Identification of agrichemical issues in a range of horticultural/arable industries

March 2008

Nikki Johnson
Market Access Solutionz Ltd
PO Box 10629
Wellington

Ph 04 4736040
Fax 04 4736041
Nikki@solutionz.co.nz

Key funding providers:

SFF logo  

Agmardt logo
In association with participating industry groups

Background

In July 2007, the Sustainable Farming Fund facilitated a meeting of small crop groups to identify common research issues and explore opportunities to work together to resolve them. One of the issues identified was problems with chemical registration and market access due to chemical residues. Most groups represented were experiencing some difficulties with registration of chemicals within New Zealand and/or complying with importing country residue requirements for fresh fruit and vegetables. It was agreed that Market Access Solutionz would undertake a project to determine the extent of the problems and the opportunities to work together to resolve them. This was considered a “Milestone Zero” approach and was co-funded by the MAF Sustainable Farming Fund, AGMARDT and the participating industries.

The industry groups who participated in the project are:

  • Asparagus Council
  • NZ Avocado Industry Council
  • NZ Feijoa Growers Association
  • Foundation for Arable Research
  • NZ Nashi Asian Pear Growers Association
  • NZ Citrus Growers Inc
  • NZ Persimmon Industry Council
  • NZ Passionfruit Growers Association
  • Summerfruit New Zealand
  • NZ Tamarillo Growers Association

The agrichemical problem

There are two main issues associated with agrichemical usage in the horticultural/arable industries that could possibly be resolved through working together.

New Zealand label claims & MRLs

For a chemical to be sold and used in New Zealand on agricultural and horticultural crops, it must be approved by ERMA under the HSNO Act and registered by NZFSA under the ACVM Act (NB certain groups of products are exempt from registration under the ACVM Act). At the conclusion of the NZFSA registration process, the chemical will have an approved label claim which outlines how the chemical can be used in line with good agricultural practice. In addition, where the chemical is used on a food crop a Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for that chemical/crop combination is established based on good agricultural practice. The purpose of the MRL is to ensure users comply with good agricultural practice for the approved label claim and is not solely a food safety limit. After a chemical has been registered for one crop, it may be used on other crops as long as any residues in the end food product comply with the NZ MRL Standard. Where no MRL is set then residues in that end food product must comply with the default MRL of 0.1 mg/kg. There are exemptions to this rule, with the main one being if the use of the chemical is restricted to the approved label claim either by registration conditions set under the ACVM Act, or the approval issued for it under the HSNO Act. Under such circumstances it would be illegal to use the product on other crops (i.e. outside those approved on the label).

When a user is considering use of a chemical on other crops, care needs to be taken to manage the residues. It should not be assumed that the use rates and withholding periods applying to the approved label claim will be applicable to use of the chemical on other crops. This is because the residue profile may differ between crops so any MRL set based on the use rate and withholding period for the approved label claim may not be the same for the other crop.

The barrier

There are significant costs associated with collecting the data necessary to support either an ERMA approval or an ACVM registration. In addition, the fees for these approvals can also be significant. Chemical companies are reluctant to invest this level of funding into regulatory approvals for small crops as the sales volumes will not justify the initial research and development costs or the ongoing technical support costs. Where a chemical is also used by larger crop groups, the chemical company may fund or co-fund the registration and label claim for that crop. This enables small crop industries to utilise the compound off-label but they are often unable to co-fund the trials that would be required to establish a label claim specifically for their crop.

There are also some issues around lack of first applicant protection. An active ingredient only needs to be approved by ERMA once after which other manufacturers can then import the same chemical without having to go through the ERMA process. They do still need to register each trade name and formulation with NZFSA individually but can “piggyback” on the original ERMA approval. This can mean companies are reluctant to be the first company to import and incur the ERMA approval costs. Chemical companies also have some concerns around investing in compounds that are due to lose their patent protection.

Possible solution

Small crop groups work together to find chemicals that will work across multiple crops and for which the combined sales volumes may be sufficient to encourage chemical companies to register the chemical in New Zealand. Combining funding may reduce the investment by each individual crop group. There may also be opportunities to better utilise registration data and decisions from other countries. The small crop groups could work together to discuss data sharing opportunities with registration authorities.

International MRL compliance

When food products are exported from New Zealand to other countries, it is the regulatory requirements of the importing country that must be met. Most importing countries have a list of MRLs for commodity/chemical combinations that must be complied with and these usually relate to the use of the chemical in their own country. For example, a US company could choose to register a fungicide for use on summerfruit prior to shuckfall and the resulting USA MRL will be set to enforce compliance with this application timing. The same chemical could be registered in New Zealand for use at a different time e.g. just prior to harvest, and therefore it will have a higher MRL on the New Zealand market but fruit exported to the USA would still need to meet the lower MRL. Despite the differences in MRLs there are no food safety concerns in either case.

Where there is no MRL for a commodity/chemical combination (because either the chemical is not authorised for use in that country, or the chemical does not have a label claim for the crop), the residue levels must be below the default MRL for that country – in many cases this is the limit of detection and no trace of the chemical can be found. The use of a chemical may differ between countries and this may result in a single chemical having different MRLs for each country. It is rare to find MRLs for one chemical that are the same in all export markets.

There is an international standard setting body called the Codex Alimentarius Commission which has one committee responsible for setting maximum residue limits in food - the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR). MRLs that are set using this committee are called Codex MRLs. These and other Codex standards are recognised as international trading standards by the WTO. Some countries refer to CODEX MRLs when setting import standards for food – in particular smaller countries in Asia (except Japan). This simplifies the regulatory process as there is a single MRL that needs to be met. Unfortunately the larger trading nations such as the European Union, Japan and the USA do not recognise Codex MRLs as a first point of reference. This means that exporters need to comply with the individual standards of these countries to import.

The barrier

There are often multiple MRLs for the same chemical/commodity combination that exporters must meet when exporting to a number of countries. In many cases, there are no specific MRLs set for chemicals that are used in New Zealand and this means that the chemical may not be able to be used on product for export to that country. Producers need to be aware of the MRLs for every country that they export to and ensure the produce complies with this.

The solution

There are some ways to reduce problems of MRLs not being set in an importing country – or those that are set too low:

  • Apply for an import tolerance (this allows an MRL level different to what is allowed domestically within the country of import). There would be advantages for small crop groups to work together on chemicals of mutual interest.
  • Obtain a Codex MRL (for countries which recognise this system).
  • Identify new chemicals that may have efficacy and have MRLs established in multiple countries of import – then work with other industries to have them registered in New Zealand.
  • Participate in Codex standard setting through representation at the CCPR meeting and utilise this forum to encourage wider utilisation of Codex MRLs by importing countries.

Scoping study/milestone zero - establishing current and future chemical compliance issues

Before industries can develop an agrichemical strategy for domestic and export compliance, they need to understand the matrix of their current chemical use. It is important to know how many of the chemicals they are using have MRLs established in New Zealand, whether any of the chemicals are under threat of deregistration, and for exported commodities what the importing country MRLs are if there are any at all.

This project undertakes a base level review of chemical usage in each of the participating industries from a domestic and export perspective so that industries know the extent of the current and future compliance issues. Each participating industry group has received a report on their industry and the overview report which explains how the project was undertaken and establishes trends across all the industry groups. Each industry group will have the choice to include their industry report in the full report or keep it confidential.

Method

Data collection

Each participating industry was asked to provide the following information for each chemical used in the production of the crop. They were asked to report all chemical usage even if it is off-label usage.

  • Chemical (active ingredient)
  • Trade names used
  • Rate applied
  • Target pest
  • Number of applications
  • Timing of applications (crop growth stage)
  • Pre-harvest interval (last application to harvest – actual and preferred)
  • Importance of chemical (Scale 1-3, definitions provided)
  • Any plans to remove the use of the chemical from spray programmes

In addition, each industry group was asked to provide information on:

  • What markets the crop is exported to (if any), and any future potential markets
  • Any MRL/PHI information that is available (and the date it was last reviewed)
  • Information on chemicals currently in trials
  • A list of the pests/types of pests that need to be controlled
  • Any known market access issues related to chemical use
  • Any initiatives underway to replace agrichemicals with alternative control strategies such as pheromone traps, biological control etc.

Industry groups supplied information in various forms and levels of completeness. It is important to note that each industry review has been undertaken on the information that was provided by each of the industry groups. In many cases it was unclear how current the MRL and PHI information was and it is the responsibility of each industry group to ensure the information provided was correct. This is particularly the case for European Union MRLs which have are being revised into a harmonised system. Industry groups should ensure their MRL information has been updated to take these revisions into account.

Data analysis

The process of data review was the same for each industry based on the information provided. All assessment was undertaken on an active ingredient basis.

  • Registration status in New Zealand – registration status of each compound for each crop is provided according to the NZ MRL standard1 and label claims according to the NZ Novachem manual2.
  • Future compliance risk – this is an assessment of future reviews of active ingredients that are scheduled by ERMA NZ3, EPA4, and the Codex CCPR5. Where no reviews were scheduled by these agencies a low risk assessment rating was given and where one review was scheduled a medium risk rating was applied. Where two or more reviews were scheduled or the compound was scheduled for review by ERMA NZ, the compound was given a high risk rating for future compliance risk. Full details of the compliance reviews scheduled for each compound can be found in Section 6 of the report.
  • International compliance risk – in this assessment the NZ MRL6 and PHI7 information supplied by each industry was assessed. A low, medium or high risk rating was provided for each compound and commentary provided to explain the rating given.
  • Combined risk rating – this is a combination of the risk ratings applied for future compliance and international compliance. Ratings were assigned as follows:
Future compliance rating International compliance rating Overall risk rating
Low Low Low
Low Medium Low
Medium Low Medium
Medium Medium Medium
Medium High Medium
High Medium High
High High High
  • Compounds with an overall risk rating of ‘high’ are then marked in red for further commentary.
  • Matrix of pests and compounds – based on information provided by industry groups, a matrix of pest control options was developed. In this table, the compounds which had received an overall high risk rating are marked in red. An assessment of the impact on pest control if the high risk compounds were removed is then given.
  • Recommendations for high risk compounds – a recommendation for how industry may wish to deal with each high risk compound is provided.

1 New Zealand (Maximum Residue Limits of Agricultural Compounds) Food Standards 2007. NZ Food Safety Authority, Wellington.

2 New Zealand Novachem Agrichemical Manual – 2008. Agrimedia. Christchurch

3 Environmental Risk Management Authority, New Zealand

4 United States Environmental Protection Agency

5 Codex Alimentarius, Committee on Pesticide Residues

6 Maximum Residue Limit

7 Pre-Harvest Interval

Contact for Enquiries

Fund Administrator
Sustainable Farming Fund
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington

Tel: 0800 100 087
Fax: 04 894 0741
Contact this person