Celebrating 25 Years of Scoop
Regulatory Review Into Pesticides And Agrichemicals – Expert Reaction
The Government has confirmed it will review the regulations around how agricultural and horticultural products are given the green tick for usage in Aotearoa, following the approval of the review’s terms of reference.
The newly announced review will focus on the approvals needed for products like pesticides, inhibitors, feed, fertilisers, and veterinary medicines. The review will not look at the regulation of gene technology.
Public feedback on the review opened this morning.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Dr Richard Newcomb, Chief Scientist, Plant & Food Research, comments:
“Many of our agricultural industries are in the midst of a transition from chemical solutions for plant nutrition (fertilisers) and as controls for pest and diseases (pesticides) to more biological solutions. These new biological products offer a more sustainable, softer approach to these issues. They will also be required as levels of chemical residues on products restrict access to markets for our goods.
“Europe’s Green Deal is a good example of policy driving this transition, with targets that hope to halve the use of chemical pesticides in the EU by 2030. While we can develop some of our own biological solutions here in New Zealand (eg AureoGold developed by Plant & Food Research), many are being developed overseas and will need to be imported and registered for use in New Zealand. Making sure our regulatory pathway is fit for purpose is vital in protecting our unique ecosystems from harm, while ensuring we have the best tools available to grow food sustainably.”
Conflict of interest statement: Plant & Food Research conducts research in this area, and develops biological solutions that would need regulatory approval.
Melanie Kah, Associate Professor, School of Environment, University of Auckland, comments:
“The announcement of a regulatory review into agricultural and horticultural products is great news! It has been highlighted many times that our risk assessment framework is outdated and that the separation of different aspects between different government agencies makes it relatively inefficient (e.g. see the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment published in March 2022).
“It is good to see that the specific aspect of re-assessment will be considered as it is currently problematic. For instance, the authorisation of pesticides currently has no expiry date in New Zealand, which is quite unusual. This means a substance remains on the market unless it is re-assessed and phased out. In most other countries, the authorisation to place a chemical on the market is given for a fixed period, after which the chemical is automatically phased out unless companies apply for a new authorisation. This explains why we still have on our market substances that were phased out in other countries a long time ago. Our resources are very limited, and they would be more efficiently used in considering novel solutions rather than phasing out old chemistry.
“The review will hopefully create pathways to integrate the work currently conducted by different agencies and allow more holistic risk assessments that consider both human and environmental health together, rather than separately. It will hopefully also allow pathways for novel substances that currently do not fit well in the current framework (e.g. biopesticides, nanopesticides) and that may be less hazardous than currently used products. Biopesticides include natural substances (biochemical pesticides) and microorganisms that control pests (microbial pesticides). Nanopesticides are designed at the very small scale (nanoscale) to improve the properties of existing or novel pesticides.
“I hope this review will also be an opportunity to consider the latest developments in regulatory science, including next-generation risk assessment approaches that are discussed overseas and that allow a more scientific approach to risk assessment as opposed to a box-ticking exercise.”
Conflict of interest statement: Principal investigator of a scientific project funded by the Royal Society on “Building the foundation to improve the risk assessment of pesticides in Aotearoa/New Zealand”
Dr Axel Heiser, Chief Scientist, AgResearch, comments:
“As leaders in agricultural research, AgResearch recognises the need to periodically reassess regulatory frameworks.
“Scientific and technological advancements are continually providing new methods for better predicting, analysing, and mitigating risks. This review offers an opportunity to integrate these innovations, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of risk assessments.
“Market access is crucial for New Zealand’s agricultural economy. Farmers and growers depend on timely access to safe, effective solutions to remain competitive and meet the standards of domestic and international markets. Ensuring our regulatory systems are robust and efficient is key to maintaining our position as a leading exporter of agricultural products.”
No conflicts of interest.
Science Media Centre NZ
Our aim is to promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community.
The Science Media Centre is New Zealand's only trusted, independent source of information for the media on all issues related to science. Thousands of news stories providing context from and quoting New Zealand researchers have been published as a direct result of our work.
Bakels New Zealand Supreme Pie Awards: ‘Mainland’ Claims First Supreme Pie Award
Southern Cross: Southern Cross Wellington Hospital Introduces Innovative Procedure For Prostate Treatment
Equestrian Sports NZ: New “Stand-down” Policy To Minimise Concussion Risks Associated With Horse-Riding Injuries
SunPix: MAISUKA -The Silent Killer
WellSouth: Closing The Gap - Breastfeeding Support For All
Victim Support: Research Reveals Urgent Need To Change The Script On Victim Blaming