Please note: This document is written without prejudice
On Tuesday, 20 April, I telephoned Emma Medell to tender my notice to withdraw my son, Joel, from the school the following term. As my wife, Jo, and I had been among the most staunch supporters of the school this no doubt came as something of a shock to Emma.
I was one of the parents who TATIB (The Air That I Breathe organisation) emailed directly with their concerns and to be honest my first reaction was one of indignation at being so rudely bombarded with unsolicited mail. My initial reaction was to dismiss it all as irrelevant “green” scare mongering as I have more than enough things to deal with and worry about in life than the implications of their allegations.
However, something niggled away until I couldn’t ignore it any longer. It was then I began my own initial research into the issue and tried to encourage a less closed minded appraisal of the situation on our own part. I did in fact suggest that we didn’t really need to have Mr Schumacher (the representative of TATIB) present at all and could initiate our own investigation by drawing all parents into the discussion.
I explained to Emma that we had become increasingly dissatisfied with the schools apparent unwillingness to address, publicly, many of the substantive concerns that had been raised by the TATIB foundation, with regard to the possible risks associated with exposing our children to agricultural chemical sprays. I went on to explain, that after a closer examination of the situation by myself, I was sufficiently concerned to feel the need to remove my son from a potentially dangerous environment. Particularly so in light of the schools reluctance to even acknowledge that there may be cause for concern.
I felt that my attempts to encourage a broader and more inclusive discussion had been met with resistance or outright rejection. As the person appointed to deal with the issue of TATIB’s emails ( ref; Emma’s email of 27 March) I broached the subject with Dave D'Aguiar in 2 separate conversations. (at the night market at Nitida on the 26 March and by telephone on the 9th April)
I also noted that Dave was described in his emails replying to the TATIB foundation as being a representative of the Parent Committee and that all correspondence should be through himself.
I don’t recall the parent body ever electing a parent committee so I did wonder why Dave assumed this position to represent our views without our knowledge. In Emma’s email he is described as being from the School Business Steering Committee. I would suggest that this misrepresentation gave TATIB the impression that they were communicating with the parent body via a representative of our parent committee. Whereas this was not the case at all.
We, the parents, were informed by Emma ( ref: email of 27 March) that we would be kept “informed of any relevant facts that come to light” and that we would not have our time wasted “with correspondence referencing rumours & here say”.
That the full details and implications of TATIB’s correspondence was deemed to be unworthy of our consideration and that we were not given the opportunity to decide for ourselves seems to me to be a deliberate effort, on the part of the school, to suppress this information and thereby to discourage any discussion on the matter.
I find it inappropriate that the school did this apparently without seeking informed advice on the matter from relevant authorities and seemed, despite their own lack of qualifications in the matter to discount the information as being invalid. Their need for proven facts seems to indicate a basic lack of understanding as to how science works towards truth claims. In reality, it can be argued that there are no absolute facts, as such, only things we regard with a very high degree of confidence as being reliable observations of the world we live in. Science is an ongoing work that is constantly re-evaluating empirical evidence in the light of increasing knowledge and insight.
That the very institution we entrust with our children’s education appears so uneducated themselves with regard to the fundamental essence of the single most important tool (science) we have for learning about our world is to me very worrying.
I, for one, feel that information I now consider to be very important was deliberately withheld from most parents thereby denying them their right to make informed decisions regarding their own children’s safety. The sense of outrage and anger that has been expressed to me by a number of these parents confirms my own sense of betrayal and my complete lack of faith in the schools integrity. I can’t help but think that a genuine parent body, reflective of a wide range of opinions, may well have elected to treat the matter very differently.
I was assured that this resistance to open debate was absolutely not the schools official stance and asked if I would be prepared to engage, with my concerns, in an open forum that included all concerned parties. Naturally, I agreed.
Emma called me back on the following Thursday to let me know she’d convened a meeting of the financial steering committee to address how best to present the matter to the parent body and asked if I would be prepared to join her at that meeting to properly present my concerns. Unfortunately, with only a few hours notice I was unable to attend due to a prior engagement that evening .
The promised special meeting with concerned parents to discuss the issues surrounding vineyard spraying at Nitida went ahead last Thursday evening, 29 April. To say I was dismayed at the way the whole subject was approached would be something of an understatement. In fact to be frank, I was, and remain, somewhat shocked.
What I had imagined was to be an open and honest discussion that would allow all concerns to be heard and any new information and facts to be assessed turned out , in my opinion, to be merely an exercise in damage control.
The meeting opened with a timeline of events leading up to the meeting delivered by Emma Mendel, the headmistress. Thereafter, Bernard Veller, the farmer and owner of Nitida, described his procedures with regard to the spraying of the various agricultural chemicals and additionally tried to demonstrate his concern to adopt “best practice” by citing the farms inclusion in the IPW scheme (Integrated Production of Wine).
Having looked at the various policies recommended by the IWP Scheme I don’t see any more stringent controls regarding the evaluation and risk assessment of agricultural chemicals than those required by the present Act of 1947.
The scheme’s policies and protocols can be examined on their website at:
http://www.ipw.co.za/index.php
Citing their inclusion in the IPW scheme was obviously intended to demonstrate a shared concern with us regarding safety issues. Personally, I find this to be dangerously misleading as it clearly does not address the most serious concerns.
Mr Veller explained that with regard to the actual agricultural chemicals he used he was completely reliant on the manufacturers for his information as to safe use and potential risks. He also pointed out that the present act regulating crop spraying is not particularly helpful in terms of health issues dating, as it does, to 1947. It was generally agreed that the present legislation was of no real help in determining the safety of the school environment as it affects our children.
He then went on to explain that he was of the opinion that most of the concerns centred on organophosphates and their potential to pose very real dangers. He offered that generally he did not use organophosphates. Later, when questioned directly by one of the parents he repeated his comment that generally he didn’t use organophosphates. Personally, I find the qualifier “generally” to be significant. I would have been far more reassured had there been more clarity on this important issue.
The characterisation, by Mr Veller, of the chemicals he does use as being far less of a hazard would also seem to be unsubstantiated. Mr Veller had already admitted that he is entirely dependant on the advice provided to him by the manufacturers and that while he operated within the law as it stands he was unaware of any further details regarding the safety or composition of the products he uses beyond the stated “active ingredient” . I think that the unsoundness of this supposed reassurance is self evident.
We were previously provided with the following list of the chemicals used on the farm.
Folpan, Sovrin Flo, Topaz, Mamba, Spiral, Thiovit, Korog, Legend, Hygrobuff, Diathane/Dithane, Rootmaster, Prosper, Phosphite, Acarol, Goemar, Switch, Nufilm.
Data drawn from presently available research the following assessments, in particular, give me serious cause for concern. More information is coming to light as other parents make their own investigations.
Sovrin Flo is a ground water contaminant.
Topaz is considered a carcinogen, endocrine disruptor (this means normal hormonal activity is adversely affected) and ground water contaminant.
Mamba is a ground water contaminant
Thiovit is a sulphur based composition. Sulphur is known to trigger asthmatic attacks.
Diathane/Dithane is regarded as a developmental/reproductive toxin and endocrine disruptor.
On the label of Rootmaster we learn that symptoms of exposure to small amounts include weakness, general depression, headaches and mental impairment.
Prosper is described as an endocrine disruptor.
Phosphite is a Chlorinesterase Inhibitor. This means it blocks the normal nerve connections in the body and the brain.
I will quote a section of one of the email that TATIB sent the school (12 march 2010)
“The farm has, in writing, stated the following : " The investigation that the school started early last year already did highlight the possible carcinogenic risk of Dithane"“
At this point I think it pertinent to refer to reassurances that were communicated to parents by email by Emma on the 27 March. To quote:
“We have been reassured by Bernhard that his farming and spraying practices are fully compliant with the law and the farm follows acceptable safety precautions”
As we now know the law doesn’t itself address safety issues as such and that the, so called, safety measures being based on such extremely limited data as provided by the manufactures provide only an illusion of safety.
It took me, and at least one other parent independent of me (Anne Duncan), less than a week, part-time, to research these facts. As a consequence of this I now regard Emma’s statement as being misleading and the willingness by the school to leave it at that as being far too casual a response to such a serious matter.
That the fact that present legislation is 60 years old didn’t suggest that a closer look might have been thought wise suggests to me a lack of care and a failure to thoroughly asses the risks to our children. A charitable view may suggest that the school has merely been naive. Given the reluctance to address the matter openly I am not so inclined.
With regard to spray drift Mr Veller explained that they didn’t spray when the wind was blowing toward the school. The fact is there is no neutral buffer zone around the school and the tractors have been seen spraying within meters of the school premises so personally I remain totally unconvinced that the school is free of spray drift.
Legislation, as it stands, demands that all agricultural chemicals be applied in strict accordance with the manufacturers safety instructions as detailed on their product detail labels. These state very clearly that these chemicals are not to end up on “areas not under treatment”. Given the schools absolute conviction that the premises are not at risk from spray drift I would have assumed that they have taken steps to validate their position. However, no evidence has been presented by the school to show that studies initiated by them show the school premises to be free of contamination.
I can only assume that no such proof exists and that the school has not had any studies done to establish whether any residue is present nor had any toxicology tests done to learn if the environment is safe. Given that the school is situated near the centre of the farm’s operations it seems to me highly improbable that spray drift hasn’t fallen on the schools premises. If this is proven to be the case than clearly the law has been broken.
Mr Veller’s comments about contamination of the water table, while not all that relevant to the immediate safety of our children, did cause me some concern. Having already told us he wasn’t an expert on the actual technicalities of the environmental issues nor the chemistry at work he never the less attempted to assure us that chemical run off in to the water table was very improbable in his opinion. He suggested that probably less that 20% of the spray ended up on the ground and that this probably doesn’t make it to the water table
This then raises the question as to were all the rest ends up after it breaks down on the plants and is eventually blown away by wind or washed away by water. Are these residual products safe?
He mentioned a borehole on one of the nearby farms having recently found evidence of contamination but then bizarrely pointed out that it had been there for 400 years and only now was there such contamination evident. This was apparently proof that the issue was not a matter for concern. Implicit in this weird assertion is the claim that the borehole predates the first Dutch settlements at the Cape of 1652 by 40 years and the settlement of the Durbanville area by more than 200 years. I mention this not to be pedantic but to illustrate how legitimate facts and concerns are so easily trivialised by offhand and wildly irrelevant rationalisations. More of these sorts of examples later.
The matter of seepage into the water table is something that we would only have begun to see with the introduction of chemical spraying in the ’50’s so references to the great age of the bore hole are a deliberate “red herring” intended to draw attention away from the true picture. The assessment that less that 20% of the sprays don’t fall on the plants is also completely unsubstantiated.
Seepage of agricultural chemicals and their break down products into the groundwater has been well documented and is a fairly well established environmental fact. This is a matter of major concern in terms of land management.
When initially asked about the frequency of spraying we were told that, typically, this would be 8 times a year with 2 of those times coinciding with school holidays. It was only a little while later, when asked directly how long the spraying lasts , that we learned from Mr Veller that each session of spraying actually lasts 2 to 3 days. We had been repeatedly been told by both the school and various members of the steering committee that spraying only took place 6 to 8 times a years so naturally this was generally understood to mean 6 to 8 days. This misapprehension was only corrected when we discovered that in truth the spraying actually occupies from 16 to 24 days, at a conservative estimate. It wasn’t discussed at the meeting but I wonder if it should rain shortly after spraying there may be a need to reapply the sprays once more. I find this perceived hesitancy to clarify the true details regarding spraying frequency to be worrying.
After Mr Veller had had his say it was proposed that the floor be open for questions. As I has been led to believe any new information would be welcome I had in fact spent almost all my free time for the previous week trying to gain a broader picture of the issues involved so that I might bring only the most important facts to the debate. To this end I had sourced and prepared some information that I felt were of central importance in addressing the whole subject.
I didn’t attempt to introduce a vast body of growing scientific evidence as to possible health risks at this time as I felt we needed first to address the specifics of our own situation in relation to the farm and school. I asked to be allowed to present a brief summation prior to the question session. This I was allowed to do.
In essence, what I had confirmed was that the present legislation relating to the use of agricultural chemicals is governed by an Act over 60 years old, having been enacted in 1947.
This act requires all such chemicals used in SA to be registered with the Registrar of Pesticides at the Dept . of Agriculture. The safety data required by the registrar is that supplied by the manufacturer and only concerns the active ingredient. Any other ingredients in a formulation need not be declared.
In 2006 the Dept of Agriculture published a proposed, new policy document regarding the use of these chemicals in the Government gazette. 12 April 2006.
The School of Public Health & Family Medicine at UCT were invited to comment on the proposed policy.
I obtained a copy of this response as written by Prof. Leslie London and Dr Andrea Rother. The full commentary can be found on the University’s website at; http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/oehru/publications/policy1.php
I highlighted 7 points from the commentary as being, in my opinion, of specific relevance to our particular situation at the Montessori School on Nitida wine farm.
The clear implication of these points is that present risks are inadequately addressed by the legislation. Children, in particular, are considered to be at greater risk, and the true nature of the chemicals is at present unknown as the data used to register them is incomplete and lacks any specific toxicology results of the complete formulations. As I noted earlier, only the active ingredient needs to be examined under present regulations. Further, there exist no requirements that the so called “cocktail effect” of spraying a number of different formulations on a given area be studied with regard to possible health hazards.
I offered copies of this information, with the relevant sources indicated etc. Somewhat disappointingly, no-one on the financial steering committee nor Emma expressed any interest at looking at what I had offered. I must admit that I was quite surprised to be asked at the end of my brief report, by the chairman of the meeting, what my solution was. I had been under the impression that was what the meeting was trying to arrive at and I was merely trying to provide additional and pertinent information from, what I considered (and apparently so do the Dept. of Agriculture), a reasonably reliable and authoritative source of the most up to date research and informed opinion.
Sadly, for all concerned, at this stage ( 4 years later) the proposed new policy remains still merely a proposal but one hopes the insights offered by Prof. London and Dr Rother are deemed valuable enough to warrant inclusion.
It was suggested by the meeting chairperson that we form a committee of “concerned parents” to decide how to deal with the concerns that were troubling some of us. Those parents wishing to be included in this committee were invited to have a meeting 2 weeks later. I think that this is not an acceptable response to address what is the schools clear responsibility. To try and shift the onus onto parents is not at all acceptable to me as it is now clear that the school has not in any way assessed the true degree of safety nor given consideration to any information that contradicts their unproven claims that no significant risks exist.
It is also worth noting that while asking that concerned parents form a committee the Business Steering Committee was doing it’s utmost to try and keep those parents ignorant of the real situation uninformed. Attempts to elaborate on the details of these concerns were stopped by the chairperson telling us that those aspect were to be further discussed by the proposed “concerned parents committee”. In my view this would, yet again, simply serve to limit access to the views of those of us who are more informed and inhibit any wider discussion or assessment of the details that have come to light.. I suspect that were all parents fully aware of all the details surrounding this issue there would a great deal more of us concerned.
It is not the responsibility of us, as clients of the school, to prove that there are real health risks and to propose solutions. It is the school, as a business entrusted with the care of our children, who must reasonably demonstrate that there is no danger present by presenting relevant and factual evidence.
As far as I’m concerned the steering committee’s attitude with regard to concerns over the use of agricultural chemicals around the school was revealed by some of the retorts certain members offered towards the end of the meeting. I cite a few examples here to illustrate the level of critical thinking that has been applied on our behalf in safeguarding our children’s health.
It was stated that Aspartame, as used in diet cola drinks, was banned practically everywhere around the world yet we happily drink it here in SA. Apparently this was supposed to point out that while other countries have various concerns we haven’t and are not adversely affected by drinking it. In fact aspartame isn’t banned anywhere. The most recent medical review on the subject concluded that "the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener." .
I find it ironic that while demanding proven and unemotional fact and wanting to “separate fact from fallacy” (to quote Emma’s email to all parents, of the 27March) a member of the steering committee most insistent on proven facts would resort to using this sort of misinformation to defend his views. This suggests to me either a completely emotional and irrational opinion being defended or an absence of any real, verifiable evidence.
Similarly, suggestions that feeding our children Nik Naks would end up killing them was utterly without foundation. The snack food is sold in the UK, for example, and there have not been any claims that anything in them is of any more concern than any other such snacks. That it was considered a reasonable response to our concerns seemed to me to be another off-hand attempt to trivialise serious concerns
Perhaps the most amusing was the claim, repeated a number of times, that the number of frogs in the pond adjacent the school was clear proof all was perfectly well with the environment. This demonstrated a lack of any real understanding of the complexity of the issue being discussed as it attempted to offer one, completely unexamined factor, as proof that there was no problem to consider.
At a meeting convened to look honestly at the situation and to try and establish some facts it was extremely unfortunate that the very people who were directing the meeting (the school and the financial steering committee) so flagrantly undermined serious attempts to gain a realistic view of the situation. The bias demonstrated in this way seems to me to point to a clash of interests between the financial considerations of the school as a business and the legitimate concerns of the schools clients; ie: us, as the parents of children in the school’s care.
The inability of the steering committee to remain impartial during these discussions has, in my view, compromised any further investigations and discussion on the matter. In light of the fact that it was very clear many parents at the meeting were ignorant of the facts surrounding the whole matter and were there to gain a better understanding of the true nature of the issue it is troubling to me that the school presented such ill-informed and inaccurate “urban myths” to counter valid expression of concern. This has only served to reinforce fallacies and propagate more ignorance.
To try arrive at a better understanding of all aspects of this matter in a scenario where the “official” stance is so clearly resistant to fairness and prejudicial in assessing information seems to me to be to be an exercise in futility. On a personal level I am deeply upset and insulted by the lack of courtesy and consideration this attitude implies.
One of the last comments offered, however, really did surprise me. We had been told by Emma, during her “timeline” explanation of events leading to this meeting that one parent had eventually removed her son from the school while alleging health problems possibly caused by the spraying. It’s no secret that the lady in question was Clarien Thornhill-Fisher and that her son, Thomas, had evidently been suffering ill health for some time.
The truth is that Thomas has in fact had a number of various medical test that, while not conclusive as yet, do begin to suggest, to me at least, that in this particular case there may well have been cause for concern. Seemingly though, the financial steering committee deemed it unworthy of consideration with their usual refrain of ;“show us proof”. Given that neither the school nor the steering committee has any expertise to evaluate medical opinion I find their willingness to make such judgements, on our behalf, to dangerously overstep their authority.
Evidently, a few weeks ago, on a Friday, Thomas’ father brought him to the farm to take part in a bike race. Thomas’ parents are divorced and Thomas was brought to the farm to take part in the event, which was organised by his father, a keen cyclist. This was done without Clarien’s knowledge but was never-the-less recounted in outraged tones by one committee member. We were told none of the background to the incident, merely that while the boy was at the school he was apparently dying from the sprays but that when it suited his parents they were happy to bring him to cycle on the farm.
I can only assume that the way this incident was presented to the meeting was to discredit Clarien’s concerns and suggestions. I found the way the events were recounted to be uncharitable to say the least. The fact that the child’s parents are divorced ( a fact known to the person reporting this event) should have been enough to suggest, to a fair-minded and reasonable person, that there was much more to this than met the eye.
I was shocked and saddened to hear gossip like this offered in defence of the schools position. I think it was unworthy of adult debate and would go so far as to suggest that Clarien deserves an official apology from the steering committee.
Emma made reference in her “time-line” to a teacher leaving the school earlier this year also. In this case too, the person in question had suffered quite visible ill health while at the school and on at least one occasion, that I know of, had to leave the premises with severe breathing difficulties while spraying was taking place. She, similarly, had various tests done by her physician who advised her that the likely source of the illness was the spraying on the farm. The teacher in question told me that she was repeatedly told that tests into the schools safety had been initiated but that nothing was ever presented of evidence of these claims. Having been hearing similar vague claims from the school for some time myself and learning finally, at this meeting that no studies or investigations have been made nor are any in progress I am inclined to believe this teachers allegations.
Again, it appears to me this was not considered worthy of a closer consideration at the time and has been brushed aside, it seems, with counter-claims that the teacher was sickly anyway and her condition was independent of the spaying issue until definitive proof is available that showed otherwise.
Emma mentioned that the school had offered to pay for further testing to try and see if there was a link but after speaking with the teacher concerned I am led to believe that this offer was made more than 2 months after the lady had left the farm and that her symptoms had cleared up by then. She maintains that she had indicated a willingness to comply but that she had also told the school that there seemed to be no real point to the exercise at that late stage as she was displaying no outward symptoms after removing herself from the apparent source of her illness. I will again refer to the lack of medical expertise on the part of the school and the business steering committee and the inappropriateness of their pronouncements on these matters and also reiterate that whatever present testing may or may not show we still are very much in the dark regarding long term risks.
That this teacher was ultimately forced to hand in her resignation (a term) due to the school total lack of responsiveness to her plight is a sorry indictment of the schools claims to “remain 100% committed to the health and safety of our children, parent’s and staff”. (ref: Emma’s email of 27 March)
I understand that when she actually hand over her letter of resignation she was asked to leave the premises immediately by Emma and a member of the business steering committee. She did so in shock and tears, leaving bewildered and confused children wondering where one of their most loved teachers was going. I later leaned that in fact the teacher was fired, with immediate effect, when she handed over her notice.
The question as to how many children had suffered with any symptoms due to the spraying was quite reasonably asked by one parent. Unfortunately, with the schools insistence on absolute, causal proof (something that will inevitably take science many years to establish either way) we don’t even have the beginnings of any sort of impression as to whether our children are suffering any symptoms that may implicate the spraying. In fact, despite the labels on the actual chemicals having specific descriptions of possible adverse reactions to close contact we have no idea of what sorts of symptoms we should be alert to that may be triggered by milder contamination. I find this omission unacceptable as it assumes a priori that no such risk exists. Naturally, if none of the parents have guidelines as to possible symptoms caused by inappropriate exposure to these chemicals we can have no data on their frequency and it becomes far too easy to overlook clues that may eventually turn out to be significant. In the absence of absolute proof of the safety of these chemicals I find this complacency short-sighted.
I find it troubling that with regard to this whole matter of agricultural chemical spraying and our children’s well being the school turns sensible scientific advice on it‘s head. Expressions of concern are met with demands for proven and unemotional facts as to the risks but in terms of the school as a body charged with the safety of our children we’re offered nothing at all that would satisfy the schools own criteria for evidence. That it is seen to be prudent to take the view that everything is safe until proved otherwise seems to me to be quite frightening and possibly even disastrous. Science moves slowly but methodically. It will take a long time, many years I suspect, before the scientific, business and political arenas reach a consensus on this issue.
Personally speaking, as an informed and responsible father who places his son’s well being before all other considerations, I’m not prepared to wait years until all’s proven to be just a “storm in a tea-cup” . If there’s even the slightest possibility that this tea-cup may in reality be a poisoned chalice I’m not prepared to take that gamble.
That I am required by the terms of our contract to give a terms notice to leave, seems to me, in these circumstances, to be almost insulting. I intend to take legal advice on the matter with regard to the schools various failures, as I see them, and elaborated on in this letter. In my view, due care has not been shown to have been taken in relation to the safety of my child. I will go further and state that, in my opinion, the schools handling of the matter has actively hampered attempts to learn more and that this in itself has delayed parents from taking action where the school wouldn’t.
Ford Hallam
3 May 2010
Durbanville
Written without prejudice.
No comments:
Post a Comment