Maritime Union concerned by methyl bromide decision

The Maritime Union of New Zealand has spoken out against the decision to allow the continued use of methyl bromide as a fumigant.
The Mari­time Uni­on of New Zea­l­and has spoken out against this week’s decision by envir­on­ment agency ERMA to allow the con­tin­ued use of methyl brom­ide as a fumig­ant.
New reg­u­la­tions will require methyl brom­ide fumig­a­tions to be recap­tured with­in 10 years, and more research into altern­at­ives and recap­ture be under­taken.
The approvals for methyl brom­ide used to fumig­ate soil have been revoked, but use for quar­ant­ine and pre-ship­ment treat­ment of goods such as logs will still be allowed.
Mari­time Uni­on Gen­er­al Sec­ret­ary Joe Fleet­wood says the uni­on wants the tox­ic gas phased out very quickly in all com­mer­cial set­tings.
He says ERMA claims that it has intro­duced strict con­trols, but the strict con­trol the uni­on wanted to see was the end of methyl brom­ide use in New Zea­l­and ports.
“It seems the logic is that methyl brom­ide is tox­ic, bad for the envir­on­ment and bad for people, but is fin­an­cially good for some export­ers.”
Mr Fleet­wood says a few bar­rels of methyl brom­ide rolled into share­hold­er meet­ings would no doubt be con­sidered unac­cept­able by those present, but mari­time work­ers on the water­front were expec­ted to carry on and hope for the best.
“The ques­tion must be asked, if in ten years time fur­ther research shows that the risks of methyl brom­ide have been great­er than expec­ted, who is respons­ible for any ill­ness or deaths, and will the Gov­ern­ment, port com­pan­ies and com­mer­cial users of methyl brom­ide be held respons­ible in this event?”
“The bene­fits to our export mar­kets prob­ably won’t mean much to any­one who has been poisoned by this stuff.”
There was some ques­tion as to why it was felt neces­sary to end use of methyl brom­ide for agri­cul­tur­al pur­poses, but allow its use to be con­tin­ued in ports, he says.
“It’s either bad for people and the envir­on­ment, or not. If it is a haz­ard, why are we allow­ing its use to con­tin­ue?”
Mr Fleet­wood says the Uni­on has been act­ive in oppos­ing the use of methyl brom­ide for some years.
The Mari­time Uni­on had been in con­tact with tox­ic­o­logy experts who were research­ing pos­sible links between methyl brom­ide and health prob­lems.
He says a num­ber of incid­ents with the gas over the years, added to the con­tinu­ing debate about wheth­er methyl brom­ide may have been a factor in the cases of motor neur­on dis­ease in Nel­son port work­ers, made the Uni­on con­cerned about the response from Gov­ern­ment and reg­u­lat­ors.
The Uni­on also had con­cerns about the influ­ence of industry groups in past years on decision mak­ing about methyl brom­ide.
The Mari­time Uni­on would con­tin­ue to press for methyl brom­ide to be phased out as quickly as pos­sible.
Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Welcome to the Maritime Union

The Mari­time Uni­on of New Zea­l­and was formed in 2002 when the New Zea­l­and Water­front Work­ers’ Uni­on and the New Zea­l­and Sea­farers’ Uni­on joined togeth­er. We rep­res­ent water­front work­ers, sea­farers and related work­ers in New Zea­l­and.

Read More