Dear Ms Goodsell,
Thank you for your message. We acknowledge receipt and will respond shortly.

Regards

Office of the Prime Minister's
Chief Science Advisor

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Goodsell,

Please note that an agency is not obliged to answer questions which
require the agency to form an opinion or provide an explanation and so create new information, as this is not considered ‘official information’ that is held by the agency.

Please see below for responses to your questions.

Q1. I request copies of any research/data/papers/conversations/emails (conducted on humans) that were found that justify that the level of 15ug 100cm2 is scientifically proven to be unquestionably safe including the source of this information.

A1. Science cannot prove that anything is 100% safe. This is asking for proof of a negative (zero harm). The report reviews the available evidence, and the studies that went into the analysis are included in the reference list. We direct you to that list for further information.

Q2. I request copies of any research/data/papers/conversations//emails (conducted on humans) that unquestionably proves that 3rd hand Methamphetamine exposure in dwellings poses no/zero health risk to humans. Also providing the source of this information.”

A2. See answer to Q1.

Q3. I also request copies of communication from and to Dr Anne Bardsley and Dr Felicia Low, also between each other, and Sir Peter Gluckman who conducted the research and compilation of the review of the Methamphetamine Contamination Standard.

A3. To provide this information at this time would take substantial collation and redacting of personal information, which we do not think is in the public interest. We consider that the time and hence the expense of answering this request cannot be justified given the non-specific nature of the request. If you have a specific question that you believe can be answered from our internal communications, please feel free to ask, and those specific communications can be provided, if they exist.

On 13/08/18, 12:59 PM, "Anne Bardsley on behalf of PMCSA Info" <[email address] on behalf of [email address]> wrote:

Dear Ms Goodsell,
Thank you for your message. We acknowledge receipt and will respond shortly.

Regards

Office of the Prime Minister's
Chief Science Advisor

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Goodsell

Your message does not contain requests that are answerable under the Official Information Act.

Regarding requests A1 and A2 - you seem to have misunderstood and/or misinterpreted our report. The calculations are explained both in the main body, and in-depth in the appendix. We are not required to produce a further explanation, and again refer you to the report for the information you seek.

Again we respectfully decline request A3. We do not agree that gathering all of our internal emails and redacting personal information is in the public interest. There seems to be no such interest from the public, aside from individuals with a vested financial interest in seeing a different outcome from that which we reported (i.e. those connected in some way to the meth testing/remediation industry). Additionally, our internal discussions can be considered protected under the 'free and frank opinions' clauses of the Official Information Act.

Regards
Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor.

On 29/08/18, 2:25 PM, "Debbie Goodsell" <[FYI request #8479 email]> wrote:

Dear Anne Bardsley,

Thank you for your response to my questions.

In relation to A.1 and A2

I have referred to the list and read the information and studies, which is why I am asking for any further information. It appears that a number of the studies were ignored. If you refer to what you have directed me too, it is beyond me how you have come up with your recommendation of 15ug per 100cm2 by looking at these documents. Its all the same information reviewed by the standards committee and previously MOH and ESR. How can you come up with such a different level? I guess if you select snippets of information from each paper you can manipulate the outcome.

For you to say “Science cannot prove that anything is 100% safe” – is unacceptable, so if we find in 10 years time your research and recommendations were wrong, there is no come back on your department? Mean while, we are creating a generation of children, who will grow into adults that cannot function, if you bother looking at the news, this is already happening due to Methamphetamine exposure. Not only is it happening it is accelerating at a huge rate. I guess that “science” doesn’t take into account the real world, families and communities.

The PMCSA’s has stated that there are no recorded reported cases of illness. In a way is this not a good thing? Do we need to increase the level so that we do see some reported cases to prove that 3rd hand exposure is an issue? Whoever is exposed to this, usually has no idea especially children, these are the innocent victims. During this time it is the developmental stages of their lives an important time to shape children into who they will become. Tolerance is clearly an individual thing, but do we need to operate with “the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” mentality? I am an average New Zealander, but I’m guessing there are no reported cases because no one wants to come forward who is connected to the use of a “Class A” drug. It is an illegal habit and the most affected which are usually children live in fear of both loosing their families and possibility of inflicted violence.

It appears that research on “RATS” is taking centre stage, the metabolism of “RATS” is not the same therefore how can it be compared and used as a benchmark for “People”, including children? The general public have a right to know how you came up with your decision to increase the level. The paper supporting medical methamphetamine levels and oral doses is also irrelevant. What does this information have to do with 3rd hand methamphetamine exposure and absorbtion? What relevance to any of this is that the maximum dose in the USA is 20,000 micrograms? Did you happen to see that its not recommended to prescribe for children under 6 years of age for ADD? And not for under 12 year olds for obesity? Neither of those facts were mentioned in your report, giving a false impression that it is acceptable to dose children up on methamphetamine. Why are children below these ages not able to be prescribed this drug? How does this clinical information included in the report have any reference at all to environmental exposure to “dirty” methamphetamine filled with toxic chemicals has on young children and babies? Your report states its "safe" for young children and babies, in interviews Sir Peter Gluckman stated it was safe for them to crawl on the floor etc with levels up to 15ug per 100cm2. Where are the clinical studies that prove this?
The Pharmaceutical prescribed Methamphetamine is manufactured in clean pharmaceutical environments and is formulated with precise chemistry. The prescribing medical professional also knows of contraindications that could occur when the medication is combined with other conditions the patient may have. Methamphetamine “P” manufactured for social use is made often in dirty environments, ingredients and formulation volumes depend on what is available and how much they want to pack it out with other chemicals to create volume for profit. Due to the "invisible" nature of the contamination, everyone exposed is at risk, including those with health issues. Involuntarily exposing themselves to levels and absorption that may well be a catalyst to induce things like respiratory conditions.

In relation to A 3

The request for this information is in the publics best interest. This is not a request I make lightly, if I did not think it was important, I would not request it. To pull snippets of conversations will ultimately change the context of the information. To data capture is not a major, all one needs to do is go to “sent” box for each person, enter in the recipient’s name and press search. All emails will appear. The time consuming part would be to proof read everything before release.

In the words written in the report "The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence of an effect"
This is a statement I find most offensive, it covers this report should it be found that the level you have arrived at is wrong, your department will not be held accountable for influencing New Zealand and compromising the health and safety of many, many children in their homes.

I look forward to receiving the information I originally requested.

Yours sincerely,

Debbie Goodsell

show quoted sections