Dear Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority,

Please provide all correspondence you have received regarding Health related and Environmental Adverse Experiences Reported by Australians in relation to 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl since 2010.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Presnell

Dear FOI,

I went been through the APVMA's Adverse Experiencing Reporting prior to making this FOI request.

The reason for this FOI is because i could not identify my Adverse Experiencing Report in the APVMA's documents. Henceforth, the FOI request was worded to provide; not the information you have investigated and uploaded to your Report but the actual correspondence you have received in regards to reports of Adverse Experiencing you have been notified of, particularly in relation to 'GLORICIDE', 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl.

When attempting to lodge my correspondence documenting an Adverse Experience, i was refused numerous times by the APVMA. Therefore i had to go to the Minister in an attempt to have my Experience documented. Failing the Ministers help in having the APVMA register my Experience, the PM at the Time MP Gillards Office, submitted the Experience and i was notified that the APVMA has finally accepted the report.

Being that the APVMA and Minister of the APVMA refused to register my adverse Reaction Experience on multiple occasions, and being that the APVMA's reporting on Adverse Experiencing includes no incidence of Metsulfuron Methyl, it is presumed that the APVMA has not registered or reported this experience. This is why i have asked the APVMA to provide correspondence it has received in relation to these chemicals and not the correspondence it has chosen to document. Please be clear about this.

Notification to the APVMA in regards to adverse Health Effects and Adverse Environmental Effects are requested. I appreciate your timely query of this FOI, however you have misunderstood the nature of the request and i require the information requested. I do not wish to receive the information the APVMA has chosen to published.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Dear FOI,

I wish to receive correspondence in relation to an 'Unregistered Chemical Product' used illegally and unapproved active constituents the APVMA was notified of as per Senate Estimates May 2013 i.e. 2,4,5-T and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one.

The legislation states:

8W Access to certain documents in the possession or custody of the APVMA

(1) A person may, in writing, apply to the APVMA for a copy of, or extract from, a document (other than a document in any part of the Record or Register) in the possession or custody of the APVMA in relation to an approved active constituent or registered chemical product.

This FOI request falls outside the scope of the Act and is sought under FOI please. The APVMA cannot possible report on Adverse Experience Reports for Unregistered Chemical Products and continue to protect the perpetrators, so the correspondence the APVMA has received in relation to these are critical to the nature of this FOI request.

The Act does not prohibit the information on an approved active constituent or registered chemical product being released under FOI laws and it is in the public interest that this information is documented on the public record.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Dear FOI,

The APVMA has asked me to clarify my request. Here it is:

I request information and/or correspondence in relation to an 'Unregistered Chemical Product'. The APVMA claims in the intention to refuse the FOI request that the product is 'unnamed', this is not true. The product is named GLORICIDE as per the MSDS and the Trial Reports by the company responsible for naming it, researching it and producing it, the SCRC. The name of the chemical was subsequently provided to you directly in correspondence dated the 15th March, it is highly negligent to not recognise it by name after it has been named and you have been informed of its name.

The APVMA does not recognise it by name, as you suggest in your response, because it is 'unregistered' and 'unregisterable', but for the APVMA to say its 'unnamed' is considered 'contemptuous' and will cause further death by not acknowledging the Product or its MSDS and Research Reports and not investigating the illegal use of chemicals under its Permit System/jurisdiction and prosecuting those responsible both inside the APVMA for failing to investigate/regulate/prosecute and outside the APVMA.

Please be clear this Product is killing and maiming people and its use is being regulated by the APVMA Act and associated Permits including 11463 and/or 7250, however the APVMA is refusing to investigate it, acknowledge it, regulate it, let alone recognise it by name. I hope this clears up the naming issue in regards to accessing the information requested under law.

The FOI officer will not probable not see it filed under a Registered Chemical, because GLORICIDE is not registered and has likely never been attempted to register due to its impossibility to register due to it being a known carcinogen tht includes banned substances. The Product is named GLORICIDE and it is not registered by the APVMA but is/has been used under the APVMA Act etc and associated Permits.

I know for a fact that the APVMA has received Adverse Heath Reports and/or information relating to GLORICIDE and/or mixing 2,4-D and metsulfron methyl etc. Correspondence from the PM's office has confirmed this and this matter has been documented on the Public Record by various senators in Senate Estimates the past 5 years, which a simple check on the Australian Government Website and Senate Hansards and the APVMA's records will indicate. Your 'intention to refuse letter' just mentions one Senate Estimate hearing, this information spans many Senate Estimates and (unpublished) Questions on Notice by your Minister, and correspondence you have received over the past 5-6 years, as i am sure you are aware.

The nature of this request is to identify documents held in relation to this so called unnamed chemical product GLORICIDE, as per a letter to you 15th March. This request is also in relation to the use/manufacture of chemicals manufactured/created by making GLORICIDE including: 2,4,5-T; 2,4-D methyl Ester and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one. The request also includes Adverse Health Reports received by the APVMA on registered chemicals including 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl.

I sincerely doubt the APVMA would publish adverse health reports for an illegal unregistered chemical, therefor the original inquiry was worded to include what information, correspondence etc. complaints it has received in relation to a product known as GLORICIDE and/or in relation to mixing 2,4-D and metsulfuron methyl and 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D methyl Ester and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one.

All the information in this letter is relevant to dismiss the concealing and contemptuous arguments to refuse to provide this information by claiming the product is 'unnamed'. The product has been named on the public record through senators questions to Senate Estimates committees, many letters to the APVMA and the manufacture of a MSDS and various scientific reports.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Dear FOI,

The name of the product GLORICIDE was stipulated in correspondence dated 15th March. The basis of the 'intention to refuse' letter you sent was relating to an unnamed chemical that wasn't specified.

An Adverse Health Report for GLORICIDE has been submitted but has not been documented or reported by the APVMA, as have Adverse Health Reports for 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl. I don't think you could register an adverse Health Report for an unregistered Chemical Product used illegally with the consent/blind eye of the APVMA

As you can imagine i am well versed in the tricks the government plays in covering up their deliberate negligence and this unnamed product trick is just one of many. But i am glad that you agree that Unregistered Chemical Products are commonplace, now you just need to investigate why 'unregistered chemical product' are being used under your permit system and under your jurisdiction totally illegally.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Dear FOI,

The original scope of the request to provide information you have received regarding
Health related and Environmental Adverse Experiences Reported by Australians in relation to 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl since 2010.

The scope of the request has been extended to include Health related and Environmental Adverse Experience for the chemicals: 2,4- Methyl Esters, 2,4,5-T and 2-(2-(2-oxo-3-oxazolidinyl)ethyl)-1,2-benzisothiazolin -3-one and 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl, since 2010.

To narrow it down i do not request information published by the APVMA, just correspondence received by the APVMA in relation to all reports of Adverse Experiences. I am interested in all correspondence including informal reports/correspondance, not just the filled in APVMA Adverse Reporting Forms.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Dear FOI,

That is mostly correct, but please include the product GLORICIDE, which is a a mixture of 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl that manufactures 2,4-D Methyl Esters and 2,4,5-T etc.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Dear APVMA FOI,

I wish to object to your covering up of information relating to this FOI Request.

Specifically, i object to the decision that to the use of the Unregistered Chemical GLORICIDE:

"In relation to your request, I can advise that no adverse experiences have been reported for:—
a. Gloricide (as it is not an APVMA registered product but is a name used to refer to a tank
mix of registered chemical products approved for certain uses in Queensland under a
permit),"

Numerous correspondence has been forwarded to you through Senate Estimates and by ATP Environmental pty ltd in relation to the Adverse Environmental and Health Effects of GLORICIDE. Because the APVMA has not registered the product, does not mean that the APVMA cannot record an Adverse Heath Report. Under Permit 7250, any chemical product can be used in Research Stations and in the external environment, with restrictions, therefor it is the APVMA's statutory Duty to record this information. Furthermore, Paul Grutt the APVMA's
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program claims on the March 30, 2017 that "Just to be clear, your scope referred to an 'unregistered chemical product' and we were seeking clarification of which product you were referring to, as these are innumerable." To claim you have no responsibility to undertake your statutory duty because the product is unregisterable is an outright lie and an attempt to pervert the course of justice and a continuation of your coverup of the deadly,illegal use of chemicals used under your permit system. I suggest you provide this information before you cause further death through your professional negligence.

In relation to assertion that there are too many documents to peruse in relation to the use of 2,4-D and Metsulfuron methyl. I find this statement particularly hard to fathom as there was i claim published in your annual report on 2,4-D and has never been one in relation to metsulfuron methy in the past 10 years. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The object of the exercise was to determine how many reports of Adverse Experiences the APVMA has received to compare it with the amount of reports published. I believe what you are saying by taking this argument is the APVMA has received hundreds of Adverse Reports in relation to these chemicals but has not been documenting them as required and has been covering up nearly all the reports and perpetuating the contamination of the food chain with deadly carcinogens and 2,4-D i.e Synthetic Estrogen and the untested metsulfuron methyl.

Being that the APVMA has not published these reports, it is definitely in the public interest for the APVMA to provide these at no cost to the public, after all, it is your statutory duty to provide them. To charge people to access this information when it is your duty to publish these reports is a deliberate attempt to protect yourselves and your multinational clientele.

Your refusal to provide this information will cause further mass murder and environmental terrorism. The cancer rate is doubling every 10 years due to the contamination of the food chain by deadly chemicals used under your jurisdiction and neglect, this is a public interest case. If you refuse to provide this information, it can be summonsed and your refusal will be grounds for prosecution.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Dear FOI,

I have written numerous times to access this information. This information is required to see what information the APVMA has but is not legally reporting. The imposition of a $1000-2000 fee is an attempt to try and cover up this information.

As per your annual report, their is no adverse Health reports noted for Metsulfuron methyl or 2,4-D even though i have provide numerous reports to you. Because they have not been published, when they are required by law to be be published i find it very hard to understand why their is such a massive fee involved. There was only i report for 2,4-D.

By the massive costs of accessing these reports, manyone would think there were hundreds if not thousands of them.

Can you please break down the costs by each chemical to assess, what documents are worth applying for?

1) Metsulfuron Methyl:
2) GLORICIDE: (you have stated that there are none for GLORICIDE even though i have reported it, so obviously someone is lying and the adverse reports have been noted n Senate Estimates)
3) 2,4-D

If you cannot provide this information, it can be summonsed for far cheaper than a FOI and it would appear that their are many adverse reports you have covered up and not published to the public or the parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell