Australian regulators are considering a proposal that could increase the legal residue limit for a controversial pesticide, isocycloseram, on certain berries by up to 500 times. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) stated that the proposed changes would not compromise food safety and that berries would remain safe for consumers.
Isocycloseram, a chemical approved for use in Australia since 2021, is used to protect crops from various insects. Products containing the chemical are required to carry a warning stating it is suspected of damaging the unborn child. The proposal has drawn criticism from environmental and health advocates who cite insufficient knowledge about the chemical's long-term effects. Isocycloseram has not been approved for use in the United Kingdom or the European Union.
Concerns have been raised about the potential impact of chemicals like isocycloseram on human health, particularly on children. Studies on rats, where high doses of isocycloseram were administered, showed effects such as shrunken testes, liver toxicity, and birth defects in fetuses, leading regulators to establish low human exposure thresholds.
Josh Davis, Executive Director of Pesticide Action Australia, expressed concern that Australia's initial approval of isocycloseram relied heavily on research provided by the product's manufacturer. "We want consumers to be able to trust what they're eating... why are we the human experiment?" Davis questioned, arguing that the APVMA's assessment of the proposed maximum residue limit (MRL) being "far below the level that would raise health concerns" does not sufficiently consider children, who consume more berries relative to their body weight than adults.
These concerns emerge as berry consumption in Australia is rising, with annual blueberry consumption now around 1 kilogram per person and the berry production value increasing significantly. Davis emphasized that the issue is a systemic one, placing the burden on consumers to navigate safe food choices, particularly for those who cannot afford organic produce.
Paediatric nutritionist Mandy Sacher called the APVMA's proposal "truly crazy," suggesting the regulator is prioritizing legal limits over safety. "We obviously can't eliminate every chemical, but our regulators should be doing everything they can to reduce the amount of exposure on the foods that our children love," Sacher stated.
Conversely, farming groups and food scientists have defended the proposal, warning of potential negative impacts on the berry industry. Mike Guerin, Chief Executive of the National Farmers Federation, asserted that the APVMA is an independent scientific authority. Dr. Emma Beckett highlighted that farmers incur costs for pesticide use and that decisions regarding crop protection require a balance, advocating for integrated pest management that minimizes unnecessary pesticide use while safeguarding crops, people, and the environment.
The consultation period for the proposal concluded recently. This debate follows Australia's recent approval of the herbicide paraquat, despite its association with Parkinson's disease, with the APVMA stating significant new restrictions were imposed but evidence did not indicate an increased risk of the disease with approved use.