The email is accompanied by 11 individual attachments that are intended to back up the schools commentary. It is quite a hassle to actually get to any specific annexure so I don't suppose many people will have the time to go though all the supporting evidence. Much if what is provided is not all that relevant in any case.
What is of major concern, though, is the content of the emails that passed between the school and the Dept of Health. The school advised us that a Mr Gerrit Van Wyk, of the Dept. of Health, had been contacted regarding the chemicals used on the farm.
The following quotes are all taken from the documents the school sent out last Friday.
the following from Emma Medell to Mr Van Wyk, 21 April 2009
"I would please like some feedback from you as to whether these sprays are in fact safe to the children. We have been re-assured by both the farmer and the supplier that the sprays are not harmful, but parents would like further re-assurance from a neutral source. "
the reply from Mr Van Wyk, 7 May 2009
"Emma - sorry for the delay, but I am waiting on a Mr. Chris Cummings of Croplife S. A. that deals with the poisons, to get back to me. The Toxicology Dept. Tygerberg informed me that there is no information/evidence of the effects of long term exposure to these poisons"
Croplife is an association that represents the interests of the chemical manufacturers and distributors. Personally speaking I can't see how Mr Cummings can therefore be regarded as having an unbiased opinion. A brief internet search will reveal that Mansanto, for example, has a less then shining reputation when it comes to reporting scientific evidence and the true effects of it's chemical products. See here for more details. Would you trust this corporation with your child's health?
a further email from Mr Van Wyk, 20 May 2009
"I spoke to Dr. Else Trautman of the Department of Agriculture who directed me to Chris Cumming of Croplife SA. Mr. Cumming was also involved in a similar case in, I think, Riebeeck Kasteel. According to him the farmers are in their full right to spray these poisons as long as they conform to the requirements of Act 36 of 1937. We can however not say that long term exposure to these poisons will not be harmful to a person."
The following is taken from the recently issued report, from the school. 2 July 2010
"On 21 April 2009 Emma approached the school’s environmental health Inspector (Gerrit Van Wyk) for assistance in the investigation. The school provided Gerrit with the list of sprays used on Nitida . Mr Van Wyk came back to the school in May and confirmed that the Toxicology Dept at Tygerberg confirmed that there is no long term effects of exposure to the sprays."
One doesn't need a degree in English to see the error in Emma's interpretation here. Whether this is due to ignorance or is an attempt to deliberately mislead parents would probably be for a court to decide. However, Emma reports exactly the opposite of what Mr Van Wyk actually wrote, that much is a fact.
I'm left wondering, now that this misrepresentation has been revealed, whether this glaring contradiction at the centre of the school's policy isn't the real reason it's taken so long for this evidence of the schools investigations to be shared with us. Personally speaking, if I'd been presented with the truth regarding what Mr Van Wyk had told the school I think I would have begun my own investigations last May.
The following assurance is taken from the schools report, 2 July 2010
"Emma conferred with Gerit Van Wyk (of Environmental Health ) after the meeting(18 August 2009) and he said that he was satisfied that the school was acting responsibly.( Annexure 6)."
The letter referred to here ( annexure 6) was only written in May 2010 and in fact does not in any way state that Mr Van Wyk was satisfied that the school was acting responsibly. Nothing of the sort was written at all. It merely states that Mr Van Wyk agreed that the proposed safety measure be implemented. This is not the same thing as saying he was satisfied the school was acting responsibly at all nor does it even suggest these proposed measures were adequate.
Mr Van Wyk also re-stated his previous comment;
"acute exposure may cause skin and respiratory irritation, but that there is no information and evidence of what long term exposure to these chemicals may cause."
Having spoken with Mr Van Wyk it seems to me that despite his repeated attempts to impress upon the school the uncertainty regarding the ultimate safety of long term exposure to these chemicals the school prefers to interpret things as it sees fit.
We're repeatedly told by the dept. of Health that there is no information nor evidence regarding the long term hazards and Prof. London went into some detail ( at the meeting of 27 May, at the school) about the lack of data and the dangers of assuming that in the absence of evidence there is no cause for concern. It seems irresponsible to me, that despite the continued attempts by the relevant authorities, the school knowingly makes statements like the following, in their spraying policy as sent out last Friday, 2 July 2010.
"There is no conclusive evidence that the spraying of the vineyards has any direct
effect on the children or staff's health or that it is the cause of allergies."
"To date there is no proof that any of the chemicals used in the seasonal cropsprayingprocess are in fact carcinogenic"
"Fungacides are being used on the farm but there is no evidence of negative effects on the children’s health."
" Emma raised the concern about various chemicals grouped together i.e. the “cocktail effect” but again there was agreement that there was no proof of this having a negative effect either."
" In direct discussion about Mancozeb, there was agreement that there is no proof that it is carcinogenic."
There is published medical research that directly contradicts this statement. You can read some of it here.
I actually handed copies of these myself to Emma when I handed her my letter of intent to remove my son from the school. As for the other denials, I find it almost insulting that the school continues to trot out this completely inaccurate nonsense and to continue to misinform the parents of the children in their care.
The schools continued policy appears to be one of claiming no risk exists until absolute proof is presented. The only area where this sort of proof is possible is in pure mathematics. In science it's a matter of assessing the available evidence and forming working theories on the evidence we have.
The school has repeatedly demonstrated it's inability to asses inconvenient evidence in any sort of impartial way. There seems to me a very real risk that this failure to disregard financial considerations and to, instead, place the safety of our children first, may prove in the long term, to have been short-sighted, to say the very least.
