TATIB FOUNDATION

CONSTANTIA RESIDENTS HIT BY SPRAY DRIFT

2012-02-01T00:29:00.000-08:00

A series of articles appeared in the Constantiaberg Bulletin recently, following complaints received by a number of residents, following their exposure to spray drift.

The articles can be found by clicking on the links below :-

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80073567/a-Spray-Drift-Page-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80074360/a-Spray-Drift-Page-2

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80074502/a-Spray-Drift-Page-3

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80074774/a-Spray-Drift-Page-4

WELGEVONDEN ESTATE CAUGHT IN SPRAY DRIFT ???

2011-11-29T18:16:00.000-08:00

On Friday 18 November 2011, we received an email from a resident of Welgevonden Estate [a residential estate on the outskirts of Stellenbosch] as follows :-

"Hi, we live in Welgevonden Estate and for the last 2 nights have heard a farmer over the road spraying his vineyards at night. It has been quite windy and this morning we woke to find dead beetles on our front porch. Then checked the cars, full of some sticky substance. It can only be spray drift. Please can you urgently help us to fight this farmer (Blue Jay Farm). The drift falls onto the houses and not to mention the pizza restaurant 50m over the road from the farm. Let us know what we can do to take action against his indiscriminate pollution and poisoning.
Please can you post a link onto Facebook? I really belive we need wide support for this problem and having a facebook link will help create more awareness. Please let me know how I can help as I really want to help to bring the ban to Stellenbosch. We live in Welgevonden Estate and are surrounded by pesticide spraying farmers."

RESIDENT'S SURVEY RESULTS & COMPLAINTS ARE AVAILABLE HERE :

https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=GMoIFOPsr9Ih262nFAUEdgERPxFEBdP0hTuN39WhLgs_3d.

There are 38 comments to be found in the "additional comments" section at the end of question 3

Having been caught in spray drift, from the very same farm, as we drove past Welgevonden Estate on the R44, we knew from past experience that spray drift in this area was indeed a well documented problem. We therefore contacted the latest complainant in order to get more information and in this regard received a copy of correspondence between the Welgevonden resident and Sandra Jeffery of Timberlea Farming Trust.

Click here to read the email : http://www.scribd.com/doc/74213464/Timberlea-21-Sept-2011

Sandra Jeffery had also attached a number of very impressive documents and certifications, indicating that Timberlea did indeed comply with various standards. A close inspection of the documents has revealed that they are more concerned with the "Maximum Residue Levels " [MRL's] ie the levels of pesticide still found on the fruit itself, than the actual spraying methods used to control pests and diseases within the vineyards and orchards.

Whilst the MRL's may comply with the acceptable levels as per the various certifications, this does not mean that the products sprayed are safe, by exposure, when sprayed. Almost all fungicides and pesticides have a statutory "withholding period" which in some cases can be 120 days. This means that the crop must not be sprayed less than 120 days before being harvested as then the MRL's will be too high and thus harmful to humans. So what about the high levels during spraying, that get blown into peoples gardens and houses ? Ones gardens, lawns and other household surfaces can remain contaminated, and toxic, for some time, where children playing on the lawn for example, could come into contact with the toxic fall-out.

Most of the pesticides & fungicides used today are toxic. Many of them are known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and developmental /reproductive toxins. Children are particularly at risk by exposure.

Your average 'gifsmous' will say that the pesticides and fungicides are as poisonous as the salt in the Marmite in your toast, and the farmer's tend to believe this. They believe that if they dont spray their crops, before they get sick, then they will suffer huge damages.

We at TATIB believe in the "Precautionary Principle " and that is to rather assume that a fungicide /pesticide is unsafe until such time as it has been proven to be safe, and not the other way around. Professor London and other international experts all agree that more than often its the "cocktail" of fungicides/pesticides that are more toxic than single product spraying. They are also of the opinion that the inactive or "inert" ingredients are often more toxic than the active ingredients.

Products that were sprayed years ago, and were considered to be so safe for use, have now been banned or withdrawn after further tests and studies have shown that they are highly toxic and cause cancer for example. Chlorpyrifos, a household name for use in gardens, that had previously been considered so safe, was banned in SA last year, as tests proved that it was not only highly toxic but also extremely dangerous to children. Whilst it has been banned for residential use, its still used on the vineyards and orchards of the Western Cape.

On behalf of the residents that had contacted us, we sent a letter to Timberlea Farming Trust on 21 November 2011, a copy of which can be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74217007/Tatib-to-Timberlea-21112011

The above letter was also copied to : Angela Andrews, Legal Resources Centre Cape Town, Leon Du Toit & Anton Nothnagel Legislative Inspectors, Department of Agriculture Cape Town, Marius Engelbrecht , Air Quality Officer , Cape Winelands District Municipality Stellenbosch.

Leon Du Toit :              leondt@daff.gov.za   &   leondt@nda.agric.za
Anton Nothnagel:        AntonN@nda.agric.za
Marius Engelbrecht:   mariuse@capewinelands.gov.za

The TATIB Foundation did not receive the courtesy of a response, to our email of 21 November 2011, from Timberlea Farm. Instead we received an email from their attorneys on 28 November 2011, a copy of which can be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74217875/281111-Tatib

Why have Timberlea chosen to not supply us with details as to what they have been spraying? Looking at the number of reports made on the Welgevonden Estate FaceBook page, there was indeed spraying on the night of 18 November 2011. Why was spraying done under cover of darkness ? Does Timberlea have something to hide ? Why have Timberlea chosen to rather hand this matter over to their attorneys ? What would Woolworths, Marks & Spencer and Waitrose think about all of this?

From our experience with the Riebeek-Kasteel farmer, once one is found to be in contravention of the various laws, with regards to one's spraying, one then may lose one's GlobalGap / EurepGap & Natures Choice Accreditation .

The well documented problem of spray drift in Stellenbosch has received a lot of media attention of late. In this regard The TATIB Foundation have held, and attended, a number of meetings in the area, with both Stellenbosch Municipality and Cape Winelands District Municipality.

In November 2009, The Legal Resources Centre, Cape Town, sent a letter to both Municipalities as follows :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932608/2009-11-30-Letter-to-Cape-Winelands-Municipality

In January 2010 we hosted 2 large meetings at The Sustainability Institute , which were attended by a large number of irate residents and also Municipal and Provincial Officials. Following these meetings, Stellenbosch Municipality held two internal meetings, the minutes of which are available here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54571525/Minutes-2010-05-25

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54571443/Minutes-2010-05-12

Despite the undertakings made by both Stellenbosch Municipality & Cape Winelands District Municipality , nothing seems to have been done to protect the residents from unlawful spray drift.

We have, after receiving notifications from farmers, compiled a list of what is sprayed on the average vineyard in the Western Cape :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47940155/List-of-Pesticides-Sprayed-on-Vineyards-in-Western-Cape

Experts at the LRC have prepared the following report on the above list :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932719/Synoptic-List1

PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT POLICY can be found here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74220878/Pesticide-Management-Policy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934951/PCO-REG-18-12-09

FRENCH WINE FARMER DIES OF LEUKAEMIA :

http://blog.imva.info/medicine/face-poisoned-man

PROFESSOR LESLIE LONDON :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47940120/Prof-London-Cape-Times

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION REPORTS :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50489909/End-of-the-Road-for-Endosulfan

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74221087/Whats-Your-Poison-2

RACHEL CARSON

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74221954/Rachel-Carson-Memorial-Lecture

PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA:
http://www.panna.org/science/drift

THE GREEN TIMES:

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=1337&id=6&storyaction=viewstory

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php/en/stories/vulnerable-people/item/570-world-war-neurotoxin-poisons-waterfront-diners

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php/en/stories/vulnerable-people/item/580-plumstead-family-displaced-from-poisoned-house

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php/en/stories/vulnerable-people/item/582-poison-saga-continues-nobody-takes-responsibility

SPRAY DRIFT

2011-11-21T16:34:00.000-08:00

Very informative site on "spray drift "

http://www.panna.org/science/drift

Monsanto, Bayer & Dow Face Trial !!

2011-11-19T02:06:00.001-08:00

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1122020/monsanto_bayer_and_dow_face_trial_for_systematic_human_rights_abuses.html

Toxic Timbers Continued ......

2011-10-31T04:02:00.000-07:00

There has been an update to the toxic timber story by The Green Times.

Please click the link below :

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?id=0&storyid=1547&storyaction=viewstory&storytype=1

TOXIC ROUNDUP

2011-10-10T18:59:00.000-07:00

And to think, that the farmer in Riebeek-Kasteel and his gifsmous-cum-purveyor of poison both stated that Roundup is as poisonous as the salt in the Marmite on one's toast, and that you could drink it!!

See more on Roundup by clicking the link below :

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/argentinasRoundupHumanTragedy.php#.TpL1q_wUNaE.facebook

CHARGES LAID AGAINST DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY, PAARL.

2011-10-10T02:21:00.000-07:00

Over the years, The TATIB Foundation has received a large number of complaints from residents of Paarl, following their exposure to spray drift of toxic fungicides that Drakenstein Municipality has been spraying on the Oak trees that line the public streets. If you look back through the older posts you will see how the story has developed.

We have sent many letters to Drakenstein over the years, but they have continued to spray without any regard for public safety.

On 06 October 2010, we sent a letter to Cathy Bill of the Green Scorpions . See link below :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170080/Letter-to-Cathy-Bill-Re-Spraying-of-Oak-Trees

On 16 September 2011 at 05h25, a group of 8 cyclists who were training for a triathlon, were caught in spray drift on the corner of Market & Main Street in Paarl. There were immediate side effects of burning eyes, skin and irritation to upper respiratory tracts, and then lung problems after 4 days.

The TATIB Foundation sent an urgent email to Drakenstein's Albert vd Merwe and also to Drakenstein's attorneys on record, in an attempt to establish exactly what was sprayed so that the victims could get the necessary medical attention as a matter of priority. As expected, neither Drakenstein Municipality nor their attorneys responded.

TATIB investigated and it has been confirmed that Bumper/Tilt & Rubigan were sprayed.

The statutory Product Labels have the following warnings :-

( i ) Harmful when swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

( ii ) May irritate the eyes and skin.

(iii ) Toxic to fish and wildlife.

(iv ) Store in a cool, well ventilated place.

(v ) Store away from food and feed.

(vi) Keep out of reach of children, uninformed persons and animals

(vii) Handle with care.

(viii) Poisonous when swallowed or inhaled

(ix) Avoid spray drift onto other crops, grazing, rivers, dams and areas not under treatment.

(x) Use only as directed

TATIB can now confirm that Affidavits were deposed, and charges laid at the local SAPS on 08 October 2011 !!

Further information on Bumper & Tilt, their product labels, MSDS's and toxic breakdown products can be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170658/Tilt-label

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170742/Propiconazole-Toxicity-e

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170735/Bumper-Sticker

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170718/bumper250ec-msds

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170697/bumper250ec

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170689/Bumper

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170678/Amitrole-Toxicity-Ecolog

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68170662/03-1007006032009

Further information on Rubigan its product label, MSDS and toxic breakdown products can be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47935818/Rubigan-Label

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68171733/Naphthalene-Toxicity-Eco

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68171698/Fenarimol-Toxicity-Ecolo

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68171673/Solvent-Naphtha-Coal-150

We urge anyone who has come into contact with spray drift, with regards to the spraying of the Oak trees in Paarl [or Stellenbosch] to please make contact with us on : info@tatib.co.za

TOXIC TIMBERS - JUST HOW SAFE ARE THE TREATED TIMBERS IN YOUR HOME ??

2011-10-09T18:50:00.000-07:00

The full story can be found in The Green Times :

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?id=0&storyid=1489&storyaction=viewstory&storytype=1

As a result of the V&A Poisonings, The TATIB Foundation received a large number of emails from members of the public requesting help with similar cases of exposure to pesticides.

One of the complaints was from a couple who had purchased a house in Plumstead, Cape Town. They had discovered that the floorboards of their newly purchased house were riddled with borer beetle. In this regard they had contracted Pestokill to eradicate the infestation in December 2010. A poison called "Timberlife CTX 108" was sprayed and then poured onto the floorboards. To date, almost 1 year after the product was applied, the complainants have been unable to move back into their house, due to the fact that there is still considerable "off gassing" of toxic, volatile solvents coming from the floorboards that were treated with Timberlife CTX 108. [air sampling done inside the house has proven this]

Noseweek has just run a story "Useless Buggers" which can be found by clicking the link below :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68133987/Nose-Week

The victims have also written their account of the story here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68134137/Fumigation-Leads-to-Our-Own-Fukushima

After falling ill, and then reading about the V&A Poisonings, the complainants contacted us for help. The first thing that we did was to access Timberlife's website so as to download the statutory Product Labels in an attempt to find out what CTX 108 was made of.

Timberlife's website : www.timberlife.co.za

On their "company" section Timberlife states :

" However, at the end of the day it is the customer that dictates what he wants and it is therefore necessary to satisfy his needs. Our philosophy has always been to listen to the customer and whenever, work with him rather than against him. We therefore believe that “feed-back is the food of kings”.

We were unable to find the statutory Product Label nor the Material Safety Data sheets,

but only the CTX 108 Data Sheets . See link below :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68135238/CTX-108-Data-Sheet

This is where things started to become interesting !!
From past experience, with treated timber, our research had shown, that more than often [and this has been confirmed by international laboratory studies] the inactive ingredients are more toxic than the active ingredients. We took note, on the CTX 108 Data Sheet, that the active ingredients had been dissolved in "aromatic solvents". It was interesting that neither the names of the active ingredients nor the names of the actual "aromatic solvents" had been specified on the CTX 108 Data Sheets. Surely the end user, the "customer", has the right to know the ingredients of the product he is using or about to use so that he/she can make an informed decision with regards to the safety of a product?

Believing that "feedback is the food of kings" and that "the customer is always right " and hoping that Timberlife would bend over backwards to give us the information that we needed, we sent Timberlife a couple of emails, in which we requested that they send us the statutory Product Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets [ as required by law] . We also asked that they give us details of not only the active ingredients, but also the inactive ingredients of Timberlife CTX 108.

They did not respond directly and instead got their attorneys to send us the Material Safety Data Sheets together with a strongly worded letter in which they not only reserved their rights but also threatened to take legal action against us.

Our intention was never to hold Timberlife liable for the damage to the health and property of the complainants [a High Court date has already been set with regards to the damages claim being made against Pestokill the company that applied the product] but to simply get more information from them, the suppliers of the product, as we felt that they had a "duty of care" to furnish us, and the victims, with details as to the side effects and toxicity of their product so that steps could be taken to prevent any further damage to the health of the complainants, especially now that they have a 5 month old baby girl. It was never our intention to "harm" Timberlife's business, after all our requests were submitted to them and only them, and all we were asking for was statutory information, not trade secrets!! Timberlife did not apply the CTX 108 and so cannot be blamed for the unlawful application made by Pestokill. But as the manufacturers of the product they really should, in our opinion, have been prepared to furnish us all with the information that we had requested.

Do you, the end user, have the right to know the ingredients of a product that you have purchased ? Do you as a consumer, have the right to do your own research so as to establish the safety of a product that you will come into close contact with on a daily basis ?

We have managed to get a copy of the statutory Product Label from the National Department of Agriculture, which can be found at the following link :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68139880/CTX108-Product-Label

Take note that the product contains :

Cypermethrin [synthetic pyrethroid]
TCMTB : 2-[thiocyanomethylthio] benzothiazole [organosulphur compound]
Aliphatic and aromatic petroleum solvents [Fluidar 100 and others]

The Material Safety Data Sheets are available here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68591705/Material-Data-Sheet-CTX-108

It's now also come out, that CTX 108 contains Fluidar100, which in turn contains Benzene.

Note the highlighted warnings on the attached Product Label for Fluidar 100 :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68147341/Fluidar-100

More on Cypermethrin , a suspected carcinogen and possible endocrine disruptor can be found here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68144388/CYPERMETHRIN
&
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/airline-pays-out-euro50000-in-pestkiller-spray-case-2842846.html

More on TCMTB, a possible carcinogen, can be found here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68144849/TCMTB

More on Benzene, a known carcinogen & reproductive / developmental toxin, and aliphatic / aromatic solvents can be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68145294/Benzene
&
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68145497/Aliphatic-Aromatic-Solvents

Following further tests, on the soil in and around the house and below the timber floors, the risk manager for Wasteman Holdings, has we have been told, indicated that the degree of contamination was very serious indeed and may entail wider environmental impacts.

It has recently been confirmed that the National Department of Agriculture has laid charges.

NEWSFLASH : V&A POISONINGS

2011-08-27T16:37:00.000-07:00

TATIB has received news that the National Department of Agriculture [NDA] has "opened a case" against the V&A and that NDA officials are in consultation with The Director of Public Prosecutions. It has also been confirmed that a case has also been opened with the National Department of Health.

The TATIB Foundation sent an email to Emma King of Corporate Image asking for answers to our questions. Needless to say, she has not responded.

Click here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63377227/TATIB-to-Emma-King-Corporate-Image

V&A WATERFRONT "COVERS UP" ??

2011-08-20T21:55:00.000-07:00

The exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a deadly organophosphate poison, of 08 August 2011 drew a lot of media attention [ see earlier post " Banned Organophosphate toxin sprayed at V&A Waterfront Cape Town ]

The V&A employed the services of Corporate Image, a public affairs company with a particular focus on corporate communications, media liaison, crisis communication and issues management.

In other words the V&A has paid someone else to put out the fires and do a quick PR job!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62744199/Email-From-Corporate-Image-19-August-2011

Two recent newspaper articles have been published as follows :

SUNDAY TRIBUNE 20 AUGUST 2011 " I KNOW I WAS POISONED"

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/i-know-i-was-poisoned-1.1121758

WEEKEND ARGUS 20 AUGUST 2011 " EXPERTS TO NEUTRALISE CHEMICAL RESIDUE-V&A"

http://capeargus.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

The V&A has now criticised patrons for making “unfounded” claims of illness ??

Just who do they think they are kidding ?

If you read through the previous post and have a look at the Product Labels, you will very quickly see just how toxic chlorpyrifos is. Its for this reason that its been banned for all use in South Africa besides Agricultural use, as studies have shown that it is not only an endocrine disruptor and nerve toxin, but also leads to Autism & ADD in children!! And the V&A states that "there is no significant evidence to show any lasting effects from short-term exposure to the pesticide " ?? We would say that Autism & ADD are pretty long term side effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos !!

Why then is exposure to chlorpyrifos certifiable in South Africa - which means that if one is exposed to it, ones doctor has to notify the National Department of Health ?

If you go to www.galileogroup.blogspot.com

you will see a lot of information with regards the Dept Of Health and how they reacted to the poisonings at the Chameleons Montessori School in Durbanville.

We spoke with Gerrit Van Wyk of the Dept of Health, and he admitted that they [Dept of Health] are understaffed and simply dont have enough resources to run any studies.

With regards to Chameleons Montessori, Mr Van Wyk stated that the Toxicology Dept at Tygerberg had stated that there is no long term effects of exposure to pesticides. When questioned further, he stated that there is no information & evidence available in SA of what exposure to these chemicals may cause. Tygerberg has since confirmed this. And so the statement can easily be mis-interpreted. The bottom line is that there is just not enough evidence and so its best to err on the side of caution.

Professor Leslie London has stated that there is little data available on many of the pesticides relating to various health issues. He states that the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no evidence, merely that it's not been investigated yet. He also states that there is lack of human resources in Gov Depts and that the best toxicologists probably work for the chemical manufacturers. He goes on to say that organophosphates can actually mimic flue if there is a low exposure and that it can present like headaches, dizziness and upper respiratory tract symptoms.

http://galileogroup.blogspot.com/2010/10/transcript-of-talk-given-by-prof-l.html

Prof London, in an article a few years back stated " the government has failed to control dangerous spraying.What's going on in Riebeek Kasteel is a very good example of three or four government departments who can't co-ordinate and sort out the problem."

How dare the V&A, via its appointed PR company, state that the claims made by the victims are

"unfounded" ??

People were exposed to Chlorpyrifos and they became ill. They certainly are not "faking" it!!

The V&A further states that "there is no significant evidence to show any lasting ill-effects from short-term exposure to the pesticide " We would love them to present proof as to where they got this information, as there are many international studies that have been done that prove, beyond all doubt, that even a once off exposure to chlorpyrifos can have serious long term health effects. The V&A are starting to sound very much like Gerrit Van Wyk of the Dept of Health !!

Chlorpyrifos may very well be quickly eliminated by the body, but there are just no local studies in South Africa as to long term health effects further down the line and this is backed up by Professor Leslie London who is the authority, in South Africa, on exposure to pesticides.

From information that TATIB has received from the victims [those who fell ill after being sprayed] , they have not received calls from Environmental Health / Dept of Health & Dept of Agriculture. In other words no Governmental officials have as yet taken a written complaint from the victims. TATIB has information that the victims have deposed Affidavits and lodged same with the Police and that they also have been examined by their GP's and that the GP's have sent off the paperwork to the Dept of Health - not that there is any cure for exposure to Chlorpyrifos. All that can be done, in South Africa, is to test for lowered cholinesterase levels and even this is not accurate as one would first have to establish a base line "before" exposure.

In the past, The TATIB Foundation has laid many a complaint with the Dept of Agriculture [NDA] and we know that they can take several months, if not longer, to gather all the information, interview the victims, get the affidavits deposed and to then investigate further. As matters stand, it been less than 2 weeks since the poisonings and the Dept of Agriculture could not have completed its investigations in such a short time period, and so the statement made by the V&A along the lines of " The Dept of Agriculture had raised no concerns over the incident" is dubious to say the least.

Professor Verdoorn, spokesperson for AVCASA has made reference that they [V&A ] have used a banned substance and that they should be penalised. And Verdoorn is someone who appears to be "pro pesticide" as he is spokesperson for AVCASA and has had a lot to say about how beneficial pesticides are.

Yet the V&A alleges that the NDA has no concerns over the fact that they sprayed a banned organophosphate poison against Product Label and Act 36 of 1947? Just who are they kidding ?? Do they honestly believe that the NDA does not mind that they sprayed a banned pesticide and that they broke the law ?? And they expect us to believe this ?

The SA Pest Control Association and Rentokill have termed the incident "wholly avoidable" furthermore stating that "using a banned pesticide in a crowded environment is potentially disastrous" .

Chlorpyrifos was banned for all use, except agricultural use, in May 2010. The Minister of Agriculture has banned it for a very good reason - and that is because it is highly toxic. We wonder what the Minister of Agriculture would think of the allegations made by the V&A that the Dept of Agriculture has raised no concerns over the incident ?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62742050/Chlorpyrifos-Banned-in-Sa

Conchem-Saligna, the company who supplied the toxic pesticide to the V&A has stated that the V&A will dispose of their own chlorpyrifos. Conchem-Saligna BEE further states that they [Conchem] removed all chlorpyrifos containing products from their premises BEFORE the date of the ban and that they have NEVER sold any one again. Yet they neglected to inform those to whom they had sold the product, that it had subsequently been banned ? Kobus Conradie of Conchem-Saligna BEE has stated that both he and his son, did the AVCASA course many years ago. He also sent us a "Certificate" showing that he did the AVCASA course in 1996. That was a long time ago and so many more chemicals have been banned since then. Perhaps its time for a "refresher" course. Also Act 36 of 1947 is very old and the Minister has identified the shortcomings of the Act and recently released the new "Pesticide Management Policy"

This is where we need to have a "cradle to grave" clause added to Act 36 of 1947, so that both the manufacturers and suppliers will be held accountable to ensure that banned and obsolete pesticides are recalled and then disposed of in the correct manner.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932103/Pesticide-Management-Policy

The V&A have stated that they have arranged for the product's removal and lawful disposal [we hope safe disposal] from their premises. As the V&A have been using this product since 2009, all over the V&A, just how do they propose to "de-contaminate" & "neutralise" all the public areas ? What proof do we have that they have even done this ? Have any members of the public seen this happening ? Do they even know where their uninformed worker even sprayed the product ?

WHERE IS THE PROOF ?? That's our challenge to you V&A Waterfront !!!!

You have presented no proof that chlorpyrifos is not toxic and that short term exposure to it poses no long term or serious health threats.

You have presented no proof that in fact the NDA and Dept of Health have even investigated the matter. You have attempted to discredit the victims by stating that they have lied and exaggerated. You have retained the services of a "crisis management " PR company to tick all the boxes and say all the right things . Do you really think that you can pull the wool over the eyes of your valued patrons ?

If you truly believe that being sprayed , once off, with Pyrinex 480EC wont be damaging to YOUR health, well then put your money where your mouth is. We will arrange for you, and your PR lady, to be sprayed with a "diluted" mixture of the pesticide.

BANNED ORGANOPHOSPHATE TOXIN SPRAYED AT V&A WATERFRONT CAPE TOWN

2011-08-20T19:14:00.000-07:00

On 08 August, several people who were having lunch at the Mug & Bean restaurant V&A Waterfront Cape Town, were sprayed with Pyrinex 480 EC a pesticide containing a highly toxic, banned organophosphate named Chlorpyrifos.

THE GREEN TIMES : "WORLD WAR NEUROTOXIN POISONS WATERFRONT DINERS"
http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=1337&id=6&storyaction=viewstory

WEEKEND ARGUS: "POISON SCARE AT V&A "

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62740314/Weekend-Argus-v-amp-a-13-August-2011

SATURDAY INDEPENDENT :" WATERFRONT USED NERVE GAS AROUND EATERY"

http://www.tios.co.za/waterfront-used-nerve-gas-around-eatery-1.1116954

Within days, and as more victims fell ill, The TATIB Foundation started receiving requests for help.

One of the victims managed to take a couple of photos of the 5 litre plastic container containing the poison and of the knapsack sprayer, and to email these to the TATIB Foundation on 11 August 2011.

When we discovered that Pyrinex 480EC contained Chlorpyrifos we immediately phoned the V&A and then sent them an email attached herewith :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62740523/Email-to-v-amp-a-Waterfront-11-August-2011-1

We received a reply from Colin Devenish, of the V&A as follows :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62740604/Email-From-v-a-Waterfront-12-August-2011

We then sent an email to Makhteshim-Agan SA, the manufacturer of the poison as follows:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62740689/Email-to-Makhteshim-12-August-2011

Makhteshim have still not responded to this email, despite our making an international phone call to them as a result of which they undertook to send us the information that we requested. We are still waiting!!

We contacted a number of suppliers of the product in order to get them to confirm when the batch in question was manufactured, as the V&A were insisting that they purchased the pesticide in September 2009 and as such did not know that it had been banned. One one of the suppliers came back to us with the confirmation that the top line of numbers 2011 06 07 is the date of manufacture and the bottom row of numbers is the batch number. We assume therefore, based on the information that we have been given, and due to the fact that Makhteshim have not bothered to respond to us, that the batch in question was made in 2011 and not 2009.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62740912/Email-From-Agri-Gro-12-August-2011

On 12 August 2011, we sent a detailed email back to Colin Devenish of the V&A Waterfront in which we also attached the Product Labels and other statutory documents. We have attached a copy of this email via the link below [excuse the formatting as it has been converted from email to pdf ]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62741591/Email-to-V-amp-A-12-August-2011

The various attachments to this email can be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62741735/Pyrinex-480-EC-PDF

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62741861/Chlorpyrifos-480-EC-E-Villa-Label

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62742050/Chlorpyrifos-Banned-in-Sa

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62742269/ICSC-0851-CHLORPYRIFOS

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62742546/PyrinexENGDec2008

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62743878/Strike-Out-Label
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934951/PCO-REG-18-12-09

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932103/Pesticide-Management-Policy

It is clearly evident, if you read through the documents above, that Chlorpyrifos is a highly toxic organophosphate poison. The warnings on the Product Labels make clear reference to the toxicity and also the side effects

We reported this incident to the National Department of Agriculture, giving them details of the complainants and received an email back from them on 17 August 2011, confirming that they are investigating the matter.

From information relayed to us by a number of victims, the National Department of Agriculture has not yet contacted them, as at 21 August 2011, in order to take official statements. In past exposures to agricultural toxins, the National Dept of Agriculture has taken several weeks , if not months, to fully investigate a complaint and their modus operandi has been to always insist that the complainants submit signed and stamped Affidavits, clearly detailing what happened.

A copy of the email received from the NDA can be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/62743493/Email-From-NDA-17-August-2011

We have also recommended that the complainants/victims depose Affidavits at their nearest police station and furthermore than they get their doctors to fill out the necessary forms - as exposure to organophosphates is certifiable under the Health Act and a copy would need to be sent, by the examining doctor, to the National Dept of Health. From the information relayed to us, we understand that this has been done.

From our past experience, in similar matters, it can take several months for the National Dept of Health to acknowledge receipt of the relevant paperwork, and then several more months for both them and the NDA to in fact commence with an investigation. Both departments have very limited resources and do not, for example have sufficient funding to even run case studies on the toxicity of chlorpyrifos. This has been mentioned previously on this blogspot with links to newspaper articles in which Prof Verdoorn, amongst others, talks more about this. If you also go and read up on www.galileogroup.blogspot.com you will come across a discussion on the Dept of Health and how they reacted to the poisonings at the Chameleons Montessori School and how they admitted that they simply did not have enough local information as to the toxicity and case studies - face it - South Africa is a 3rd World Country and we are so very far behind in so many ways.

So what is the way forward through all of this ? Is it going to be the consumer who will, at the end of the day, force things to change ?

CHAMELEONS MONTESSORI ON CARTE BLANCHE

2011-08-19T01:16:00.000-07:00

CARTE BLANCHE STORY :

http://beta.mnet.co.za/carteblanche/Article.aspx?ID=4384

In October 2010 we posted a comment about Chameleons Montessori, a private school located on Nitida Wine Farm in Durbanville.

The TATIB Foundation had received reports from parents whose children had become ill, following their alleged exposure to the agricultural chemicals [insecticides, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides] that were sprayed onto the vineyards adjacent to the school. We had also received reports from a teacher alleging that she too had fallen ill. Our investigations revealed that there certainly was spray drift and in this regard we managed to obtain a list, from the farmer, of what had been sprayed on the adjacent vineyards and the farm as a whole.

A group of parents got together and formed the Galileo Group:

The full expose can be found here.

http://www.galileogroup.blogspot.com/

The schools owners & management continued to deny the allegations as is clearly evident if you read through the link above. In order to put out the fires, the school approached Prof Leslie London & Dr Andrea Rother of UCT and got them to run a series of tests at the school in March 2011, which analysed the air, soil and grass clippings from around the school.

The summary report can be found below as follows :-

Summary

Introduction: Pesticides are chemicals that are used to protect crops against harmful pests. Pesticide drift is dependent on the wind and temperature conditions, distance from the spraying areas, the method of spraying and the volatility of the chemical sprayed. Potential health risks arising from exposure to pesticides in a school environment through pesticide drift is a concern facing children and employees at schools in rural farming locations worldwide. Such concerns about pesticide drift from neighboring vineyards affecting children attending school were raised by parents at the Chameleons School, situated in a rural farming district on the edge of an urban suburb of Cape Town, Western Cape in February 2010. The School consists of a Primary school, which is situated on a Farm (called Farm A for the report) adjacent to its vineyards, and a pre-school which is situated right on the border of another farm’s vineyard (called Farm B for this report).
Design: The study was planned as a before-after design, measuring levels of environmental exposure before, during and after pesticide application activities on the neighbouring farms. The hypothesis tested was that spraying on farm B would drift onto the Pre-school and that spraying on Farm A would drift onto the Primary school. Although a third phase was planned to sample after the spraying season, the findings from the first two phases appear sufficient to answer the study questions about spray drift without requiring a third follow up.
Methods: Three types of pesticide samples, namely air, dust and grass, were collected at the two Chameleons Montessori Schools (preschool and primary school) located on farm A. The sample collection was done at baseline before spraying was said to have started on the farms and then repeated during spraying in two separate samples. Samples were collected in air, dust and grass cuttings. The samples were tested for pesticides by an accredited laboratory using a multi-residue methods that tests for 126 different pesticides. Of these 126 pesticides, 7 were pesticides reported as applied on farms neighbouring the school. There were a further 7 pesticides reported as applied on the farm that could not be measured by the laboratory. These latter agents were pesticides of low acute toxicity and not noted in the literature as pesticide of concern.
Results:
1. The presence of pesticides
The study found the presence of pesticide residues in air, dust and grass samples both before spraying was reported to have started (baseline period) on farms and during the spraying period at both schools. The patterns of detection were broadly consistent with the use patterns reported on both farms A and B, with the timing of reported applications and with climatic conditions observed and reported in the area at the time of data collection. In particular, the findings of Boscalid (in air samples), Brompropylate (in dust samples), Dimethomorph (in dust samples) and penconazole (in air and in grass samples) were all consistent by timing and location with evidence of spray drift. These findings suggest there is drift taking place from neighbouring farms for these pesticides.
The presence of Kresoxim-methyl could not be directly explained by spray on neighbouring farms but followed a pattern of being absent at baseline and being present in dust and air samples during the spray season. Kresoxim-methyl is registered for use on vineyards and may have drifted onto the School from farms other than those on the school boundaries.
Endosulfan was detected in air and grass samples, though no pattern of timing consistent with a date of application was clear and, although it was initially on the spray list to be applied for farm B, both farms indicated they did not apply it. However, given its persistence and it use solely as an agricultural chemical, it is very likely to arise from agricultural application on farms in the area, even if not from neighbouring farms. These findings involving endosulfan and Kresoxim-methyl may signal a wider problem of environmental pesticide drift in the entire farming areas, not specific to the Chameleons site, which may warrant separate investigation.
A further set of pesticides detected both during the non-spraying baseline and the spraying period (chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, permethrin and pyriproxyfen) were agents that probably were present as a result of non-agricultural applications for household, veterinary or garden purposes. There was no temporal or geographical patterning consistent with external application. These findings suggest these pesticides were present as a result of household pesticide application.
The Quality Assurance measurements suggest that the laboratory did not over-identify pesticides, and achieved adequate precision in its estimates of concentrations.
2. The concentrations of pesticides detected and health implications
The concentrations of pesticides found in this study were generally low in comparison to similar studies overseas. There are almost no standards available globally for permissible exposures to the pesticides detected in this study in grass, dust and air, the only exception being the USEPA standard for endosulfan in air. The levels in this study were well below that EPA standard for endosulfan. Concentrations of chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, cypermethrin and permethrin detected in the schools were generally lower, or of the same order of magnitude as samples in control sites from other studies, or comparable to ambient concentrations found in a Canadian study of environmental air sampling. The control site at UCT of dust in offices also demonstrated levels of chlorpyrifos, cypermenthrin and permethrin higher than those detected in the study at the schools. In no cases were lower concentrations reported in comparable studies.
Although not directly comparable, Maximum Residue Levels for pesticides on grapes permitted by the Department of Health were higher than concentrations found in grass samples at both schools. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the pesticide concentrations detected in grass were low. Nonetheless, given the lack of health based-standards for all but endosulfan, and consistent with the precautionary principle, it would be prudent to take action to reduce exposures as far as possible.
Conclusions: Firstly, the study has suggested that there is evidence for spray drift into the school, as well as potential non-agricultural routes for exposure (use of household pesticides and ornamental or veterinary pesticides). Secondly, the concentrations detected in air, dust and grass are low relative to studies published in other countries and to analogous benchmarks. Thirdly, the detection of pesticides that were not applied on neighbouring farms but which are in use in agricultural production in the area, may signify a broader problem of environmental pesticide drift which requires wider investigation by the relevant authorities. The data are sufficient convincing to suggest that there is no need for a third phase of sampling and that resources could be better spent on monitoring interventions to reduce exposure.
There are possible ways to reduce pesticide drift and its consequences which include use of application methods with less potential for drift, restriction of applications when climatic conditions facilitate drift, establishing barriers on the school perimeter, administrative controls to reduce spraying times or outdoor activity during spraying, targeted housekeeping measures to clear pesticides in dust, avoiding use of domestic pest control agents containing pesticides of concern and education of staff and contractors. In the long-term, changes to the form of agricultural production, including reduced use of pesticides, use of Integrated Pest Managmeent (IPM) and movement to organic agriculture will reduce the risk of drift. We also recommend the school introduce regular monitoring to track the effectiveness of containment and mitigation measures that are implemented. We also propose that the authorities investigate the broader problem of pollution from spray drift affecting the area generally, given evidence suggesting that pesticides were drifting into the school from farms other than those adjacent to the school.

ENDOSULFAN is a persistant organic pollutant [endochlorine] , it is acutely toxic and also an endocrine disruptor.
BANNED worldwide inc in South Africa.

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35085
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc40.htm
http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?id=15&storyid=1044&storyaction=viewstory&storytype=1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16647089/Phasing-in-Alternatives-to-Endosulfan
http://www.cathnewsindia.com/2011/05/13/endosulfan-banned/
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india-agrees-to-endosulfan-ban-102347

CHLORPYRIFOS is a toxic organophosphate poison.
BANNED for use in houses, parks and schools in South Africa from May 2010. In other words there should not be residues in and around the school insofar household & garden purposes are concerned as its been banned for such use. It is however not banned for Agricultural use. More than likely Nitida has been using chrlorpyrifos. Most wine / grape farmers do use it - so I dont see why Nitida has not used it.

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33392
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v99pr03.htm
http://www.pcsib.org.za/articles/Guillotene-on-chlorpyrifos.pdf
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/188/50941.html
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/harmful-pesticide-banned-in-sa-1.485733
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/sa-bans-chemical-linked-to-add-1.485764
http://www.lrc.org.za/press-releases/1233-2010-05-31-department-of-agriculture-bans-chlorpyrifos-as-an-active-ingredient-for-household-home-garden-and-domestic-pesticide-use

KRESOXIM METHYL is a known carcinogen

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v098pr10.htm

TATIB Launch DVD

2011-06-16T19:20:00.003-07:00

The TATIB launch "dvd" can be found here :

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150332138862564&oid=254202770665&comments

Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems

2011-06-09T16:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html?ref=fb&src=sp

Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.

The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.

But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.

It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders.

NIOSH Study Confirms Pesticide Drift Hazards Posed by Conventional Agriculture

2011-06-07T20:08:00.000-07:00

It is time for people [and this one if for you Prof Gerhard Verdoorn!!] in the industry to realize the effect of pesticide drift on human health, as proven in this study. (Symptoms aren't always the side effects of medicine and symptoms of drug abuse as claimed by the industry!)

Page 14 of "The Study " : "... data suggest that residents in agriculture-intensive regions have a 69 times higher risk of pesticide poisoning from drift exposure compared to other regions".

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2011) A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and state agency partners finds that pesticide drift from conventional, chemical-intensive farming has poisoned thousands of farmworkers and rural residents in recent years. According to the authors, agricultural workers and residents in agricultural regions were found to have the highest rate of pesticide poisoning from drift exposure, and soil fumigations were a major hazard causing large drift incidents.

The study, “Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural Applications — 11 States, 1998–2006,” was published June 6, 2011 in the online edition of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Using data from NIOSH’s Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) - Pesticides Program and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the study identifies 2,945 cases of pesticide poisoning associated with agricultural pesticide drift in 11 states. While the study focuses on top agriculture producing states, it provides only a snapshot of the poisoning of farmworkers and other rural residents nationally and around the world. Advocates also point out that pesticide poisoning is often underreported by farmworkers. According to the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation, only one percent of California pesticide illness or injury is reported.

Of the cases attributed to pesticide drift examined in this study, 47% had exposures at work and 14% were children (<15 years). Most experienced “low severity” illness. The overall incidence (in million person-years) is 114.3 for agricultural workers, 0.79 for other workers, 1.56 for non-occupational cases, and 42.2 for residents in five agriculture-intensive counties in California. Soil applications with fumigants are responsible for the largest proportion (45%) of cases. Aerial applications account for 24% of cases. Study findings show that the risk of illness resulting from drift exposure is largely borne by agricultural workers, and the incidence (114.3/million worker-years) was 145 times greater than that for all other workers.

While this study focuses only on acute poisoning due to pesticide drift, an increasing number of studies are linking low level agricultural pesticide exposure to chronic health impacts. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database features dozens of studies linking common diseases, from asthma and autism to Parkinson’s disease and cancer, to pesticide drift and other agricultural exposures.

Pesticide spray drift is typically the result of small spray droplets being carried off-site by air movement. The main weather factors that cause drift are wind, humidity and temperature changes. Aside from poisoning people and animals, drift can injure foliage, shoots, flowers and fruits resulting in reduced yields, economic loss and illegal residues on exposed crops.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated that people support a healthy work environment for farmworkers by choosing organic food and supporting the work of farmworker advocacy organizations. For more information going organic for farmworkers and rural residents, as well as for the your family’s health and the environment, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience web guide.

WHERE DID ALL THOSE PESTICIDES COME FROM? DR THEO COLBORN PhD TALKS ABOUT ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS

2011-05-25T17:28:00.000-07:00

A must see for everyone who wants to protect themselves and their children against toxic chemicals.
What did the chemical industry do to us, our children, our health and the environment.
Click on the following link and listen:

http://youtu.be/M1uwn9ZgMLE

Mail & Guardian and The Green Times

2011-05-16T19:05:00.000-07:00

More on the banning of Endosulfan can be found on :

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-05-20-hazardous-poisons-taken-off-the-shelf/

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?id=15&storyid=1044&storyaction=viewstory&storytype=1

STELLENBOSCH MUNICIPALITY COVERS UP???

2011-05-11T01:52:00.000-07:00

Following the large number of complaints received from the residents of Stellenbosch & Franschhoek, The Legal Resources Centre, on behalf of the TATIB Foundation, sent a letter to Stellenbosch Municipality on 30 November 2009 in which the problems of spray drift, of agricultural chemicals, were clearly documented.
A copy of the letter is to be found here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932608/2009-11-30-Letter-to-Cape-Winelands-Municipality

On 27 January 2010, The TATIB Foundation, together with a large number of Stellenbosch, Franschhoek & Paarl residents, met with representatives of Stellenbosch Municipality, Cape Winelands District Municipality, Provincial Administration Western Cape & the National Department of Agriculture. Following this meeting , Stellenbosch Municipality held two internal meetings on 12 May & 25 May 2010 respectively.
The links to the official minutes of these meetings are to be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54571443/Minutes-2010-05-12

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54571525/Minutes-2010-05-25

On 24 January 2011, The TATIB Foundation met with various representatives of Stellenbosch Municipality, at their offices in Stellenbosch. The press were evicted from this meeting.
The official minutes of the meeting can be found here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50827352/20110124-MINUTES-FINAL-16-Mar-4-

On 11 February 2011, our attorneys, under The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) sent a letter of request (together with a cheque payment as prescribed by law) to Stellenbosch Municipality, in which we requested further information and answers to several questions. Under Section 26 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000, Stellenbosch Municipality had 30 days to furnish TATIB with the requested information.
The PAIA application documents can be found here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48776699/Paia-Forms

On 18 March 2011, Keith Ford, Information Officer for Stellenbosch Municipality notified us of their intention to extend the time period by another 30 days.
The notice of this is to be found here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51341827/Access-to-info-Cullinan-Associations-18-3-11

On 14 April 2011, Keith Ford of Stellenbosch Municipality, furnished our attorneys with their response to our application.
The documentation is to be found here :-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54569850/Letter-to-Cullinan-amp-Assoc-Re-Access-to-Info-15-4-11

If you read through the documentation, and our comments below, you will see that Stellenbosch Municipality have not only wasted our time, and "strung us along" but they also appear to have not been honest with us and may also have attempted to cover up their lack of commitment to this well documented problem. Their "mediocre" response leaves a lot to be desired and makes us wonder why they took more than 60 days to furnish us with answers to our questions. As matters now stand, they have actually not bothered to provide us with the answers that we had requested in the first place, as according to them, they have no records.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO FOLLOW OUR COMMENTS BELOW.

With regards to Stellenbosch Municipality's response of 14 April 2010, The TATIB Foundation wishes to comment as follows :-

Cullinan & Associates, in their PAIA letter of 09 February 2011, Annexure A, requested the following :-

1(a) Please provide us with with an indication of whether or not the matter was held in abeyance and was to

be resubmitted at the next meeting of the Mayoral Committee, was indeed resubmitted at the next Mayoral Committee meeting and what the outcome was of that meeting.

1(b) Please provide us with a copy of the minutes of that meeting. Please also provide us with copies of the "regular progress" reports referred to under bullet point 2 above (see page 12 of minutes dated 12 May 2010)

Stellenbosch Municpality has answered 1a & 1b as follows : " Record does not exist"

TATIB finds this answer to be unacceptable. If you refer to Stellenbosch's Minutes of 12 May 2010, point (a) ,(b) & (c) on page 12 and the Minutes of the meeting of 25 May 2010 page 40-42, they make mention that not only was the initiative going to be endorsed in terms of the National AirQuality Act, but also that the costs for implementation would be investigated and that the administration would submit regular progress reports to the Council, the matter being held in abeyance and re-submitted at the next meeting of the Council.We find it strange therefore, that Keith Ford has stated that the requested record does not exist. Looks like a cover up does it not ?

2.1 Please provide us with details of the Municipality's Air Quality Officer ?

2.2 Please provide us with details and steps taken to prepare Stellenbosch Municipality's air quality management plan? Details of the person or consultancy appointed to complete the plan?The terms of reference used or provided to the person appointed to do the plan?Whether the Administration investigated the ancillary costs associated with the implementation of the project as required by the Mayoral Committee meeting (continued on 26 May 2010 at 42) ?Whether it was submitted to Council for finalization, as well as a copy of that document ?

Stellenbosch Municipality has answered 2.1 & 2.2 as follows : " Record does not exist"

TATIB finds this answer to be unacceptable. If you refer to Stellenbosch's Minutes of 12 May & 25 May 2010 respectively, you will see that specific reference is made to the fact that Jonathan May is a qualified environmental officer and that Gondwana Environmental Solutions be contacted to complete the draft of the Air Quality Management Plan for Stellenbosch Municipality and that consultancy fees be made available for investigation of the allegations according to the already approved budget.
We find it strange therefore that Keith Ford has no record of Jonathan May, despite the fact that an undertaking was made to not only investigate the allegations made by TATIB and numerous residents, but to also appoint Gondwana Environmental Solutions to complete the draft Air Quality Management Plan, according to a budget that had already been approved.
Advocate Alice Wilton, Law Enforcement, Stellenbosch Municipality, on page 33 of the minutes of the meeting of 24 Jan 2011 stated , in response to a question about the draft Air Quality Management plan stated, and I quote, " We have got a provisional quotation from the company (Gondwana Environmental Solutions? ) doing the investigation for us of approximately R300 000.” , " so they started the work and we .."

Brian Davidson, on page 32 & 33 of the minutes of 24 January 2011, in response to a question " Can we get a copy of the quote of R300 000.00?" ,stated and quote " No, No, No, No, No. Sorry that is an internal administrative document. I really do not see what the need of that requirement is in terms of …. We are getting quotes for stuff, you know, that is our business. Please you are going way beyond.” “….We already indicated that we got a quote with an estimate, but it will cost in the region of R300000, why do you need the quote?"

Keith Ford is of the opinion that no such record exists. In other words Stellebosch Municipality have no record of ever approaching Gondwana Environmental Solutions, nor any other consultancy, to prepare Stellenbosch Municipality's air quality management plan. Yet Alice Wilton (Law Enforcement) and Basil Davidson (Director Planning & Development) both stated, at the meeting of 24 January 2011 that a quotation
R300 000.00 had been received for this. Who is telling the truth here and who is not ? Why has Davidson refused to furnish us with a copy of the alleged quotation ? Could it be that no such quotation even exists and that no consultants were in fact ever requested to do the study ?

In other words, all the undertakings made, within the minutes of the meetings of 12 & 15 May 20101 never materialised, which in effect is a clear indication that Stellenbosch Municipality has not only wasted our time, but has ignored the complaints and requests made by not only The TATIB Foundation, but also by a large number of irate residents, students, parents of scholars, medical practitioners and environmental attorneys.

Possibly Stellenbosch Municipality has been so busy investigating and or attempting to possibly hide and conceal, all the alleged corruption within its walls, that it has simply swept the pesticide issue under the mat ? We leave it up to the readers to form their own opinion in this regard.

2.3 Please provide us with the list of agricultural chemicals, pesticides and fungicides that are being sprayed by farmers and the Municipality in and adjacent to the residential areas ?

2.4 Please also provide us with a list of agricultural chemicals, pesticides and fungicides that were being sprayed previously and also the products that are now being sprayed on the oak trees as well as the reasons as to when the oak trees are sprayed?

Stellenbosch Municipality answered 2.3 & 2.4 as follows : " Record does not exist " " NA"

TATIB finds this answer to be totally unacceptable. Portia Bolton, of Stellenbosch Municipality, on pages23- 25 of the minutes of 24 January 2011 is aware of what was sprayed previously and she also admits that she is aware of the toxicity of Bumper, Tilt & Rubigan. TATIB has information from the suppliers of these fungicides, that Stellenbosch Municipality did indeed use the products. There is also an admission that they now only
use some kind of foliar feed. Why the cover up ? How can Keith Ford honestly have no record of what was sprayed and what is sprayed ?

2.5 What steps were taken to ensure that this notice is given of the intention to spray any agricultural chemical, pesticide or fungicide adjacent to human settlements or schools prior to the application?

What steps were taken if the wind is blowing in the direction of residential areas to ensure that any planned spraying is delayed until the wind changes direction or there is no longer a danger that chemicals could be blown into residential areas ? What steps were taken by the Municipality to foster the use of less toxic agricultural chemicals, pesticides or fungicides in its area of jurisdiction? What steps were taken to review current bylaws to ensure the prevention of nuisances caused by pesticide drift and to comply with the Air Quality Act?

Stellenbosch Municipality answered 2.5 as follows: " N/A" " Record does not exist"

TATIB finds the answers to these questions to be totally unacceptable. Stellenbosch Municipality is the end user when it comes to the products that it sprays onto the Oak trees, It is also the end user when it comes to the herbicides that it uses to control and or eradicate weeds found on pavements and other public places. By law, it is required to notify all inhabitants, of the impending spraying by providing further details, and to issue the necessary warnings. Possibly Stellenbosch Municipality consider themselves to be above the law and do not view unlawful spray drift, of toxic agricultural chemicals, into its residential areas as a serious enough issue to take action?

The TATIB Foundation has all along maintained that Stellenbosch Municipality may have something to hide. They threw the journalists out of the meeting of 24 January 2011 as they did not want this matter to be made public. They have refused to furnish us with their official minutes of the meeting of the 24th and instead made it our responsibility to submit the minutes of OUR meeting that THEY assumed chairmanship of. Fortunately we have an audio recording of the meeting and so we have been able to submit accurate minutes in this regard.

Whilst the bureaucrats at Stellenbosch Municipality "beat about the bush" in an attempt to cover up not only the allegations regarding their alleged mis-management and supposed corruption, the children, students and residents of Stellenbosch & Franschhoek continue to be exposed to a deadly cocktail of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. One would have thought, that with the upcoming Municipal elections, they would have realised how important the health of their residents is, but alas it appears that "political in-fighting" has taken center stage.

ENDOSULFAN BANNED

2011-05-05T18:09:00.000-07:00

The TATIB Foundation announces global ban on Endosulfan

We are delighted to announce that with your support and after extensive review and debate, we have finally reached the end of the road for chemical pesticide Endosulfan.

Last Friday in Geneva, the nations of the world agreed that the pesticide Endosulfan is too toxic to have on the planet.

Country representatives at the fifth conference of parties (COP5) made the monumental decision to list Endosulfan under Annex A of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The listing will result in the global elimination of deadly pesticide Endosulfan. This global ban has powerful, real world impact : farm worker's children all over the world will have fewer birth defects, autism will be less likely in areas where crop spraying occurs on an almost daily basis, fewer residents of rural towns in the Western Cape, South Africa, will suffer serious side effects following their exposure to spray drift.

Thank you so much for your support on this campaign. The decision to eliminate Endosulfan is a major victory for people and planet.

Every cent, every letter to government and every minute of volunteer time has helped bring us closer to this – the end of the road for Endosulfan.

Each country is now responsible for ending its production and use within their borders within the next year. Only 3 countries - India, China and Uganda - registered exemptions for uses to control pests on specific crops including cotton, coffee, onions, potatoes, chillies, apples and mangoes. Use and production in these countries can continue for another 5 years.

The decision to globally ban endosulfan comes after a long campaign by The TATIB Foundation and others including the Pesticide Action Network, Thanal, and the Environmental Justice Foundation, to name but a few, highlighting scientific evidence of the threats posed by Endosulfan to the environment and human health. In South Africa, TATIB's chairman Jurgen Schirmacher has been campaigning for the last 6 years, to have Endoslufan banned for use on the vineyards, orchards & wheat fields of the Western Cape, following his family's exposure to the deadly pesticide.

The global ban reflects the worldwide support for an end to Endosulfan manufacture and use. Prior to the conference, more than 70 countries had already introduced national restrictions.

Thank you so much for helping us achieve this great result, we couldn't have done it without your support.

STELLENBOSCH MUNICIPALITY "STALLS" OUR REQUEST OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

2011-03-22T17:42:00.000-07:00

On 09 February 2011, our attorneys made a request, in terms of Section 26 of the Promotion of Access to Public Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA), that Stellenbosch Municipality furnish us with information and answers to certain questions. The information that we are seeking, is in the best interests of the public, ratepayers, property owners, students and residents of Stellenbosch.

We paid the prescribed fee and Ateeqa Hoosain (Senior Legal Advisor Stellenbosch Municipality: ateeqah@stellenbosch.org) acknowledged receipt of the request, and the cheque payment, on 11 February 2011.

Our attorney's request, under PAIA, is to be found here :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48776699/Paia-Forms

If you read "ANNEX A" on page 7 of the above document, it will be obvious to you, that the information we have requested from Stellenbosch Municipality is not only in the best public interest, but is also information that Stellenbosch Municipality should easily have at their disposal.

Under PAIA, Stellenbosch Municipality have to (by law) furnish us with the requested information within 30 days of such request.

In this regard, Keith Ford (Information Officer Stellenbosch Municipality: keithf@stellenbosch.org) , has "extended" the period by another 30 days. See his letter by clicking on the link below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51341827/Access-to-info-Cullinan-Associations-18-3-11

With regards to the above, we have a few questions:-

Why are Stellenbosch Municipality unable to provide us with answers to the questions that we put to them, under PAIA, on 09 February 2011.
As the information that we have requested is information that they should have at their disposal, why have they been unable to adhere to our request within the given time period. (they have had 41 days which they have now extended by another 30 days !!) ?
Why do they need more time ? What have they done to address this issue over the last 41 days?
Why have they ignored our requests that they furnish us with copies of the minutes of our meeting of 24 January 2011?
Why have they refused to answer the questions put to them by Norman McFarlane of Bolander newspaper ? Why have they attempted to 'coerce' him into a private, off the record meeting, rather than respond to him in writing ?
Do they have something to hide ?

Perhaps you, the readers can shed some light on this ? We value your opinions.

MINUTES OF MUNICIPAL MEETING

2011-03-15T17:52:00.000-07:00

On 24 January 2011, The TATIB Foundation met with various officials from Stellenbosch & Cape Winelands District Municipality.

As Basil Davidson of Stellenbosch Municipality appointed himself as "chairman" of the meeting of 24/01/2011 , TATIB requested that he / Stellenbosch Municipality, furnish us with the official minutes of the meeting.

As we have not received the minutes from Davidson, we have prepared and submitted our version of the minutes of the meeting, and can confirm that these have been sent out to all who were present, and that they have been approved.

Click here to read the official minutes :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50827352/20110124-MINUTES-FINAL-16-Mar-4-

On 11 February 2011, our attorneys, under The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) sent a letter of request (together with a cheque payment - as prescribed by law) to Stellenbosch Municipality (see our posting of 13 February 2011 " Why wont Stellenbosch Municipality Cooperate ?) in which we requested certain documentation.

We understand that Stellenbosch Municipality have now "cleared" the cheque payment and that they have until 20 March 2011 to furnish us with the requested information. As this information is in the best interests of the public, we shall upload it to this blogspot as soon as we have received it.

Stop endosulfan lobby’s effort to block global ban

2011-03-10T16:06:00.000-08:00

A known killer and toxic to the environment, the pesticide Endosulfan remains a serious health hazard.

Despite being banned in 62 countries, its continued production and use continues to poison and people and environments as a number of countries, led by India, stand in the way of a global ban. A new report to be released by the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) details the environmental and human impacts of one of the world’s most dangerous and pervasive pesticides, highlighting why it should be banned globally.

Next month in Geneva, the global community will decide whether to ban the dangerous neurotoxic pesticide, endosulfan.

It has been widely used in South Africa, in small towns, like Riebeek-Kasteel , Stellenbosch, Franschhoek, that are nestled amongst the vineyards & orchards.

Read more about Endosulfan :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50489909/End-of-the-Road-for-Endosulfan

Or download the PDF from :
http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/end_of_the_road_for_endosulfan.pdf

Take Action:
http://action.panna.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6130

DEATH IN SMALL DOSES

2011-03-10T00:01:00.000-08:00

Pesticides have played a role in increasing crop yields and food security but, in contrast to modern products marketed in the developed world, many pesticides used in developing countries fail to meet international quality standards.

Please click on the link below to read a comprehensive report produced by The Environmental Justice Foundation:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50425647/death-in-small-doses

Or download the PDF from :

http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/death_in_small_doses.pdf

Farmer's Weekly

2011-03-04T15:07:00.000-08:00

Two articles have recently appeared in "Farmer's Weekly" magazine.

The first is an interview with Gerhard Verdoorn, spokesperson for the agricultural chemical industry in South Africa. Whenever there is negative media publicity about the agrichemical industry in South Africa, Verdoorn is first to jump on the bandwagon in an attempt to trash everyone else's opinion and to put out the fires.

In an earlier blog (Tues 28 Sept 2010 "Are the experts pulling the wool over the eyes of South Africans") we discussed Verdoorn's motives.

The articles below, give you both sides of the story, and we leave it up to you, the readers, as to why Verdoorn would take the stance that he does.

Lobbyists base arguments on fiction, not fact

Farmer's Weekly 31-01-2011

http://www.farmersweekly.co.za/index.php?p[IGcms_nodes][IGcms_nodesUID]=80215e35f36e61883191fff0ec9f79e4

“Those lobbying against pesticides are looking for a soft target and an easy way to make money,” he added. “They base their arguments on assumptions and twist the truth to suit them. The so-called facts they publish are simply hogwash.”

And technology has made the dissemination of false information even easier. “Anyone can start their own website or send damaging e-mails driving their own opinions as fact.”Glyphosate, for example, has been labelled the most carcinogenic substance in the world by lobbyists. But if this was the case, we would all have been dead a long time ago, said Dr Verdoorn. “It’s also been said that South African farmers use banned substances. But just because something is banned in other countries, doesn’t mean it’s banned here. The conditions everywhere are different.“Lobbyists exploit the fact that there have been a few incidents in the past where pesticides were used incorrectly and problems followed. But these were isolated incidents where the instructions were not followed.”

Unfortunately, they’re remembered forever and cited as the norm, said Dr Verdoorn.He added that the public is often misled into overlooking other factors that cause illness – like the changing of the seasons and air pollution. “It’s then easier to blame pesticides for asthma, headaches and hay fever because someone has seen it being sprayed on a nearby farm.”Scientists need to challenge lobbyists who seek to disseminate misleading or false information, said Dr Verdoorn. But unfortunately, they’re often too busy with research to pay attention to unfounded reports. Or else, when they do comment, they do so anonymously, and an unknown source isn’t “credible,” he cautioned. – Lindi van Rooyen

Who are the ‘Lobbyists’?

Farmer's Weekly 18-02-2011

Click on link to see full story including images

http://www.farmersweekly.co.za/index.php?p[IGcms_nodes][IGcms_nodesUID]=4186f117660cdf59081780f49edf08d2

One of my favourite pictures of my father is of him standing in his Sunday best among the cherry blossoms in his beautiful garden. He was an avid gardener and so was my mother. They both loved flowers.

I contracted polio as a child, during the Second World War. In the lean years that followed, with my father’s meagre income as a railway clerk, my mother grew flowers to pay for my treatment. She sold them door-to-door until she had a regular clientele among the wealthier people in our neighbourhood, who bought her flowers every weekend.

It was also the age of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) – the magic powder, developed during the war. We had no reason to fear DDT, as it was said to be safe to use. The word “cancer” was still unknown to us. My mother used it copiously to stop insects from damaging her flowers and often came into the house covered in white powder. I spent much of my time helping her.

Later my father, who first specialised in roses, became fascinated by aloes and was quite liberal in his insecticide use to protect them against the many bugs. I, however, was more interested in the multitude of insects – but they’re largely gone now and so are my father and mother.

My mother was the first to get cancer and, after a long battle, lost the fight against it. My father also got cancer and so did I. Fortunately, the surgeon’s scalpel could cut mine away, but my father died. Only my brother, born after my mother’s flower-selling days, has been cancer-free. And as far as I could determine, cancer never affected any of our ancestors.

Puzzling news report and cooked research

Nobody can blame me for being suspicious about the excessive use of chemicals to which we were constantly exposed, but to which our bodies had little resistance. In my younger days I noticed a huge raptor decline, equipped myself with toxicological knowledge, and travelled countrywide to deliver hundreds of lectures and talks to farmers, gardeners and housewives about wise pesticide use.

This brings me to a Farmer’s Weekly news report “Lobbyists base arguments on fiction, not facts” by Lindi van Rooyen (4 February 2011 issue), which I found rather puzzling, to say the least. Lindi reports on a paper presented by Griffon Poison Information Centre (GPIC) spokesperson Dr Gerhard Verdoorn at the Combined Congress in Pretoria. She quotes Dr Verdoorn: “Those lobbying against pesticides are looking for a soft target and an easy way to make money. They base their arguments on assumptions and twist the truth to suit them. The so-called facts they publish are simply hogwash.” The words “lobbyists”, “lobbying” and “lobbyist” appear five times in this short report.

These words made me wonder what was behind them. I first thought the news report might have contained comments, from various sources, on the biased and subsequently discredited report by CropLife SA about its investigation in and around the town of Groblersdal into how pesticide residues inhibit the immune system. Of the 50 pesticides “most sprayed” by air during the 2008/2009 season, the company sampled only two – number 19 and 21 on the list. The third pesticide the company sampled wasn’t even on the list. Methomyl, sprayed 133 times, was number one on the top-50 list. The top five pesticides were sprayed a combined 290 times, while the two that CropLife SA sampled were only sprayed 19 times. The company only took samples in citrus orchards, not cotton or maize lands where extensive aerial spraying was done.

Was it a case of crooked scientists and cooked research?

Government on the right track

I was still pondering this when I read a notice in the Government Gazette (24 December 2010 issue) by agriculture minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson. The department’s policy on pesticide control is to be amended, and the minister intends to replace the 60-year-old Act 38 of 1947 with a new act. Old pesticides and those with high risk to human health and the environment are to be re-evaluated, and many could be banned. This would mean a healthier environment and food, less overcrowding in hospitals, an improved image of agriculture and perhaps a more responsible agro-chemical industry. The minister must be commended if she achieves this.

The notice states that, “Scientific and medical journals increasingly report the risks posed to human health by pesticides, including links between pesticides and diseases such as cancer and hormone disruption”. This presumably also applies to the “so-called facts” that “are simply hogwash”.

The document continues, “The mounting evidence of the negative impacts of pesticides on wildlife and the environment has prompted South Africans to register their disapproval of pesticides and take action to reduce their use”. Are these South Africans the “lobbyists” referred to in the news report? That this would cause extreme anxiety and panic in the chemical industry is understandable. The industry still makes easy money with many pesticides which have been banned in the rest of the developed world long ago, and are now dirt-cheap on international markets. Its reckless party could soon end. But why should this concern and upset Dr Verdoorn? In light of what I wrote last week about our vulture population’s shocking demise, also from the illegal use of the pesticide aldicarb, does the GPIC not welcome stricter control?

Does the dissemination of this information and the fact that, for many years, I warned against the irresponsible and excessive misuse of pesticides make me a lobbyist? I hope not. Or did I only do what the GPIC should have been doing? A dictionary defines a “lobbyist” as “someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favours the lobbyist’s employer”. Who, then, are the true lobbyists?

Is it not those who, in the coming weeks, will beat a path to minister Tina’s door to persuade her to forgo her intended plans? I trust the GPIC won’t be among them.

Contact Abré J Steyn on 083 235 4822 or email abrejsteyn@vodamail.co.za.

Spray drift debate still on everyone's lips

2011-03-04T14:11:00.000-08:00

Add caption

Riebeek Valley Blogspot

2011-03-02T00:30:00.000-08:00

Some interesting articles and humorous comments to be found on:

http://www.riebeekvalley.blogspot.com/

On the right track with state's pesticide policy

2011-02-27T00:13:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the Saturday Star of 05 Feb 2011 :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49629018/Saturday-Star

Die Matie

2011-02-17T02:05:00.000-08:00

An Article " TATIB takes on Pesticides", appeared on page 4 of Die Matie 16 Feb 2011 :

Click here to read the article : http://www0.sun.ac.za/diematie/archive/2011/2011-02-16.pd

Or download the PDF from here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/49016855/Die-Matie

TATIB would like to add a few comments in reaction to the article as follows :-

The STIAS Vineyard is a working, experimental vineyard, and is managed by the University of Stellenbosch according to IPW principles. The wine produced by this vineyard is going to be sold according to the STIAS Prospectus. There is thus no disputing the fact that the STIAS Vineyard is thus a commercial agricultural vineyard.
The chemicals that have / shall be used on this vineyard are registered Agricultural Chemicals for Agricultural Use only.
According to two independent Town Planners, and also Stellenbosch Municipality, the erf on which the STIAS Vineyard is planted is zoned "single residential". The current use is thus illegal in terms of the Zoning Scheme Regulations of Stellenbosch.
Both Stellenbosch Municipality and University of Stellenbosch have acknowledged that the erf on which the STIAS Vineyard is planted is "Single Residential".
TATIB received details, from various agro chemical suppliers, of what has been applied to the STIAS Vineyard, and we can categorically say that these products are in fact far from Green / Green Code Chemicals. Two of the chemicals used are known carcinogens and developmental / reproductive toxins and neurotoxins. Freeborough, by making mention of "Green" is, in our opinion, attempting to mislead the students into thinking they they use green/ environmentally friendly chemicals, when in fact this is not the case.
The STIAS Vineyard Commitee, consisting of both TATIB and University representatives, and under the chairmanship of Professor Mark Swilling, after much deliberation and research, concluded that the STIAS Vineyard was unlawful and that it must be removed and planted elsewhere.
We wish to place on record, that the University Management "tape recorded" the first committee meeting without our knowledge or consent. When we asked for a copy of the recording the University Management refused to give this to us. Just what are they hiding ?
The University Management overturned the decision of the STIAS Vineyard Committee, furthermore lifting the moratorium on the spraying of the vineyard, whilst at the same time "dissolving" the STIAS Vineyard Committee.
Prof Swilling had resigned as chairman, due to strange circumstances, and the belief that the problem was going to become "confrontational" . We feel that pressure was put on him, by the University Management, due to his stance that the STIAS vineyard was not only unlawful, but also not sustainable.
Welgevallen is another experimental working vineyard, situated close to the residential area bordering Paul Roos. TATIB has received a number of complaints from both residents and parents of children, who live close to Welgevallen and or go to Paul Roos, alleging that they have been exposed to large clouds of spray drift.
TATIB investigated the manner in which Welgevallen is currently sprayed, and can confirm that during the process large clouds of spray drift do in fact get blown out of the vineyard and into the streets/ residential area and onto the fields of Paul Roos.
Spray drift, of agricultural chemicals, out of a vineyard and into a residential area is unlawful in terms of Act 36 of 1947.
Freeborough's excuse, that the vineyards are managed according to IPW principles and are GlobalGAP certified means absolutely nothing. GlobalGAP 's inspectorate do not come out and supervise each and every spraying. TATIB have been down that road before, and have 2 High Court Orders in place, against a Riebeek-Kasteel farmer ( who studied at Stellenbosch) who was spraying his GlobalGAP / Natures Choice certified vineyards in such a way that spray drift, of toxic chemicals, was being blown into the residential area. The farmer, used the same excuse, that as he was certified he could not be breaking the law - yet he lost 2 High Court cases and the DPP, in writing, stated that they would like to see him arrested and brought to Cape Town.
At a meeting in Stellenbosch on 27 Jan 2010, various residents, municipal & provincial officials met, in order to discuss the well documented problem of spray drift, from the vineyards around Stellenbosch.All present, acknowledged that there was indeed a problem with spray drift and that it was an "air pollution issue". An undertaking was made to implement an "Air Pollution Management Plan" and that the budget for this had been approved.
One year later, Stellenbosch Municipality has not done anything to address the problem, nor clean up the 2.76 tonnes of DTT that are strewn across farm stores in the Stellenbosch area.
When exposed, at the meeting of 24 Jan 2011, Stellenbosch Municipal Officials became very evasive. As matters now stand, they are refusing to answer questions put to them by Bolander newpaper, nor have they released the minutes of the meeting.
TATIB have now, via the Public Access to Information Act, submitted a letter of demand ( via our attorneys) for not only the minutes of the meeting, but also details of all the chemicals that are sprayed on vineyards in and around Stellenbosch, and also answers as to why the Air Quality Management Plan was not implemented as promised.
Whilst we all wait for the wheels of bureaucracy to slowly turn, the residents and students of Stellenbosch will continue to suffer from itchy eyes, nasal and sinus problems, dizziness, skin rashes and other problems associated with exposure to agricultural chemicals.
Clearly someone has to cut through the "red tape" and to do it quickly before even more innocent victims become ill.

Why wont Stellenbosch Municipality cooperate???

2011-02-13T22:38:00.000-08:00

Its been 3 weeks since our meeting of 24 Jan 2011, and Stellenbosch Municipality are keeping very quiet.

They have ignored our requests for the minutes of the meeting that they chaired and have also avoided answering our questions.

Our attorneys have sent them a letter, under PAIA, requesting answers.

click here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/48776699/Paia-Forms

Another article was published in Bolander Lifestyle & Property, February 09, 2011, reproduced here with kind permission of Cape Community Newspapers, a division of Independent Newspapers Cape LTD .

click here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/48776386/Bolander-09-Feb-2011

STELLENBOSCH MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT RESPOND !!

2011-02-04T14:59:00.000-08:00

Following our meeting on 24th January 2011 (see earlier post ) , the TATIB Foundation sent a letter (via email) to Basil Davidson, requesting the minutes of the meeting . We had asked that Davidson furnish us with these by close of business on Friday 4th February 2011 - more than sufficient time for Stellenbosch Municipality to prepare these as we believe that Davidson taped the meeting with the aid of his I-Phone.

On 02 Feb, we sent Davidson a reminder email, asking him to confirm receipt of our emails and to also give us confirmation that he intended to furnish us with the requested 'minutes'. He responded in an email " The contents of your e-mails 28/01/2011 are noted " , but gave no indication as to whether or not he intended to submit the minutes.

Our attorneys have, in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act 2 of 2000) ("PAIA"), requested a number of documents from Stellenbosch Municipality. We will post the letter of request in here as soon as we have a copy if it, so please "watch this space" !

A story on what has happened, appeared in Bolander Lifestyle and Property of 02 Feb 2011, reproduced here with kind permission of Cape Community Newspapers. Here too, Stellenbosch Municipality have refused to answer several questions put to them, in writing, by Norman McFarlane.

click here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/48186226/Bolander-02-Feb-2011

Green Times :

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=832&id=6&storyaction=viewstory

MONSANTO

2011-02-02T01:02:00.001-08:00

Please watch this video - it will open your eyes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844#

STELLENBOSCH MUNICIPALITY “THROWS” JOURNALISTS OUT OF MEETING

2011-01-31T22:52:00.000-08:00

On Monday 24th January 2011 representatives of The TATIB Foundation met at the offices of the Municipal Manager, Stellenbosch.

Prior to the meeting we sent them a covering letter, discussing the issues and attaching relevant documentation.

Click here to read the letter:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47931130/Stellenbosch-Municip-2011-01-20

The official “Agenda” of the meeting can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47931226/A-g-e-n-d-a-Final-2

The following people attended:

Jurgen Schirmacher : Chairman , The TATIB Foundation

Ian Odendaal : TATIB member

Amanda Odendaal : TATIB member

Hendrik Kotze : TATIB member

Angus Begg : TATIB member

Basil Davidson : Dir Planning & Dev Stellenbosch Municipality

Mervin Williams : Legal Advisor Stellenbosch Municipality

Portia Bolton : Parks Dept Stellenbosch Municipality

Bernabe de la Bat : Spatial Planning Stellenbosch Municipality

Alice Wilton : Public Safety Stellenbosch Municipality

Andre vd Merwe : Cape Winelands District Municipality (CWDM)

Theresa Davids : CWDM

Funeka Bongweni : CWDM

Leon Du Toit : National Dept of Agriculture (NDA)

Greg Daniels : Cullinan & Associates

Lia Kleynhans : Cullinan & Associates

Gerhard Erasmus : Planning Services

Elma Pollard : Green Times

Norman McFarlane : Bolander

Whilst The TATIB Foundation had invited both Municipal Managers (David Daniels: Stellenbosch Municipality & Mike Mgajo: CWDM) to attend, they did not bother to arrive, despite making an undertaking that they would be present.

We wish to place on record, that both Municipal Managers have never replied to any of the correspondence that we have addressed to them in the past. Perhaps they have forgotten who voted them in? Perhaps they have forgotten that they are in fact here to serve? Or are they only interested in that large pay cheque at the end of every month?

We also wish to place on record that fact that TATIB has had to cover the costs of the legal and town planning experts who, not only attended the meeting, but also prepared and submitted various reports, opinions and documentation. In contrast to this, the Municipal Officials, including the Municipal Managers, actually get paid, by the taxpayers, to do their jobs and attend such meetings (or not to attend them in this case !)

THE REMOVAL OF THE MEDIA FROM THE MEETING

Basil Davison, assumed “chairmanship” of the meeting that TATIB had set up. He also attempted to discard our Agenda (We leave it up to the readers to decide why) and when he found out that a few journalists were present, refused to go on with the meeting, unless they left the room. He stated that they (Municipal Officials) had consulted with the Municipal Manager and that they did not want to have members of the media present as the meeting was going to be of a technical and exploratory nature.

Davidson went on to say that he had been instructed that it was not their policy to have the media present. Norman McFarlane of The Bolander then asked Davidson upon whose instruction such an order had been made. Davidson quickly backtracked and stated that it was “ Municipal Policy” and not any person in particular. To this Norman McFarlane asked for a copy of the document/policy in which it clearly stated that the media was not permitted to be present at the meeting. Davidson undertook to look for a copy of the alleged policy and to provide the media with this. We doubt that any such document or policy exists.

Of course we all know that the Municipality did not want the press to be present because they do not want this issue being made public. They are fully aware that they have not taken any steps to address the spray drift problem. Clearly they don’t want to conduct their business in an open and transparent manner, and this leads us to suspect that they have something to hide.

We have all seen the many media reports about corruption at Stellenbosch Municipality and so we expect that they would certainly have something to hide.

The comments of Norman McFarlane have been posted to the following link:

http://mymusingscoza.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/stellenbosch-official-throws-media-out-of-public-meeting

Norman then followed up with a letter dated 25 January 2011, which he sent to the Municipal Manager, David Daniels: -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47931800/Norman-McFarlane-Municp-Manager-25-01

There is also an interesting opinion that appeared in Die Burger of 27 January 2011

“Ons dorp, Skelmbos, laat sy kop sak “

http://www.dieburger.com/Rubrieke/VanAlleKante/Ons-dorp-Skelmbos-laat-sy-kop-sak-20110127

EXPOSURE TO TOXIC PESTICIDES AS A RESULT OF SPRAY DRIFT IN AND AROUND STELLENBOSCH

The average vineyard in the Western Cape is sprayed by means of centrifugal “mist blowers”. These are in effect, a torpedo shaped tank that is pulled behind a tractor, which discharges up to 8000 litres of pesticide at a nozzle jet speed of 600km/h. To the layman, these devices produce large clouds of toxic spray drift that is discharged from the machine with great force and at a high velocity.

More info to be found at:

http://www.rovicleers.co.za/ProductDetail.asp?vchpagename=9CSC2

The problem of spray drift, of toxic pesticides, has been well documented in the Western Cape and also in other areas where vines and orchards are to be found. Professor Leslie London is considered to be the expert on this topic.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47940120/Prof-London-Cape-Times

Every “chemical” product registered for Agricultural use in South Africa has to be registered under Act 36 of 1947 of the NDA

Each agricultural chemical, by law, has to be supplied with a so-called “Product Label “ (instructions for use).

The Product Label contains the statutory precautions and instructions for ‘safe use’ of the product. All Product Labels, for example, would make mention that one must “avoid spray drift into areas that are not under treatment”. In other words, spray drift is not permitted to be blown out of a vineyard and into a residential area.

If one fails to adhere to the instructions of the Product Label, this constitutes a breach of Act 36 of 1947, making the spraying unlawful (for obvious reasons).

The National Department of Agriculture has realized that Act36 of 1947 is old and outdated and in this regard they have recently released a new “Pesticide Management Policy”to address the shortcomings. It makes for very interesting reading as it clearly acknowledges that the NDA has now finally “seen the light” and that they too are of the opinion that spray drift of toxic pesticides is a problem. There is even mention, within the abovementioned Policy of transparency and the right to information relating to what is being sprayed.

Click here for more info:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932103/Pesticide-Management-Policy

During the past couple of years, we have received a large number of complaints, of spray drift, from the residents of Stellenbosch, Franschhoek, Somerset West and Paarl. TATIB have investigated these complaints and have ample evidence that shows large clouds of potentially toxic spray drift being blown into the residential areas.

We have complained to both Municipal Managers in writing, but our letters have been ignored. In November 2009, Angela Andrews of the LRC (attorneys representing TATIB / the residents) sent a letter to both Municipalities.

Click here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932608/2009-11-30-Letter-to-Cape-Winelands-Municipality

Stellenbosch Municipality, true to form, did not bother to respond. CWDM however did respond in a letter dated 29 January 2010. In their letter, CWDM specifically state that spray drift is an “air pollution issue” and as such needs to be addressed by the local Municipality which in the case of Stellenbosch & Franschhoek is Stellenbosch Municipality.ie Stellenbosch Municipality is responsible for enforcement and remedy.

None of our requests, as per points 1-4 on pages 7 & 8 (of Angela Andrews’s letter ) were met by either of the Municipalities.

Angela Andrew’s letter of 30 November 2009 makes it very clear that both Municipalities are mandated, by law, to protect the innocent bystanders (residents, students, farm workers) from an environment that is clearly hazardous to their health.

The various laws are clearly detailed and discussed in her letter and there is no confusion as to who is responsible for enforcing the law in this regard.

Attached also find a “Synoptic List” of the side effects and special warnings that the LRC had prepared after careful research into the agricultural chemicals that are used in the area.

See link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47940155/List-of-Pesticides-Sprayed-on-Vineyards-in-Western-Cape

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47932719/Synoptic-List1

On 27 January 2010, a meeting was held in Stellenbosch at which representatives of both Municipalities, Provincial Administration & Agriculture were present. There were also a large number of complainants (residents), and the press, present. This meeting had been arranged so as to address the concerns raised within Angela Andrews’ letter of 30 November 2009.

The Municipal officials present did admit, after speaking with the residents and being shown the ample evidence, that exposure to toxic pesticides, due to spray drift, was a serious problem in the area and that an “air quality management plan” needed to be implemented urgently and steps put in place to protect the residents.

In this regard Stellenbosch Municipality held two meetings on 12 May & 25 May 2010 respectively.

The links to the official minutes of these meetings are to be found below:

Please refer to pages 11 & 40 respectively.

http://www.stellenbosch.gov.za/sbmun/jsp/util/document.jsp?id=3202

http://www.stellenbosch.gov.za/sbmun/jsp/util/document.jsp?id=3156

An undertaking was made to appoint Gondwana Environmental Solutions to be contracted to complete the “Air Quality Management Plan” for Stellenbosch Municipality and that consultancy fees be made available according to the already approved budget.

Despite the undertakings made by Stellenbosch Municipality, nothing has been done to address the problem or find a solution to it.

At the meeting of 24 January 2011, both Municipalities attempted to make it the responsibility of the National Department of Agriculture, to enforce the problem of spray drift.

The TATIB Foundation had 3 legal representatives present at the meeting. These are amongst the top environmental attorneys in the country, and it was quickly pointed out to both Municipalities that in fact they have a “ Duty of Care” and that they really need to do something about the problem, or face the consequences.

We are not going to go into great detail as to all the laws that are in place in this regard. But if you read the letter from Angela Andrews and then also the letter from Greg Daniels (Cullinan & Associates) of 28 January 2011, it is very clear that both Municipalities do have a responsibility. It is also very obvious that they have little or no understanding of the law with regards to spray drift.

Greg Daniels’ letter can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/Letter-to-Municpality/d/47932907

Also attached, please find the Air Quality Management Plan for the Western Cape.

Pages 26 to 29 specifically deal with the responsibilities of the Municipalities. 3 (i) on page 27 states " Most Municipalities have not fully accepted their responsibility in terms of the implementation of the NEM:AQA "

There is thus no doubt in our minds, that the Municipalities are responsible for this, and that true to form (as they are incompetent bureaucrats) they are looking to make someone else responsible.

click here for the document :

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/other/2010/11/aqmp_opt.pdf

When TATIB asked whether Gondwana had done any work on the air quality management plan, we were told that Stellenbosch Municipality had received a quotation of over R300 000.00 for this and that they did not have the budget. When we asked them for a copy of the quotation (so as to confirm this) and also a copy of the request for said quotation, they refused to furnish us with these documents. We feel that there never were any documents, and that they have in fact not even addressed the issue. Surely we, as taxpayers, have a right to these documents in terms of the Promotion of Access to Public Information Act? Just as we have the right to know what remuneration our Municipal Managers receive?

It was interesting to take note of how the various municipal officials reacted to our allegation, that they had done nothing to rectify the problem. They became extremely “defensive” and tried very hard to discredit TATIB in the process, becoming quite hostile at times.

STIAS VINEYARD ZONING ISSUE

This issue has been fully dealt with in our earlier post on this blogspot:

“NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH BREAK DOWN “

When presented with the factual documentation & evidence, that the STIAS vineyard was an unlawful vineyard, Basil Davidson stated asked the following question:

“ Was that vineyard there when you bought into the property adjacent?”

What Davidson was attempting to do, with this question, was to say that if and when Ian & Amanda Odendaal purchased their property, the STIAS Vineyard was already in place, they would be unable to complain about its unlawfulness.

TATIBS legal representatives quickly pointed out that even if the STIAS Vineyard was there before the Odendaals had purchased their property (which it was not) , this would not make the current use of the STIAS Vineyard legal, or acceptable.

When Jurgen Schirmacher & his family were exposed to clouds of toxic spray drift in Riebeek-Kasteel, the farmer and his attorneys told them:

“ We were here first. If you don’t want to be poisoned then we suggest that you voetsek back to Cape Town where you came from!!”

Ironically when the Schirmacher’s purchased their property in Riebeek-Kasteel, the adjacent land was vacant and not even owned by the farmer in question. Only 18 months after they moved in, did the farmer purchase the land and plant it under table grapes.

There thus seems to be a misconception that “Die Boere was hier eerste!” and that because of this they can do anything that they want to do – even break the law. I think that it is this “mentality” that has resulted in the problems that we have encountered.

When we brought up this issue at the meeting of 24 January 2011, the municipal officials clearly tried to evade our questions. They mentioned that they would investigate to see if the STIAS vineyard was in fact an agricultural vineyard, furthermore making mention of a “lapse in rezoning “ and “ a Grandfather Clause “.

Basil Davidson went on to state:

“Certainly from a public point of view we would like it to be used for housing, you know we are particularly also in housing as a function of mine and we are always looking for housing land, particularly public housing”

They have however undertaken to investigate the matter and to come back to us.

Gerhard Erasmus, a Town Planner from Planserv had the following to say:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47708090/Town-Planning-Opinion-04

UNLAWFUL SPRAYING OF THE OAK TREES IN AND AROUND STELLENBOSCH & PAARL

TATIB has received a number of complaints from residents of both Paarl and Stellenbosch, following their being exposed to clouds of spray drift that result from when the oak trees (in public streets) are sprayed.

After further investigations we managed to speak with the companies that had been doing the spraying for Stellenbosch Municipality and uncovered the details of what had been sprayed. Bumper / Tilt & Rubigan, all fungicides, have been used to spray the oak trees as a treatment against mildew.

We also contacted Drakenstein Municipality, who forwarded us their Notice of Spraying

Click here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47933793/Drakenstein-Notice290

The Product Labels can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47933979/Tilt-Label

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934044/bumper250ec

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47935818/Rubigan-Label

As is evident in the above notice, the names of the products are clearly listed and then special warning is made that the residents are to remain indoors during the spraying and to ensure that all doors and windows are closed. This is a clear admission that Drakenstein Municipality are unable to control the spray drift during the treatment of the oak trees and are thus advising the public to stay indoors during said spraying.

More on the spraying of the Oak Trees can be found in some older posts on the Tatib Blogspot: www.tatibfoundation.blogspot.com

There are also articles to be found in:

Paarl Post “ To Spray or Not “:

http://www.paarlpost.com/cgib/article?newsid=19956

Green Times:

http://thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=612&id=6&storyaction=viewstory

A resident of Paarl, also sent this letter in to Paarl Post: -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934572/Drakenstein-Municipality-is-Systematically-Poisoning-Us

Due to complaints and toxicity issues of these products, Stellenbosch Municipality has now admitted that it no longer uses these products and instead uses a foliar feed. The rationale behind this is that by beefing up the trees natural immune system, the tree will be less susceptible to fungal attacks.

Portia Bolton, at the meeting of 24 January 2011 stated:

“As I said before we only use a liquid fertilizer on the trees and that is not to for fungicides and not directly used to combat the affects of the mildew that’s affecting the Oaks. It is basically a nutritional supplement which is applied as a foliar feed and not at the base and that information I did give through to you. I am aware that Drakenstein Municipality use Bumper, Tilt & Rubigan, all sorts of stuff, and I have taken a decision not to apply those chemicals because of the toxicity issue with this product. So we don’t use any pesticides on our Oak Trees.”

When TATIB complained to Drakenstein Municipality, their Municipal Manager (like most Municipal Managers) ignored our emails and never bothered to respond. The person responsible for the spraying is one Albert vd Merwe, who was of the opinion that the three products Bumper/Tilt and Rubigan posed no health risks to the residents.

Drakenstein continued to spray the oak trees in Paarl with no regards to the law and when more complaints were lodged with them, TATIB received a letter from their attorneys.

See attached letter from Van Der Spuy & Partners dated 22/11/2010

Click here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934651/Letter-tabit-22-11

TATIB responded to them on 24/11/2010, giving them the information that they had requested in their letter of 22/11/2010.

Click here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934729/Van-Der-Spuy-2010-11-24

To this Van Der Spuy & Partners sent us another letter dated 18/01/2010

Click here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934794/Letter-tatib-18-01

To date, Drakenstein has continued to spray their oak trees in such a way that clouds of spray drift get blown into peoples gardens and homes. They have also tried to garner public support by saying that unless the trees are sprayed with fungicide, they will die. Portia Bolton, at the meeting of 24 January 2011 confirmed that this would not happen.

At the meeting of 24 January 2011, Funeka Bongweni (CWDM) attempted to put TATIB on the spot by alleging that because we had not given Van Der Spuy & Partners the information that they had requested in their letter of 22/11/2010 (which we clearly had via our letter of 24/11/2010) the ball was now in our court.

In this regard Funeka Bongweni read out loud, the letter from Van Der Spuy that she had in her possession. We quickly pointed out to her, and all the others present, that we had in fact replied to Van Der Spuy on 24/11/2010 and that we had copied various CWDM officials in on this email. In other words she was barking up the wrong tree and should have done her homework before attempting to cast dispersions our way.

Following the meeting of 24th January 2011, TATIB sent out an email to all that had attended (as well as to those that had been invited) in which me mentioned the facts regarding the allegations made by Funeka Bongweni, furthermore attaching our letter of 24/11/2010 that we sent to Van Der Spuy (and copied to CWDM)

Funeka Bongweni, true to form, has not yet responded to our email, however we received an email on 25 January 2011 from Dr Weziwe Zandile Mahlangu, Executive Director, Community and Developmental Services, Cape Winelands District Municipality, in which the following words appeared:

“ HAYI, NDIHLAMBA IZANDLA SISI! “

This was mistakenly sent to us by Mahlangu and was in fact only meant for the eyes of Funeka Bongweni.

We have been told that the words, roughly translated are “ Wash your hands of this sister! “ Or “ Sister, I have washed my hands of this! “

And this is coming from a “Municipal Official” who is paid to do a job? Clearly it shows that certain people within CWDM feel that this is not a serious issue and that they would rather wash their hands of it.

Drakenstein Municipality are the “end user” when it comes to the spraying of Tilt / Bumper & Rubigan on the oak trees. It is their responsibility, under Act 36 of 1947, to obey the law and to ensure that no product ends up in people’s gardens or gets blown into their houses. We also wonder if the person applying the fungicides is actually a registered pesticide control operator, which is also law under the act.

Click on this link to also see the PCO Regulations:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47934951/PCO-REG-18-12-09

Stellenbosch Municipality has undertaken to get back to us with the information that we have requested and to furthermore convene another meeting in a month’s time.

We have in turn sent an email to Basil Davidson, requesting him to furnish us with the minutes of the meeting of 24 January 2011 (seeing that he hijacked the meeting and made himself chairman) and to do so by close of business on Friday 04 February 2011. In this regard we have not yet had the courtesy of a response or an acknowledgement of our email.

Watch this space, and the press, for more details and developments!!

Farmer dies of Leukaemia due to pesticides

2011-01-28T14:37:00.001-08:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/8274192/French-winegrowers-warned-over-pesticide-use.html

And our local farmers have all been saying that nothing they spray is harmful to man, animal or the environment??? And that because they have GlobalGap certification and because no one has complained, that they must be doing things right !!!???

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Or is money and profit (from their vines) more important than human health ?

Face the facts. South Africa is a " 3rd World" country, with much "softer laws" [ Act 36 of 1947 is 64 years old and long overdue for a revamp!!] and our National Dept of Agriculture, Municipalities are unable or unwilling to enforce the law so as to protect innocent bystanders from exposure to clouds of toxic spray drift that get blown out of the vineyards, orchards and fields and into adjacent residential areas and schools.

Our local Municipalities, true to form, are useless when it comes to accepting that they have a responsibility to protect their citizens as enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. They are too busy lining their pockets and enriching themselves with the spoils of "corruption" to realise that they have a responsibility to the citizens who pay their generous salaries.

If the farmers want to poison themselves that great, let them do it. However, labor is cheap in South Africa and its the poor, down-trodden and "voiceless" farm-worker who gets the brunt of the poison. You dont see the farmer doing the spraying on his tractor now do you? One wonders if things would change if the farmer had to apply all these toxic pesticides himself ??

Clearly there is a problem and its reared its ugly head in France.

How long will it take before South Africa wakes up and smells the roses ??

The consumer will, at the end of the day, force change. There is already a shift towards organic wine and I guess that within the next 5-10 years Europe will only be importing "organic wines" from South Africa, if at all. The wine industry will therefore need to quickly wake up, change the way that they think, or else find that no-one wants to buy their product.

Perhaps the farmers are the innocent victims here. They do, after all, rely on the smiling "gifsmous", the multi-millionaire "purveyor of poison", who seems to have convinced them that the solution to every problem, every disease, lies in a bottle of "gif" !! Anyone who has seen a centrifugal mist blower at work, will soon realise that 60% of the chemical gets blown into the air and carried away on the wind. What a waste!! But then the more chemical that is used, the happier the supplier.

Things do need to change!!

NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH BREAK DOWN

2011-01-28T01:41:00.000-08:00

Towards the end of 2009, The TATIB Foundation received a large number of complaints, from residents of Stellenbosch, alleging that they had been exposed to spray drift as a result of spraying practices on vineyards owned and managed by the University of Stellenbosch.

TATIB investigated and found two “problem vineyards”, The STIAS Perold Vineyard in Jonkershoek and the Welgevallen Vineyard bordering Paul Roos School. Both these vineyards border on the residential area and it was to be noted that no buffer zones had been implemented between the vineyards and the residential areas, and that during spraying, in particular on Welgevallen, large clouds of spray drift would be blown into the surrounding streets and onto the playing fields of Paul Roos.

As a result of the complaints, and our own investigations, TATIB approached the University of Stellenbosch. Initially the University went on the “defensive” and in this regard insisted that TATIB address all correspondence to their attorneys.

All that we were asking for, was that the University of Stellenbosch obey the various laws that govern the use of agri-chemicals, and that they ensure that no spray drift was to leave the confines of their vineyards and be blown into the residential areas.

Realising that if we took the “litigation approach” the only real winners would be the attorneys, we decided to rather enter into ‘dialogue’ with the University and in this regard our Steering Committee met with Professor Mohammad Karaan, Dean Faculty of Agri Sciences, University of Stellenbosch on 08 March 2010.

An agreement was reached and it was proposed that the STIAS Vineyard Committee be established so as to look at alternatives to using toxic agri-chemicals (pesticides / funcidides / herbicides), using the STIAS experimental vineyard as a starting point.

More on the agreement can be found here :

http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=223&id=6&storyaction=viewstory

The STIAS Vineyard committee consisted of both University of Stellenbosch and TATIB members as follows :-

    CHAIRMAN :

    Prof Mark Swilling : Sustainability Institute Stellenbosch

    UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH

    Albert Strever                : Viticulture
    Florian Bauer           : Enology
    Michael-John Freeborough    : Faculty Manager Agri Sciences
    John Van Breda       : Programme manager TsamaHUB

    THE TATIB FOUNDATION

    Jurgen Schirmacher                : Chairman TATIB Foundation
    Ian Odendaal                         : Founding Member
    Amanda Odendaal                 : Founding Member
    Anneret Wolfaardt                 : Member - medical cluster

The STIAS Vineyard Committee had several meetings, during which it was established that the STIAS Perold Vineyard was in fact planted on a single residential erf and as such was in contravention of the zoning scheme regulations and therefore an “unlawful” vineyard.

Various documents, in support of this were lodged with the University of Stellenbosch and can be found at the links below :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47708292/STIASprospektus

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47708464/Stellenbosch-Zoning-Scheme-Regs-Jul-1996

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47706996/Zoning-Certificate-Erf-6338-Stellenbosch

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47706876/Erf-6338-Stellenbosch

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47707047/Town-Planning-Opinion

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47707175/Town-Planning-Opinion-2

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47707265/Opinion-270810

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47707341/Town-Planning-Opinion-03

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47707949/TATIB-Letter-241110

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47708090/Town-Planning-Opinion-04

Whilst the TATIB Foundation was in consultation with the University of Stellenbosch and active on the STIAS Vineyard Committee, we were told that all matters discussed during the committee meetings would have to remain private and confidential at all times, which in effect meant that we would not be allowed to divulge any of the information to the press. The first meeting was “taped” without our prior knowledge and consent and our attempts to get a copy of the “tapes” were rejected by the University. We reiterated our hopes that the meetings would be a platform for open and transparent discussion.

The University undertook to place a “moratorium” on the use of all agrochemicals on the STIAS Vineyard and to rather implement natural forms of pest control that did not require “chemical” intervention

See letter from University of Stellenbosch dated 25 August 2010 :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47708183/24-08-2010-Prof-M-Swilling-Re-Stias-Vineyard-2

After careful consideration of the facts of the matter and the large volume of evidence and documentation submitted by TATIB, the STIAS Vineyard Committee, under chairmanship of Professor Mark Swilling, concluded that the STIAS Perold Vineyard was indeed in contravention of the zoning scheme regulations and that as a result of this it was an “illegal vineyard”. The Committee made a recommendation that the vineyard be removed and transplanted to another location, or the erf in question be rezoned

See Report from Prof Mark Swilling sent to Professor Arnold Van Zyl (Vice-Rector : Research Universty of Stellenbosch :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47708243/Draft-1

A few weeks after the abovementioned report was submitted by Prof Mark Swilling, he suddenly resigned as chairman of the STIAS Vineyard Committee . We at TATIB felt that pressure had been placed on him, from higher up, to resign or face the consequences.

There was one final meeting of the STIAS Vineyard Committee in November 2010, at which Professor Arnold Van Zyl overturned the findings of the STIAS Vineyard Committee, dissolved the committee, lifted the “moratorium” on the spraying and in effect dismissed TATIB as if we were a bunch of naughty school-children.

In our opinion there was clearly “political interference” in a process that really should have been open and transparent. The unfortunate message that the University of Stellenbosch has sent out , is that they do not care if the vineyard is illegal, that they will continue to do as they please and in this regard continue to spray potentially hazardous chemicals in close proximity to the residential areas and schools, without any consideration for the heath and safety of the residents & students.

We wonder what their “Donors”, for example the Wallenburg Foundation, would think of this ?

The University should really have seen this as an opportunity to do the right thing whilst at the same time look at using only natural methods of pest control. We understand that agro chemical giants like Bayer Crop Science do sponsor the University and that they may lose their sponsorship if they decide to go organic or bio-dynamic.   It must however be noted, that the STIAS Perold Vineyard was always meant to be an experimental vineyard that was cultivated according to organic / bio-dynamic principles, which it clearly is not.

Florian Bauer, at one of the STIAS Vineyard Committee meetings, stated that the soil / ground on which the vineyard is planted, was tested prior to the establishment of the vineyard and was found to be sterile and totally unsuitable for vines. Independent agricultural experts confirmed, after inspections of the vineyard, that its soil composition and location was not suitable for pinotage grapes, in fact unsuitable for any vineyard. Perhaps the real experiment is how to grow vines on sterile ground, with maximum use of potentially toxic chemicals ?

Reputable sources have confirmed, that a lot of pressure was placed on the University, by a handful of “elite” residents who still yield considerable political clout and that these residents were opposed to another parking lot or student residence and that this is where the idea of a vineyard originated.

Perhaps it’s the “dead wood”, those “old cronies”opposed to change, who have sabotaged the progress of this very important issue ?

Shimla, in Die Burger of 27 January 2011 “Ons dorp, Skelmbos, laat sy kop sak” commented as follows :
“Dis n algemene verskynsel in SA dat bevoorregte mense onder die wanindruk verkeer, dat hulle persoonlike klein paradysies onaangeraak gaan bly. Dit is egter onmoontlik, en hoe gouer die besef deurdring, hoe beter. “

http://www.dieburger.com/Rubrieke/VanAlleKante/Ons-dorp-Skelmbos-laat-sy-kop-sak-20110127

GLOBAL BEE EMERGENCY

2011-01-12T01:35:00.000-08:00

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_bees/?rc=fb