Our View: Residents rightly angered by spray

Most people take care when using agricultural or horticultural sprays.
They take care not to get it in their eyes, on their skin or inhale it. They wear protective gear and ensure no one else is affected.
And for good reason.
Many sprays are extremely dangerous for humans and can cause a raft of health problems if used incorrectly.
Their link with disease seems to be getting stronger.
In January, a French winegrower who died after contracting leukaemia became the first farmer to have his illness officially linked to pesticides used on his crops.
The use of pesticides has also been linked with Parkinson's disease in France, a country that seems to relish dousing its crops with toxic sprays.
Here in Tauranga, the use of sprays is in the headlines, this time after Seeka sprayed one of its kiwifruit orchards for Psa but forgot to tell neighbours.
Seeka used a helicopter to spray the biological fungicide Serenade Max on vines on a Kairua Rd orchard on Monday morning.
Neighbours are furious.
Residents such as Sharon Holmes say they were not warned and suffered immediate health effects - including being able to taste the spray in their throat or numb and tingling lips.
It is understood one person complained of sore lungs.
These people also hold fears for racehorses and other animals.
Seeka quickly acknowledged it was supposed to warn people and has apologised.
In a strange twist, Kiwifruit Vine Health, the organisation charged with overseeing the management of Psa, proclaimed Serenade Max as being labelled not harmful to humans or animals.
Research by this paper discovered it is in fact harmful if absorbed through skin or inhaled.
Seeka deserves praise for quickly fronting up and apologising to residents - but this does not diminish the seriousness of this fiasco.
We all make mistakes, but this one is serious. People's lives and health have been affected.
These residents should be seeking legal advice, as should Seeka.
Seeka has a moral obligation to pay any medical or veterinary costs incurred by neighbours and to consider if some form of compensation is needed.
Such measures would certainly go some way to restoring its public relations image.
Seeka also needs to review its procedures.
This case should serve as a warning to any company that uses sprays to ensure not only handlers are protected, but innocent bystanders are too.
This must not happen again.
Related stories:

• Drifting orchard spray deemed hazardous
• 'Aerial spraying has made us sick'