2,4,5-T and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one and 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl, since 2010.

To narrow it down i do not request information published by the APVMA, just correspondence received by the APVMA in relation to all reports of Adverse Experiences. I am interested in all correspondence including informal reports/correspondance, not just the filled in APVMA Adverse Reporting Forms.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Excellent, thanks for this Adam. I think I am clear on the scope now, but just to avoid confusion here is my understanding:

'All correspondence, including informal reports/correspondence, received by the APVMA in relation to all reports of Adverse Experiences for the chemicals: 2,4- Methyl Esters, 2,4,5-T and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one and 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl, since 2010.'

Kind regards

Paul

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

That is mostly correct, but please include the product GLORICIDE, which is a a mixture of 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl that manufactures 2,4-D Methyl Esters and 2,4,5-T etc.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Consider that added to the list of chemicals.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority


Attachment 5044 Presnell FOI response 24 April 2017.pdf
266K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Presnell

Please find attached my response to your request.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Horne

Margaret Horne
Principal Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4782 | F: +61 2 6210 4782 | M: +61 (0) 408 743 511

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear APVMA FOI,

I wish to object to your covering up of information relating to this FOI Request.

Specifically, i object to the decision that to the use of the Unregistered Chemical GLORICIDE:

"In relation to your request, I can advise that no adverse experiences have been reported for:—
a. Gloricide (as it is not an APVMA registered product but is a name used to refer to a tank
mix of registered chemical products approved for certain uses in Queensland under a
permit),"

Numerous correspondence has been forwarded to you through Senate Estimates and by ATP Environmental pty ltd in relation to the Adverse Environmental and Health Effects of GLORICIDE. Because the APVMA has not registered the product, does not mean that the APVMA cannot record an Adverse Heath Report. Under Permit 7250, any chemical product can be used in Research Stations and in the external environment, with restrictions, therefor it is the APVMA's statutory Duty to record this information. Furthermore, Paul Grutt the APVMA's
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program claims on the March 30, 2017 that "Just to be clear, your scope referred to an 'unregistered chemical product' and we were seeking clarification of which product you were referring to, as these are innumerable." To claim you have no responsibility to undertake your statutory duty because the product is unregisterable is an outright lie and an attempt to pervert the course of justice and a continuation of your coverup of the deadly,illegal use of chemicals used under your permit system. I suggest you provide this information before you cause further death through your professional negligence.

In relation to assertion that there are too many documents to peruse in relation to the use of 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl. I find this statement particularly hard to fathom as there was i claim published in your annual report on 2,4-D and has never been one in relation to metsulfuron methy in the past 10 years. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The object of the exercise was to determine how many reports of Adverse Experiences the APVMA has received to compare it with the amount of reports published. I believe what you are saying by taking this argument is the APVMA has received hundreds of Adverse Reports in relation to these chemicals but has not been documenting them as required and has been covering up nearly all the reports and perpetuating the contamination of the food chain with deadly carcinogens and 2,4-D i.e Synthetic Estrogen and the untested metsulfuron methyl.

Being that the APVMA has not published these reports, it is definitely in the public interest for the APVMA to provide these at no cost to the public, after all, it is your statutory duty to provide them. To charge people to access this information when it is your duty to publish these reports is a deliberate attempt to protect yourselves and your multinational clientele.

Your refusal to provide this information will cause further mass murder and environmental terrorism. The cancer rate is doubling every 10 years due to the contamination of the food chain by deadly chemicals used under your jurisdiction and neglect, this is a public interest case. If you refuse to provide this information, it can be summonsed and your refusal will be grounds for prosecution.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority


Attachment LEX 5044 Adam Presnell Unregistered product and unapproved actives 2 4 5 T and 2 2 2 oxo 3 oxazolidinyl ethyl 1 2 benz Notice of deemed withdrawal.pdf
122K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Presnell

Please find notice of the deemed withdrawal of this request enclosed.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

I have written numerous times to access this information. This information is required to see what information the APVMA has but is not legally reporting. The imposition of a $1000-2000 fee is an attempt to try and cover up this information.

As per your annual report, their is no adverse Health reports noted for Metsulfuron methyl or 2,4-D even though i have provide numerous reports to you. Because they have not been published, when they are required by law to be be published i find it very hard to understand why their is such a massive fee involved. There was only i report for 2,4-D.

By the massive costs of accessing these reports, manyone would think there were hundreds if not thousands of them.

Can you please break down the costs by each chemical to assess, what documents are worth applying for?

1) Metsulfuron Methyl:
2) GLORICIDE: (you have stated that there are none for GLORICIDE even though i have reported it, so obviously someone is lying and the adverse reports have been noted n Senate Estimates)
3) 2,4-D

If you cannot provide this information, it can be summonsed for far cheaper than a FOI and it would appear that their are many adverse reports you have covered up and not published to the public or the parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

This request effectively came to an end when it was deemed to have been withdrawn. A withdrawn request is not revivable; a new request must be filed. The most likely way of reducing the processing costs would be to telephone the officer concerned and discuss the various ways that the scope of the request could be changed. Useful ways to reduce scope are: to say a specific period of time for the documents that are wanted, name(s) of an author or source of documents to limit the possibilities, and limitations on the chemicals covered. For example a person could ask only for documents between this-date and then-date, and only documents that mention all of chemical compounds ABC, DEF and GHI in the one document.

But if it is so much cheaper to obtain a subpoena from a court, than to use the Freedom of Information Act, to request the documents, then surely this is the better method.

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

I should have made a sense of slight uncertainty in my previous annotation about a deemed withdrawal not being revivable. I think (almost) certain in this. I am even more certain that an internal review will not succeed, but what about IC review. The question at the end is whether a "deemed withdrawal" is an "access refusal decision" under the Act. I feel sure that it is not, and therefore is not reviewable, but of course, I might be wrong (it happens often ;) . Why do I think it is not an "access refusal decision"? I think this because it is not really a decision at all, and it is not due to a failure (for example, to make a decision) on the side of the agency. It is a consequence of an inaction by the applicant, and the "deemed withdrawal" is self-executing, coming into effect at the time and day specified by the Act, without an action by the agency.

But it is so much easier to make a new request, with a smaller scope to reduce the charges, than it is to waste time with asking for review.

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority


Attachment email dated 13 january 2013.docx
15K Download View as HTML

Attachment senate estimates May 2013.pdf
351K Download View as HTML

Attachment senate additional estimates feb 2013.pdf
159K Download View as HTML

Attachment senate estimates Oct 2012.pdf
640K Download View as HTML

Attachment senate estimates may 2012.pdf
237K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED
 
 
Dear Mr Presnell
 
Estimated charges
 
In your previous revised FOI request (Lex 5044), you requested –
 
all correspondence, including formal reports/correspondence, received by
the APVMA in relation to all reports of Adverse Experiences for the
chemicals: ‘gloricide’; 2,4- methyl esters, 2,4,5-T;
2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1, 2-benzisothiazolin-3-one; 2,4-D and
metsulfuron methyl, since 2010.
 
The breakup of charges you requested regarding your previous FOI request
is -
 
1) metsulfuron methyl - estimated charge based on estimated total
relevant documents is $184.59 (approx. 4/48 total records x $2215.13). 
This amount will be reduced to the extent any of these documents are
identified as having been supplied by you and that contain your own
personal information.
 
2) the item you call ‘gloricide’ – nil. There are no adverse experience
reports recorded in the Adverse Experience Reporting Program (AERP)
database for ‘gloricide’.  Adverse experience reports are not recorded in
the AERP database for chemicals that are not registered, permitted, nor
exempted.
 
3) 2,4-D - estimated charge based on estimated total relevant documents
is $2122.82 (approx. 42/48 total records x $2215.13). This amount will be
reduced to the extent any of these documents are identified as having been
supplied by you and that contain your own personal information.
 
Your FOI request encompassed all documents for the last 8 1/3 years
falling within the above description, regardless of the likelihood of
there being a relationship between the exposure and the chemical.  The
APVMA classifies the relationship between exposure to or use of a
registered product and a reported adverse experience in terms of
‘probable’, ‘possible’, ‘probable or possible off-label’, ‘unlikely’ and
‘unknown’.  Those that are classified unlikely and unknown are not
reported in the database.  Consequently your request required a much wider
search of relevant products files to identify relevant documents, rather
than just a search of the AERP database for the relevant adverse
experience reports. The estimated charges were calculated after taking
into account the large scope of the request.
 
Further information about how the APVMA assesses an adverse experience is
available at [1]https://apvma.gov.au/node/314.
 
Adverse experience reporting requirements
 
You state that the information you are seeking access to –
 
is required to see what information the APVMA has but is not legally
reporting… As per your annual report, their is no adverse Health reports
noted for Metsulfuron methyl or 2,4-D even though i have provide numerous
reports to you. Because they have not been published, when they are
required by law to be be published i find it very hard to understand why
their is such a massive fee involved.
 
Please note that the APVMA’s reporting powers are set out in section 61 of
Division 2 of Part 7 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals
(Administration) Act 1992.  I have included a link to the legislation for
your convenience [2]https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C...
Section 61 does not require the APVMA to report AERPs in its annual
report. 
 
Your earlier correspondence with the APVMA regarding adverse experiences
 
In your email, you state that the APVMA has –
 
stated that there are none [ie, adverse experience reports] for GLORICIDE
even though i have reported it, so obviously someone is lying and the
adverse reports have been noted n Senate Estimates
 
Although I have not located an adverse experience report from you about
‘gloricide’, I have found relevant correspondence from 2011-2012 between
you and the APVMA. 
 
On 22 December 2011, the APVMA’s CEO wrote to you stating –
 
In response to your statement that you reported adverse reactions to
metsulfuron methyl on three occasions, I confirm the APVMA has received
from you a number of documents relating to the review of 2,4D, safety data
sheet information for metsulfuron methyl and an enquiry regarding Permit
7485.  However we have not received a formal adverse experience report
from you.  Indeed in an email to you dated 19 October the APVMA invited
[you] to report your adverse experience either through the website, via
phone, or in writing.  I again invite you to submit details of your
adverse experience to the APVMA so it can be fully assessed.  The Manager
Chemical Review and Adverse Experience Reporting … can be contacted …
regarding your adverse experiences.
 
On 13 January 2012, you forwarded the attached message to the APVMA -
 
On 25 January 2012, the APVMA’s CEO wrote to you stating –
 
I refer to my previous correspondence to you on 19 November 2011 and 22
December 2011 and focus here two matters:

* Your claim of adverse health effects following use of product
containing metsulfuron methyl.
* Photographs of alleged damage to plants and the environment following
use of products under APVMA permit.

 
The APVMA is dealing with your reports in the following way:

* We have requested advice from the office of Chemical Safety (OCS)
within the Department of Health and Ageing regarding your reported
adverse  health effects following the use of metsulfuron methyl.  OCS
provides advice to the APVMA on matters relating to human and
occupational health and safety.
* We have inquired of Queensland Health about any claims of adverse
health effects that they are aware of.  Queensland Health has
responded that they have no further information that they can provide
to us.
* We have forwarded the images of damage to plants to the Queensland
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, who are
responsible for the control of use of Agvet chemicals in Queensland,
seeking advice on the outcome of any investigations.  DEEDI have
advised that they are already in possession of the images and that an
investigation is on-going.
* We have communicated with the Queensland Department of Environment and
Resource Management in relation to this matter.

 
… The APVMA has provided you with extensive information in response to
your concerns and questions in letters, emails and telephone
conversations.  We are always willing to address concerns raised by
stakeholders and will engage in a sensible and professional discussion on
such matters.  However the APVMA will no longer respond to correspondence
that contains offensive language or is offensive to any member of my staff
such as that expressed in your email to … of 13 January 2012.
 
Senate estimates
 
You also refer to adverse reports for ‘gloricide’ as having been noted in
Senate Estimates.  I have been unable to find the reference to ‘gloricide’
adverse reports being made (and to whom they were made in) the Senate
Estimates sessions dated October 2012, February 2013 and May 2013 during
which questions regarding ‘gloricide’ were addressed by the APVMA. I have
attached the Senate Estimates documents for your convenience.  Please
advise which Senate Estimate questions you are referring to and which
reports. 
 
Please contact the FOI team via email [3][APVMA request email] or on phone (02)
6210 4785 if you have any queries regarding this email.
 
Kind regards
Naomi
 

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority only: