1080 Usage in New Zealand - Debate

Debate

The use of 1080 poison in New Zealand has been the topic of a long-established and complex debate. In general, the majority of conservationists and livestock farmers support the continued use of 1080 for pest control, while the hunting community, animal rights groups and antifluoride campaigners support a ban, but there are exceptions on both sides.

Organised opposition is usually small-scale and localised to areas where aerial 1080 operations are carried out. Protest is generally peaceful, but there have been occasions where opponents have resorted to violence or sabotage.

In August 2007, the Environmental Risk Management Authority released its latest review of 1080 use. The review gave new guidelines for the use of the pesticide in New Zealand, and concluded the beneficial effects of pest eradication outweigh the risks. 1080 decomposes in warm water into harmless compounds, resulting in low persistence in a lab environment, but in the natural New Zealand environment, its decomposition rates and persistence are unknown.

In June 2011, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) released a report in favour of 1080 to control possums, rats, and stoats, especially in large and remote areas. It is seen as an effective poison for aerial spreading. The PCE came to a number of conclusions, including not having a moratorium on 1080 use, and setting up a Game Animal Council. In June 2011, New Zealand's four largest daily newspapers all ran editorial pieces questioning the need for continued debate in light of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report.

Support for the use of 1080 is mixed amongst the political parties currently in government.

In 2004, anti-1080 activist Phillip Anderton posed for the New Zealand media with a kiwi he claimed had been poisoned. An investigation revealed that Anderton lied to journalists and the public. He had used a kiwi that had been caught in a possum trap.