UN SR Prof Carney Almroth 12/09/26
Dear Professor Carney Almroth,
I am writing to ask whether the unresolved situation of children of Australian Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange and its contaminant, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, falls within the human-rights and scientific concerns being examined through the United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights mandate.
I am the daughter of an Australian Army plant operator who served in Vietnam in 1969–70, and I identify as an Agent Orange child.
I became aware of your work through your research with Dr Marcos Orellana concerning toxic pollution, scientific evidence and the manufacture or exploitation of scientific uncertainty. That work immediately resonated with what I have uncovered in Australia.
My findings have not come from speculation.
They have come from following Australian Government records, the Australian National Contact Point/OECD process, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and the reports and work of the UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights.
Australia conducted the Vietnam Veterans Family Study, which collected physical-health information from veterans’ sons and daughters. Yet the physical-health question affecting our generation remains unresolved, and planned further comparative research was not completed.
There is also an important historical conflict.
The Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs now states in its official Agent Orange history that the Australian Government and Monsanto contributed funding to the chemical companies’ defence during the 1984–85 Royal Commission, while the veterans ultimately ran out of money.
In June 2026, DVA updated its official history of Agent Orange and chemical exposure in the Vietnam War, acknowledging Australian exposure, widespread spraying in areas where Australian troops operated, the toxicity of dioxin, and longstanding concerns about effects on veterans and their children.
This raises a question that I believe goes beyond Australian veterans’ policy.
When potential harm originates from wartime exposure to a persistent toxic chemical, and possible effects on descendants remain scientifically unresolved decades later, does the continuing failure to investigate those descendants adequately become a matter for the UN toxics and human rights mandate?
Australian veterans’ descendants continue to be treated primarily under the broad administrative categories of “children” and “families.” The issue I am raising is more specific: possible intergenerational harm following paternal exposure to TCDD during war.
This is particularly important to me in light of the Special Rapporteur’s work concerning toxic legacies, access to scientific information, corporate conduct, accountability, and the ways scientific uncertainty can be used to delay protective action.
I am not asking you to accept a causal conclusion about my health or the health of Australian veterans’ children.
I am asking whether, in your scientific view, the evidence and the unresolved research gap warrant independent investigation — and whether this is an issue that should be brought formally to the attention of the current UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights.
I have included the primary-source documents supporting these matters, together with my father’s military service record and my birth certificate establishing that I am a documented Australian Vietnam veteran’s daughter.
Thank you for considering this.
Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,
Danielle Stevens
Geneva AP1 Article 77
Phone 0411838xxx
We will always be a child of a Vietnam Veteran
A formal complaint has been lodged with the International Criminal Court for Crimes against Humanity. The final submission was the 1st of July 2025.
Comments