9. Environmental Protection Authority—Funding and Reassessment of Potentially Hazardous SubstancesCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironmental Protection Authority—Funding and Reassessment of Potentially Hazardous Substances9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does the Environmental Protection Authority have sufficient funding to reassess the use of hazardous substances that it has agreed should be reassessed as a potential risk to people and the environment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has a budget for doing reassessments and has prioritised it on the basis of those that pose the greatest risk in the New Zealand context. It is not practical to remove every potential risk but I do have confidence in the EPA's priority setting process.Catherine Delahunty: Is it acceptable that even though the EPA has said there are valid reasons to reassess triclosan a common ingredient in soap and handwash it will be looked at only if I—the person requesting reassessment—pay $50000 to ensure that it happens?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes because the taxpayer and the Environmental Protection Authority prioritise the reassessment process on those things that pose the greatest risk. In respect of the particular chemical the member raises the EPA does put a limit on the level that that chemical is allowed in products like hand sanitisers. There is no other country in the world that currently prohibits the use of that chemical. There is a question mark as to whether all of the possible tests have been done on that and on that basis the EPA believes that there are other chemicals that pose far greater risk and so are higher priorities.Catherine Delahunty: Given that the US Food and Drug Administration just banned this hazardous substance triclosan in soap due to its toxic effects and ineffectiveness as an anti-bacterial agent will he instruct the EPA to carry out this reassessment in the public interest?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No and I would note that the Australian and European authorities do not share that view. The member further overstates what the EPA has said in that the United States Environmental Protection Authority has simply said that it does not have sufficient evidence to be reassured. The third point I would make is that the Environmental Protection Authority is reassessing a number of organophosphates because it believes they pose a greater risk. I think it is absolutely valid that the EPA makes that decision on the grounds of scientific evidence not politics.Catherine Delahunty: Is it more in the public interest to reassess the safety of veterinary products which the EPA says is its priority than the triclosan in our toothpaste deodorant soap and kids' toys?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Environmental Protection Authority makes its decision about what chemicals need to be reassessed on the basis of those that pose the greatest risk to New Zealand health in the New Zealand environment. I think it would be a tragedy actually if politics rather than proper scientific assessment got in the way of the way in which the Environmental Protection Authority does that work.