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The approvals for methyl bro­mide used to fumi­gate soil have been revoked, but use for quar­an­tine and pre-ship­ment treat­ment of goods such as logs will still be allowed.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 the Post:

Related Posts