Canberra (April 21st 1999) - Following a complaint by a parent, a chemical manufacturer has offered to replace the sand in all 81 preschool sandpits, to remove sand contaminated this week by  government spraying of Simazine and Glyphosate for weed control! This was the number one news story on the local TV News. The issue of hazardous chemicals and children's health is finally beginning to enter the public consciousness!
Update: Apparently only two sandpits were sprayed, and the sand has been replaced.

CAS has been pursuing the issue of chemical pest and weed control in schools and preschools in Canberra with the local education and health departments, the media, and the Commissioner for the Environment ACT.

CURRENT METHODS
The standard method of controlling or eradicating pests involves the use of hazardous chemicals, despite the unacceptably high health risk to children.

For example, a product containing chlorpyrifos, an internationally recognised hazardous chemical 1 , has been used by a local pest control business, under contract to the Department of Urban Services, and with the approval of Education & Community Services. Chlorpyrifos is a widely used organophosphate pesticide 2. It is used indoors as a termiticide and insecticide and outdoors to control insects on both food crops and ornamental plants.

BACKGROUND
In 1997, CAS made a submission to the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, outlining the health risks to children of hazardous chemical use in schools. This issue was included in the report - Investigation into the ACT Government's Use of Chemicals for Pest Control (July 1998).

The ACT government responded to the recommendations in this report last year, by promising to "set and maintain standards for best practice pest control management" via the establishment of a committee entitled the Agvet Chemicals Coordination Network, under the local department of the environment, Environment ACT.

FEBRUARY
On enrolling my 4 yr old in the local preschool this year, I was disturbed to learn that the best practice standards had not yet been implemented - and that chlorpyrifos was about to be used to treat the preschool for redback spiders. An angry letter to the paper resulted in an article - School sprays causing concern (Sunday Times Feb 28, 1999, p.3).

APRIL
In April, an over-zealous contractor sprayed some preschool sandpits with Simazine - a hazardous weed control chemical product which contains a red dye. An outraged parent noticed the pink stain, and also went to the Canberra Times with the story, (Canberra Times article April 17th - Herbicides in Sand the Pits for pre-schoolers) The Education department responded in the article by stating that it has "strict guidelines for the use of chemicals in pre-schools". These guidelines were not available, however, as they were under review and being redrafted when CAS contacted Workplace Management, Education Dept.

The Greens MLA, Kerry Tucker, contacted CAS for information on the subject. She wanted to raise the issue with local government as a Matter of Public Importance in the Legislative Assembly, and to ask about what progress the AgVet Chemicals Coordination Network was making in addressing the concerns raised by CAS and the Commissioner in his report. The sandpit story appeared in the paper in the same week, which heated up the issue considerably, and resulted in more media attention. The wheels of government began to turn a little faster!

MAY
In May, the Commissioner for the Environment took up the issue of hazardous chemical use in children's environments in the ACT, and wrote to the chief executives of Health, Education and Urban Services.

JUNE
In early June, Environment ACT initiated a forum to investigate Notification of Pest Control activities, chaired by the Commissioner, Dr Jo Baker. Local government and industry stakeholders were asked to attend. CAS and the National Toxics Network represented the community stakeholders. Many relevant topics were discussed at the forum, such as vulnerability to chemicals in the Canberra community, the need for better signage and labelling on products, the desirability of codes of practice for government and industry… feedback is still coming in. We hope to attend a series of such forums to address the entire range of issues involved in pest and weed control in the ACT.

November 2003

The Department of Education & Community Services has now adopted new Guidelines for Provision of Pest Control Services to Schools and Preschools. CAS commends many of the new conditions in the documents. However, we also made recommendations that training of pest control operators and alternative methods of pest control be investigated; and that this information be compiled in a manual for the benefit and use of contractors, school principals and the Facilities section of the Department of Education. The process is still underway…

Please visit toolsforhealthyschools.org to see how schools can manage chemical hazards. There is an excellent new handbook out for school on integrated pest management, featured on the site.
See SAFER SOLUTIONS IPM HANDBOOK FOR SCHOOLS by Jo IMMIG

In August last year (2002) I made a presentation to the ongoing Inquiry into Child Health in ACT, for the National Toxics Network. The Education OH&S committee is reviewing use of cleaning products in school, but have rejected the TFHS policy document, and are currently dealing with toxics in schools on a “case by case” basis. This is an inadeqate approach, leaving too much responsibility on school managers to avoid accidental toxic exposures.

The Inquiry recommended comprehensive chemical audits, and a more proactive approach from the department, but so far, there have been no new developments I am aware of.

Environmental Guidelines for Children
It is no longer reasonable to assume that toxic pollution will not find its way into children and cause illness. Environment-related disease is on the rise, affecting our children's health, their development, their ability to learn and their general well being. Up to one third of the general population suffer ill health from exposure to environmental factors. A proportion of those are significantly disabled by chemical sensitivities of varying degrees. For children, who may be suffering daily toxic exposures at school or preschool, the lack of environmental guidelines is untenable, and a violation of our international obligations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (Articles 3, 17, 24, 27; Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force Sept.2 1990.)

As a representative for the National Toxics Network, I also attended the National Environmental Consultants Forum at Parliament House in June 2002. I was lucky enough to speak with Dr David Kemp for about 20 mintes on the subject of children and toxics, and sent a follow-up letter.

Two new Federal initiatives are underway this year - the Chemical Taskforce (set up by Ministerial Council), and a project by the Air Toxics section of Environment Australia to address Indoor Air Quality in schools.

NOTES:
Chlorpyrifos is very toxic to humans, between 1 teaspoon and 1 ounce may be fatal. Primary routes of exposure are inhalation, skin or eye contact. Inhalation exposure to high concentration may cause upper respiratory irritation, central nervous system depression headache, dizziness, increased sensitivity to epinephrine, irregular heartbeats, incoordination, muscle twitching, tremor, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision, tightness in chest, and convulsions. Eye contact may cause pain, moderate irritation. Poisoning also impairs Central Nervous System. 
Continual absorption at intermediate dosage may cause influenza-like illness which includes symptoms like weakness, anorexia and malaise. Prolonged or repeated over exposure may result in delayed liver and or kidney damage. Other chronic exposure effects are behavioural neurotoxicity and organo-phosphate induced delayed neuropathy. 

Xylene is a fat solvent that causes Central Nervous System dysfunction and destruction of other tissues. One of earliest effects of exposure to xylene is increase in liver enzymes. Other effects of a single or short term exposure include irritation of nose, throat and eyes, headache ,nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, light headedness, irritability, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, reduced coordination, loss of consciousness. Other acute exposure effects include amnesia, brain hemorrhage, cardiac stress, dermatitis, liver and kidney damage, respiratory difficulties, tremor and xylene in blood and exhaled air. Other chronic long term effects include anorexia, apprehension, bone marrow hyperplasia, CNS excitation and depression, dermatitis, drowsiness, eye injury, flatulence, gastrointestinal pain, memory impairment, hepatic damage, mucosal hemorrhage, nausea, red and white blood cell abnormalities [may be due to benzene contaminant, tremor and weakness. 

Acute exposure to high levels (above 900 ppm) of 1,1,1- trichloroethane can depress the nervous system and cause headache, dizziness and fatigue. Short term impaired performance of behavioural tests was also reported. At high levels (greater than 5000 ppm), 1,1,1- trichloroethane can cause unconsciousness, respiratory depression and death. Ingestion can cause severe gastrointestinal irritation characterized by vomiting and diarrhea. Contact with eyes or skin can result in mild irritation. Other acute exposure effects are renal and hepatic damage. 

"Non-cooperation with injustice is a sacred duty." Mahatma Gandhi