Amazingly, the state government has recently gazetted Australian native locusts as exotic pests in order to legally obligate landholders to kill them.

While they will promote, rebate and force the use of locust pesticides, the government states it will take no responsibility for the effects of the pesticides.

Why would they not want to shoulder the risk?

I believe research has linked many of these pesticides to leukaemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, brain tumours, thyroid, kidney and nervous system damage, neurobehavioral effects (eg. ADHD), immune system disruption, reproductive dysfunction, birth defects and more.

Most are listed as possible human carcinogens, while others are likely to cause cancer in humans. Nearly all have been found toxic to birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians and other insects, including bees. Some of these chemicals have even been banned in other nations.

We are being misled to believe Green Guard is safe for the environment.

Upon closer inspection, this biological control is actually a generalist insect killer with known toxicity to other insects, including bees, wasps and ants.

It is also known to readily mutate and persist in the environment for months after spraying. The government’s proposed safety measures will not protect us.

The application precautions may prevent immediate allergic reaction and death, however, pesticide residues will be carried in wind, water and in our food long after.

Pesticides do not break down in our bodies.

Even at low levels they persist and accumulate, devastating public health over time.

The government is fully aware that greater pesticide exposure is a major factor in the higher rate of cancers and other chronic diseases in rural populations (as stated in its own Sustainable Farming Families Information).

Yet it intends to force an additional $44 million worth of pesticide into our environment this spring.

Landholders should also be aware that using these chemicals on one’s property does result in the death or injury of other wildlife, the individual could be found in breach of the Wildlife Act and held liable.

No one wants to see farmers bear the cost of crop and pasture losses, but government funds would be better put to use in developing locust repellents and in seasonal compensation efforts.

No funds will be great enough to undo the long-term health and environmental damage that will be caused by such widespread spraying.

For more information, visit www.savethelocust.com

MAIREAD BORN,

Shepparton