Farming today needs chemicals, be they for animal health, disease and worm control or in fertiliser. The problem is that when it comes to agricultural chemicals the debate seems more about fiction than fact.
There’s the reputable science, which seems to come behind emotive tirades from the likes of Greenpeace and SAFE. Then there are the lawyers who see an easy buck and do what they can to exploit that prejudice by fair means or foul.
For example, we’ve all read dozens of stories about the evils of glyphosate. It seems that there was no limit to the damage exposure to the chemical could do.
Until last week we kept hearing glyphosate caused cancer. Now we have scientific proof it doesn’t.
In New Zealand the Environmental Protection Authority tells us that “glyphosate is a hazardous substance and is regulated”.
For the record, on November 23 last year the European Commission approved the use of glyphosate across the European Union for another decade. It said “there is a complete lack of evidence to prove it’s cancerous”.
I’d agree, but recently there was a court case in the United States over a product very similar to glyphosate causing Parkinson’s Disease.
The reality is that if it was proved the compensation would be in billions of dollars, not millions. One such court case involving Bayer cost the company $11 billion for the presumption that glyphosate caused cancer. As we know it doesn’t.
It’s big business in the US and elsewhere, with lawyers making a fortune out of class actions. The process is described as predatort. The playbook has four steps: pay scientists to create your evidence, pay activists to create public outrage, create drama on the court room stage and collect US$200 million. That all sounds familiar.
In the recent case in the US a team of lawyers fronted up to prove that paraquat, a rival product of glyphosate, caused Parkinson’s.
They had an “expert witness”, a Professor Martin Wells from prestigious Cornell University. They formed an Environmental Working Group to expose the problem. Headlines mysteriously appeared claiming “we all know what causes Parkinson’s and these companies will have to pay for it”.
Predictably, the manufacturers fronted up in court.
The “expert witness”, Wells, claimed that “occupational exposure to paraquat can cause Parkinsons disease”.
Surprisingly, given past experience, the judge decided to question the so-called science.
She suggested that Wells only presented data to support his conclusion and that the research wasn’t credible, and that the evidence lacked scientific rigour. That the criteria for occupational exposure had not been met. She added that the claim that occupational exposure to paraquat resulted in a “near tripling of Parkinson’s disease” was unproven.
The issue is that Wells was presumed to have been paid US$500 an hour for his “evidence”.
The case was thrown out, which was a victory for common sense. There was a judge who decided to question the science. Many don’t, which would, in itself, make manufacturers nervous.
The saga does, however, provide some valuable lessons for the primary sector.
The first is that a rumour or even a hint of problems with a chemical can immediately create a media frenzy.
The second is that there’s so much scientific “evidence” out there that claimants can cherry-pick.
Then comes the predictable nervousness of chemical companies about litigation and compensation.
Finally with venal lawyers and academics for hire you can claim anything.
All that sounds depressingly familiar.
We have similar issues in New Zealand with the most recent involving genetically modified ryegrass.
A recent article in Farmers Weekly by Dr Nick Roberts from AgResearch highlighted the problem. Roberts is a highly experienced scientist with considerable international experience. He knows what he’s talking about.
High Metabolisable Energy (HME) ryegrass is genetically modified causing an increase in fats. That increase is predicted to reduce methane emissions. Ridiculously, in my view, outdoor research had to be developed in the United States courtesy of our outdated rules here.
Again recently in Farmers Weekly the president of GE Free NZ, Claire Bleakley, came out swinging.
For a start she claimed that the GE ryegrass trials in the US “were so poor they failed to yield enough dry matter for the animal feeding trial they aimed to conduct”.
The fact was the yields were as expected despite the climate difference between the US and here.
Bleakley added that the trials were a “commercial failure” and that “the plants were riddled with unknown diseases and failed to grow”.
Again, there’s no truth in the claims yet she received considerable publicity.
That in itself is a problem.
Greenpeace, GE Free NZ, SAFE and a host of other groups can make any statements they like and receive extensive media coverage. It’s generally sympathetic and there’s no checking as to the veracity of the “facts” presented.
That’s wrong.
