Toxic spraying with no warning

Kairua Road residents are angered by a helicopter spraying operation conducted at a neighbouring orchard this morning.

Sharon Holmes was 50m from the spraying and says the taste of the chemical used, called Serenade Max, is lingering.

'I have a disgusting taste in the back of my throat,” says Sharon.

She acted quickly after the spraying finished to ascertain what the helicopter had dropped.

'After the spraying I went over to the orchard. At the gate, one of them was the manager and he told me the name.

'He apologised profusely, he has always been very good at letting people know.”

If Sharon had known she says she would have done things differently – particularly for her animals' sake as Serenade Max is deadly for dogs.

'My dog was out of his kennel, if I had known what it was there is no way I would have let that happened.”

She also has pregnant broodmares and she is checking with a vet about the danger for them.

There is concern for people too and Sharon was quick to get her four year old daughter away from the spray and off to kindergarten.

A second Kairua Road resident, Clementine Cuppen, also says there was no warning given about the spraying.

'It's highly toxic – we have four horses out maring,” says Clementine.
'There are people here with children and we have to go out, to work, to school.”

She sat on her back deck watching the helicopter with her 24 year old daughter when the spraying began.

'No company is allowed to spray, and that's the law, and this needs to be followed up.”

Clementine says there was also a group of men working on Kairua Road nearby at the time.

The chemical is being used to combat the Psa disease that has infected orchards across the Bay of Plenty, and Sharon says this is the first time she has seen a helicopter used at this property.

'I'm going to make these people be accountable,” says Sharon.

'To the best of my knowledge, if it's an illegal spraying they get fined.”

Keep checking SunLive for comment from the sprayers, who were not contactable this morning.

17 comments

Endangering lives with INTEND

Posted on 07-03-2011 12:45 | By SpeakUp

These unscrupulous sprayers ought to face justice in form of fines AND prison time. They know EXACTLY how toxic their spray is, they know EXACTLY that they act illegal, ruthless and intentional. There is no excuse for their actions. Police prosecution is justified and necessary to stop others poisoning unnecessarily people, animals and the land.


Chemical Culture

Posted on 07-03-2011 14:09 | By ronillian

I totally understand the sense of violation that Sharon expresses. There is a culture whereby these toxic agrichemicals are used without regard to people or animals. Despite the reassurances of regulatory authorities they are NOT entirely safe. The costs of using these chemicals are not necessarily incurred by the user. The costs are externalized: public health and environmental health suffer. It is the public health system and people themselves (as well as pets and ecosystems)that ultimately pay. Our local and regional councils need to impose stricter controls on teh use of these chemicals irrespective of whether this incident was legal or not. We need considerations of public and environmental health to trump commercial expediency.


Idiotic morons

Posted on 07-03-2011 14:21 | By monty111

Why do these idiotic morons always think that they are above the law? They have total disregard for anyone else and dont even warn people. The helicopter operator should also have a responsibility to check that all is legal before any spraying is started.


Serenade Max

Posted on 07-03-2011 14:24 | By bilbo

"Deadly to dogs"?? Where did that come from? It is a fungicide developed from naturally occurring strains of Bacillus subtilis. Have a look on the BASF website and you will find that the Serenade Max "may cause eye irritation, may cause sensitisation from prolonged skin contact(not likely from off-site drift) and harmful to terrestrial invertebrates" So therefore it is harmful to bees, but NOTHING is mentioned about dogs. The ERMA classification is : 6.4A, 6.5B, 9.4C (9.4C = lowest level for harm to terrestrial vertebrates). I think your correspondent is getting confused with HiCane - which is deadly to dogs. The BOP Air Plan states that "The owner/occupier or agent must notify the occupier of any adjoining properties within 200m of that agrichemical use. Bill May, Spray-Tec Consultants.


Serenade Max

Posted on 07-03-2011 16:28 | By bilbo

Sorry - re-read my comment, and the ERMA classification 9.4C refers to Terrestrial invertebrates. Therefore no skeleton - bees, insects etc. Bill May


Penalties what penalties

Posted on 07-03-2011 17:05 | By Sage

The penalty for spray drift is a mere $300 maximum. Joke...What about learning from best practice in other countries; wherein the illegal incident results in 1) Fully appraised and qualified assessment of any damage at time and in future with ALL costs automatically awarded against offender. 2) HUGE fine (talking end of business) 3) Immediate seizing of all assets of offending business. Just try a stunt like this in USA or Europe......


check out this website then Mr May

Posted on 07-03-2011 19:38 | By Sharon Holmes

www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/02/09/18569226.php?show... Thank you ronillian, yes isn't it funny how things are approved... by the people making the most money out of it, never mind the small people (my daughter included) who have had sore eyes and areas surrounding the mouth. As for drift Mr May, the horses that I had to feed were approx 20 metres from the Helicopter and there was no question of drift, I felt it and tasted it. How would you have liked to have been standing underneath that? I did not state anything about it being deadly to dogs, merely concern as I was unsure of what was being illegally and immorally sprayed. I still have tingling surrounding my mouth and it was 11 hours since being subjected to the spray. I have had apologies from the agents as it appears no one was notified. Sharon Holmes, spray recipient.


Serenade Max

Posted on 07-03-2011 20:18 | By Meriel Watts

It is important to differentiate between ERMA classifications and what happens when people are exposed to spray drift. Yes Sereneade Max is based on a naturally occurring bacterium - just as was the spray Foray 48B that was aerial spayed over West Auckland for Painted Apple Moth. It was also a Bacillus, perfectly natural and safe -except a lot of people got very, very sick. So did a lot of animals. Perhaps it was inhalation of a bio-aerosol that was the problem, perhaps it as the adjuvant chemicals. Whatever, it proved once and for all that spray drift of agrichemicals, no matter how apparently benign, makes people sick. The real issue here is not how toxic the spray is or isn't but the fact that it is drifting of the property on which it was applied on to other people and her property and animals, and that is a violation of their rights. Until we come to understand that spray drift is a violation of human rights and do something to stop it, we cannot claim to be a civilised nation


no excuse

Posted on 07-03-2011 21:39 | By morepork

It may be that in this day and age we must produce a higher yield than was the case when the world only had a couple of billion people on it. Maybe, we have to use technology to keep people fed. But there is no excuse for not letting people who may be affected, by possibly dangerous agricultural and intensive farming practices (not just spraying), know what is happening, and when. It is just common courtesy, apart from anything else.


aerial spraying

Posted on 07-03-2011 23:29 | By gandamuir

Serenade Max is BIOGROW NZ certified for use in "organics". It is a naturally occurring friendly bacteria. Until recently it was used mainly for fungus control of grapes under wet humid conditions in NZ near harvest time. It has many other uses also. One of its traits is that it has a very strange smell, however it is harmless to animals and humans once diluted with water. It is an environmentally friendly fungicide, which has recently been found to protect kiwifruit plants from a disease which we are now subjected to. The reason helicopters are required is because next seasons canes are grown up very high in the air, and the leaves are impossible to reach with ground based equipment. Aerial spraying in the B.O.P is a permitted activity, but certain conditions should always be adhered to; neigbours within 200 metres are supposed to be notified of the intention to spray no less than 12 hrs before the commencement of the operation, by the landowner. And spray drift should be minimized, but can never be eliminated.... If you have any concerns please call the landowner in the first instance, or EBOP if you are unsatisfied with the outcome. It will be resolved, I can assure you. Nobody wants to deliberately forget to warn neighbours, but it can happen when you are under alot of stress... George Muir. Te Puke


Serenade Max

Posted on 08-03-2011 09:37 | By Bopsta

Sharon. If you did'nt say Serenade Max was "deadly for dogs" I take it this was mis-reported by Mr Scragg. This is an important issue as the media have been guilty in the past of fueling peoples emotions when dealing with these issues.


Harmless?

Posted on 08-03-2011 13:18 | By sojourner

We stood on the deck and watched the helicopters, wondering what was going on. I would like to get rid of the 'harmless' bacteria which are in my lungs and sinuses to stop hurting, as well as the intense headache and the burn around the lips.This is the next day. Whatever, Serenade Max, like all the other chemicals used, kills.That is why it is used. My deck this morning was covered with dead insects, as it usually is after the orchards are sprayed with whatever.so far, everyone involved and somehow accountable is passing the buck and telling lies. However, we WILL find out who is responsible and we WILL make sure this never happens again. If this was the USA, we would sue the life out of everyone involved. I don't get angry easily, but THIS was an inexcusable, completely irresponsible attack on our health. Serenade Max has not been on the market long enough to even know what the long term effects on people and animals can be. How DARE these people play with the health of others so carelessly, all because of their invested interest in a business.


Erika

Posted on 08-03-2011 21:22 | By sojourner

Mr May - clearly you didn't get a load of bacteria released over you. I had it dumped on me, and I guess I'm just one of those unfortunate people who react to it. Sore throat, eyes, bronchitis-type symptoms, upset stomach and headache as typical of what we're experiencing. If you look further, you'll find all sorts of concerning comments from the EPA: "There are several reports in the literature on the association of B. subtilis with abortions in livestock...typically, the animals were immunocompromised." "Subtilis has also been implicated in several cases of food poisoning (Gilbert et al., 1981 and Kramer et al., 1982 as cited by Logan, 1988)." "According to Edberg (1991) either the number of microorganisms challenging the individual must be very high or the immune status of the individual very low in order for infection with B. subtilis to occur." I would say, given that the helicopter was approx 200 meters or less away, that we got a decent dose. And how on earth are people who have low or compromised immune systems supposed to defend their bodies from this stuff?? "As previously mentioned, B. subtilis produces a number of enzymes, including subtilisin, for use in laundry detergent products. There have been a number of cases of allergic or hypersensitivity reactions, including dermatitis and respiratory distress after the use of these laundry products (Norris et al., 1981)." "A review of the literature by Edberg (1991) failed to reveal the production of toxins by B. subtilis. Although it has been associated with outbreaks of food poisoning (Gilbert et al., 1981 and Kramer et al., 1982 as cited by Logan, 1988), the exact nature of its involvement has not been established. B. subtilis, like other closely related species in the genus, B. licheniformis, B. pumulis, and B. megaterium, have been shown to be capable of producing lecithinase, an enzyme which disrupts membranes of mammalian cells." Not harmful to humans? The EPA and personal contact with the stuff have proven that wrong. "So basically the subtilis... the bacillus subtilis produces an enzyme, some protolytic enzyme, it's called subtilisn, and there's about 18 of them that are known to man and they cause severe allergic reaction. Flindt quoted it as being a potent allergen." - David Bell David Bell might know better than us - it's one of the many "harmless" bacteria/fungi that are killing him. Suggest some more research rather than buying everything the producer tells you...


Thank you

Posted on 09-03-2011 16:57 | By ronillian

Thank you Erika for an evidence-backed critique of Bill May's comments. 'Sprayors' tend to disregard or challenge personal sprayees' stories because they're considered "anecdotal" and unsubstantiated and "not evidence-based". As Meriel Watts said: "...spray drift of agrichemicals, no matter how apparently benign, makes people sick." No amount of regulatory authorities' reassurances will convince us, the public, otherwise. And YES I agree it is a breach of human rights to spray someone with these chemicals.


Comment by user Sandi

Posted on 10-03-2011 08:33 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

*IS THE WORLD BEING LED TO BELIEVE THAT ONLY 'NATURAL” (naturally found in the environment) BACTERIA AND/OR FUNGUS IS ONLY BEING USED IN MICROBIAL PRODUCTS; BIOPESTICIDES, BIOINSECTICIDES, BIOFUNGICIDES ETC. WHICH ARE BEING USED ON OUR FOOD CROPS, ORNAMENTALS AND/OR USED FOR INSECT CONTROL? THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE… 'MUTANTS” ARE BEING USED THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF. Are we being led to believe these microbial products are safe?? *It seems that using 'mutants” and mutants created using recombinant techniques. doesn't qualify the claim of 'naturally found” bacteria and fungus which are claimed as being the active ingredient in microbial biocontrol products. *When searching the United States Patent Office for the search terms of Agraquest and mutants the results were twenty (20) United States patents; that were assigned to Agraquest (A Monsanto ex-employee's company) alone and furthermore does not take into account International patents. These patents uses the wording; "mutants", "mutants thereof" and/or "recombinant techniques". There are many MANY more patents that don't list Agraquest as the holder of the patent; but Agraquest scientists were listed as 'inventors” on other company patents. *The reader is invited; NO… encouraged to search for themselves on the USPTO website for the search terms of 'mutants”, 'mutants thereof” and/or "recombinant" and decide for themselves whether we can be 100% certain that only naturally found in the environment bacteria and/or fungus is being used on our food crops, ornamentals and/or used for insect control…. OR are mutants being used? You will be shocked! ****Salmonella, and E coli a common food concern? There is NO doubt in my mind that the Salmonella and E-coli are coming from bio-control products; LIVING bacteria and fungus, being used on our food crops and used for insect control. I have been tracking these food borne outbreaks/illness/death of these pathogens; and every darn one of them has had bio-control products put on them. Even the recent egg disaster is related; biotech companies are putting living bacteria and/or fungus in the chicken feed. IF there were no fear what-so-ever of salmonella and/or e-coli contamination in biocontrol products; then why does THE EPA-OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS; BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION say?; then why does the EPA Form 8570-6 state: QUOTE: 'After fermentation and prior to further processing, each batch must be tested for the following microbial contaminants and have levels below those listed”: ”E. coli Coliform Bacteria” ”Salmonella” ”Shigella” ”Staphlococci” ”Vibrio” ”Yeast” ”Mold” [You can view this on the following link; however, you will need to decrease your screen size] http://www.biotechawareness.com/images/conditional_registration_aq_qst_713_2000_copy.pdf This 4 page document (link below) is what Agraquest received from the EPA after they had submitted 4/1999 and 6/1999 fermentation batches for Registration of their Bacillus Subtilis product; QST713. Agraquest only received a "CONDITIONAL TIME-LIMITED REGISTRATION from the EPA on 6/20/2000 (Janet L. Anderson, Ph.D, Director - Biopesticides and Pollutions Prevention Division) as the EPA themselves found fault: Alarming reasons were questions to cause of death in Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate, question of Bacillus Subtilis infection in shrimp, questions of death to "HONEY BEES" and Agraquest DID NOT meet guideline requirements in their submission (studies) on the toxicity and pathogenicity to "FRESH WATER FISH". Listed on the above June 20, 2000 "Conditional Time-Limited" Registration for QST 713 Technical: •The submitted manufacturing processed did not have sufficient quality control fermentation batches. Data required •Data for the 12 month storage stability of the end-use product has not been submitted. •Additional data described in the December 12, 1999 review and March 8 2000 letter are required to upgrade submitted process, MRID# 44519-04 to acceptable. This includes: •1) A formal submission that clearly describes new quality control steps taken to assure the consistent CFU/g values and limit microbial impurities in the Technical Powder. •2) A 5 batch analysis of Technical Powder produced from cell cultures with latest QC. •3) Raw data for the above mentioned 5 batch analyses. Ecological Effects Data Required I would also like to point out that I have a limited tracker on my website www.biotechawareness.com and I have been getting (recently) hits on my website with the search term of: "Bacillus Subtilis illness". Sincerely, Sandi Trend


Ban all toxic sprays

Posted on 10-03-2011 11:04 | By kapa

Whatever happened to healthy fruit and food anyway? HiCane killed the bees, they brought in pollen from overseas, and now they are trying to kill off the PSA with Serenade Max. With the world the way it is now, everyone wants spray free products. Surely there is an even bigger market for this even if they are not a perfect shape and size. No one would lose their businesses or jobs, in fact it would be a huge success. Don't they see that? Sprays kill, no doubt about it, and not just insects and animals. If there was a relevant survey done, there would be proof of high levels of cancer, especially in the kiwifruit areas but also where there are other types of agriculture. Anyone in any capacity who allows sprays to drift anywhere, should be taken, along with their spouses, children and pets, to an area where they can have spray dropped on them too, see how they like it. If we were in America, they would be fined and in Jail. We cannot believe how these people get away with it here in our supposedly 'Clean, Green Country', they are killing us with their greed.


Comment by user Sandi

Posted on 15-03-2011 09:12 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

There is definate harm that can come from being exposed to Bacillus Subtilis. The following is from the United State;s EPA risk assement of bacillus subtilis (1997):http://epa.gov/biotech_rule/pubs/fra/fra009.htm V. INTEGRATION OF RISK A. Discussion Bacillus subtilis is a ubiquitous, saprophytic, soil bacterium which is thought to contribute to nutrient cycling due to its ability to produce a wide variety of enzymes. This latter feature of the microorganism has been commercially exploited for over a decade. B. subtilis has been used for industrial production of proteases, amylases, antibiotics, and specialty chemicals. The Agency has reviewed three submissions for production of enzymes using genetically modified B. subtilis and found no unreasonable risks to human health or the environment from the use of this microorganism in fermentation facilities. Historically, B. subtilis was a term given to all aerobic endospore-forming bacilli. Later, B. subtilis and two closely related species, B. licheniformis, and B. pumilus, were grouped taxonomically into what was known as the subtilis-group. However, recently methods have been developed that allow B. subtilis to be distinguished from these other species. B. subtilis is not a frank human pathogen, but has on several occasions been isolated from human infections. Infections attributed to B. subtilis include bacteremia, endocarditis, pneumonia, and septicemia. However, these infections were found in patients in compromised immune states. There must be immunosuppression of the host followed by inoculation in high numbers before infection with B. subtilis canoccur. There also have been several reported cases of food poisoning attributed to large numbers of B. subtilis contaminated food. B. subtilis does not produce significant quantities of extracellular enzymes or other factors that would predispose it to cause infection. Unlike several other species in the genus, B. subtilis is not consider toxigenic. B. subtilis does produce the extracellular enzyme subtilisin that has been reported to cause allergic or hypersensitivity reactions in individuals repeatedly exposed to it. Overall, B. subtilis has a low degree of virulence. Although the possibility of human infection is not non-existent, it is low in the industrial setting where exposure to the bacterium is expected to be low and where highly immunocompromised individuals would not be present. In an industrial setting with the use of proper safety precautions, good laboratory practices, and proper protective clothing and eyewear, the potential for infection of workers should be quite low. The only human health concern for workers in the fermentation facility is the potential for allergic reactions with chronic exposure to subtilisin. As previously stated, OSHA has established an exposure limit to subtilisin which must be met in the industrial setting. Likewise, the ecological hazards associated with the use of B. subtilis are low. There are several reports in the literature on the association of B. subtilis with abortions in livestock. However, these few reports indicate that this association must be fairly rare, and typically, the animals were immunocompromised. In addition, B. subtilis has not been shown to be a causal agent and is not considered an animal pathogen. Likewise, B. subtilis is not considered a plant pathogen. Although it produces enzymes such as polygalacturonase and cellulase that are sometimes associated with the ability to produce soft rot in plant tissue, there are many organisms that are capable of producing a soft rot when injected beneath the outer protective epidermal layers. The use of B. subtilis in an industrial setting should not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. First, human health and environmental hazards of B. subtilis are low. Second, the number of microorganisms released from the fermentation facility is low. In addition, B. subtilis is ubiquitous in the environment, and the releases expected from the fermentation facilities will not significantly increase populations of this bacterium in the environment. In conclusion, the use of B. subtilis in fermentation facilities for the production of enzymes or specialty chemicals has low risk. Although not completely innocuous, the industrial use of B. subtilis presents low risk of adverse effects to human health or the environment.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.