Why Is Diazinon Still On The Market?

The following opinion piece was written by AWU National Secretary Bill Shorten and published in the Weekly Times on February 7, 2007.

At a roundtable meeting last week, the AWU joined Agriculture Minister Peter McGuaran and other wool and sheepmeat industry stakeholders to discuss the future of diazinon.

The AWU argued then, as it has argued for twelve years, that it should have no future.

As the Minister said prior to the meeting, diazinon is cheap and effective. What he neglected to say is that can be a fatal chemical and regularly and seriously harms workers.

It attacks the nervous system, resulting in long term ill health, and sometimes death. It is impossible in real work conditions to protect workers from it - they would need to be wearing a space suit to try and keep diazinon of their skin.

So we're heartened to hear the Minister tell the Weekly Times last week that diazinon will have to be phased out.

This realisation has been too long coming.

For more than thirty years, it has been known that organophospates, of which diazinon is one, and sarin gas another, are deadly.

We also know that around two thirds of occupational fatalities are from chemically related diseases, and by far the majority of these deaths happen in regional areas.

Why is diazinon still on the market?

There's no incentive to remove it - other than a moral one, and tragically, morality is not the strong suit of some chemical manufacturing companies.

Unfortunately, they are pragmatists. They will only strongly market an alternative and withdraw the culprit chemical when the market becomes too risky for that product. But while they wait, workers continue to be harmed.

Now it seems their hand will be forced, and it is reprehensible that they have waited for it. What else did it need to know about its product's toxicity?

Is it any wonder workers, unions and the community at large are so suspicious of the chemical producing industry?

There are various alternatives for diazinon. Some are more expensive, but some are comparably priced. They need to be explored, and quickly. And now, the manufacturers have an incentive - their product is likely to be banned.

No one argues that chemicals can't save lives - they do. But some take lives, and it's a case of degree and responsibility.

Our members work with chemicals all the time. Why have chemical manufacturers never approached the AWU to look at ways to work cooperatively at how to deal with these hazardous chemicals? It is in all our interests to keep both our workers and the agricultural sector in good health - we need to find solutions, and they can be found if there is less suspicion and more cooperation.

Where are the forward looking research projects from industry? Why do profits come on the back of workers' compromised health? The chemical manufacturers would do well to take a leaf out of other industries' books - for example, the triple bottom line is now such an integral part of the finance sector, it's not unusual for many of them to have an ethics professional on staff.

But it's not brain surgery, and it's not a dilemma to puzzle Plato. If a chemical harms workers, if a chemical can creep in through the most stringent safety measures, it shouldn't be on the market. Simple as that.

We look forward to the swift removal of diazinon from the Australian market, and to working cooperatively with the industry to find solutions and alternatives.