Herbicide spraying Hongdou 11 "the Council of Agriculture made a great reference to Bayer-funded research, ignoring the conflict of interest, while public opinion was opposed to opening up and killing weeds."

124 share

(by upstream and downstream reporters Zheng Jieyi, Li Huiyi, Cai Jiashan, Lin Jiyang)

Less than four months after paraquat left the field, the Council of Agriculture said that due to the demand of farmers, it planned to open up herbicide as a defoliant for red beans, and the Ministry of Weifu also announced that the residue tolerance was 2ppm. As soon as the news was exposed, not only consumers were worried about food safety, but they had already complied with the government's guidance, and red bean farmers who had embarked on friendly farming also wondered, "Why should we go back?"

The statement of the Prevention and Inspection Bureau is contradictory, from "the operator did not apply" to "the operator withdraws the application".

The Council of Agriculture heard the outcry of the people, and held another press conference on August 4 to sort out all kinds of doubts about fixing and killing grass.

At the beginning of the meeting, Zou Huijuan, deputy director of the Prevention and Inspection Bureau, responded to the "upstream and downstream" report that "German officials hit Taiwan pharmaceutical companies and officials in the face, confirming that herbicide has been banned in the European Union." Perhaps she is too used to the original argument, she says: "We specially asked the representative office in the European Union to verify that it was really because the pharmaceutical industry did not apply for the extension, so it did not approve the use of the drug." With the briefing, she later changed her tune and said, "the operator withdrew the application."

Zou Huijuan's contradictory remarks just proved that before the "upstream and downstream" reports, the statement of the Council of Agriculture had been misleading the public, with the same caliber as BASF, a big manufacturer in Taiwan. He repeatedly declared: "Grass killing in the European Union is given up because the industry has not submitted an application, not banned." As a matter of fact, the operators have submitted their applications, but they have withdrawn on their own initiative knowing that they will not be able to pass the hurdle.

No matter how Zou Huijuan banned the use of English words in the EU, the fact is that the German Federal Consumer Protection and Food Safety Agency (BVL) clearly told the "upstream and downstream" reporters that the use of herbicide in the EU "has been banned" (The use is forbidden). The Swedish Chemical Agency also said that the herbicidal license had expired in the European Union and would no longer allow any products containing the ingredient to circulate.

Deputy Director of Prevention and Inspection Bureau Zou Huijuan (Photography / Lin Jiyang)

The drug institute quoted the Bayer-funded research report heavily, ignoring the interest avoidance.

In line with the "professional" nature of the Council of Agriculture, Tsai Yiren, head of the toxicology team of the Institute of drugs and drugs, explained the toxicological assessment of killing weeds. Although the first page of the briefing read "approved use caution Assessment", he particularly preferred a 2006 study by Bayer as a "scientific partner" to play down the risk of high reproductive toxicity identified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2005.

In order to emphasize the unique "professionalism" of this study, Cai Jieren said: "Bayer provides these materials. These animal toxicological data are so precious that it is impossible for us to start over. These scholars also tell you that my scientific partner is Bayer because it provides information. " On one side, Zou Huijuan also helped to explain: "it is only in accordance with the best laboratory standards (GLP) that there is reference value. Although the industry provides information, our audit is quite rigorous."

Under such rigorous scrutiny, did the Council of Agriculture notice that the second page of the report read: "the analysis is funded by Bayer CropScience"? The report, funded by Bayer, which was applying for a licence in the EU at the time, is likely to have a conflict of interest.

When the reporter produced a document marked with key sentences, Tsai explained that this should mean that the "foundation" should provide information for scholars to analyze, rather than providing funds. Zou Huijuan said: "the key point is that the quality of this data must be complete, true and traceable, and it must be made by good laboratory standards, which is the focus of our review."

This herbicide report, which clearly reads "funded by Bayer", has become the main reference source of Taiwan Pharmaceutical and Drug Institute.

Zeng Dezhi: the professional cognition of officials of the Council of Agriculture is also biased.

Zeng Teh-chih, an honorary professor in the Department of Plant Pathology of Chung Hsing University, who watched the live broadcast in front of the computer, said, "Why is Funded by Bayer interpreted as a foundation? It is really unthinkable. "

The officials of the Council of Agriculture who are gatekeepers of pesticides in Taiwan not only need to improve their English, but also have a misunderstanding of the laboratory. "GLP labs are usually based on specific verification or commercial considerations, and general science laboratories do not do this kind of certification," Zeng said. He also pointed out: "the 2006 report, which is mainly referred to by the Drug Institute, is published in the form of a supplement, not a generally reviewed report."

Cai Xuanren tried to demonstrate his pesticide expertise, citing Bayer-sponsored research to explain the reproductive toxicity caused by the inhibitory effect of glutathione synthase (glutamine synthetase). But other experts have a different view. "this explanation is completely misplaced, and it is obvious that he does not know enough about the relevant mechanism of action, otherwise it is stubborn." Zeng Teh-chi, who has attended expert meetings and written a number of comments on the mechanism of reproductive toxicity, explained that "unlike the corresponding relationship between the common dose of metabolic toxins and the severity of response (dose and response), the focus of reproductive toxins lies in the location, timing and duration of the effects."

Andreas Bauner-Panskus, a biotechnology testing (Testbiotech) researcher who has long focused on EU risk assessment, also told upstream and downstream reporters that the EU did not cite the Bayer-sponsored report in many reviews "because it does not meet the research specifications required by the EU."

The Drug Institute denied the importance of French research. Zeng Dezhi: the Drug Institute should not prevaricate.

French scholar Anthony Laugeray and others pointed out in a paper published in 2014 that low doses of herbicide taken by mothers during pregnancy and lactation are enough to cause harm to embryos and young children. In order to deny the importance of the study, Cai Jieren said at a press conference again, "We usually spray medicine and inhale it, not into the nose of a mouse like in the experiment."

For this professional explanation, Zeng Dezhi retorted: "Lujie Hei's experiment uses 10ul, that is, only 0.01cc, and it is pointed on the nose to simulate the inhalation of drift pollution in the field, not 'irrigation' as mentioned by drugs. Moreover, each mouse is only given the amount of 1ppm, and we even apply it as high as 2,000 to 3,000 ppm in the field. This is something that common sense can understand, and there is no need to apply some international norms to prevaricate! "

Consumers are very worried about the food safety of herbicide as a defoliant for red beans, especially for pregnant women who drink red bean water to deedema, but farmers who spray and work in the fields and neighboring residents are more exposed to a high risk.

Cai Jiren, head of the toxicology team of the Institute of drugs and drugs (Photography / Lin Jiyang)

The drug institute claimed that the data were "safe" and had not been reviewed by experts at all.

After the "upstream and downstream" report, "French officials: herbicide is too high for the health of sprayers, completely banned, and the Council of Agriculture distorts the international report," today the Council of Agriculture also highlighted the risks of skin and respiratory exposure in the field. Tsai first admitted: "We don't know how the EU's test methods are used in detail." It shows that the Council of Agriculture does not have a good grasp of international information in the course of examination. But he also said: "Taiwan has domestically established local parameters, and each country has to establish its own parameters to evaluate."

The Council of Agriculture has repeatedly stressed that EU data are not applicable because pesticides need to be adapted to local conditions. Tsai Chih-Jen's remarks seem to be for the sake of our countrymen. Indeed, the slogan "strict and orderly pesticide management, approval for prudent assessment and safe use" is also written on the front page of today's briefing. However, at the previous expert meeting, the Council of Agriculture did not provide the latest assessment report on the impact of field exposure on human bodies to the experts present at the press conference today, and the data presented at today's press conference are studies conducted from 1994 to 2003. it was nearly 20 years ago.

In other words, the data of the Council of Agriculture repeatedly "ensuring safety" at today's press conference lacks expert review. In the face of a reporter's question, why does France use airtight cockpit spray to exceed the standard?. In Taiwan, it is artificial spray, directly exposed to the agent, but it will not exceed the standard. Tsai responded: "how strong is the French spray? How fast is the spray? What's the quantity? We didn't see the actual amount of spray, and we couldn't get it. " The problem is that the experts involved in reviewing the expanded use of herbicides in red beans did not get the field exposure test data from the Council of Agriculture, which obviously did not undergo a "careful assessment."

Public opinion is one-sided. Among 287 comments, 253 are opposed to opening up the use of herbicides for red beans.

The Council of Agriculture stressed that pesticides are professional decisions that have been strictly examined. However, instead of using specialties to allay the doubts of the public, the Council of Agriculture is showing off technical terms as a threshold, which cannot stand the test of public opinion at all, and the public opinion in "public speaking" is one-sided.

The Prevention and Inspection Bureau of the Council of Agriculture began to collect public opinions on the government's "Public talk-Public Policy Network participation platform" in the form of an open message on July 6, and is expected to close at 12:00 tonight.

By the deadline of 8 o'clock this evening, a total of 287 messages had been collected, of which 253 were against the opening of herbicide for red bean harvest, and only 20 were inclined to support that the Prevention and Inspection Bureau should open up herbicide as a defoliant before red bean harvesting. As for some netizens who did not clearly express their position, they expressed their concern about the matter with "Why Taiwan has overused pesticides", "Thank you for your hard work" and "pesticides have never been tested for herbicides". There are 14 items in total.

Among them, the people who signed "Shang-Yan Tsai" repeatedly stressed that "at present, the total amount control of herbicide ADI is 0.01mg/kg bw/day, and the addition of a herbicide defoliant 2ppm = 0.00347 mg/kg bw/day is still less than the total quantity control of 0.01mg/kg bw/day. Since the method of use is safe and reasonable, it is also scientific to provide farmers with a choice of use. "

The netizen "matcha" also echoed the view of "Shang-Yan Tsai", believing that "the residual norms really related to the rights and interests of consumers have scientifically reduced the risk of safety considerations by 100 times." He also stressed, "if this matter finally allows the management, producers, consumers, and strong men to break their wrists and burn their bridges, and finally develop into a generation spray system + pesticide registration management system in place, it will also be a good result."

Of the 253 comments left by those who opposed the opening, most directly expressed their views such as "refusing to kill grass", "forbidding killing grass" and "I want safe red beans, not killing grass". Others, such as "chin", expected the relevant units to explain clearly to consumers and farmers in easy-to-understand words, while "Tina" questioned, "farmers have begun to transform, experimental research units have also begun to look for alternative methods, but the government is going to start to backtrack?"

The Wandan Peasant Association called on the Council of Agriculture to look before you leap.

Consumers and producers are often at opposite ends, but now it is rare for both sides to be willing to work together. After closely observing the trend of public opinion in the "public opening" for many days, Zhang Chih-lie, director-general of the Wandan Peasant Association in Pingtung District, called out loudly: "the public strongly opposes the sound of fixing grass and killing grass and defoliant when red beans are harvested. I hope the Council of Agriculture can hear it. Look before you leap! "

─, a public policy network participation platform, expressed its views on the use of "killing grass" in fallen leaves of red bean.

(to read a series of reports on the controversial use of herbicide for red bean defoliant, please click here.)