In his address today to the inaugural international conference on the regulation of agvet chemicals and technologies at the University of New England, Chief Executive Officer of the peak industry organisation for the plant science sector, Matthew Cossey, declared that Independent science-based regulation needs defending from activist attacks and community ignorance.
Mr Cossey addressed the modern challenges facing the agvet chemical industry and regulatory system.
“The efficient, effective and viable regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals is more critical now than at any other time in the last 60 years… Farmers are being challenged to deliver higher yields with fewer resources, produce more nutritious foods and improve existing agricultural methods in even more challenging circumstances. All this while maintaining and improving the number of crop protection products and solutions they have access to is becoming even more difficult.
“One of the great problems we face in modern society – because of the revolution in modern media and communications platforms – is we now have a huge number of people who have just enough information on any given subject to think they are right, but unfortunately don’t know enough on that subject to realise they are wrong. This is no more evident than in the public discourse on glyphosate.
“There also appears to be an increasing disconnect between the community at large and the challenges facing the farming sector in continuing to produce food in line with community expectations, even if those expectations are based on entirely false premises.
“We need a re-connection of the community and the nation’s political leaders at all levels of government with the needs of the farming sector, to ensure science- and evidence-based policy and associated regulation is protected and indeed enhanced.
“There appears to be no understanding in our cities that the introduction of chemistry into farming not only essentially doubled the production of existing agricultural land, but is the foundation to disease-free, nutritious, sustainable and affordable food.
“In fact, a Deloitte Access Economics report recently outlined that 73 per cent of the current total value of agricultural production in Australia is directly attributable to the access and use of crop protection products by farmers.
“The Australian community is fortunate that pesticides are regulated using the same rigorous scientific, risk-based framework as human medicines, to ensure that any hazards associated with a product are properly and effectively mitigated, while still ensuring that these crucial products are available to the farming and environmental land management sectors.
“Commentators and critics alike seem to forget that thousands of hours of R&D and scientific assessment by both industry and then regulators have gone into ensuring that when a product is used according to its label directions, it presents no unacceptable risk to users, consumers, animals or the environment.
“The challenge here is, how do we ensure that we reinforce with consumers that Australian farmers are worlds’ best practice growers and producers and that we have a robust regulatory system that protects the community as a whole?
“It is beyond time for the government to step in, in a significant way, and properly inform the Australian community – perhaps starting in schools – about the regulatory environment for agvet chemicals and farming more broadly.
“That stated, there is as much an obligation on industry as there is on government and regulators, to ensure a world class regulatory system that has the full confidence of the Australia community about how farmers use these products.
“Industry-led stewardship initiatives that assist safe, proper and sustainable use of these products is the first line of defense against unnecessary regulation and the threat of critical products being removed from the market.
“The nature of public discussion and debate in this modern era is a real threat to independent evidence based regulatory science.
“It is time to take the false ideologies and food fanaticisms, that have no foundation in fact or science, out of agricultural policy, and especially prevent them warping the regulation of agricultural and veterinary technologies.”
The national peak industry organisation for the plant science sector welcomes the return of the Hon David Littleproud MP to the role of Minister for Agriculture.
CropLife Australia’s Chief Executive Officer, Matthew Cossey, said, “CropLife Australia and our members congratulate Minister Littleproud on his appointment to the important role of Minister for Agriculture.
“Minister Littleproud has shown he is a passionate advocate for agriculture and regional Australia more broadly.
“There is still work to do to further improve the performance of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to ensure Australian farmers have timely access to the crucial innovations of the plant science industry.
“CropLife looks forward to working with Minister Littleproud and the Government to ensure Australia’s farming sector remains a world-leader and continues to grow to reach the target of being a $100 billion industry by 2030,” concluded Mr Cossey.
Labor and the Greens have raised deep concerns over the government’s plan to introduce a governance board for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Their comments – based on unfair costs to farmers and duplication of management layers – are detailed in their dissenting reports to a Senate inquiry tabled yesterday evening.
CropLife Australia Chief Executive Officer, Matthew Cossey, welcomed their views, “The plant science industry has been telling the government that adding this ill-considered and poorly planned additional layer of bureaucracy comes at too high a cost and does not address the core inefficiencies in the APVMA’s operations.
“This is a price that will ultimately be paid by Australian farmers who should not be expected to pay more for crucial agricultural products as a result of unnecessary increased regulatory costs. This at a time when Australian farmers are doing it tough with drought is unacceptable.
The Senate inquiry report into the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019 noted the establishment of the governance board would cost approximately $200,000 and a further $400,000 during its first year in running costs. The first year’s costs would be met through existing APVMA appropriations with subsequent annual costs met through the APVMA’s cost recovery arrangements.
Mr Cossey continued, “It’s disappointing that the government has not taken the advice of the industries and farming sector that will be most impacted by the board. An APVMA governance board has been added to regulatory changes that had bi-partisan and industry support when they were passed by the House of Representatives more than 18 months ago.
“There is no doubt that further improvements in management of the APVMA are required, however, it is clear the government has not properly considered the governance board as part of any genuine long-term reform package.
“Labor and the Greens are to be commended for defending farmers from unnecessary regulatory costs when each day is a struggle.”
Mr Cossey concluded, “We are calling on all crossbench Senators to join Labor and the Australian Greens and amend the Bill to remove the governance board and pass the other long‑awaited measures.”
View the full report online.
While most of the reforms in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill introduced today are welcomed, the plant science industry is disappointed the government is attempting to impose more unnecessary costs onto Australian farmers with its ill-considered and poorly planned governance board for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).
Adding this additional layer of bureaucracy comes at a significant cost and does not address the core inefficiencies in the APVMA’s operations. This is a price that will ultimately be borne by Australian farmers who should not be expected to pay more for crucial products as a result of increased regulatory costs, especially at this time when so many are doing it tough due to one of the worst periods of drought Australia has ever experienced.
The cost of chemical regulation in Australia is already three times greater per product registered use than in the United States – despite the Australian market being just one tenth the size of the US. The APVMA has already announced it will be seeking an additional $2.5 million in fees annually to cover years of mismanagement and an inability to meet its statutory performance requirements within budget. Adding another cost of upwards of half a million dollars per year for a governing board is exorbitant.
It is a slap in the face to the farming sector that this board will be fully funded by industry fees and levies, rather than by general revenue like other government regulators – even those with industry cost recovery arrangements.
The APVMA has previously had a governance board. It was abolished in 2007 following recommendations made in the independent Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders. The agency now has a functioning governance structure, including an audit committee with external appointees. Any changes to this should only be implemented after proper and comprehensive assessment and consideration. It is clear and disappointing that the government hasn’t properly considered other lower cost governance and management oversight measures.
It’s also extremely disappointing that the government appears to be forcing the Parliament to take the bad with the good by adding this measure to previously proposed regulatory changes that had bi-partisan support when they were passed by the House of Representatives 18 months ago. We call on all Senators to amend the Bill to remove the governing board and pass the other conservative but important measures that have been long-awaited by the Australian plant science industry and agricultural sector.
The government’s revised Bill to introduce an expensive governing board for the APVMA has been rushed without proper consultation as part of any long-term reform process. They clearly have not adequately considered the impact this will have on industry and Australian farmers.
CropLife and our members do not, in principle, oppose governance structures like boards. What we do oppose is ill‑considered politically motivated initiatives that impose significant costs on the farming sector without corresponding improvement.
The APVMA has experienced a tumultuous few years relocating to Armidale. This isn’t the time to introduce slapdash, costly measures. If the government wishes to be so belligerent and is intent on having this expensive board, then it should pay for it instead of Australia’s farmers.
Agricultural chemicals, including glyphosate, are some of the most regulated products in the world.
The world’s most advanced, independent and scientifically-competent regulators have assessed and reassessed glyphosate and declared it to be safe.
In 2016 the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) comprehensively reviewed the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s glyphosate report and found no grounds for glyphosate’s approved uses to be reassessed.
In May 2019 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reaffirmed the safety of glyphosate, finding it is not a carcinogen. Their Glyphosate Proposed Interim Decision found there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label.
In January this year, Health Canada re-confirmed their position that glyphosate is safe saying, “Our scientists left no stone unturned in conducting this review.”
The European Food Safety Authority has stated, “Glyphosate is not classified or proposed to be classified as carcinogenic or toxic…”
The US Agricultural Health Study has been running since 1993 looking specifically at the risk between glyphosate exposure and non‑Hodgkin lymphoma. In that time investigators from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have comprehensively analysed data from over 89,000 farmers and their spouses. They have found no association between glyphosate and non‑Hodgkin lymphoma – regardless of the exposure level.
In Australia, the APVMA undertakes a comprehensive pre-market risk assessment of all agricultural chemicals, ensuring they are safe for use and for the environment, before they can be made available. The APVMA takes new data and scientific information into account when considering the ongoing safety of a registered product.
APVMA approved label directions for all weed management tools must comply with regulatory requirements. This includes information regarding best management practices to be employed during use.
The hysteria surrounding the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph on glyphosate is unfounded. IARC only plays the limited role of advising regulatory bodies on potential hazards, allowing the relevant regulatory agencies to assess if there are any associated risks and manage them appropriately.
Furthermore, following an investigation by the international news organisation, Reuters, it was found that IARC edited out studies confirming glyphosate’s non-carcinogenic status. The integrity of the IARC process was completely compromised and it is ethically questionable for those involved in that process to continue to mislead, misinform and seek to falsely scare the public regarding the monograph on glyphosate.
It’s human nature that when someone is diagnosed with cancer, they want to find an answer to their question, why me? However, accepting a false but convenient answer as opposed to finding out the actual cause serves no one.
The Australian community should not be misled by those involved in what amounts to nothing more than a deception to assist US tort law firms.
While we have great sympathy for anyone with cancer, it’s important that these debates are undertaken on science and actual data.
These chemical products play a critical role in safe food production and environmentally sustainable farming practices in Australia and around the world.
The community has a right to be informed about glyphosate, but it’s crucial they are informed by the independent experts.
For more information visit: croplife.org.au/glyphosate
CropLife Australia and our members welcome the announcement of an independent review of Australia’s agricultural and veterinary chemical regulation framework.
This review should be beneficial in streamlining important agricultural chemical regulatory activities, thereby enabling the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to become a next generation regulator.
The APVMA plays a crucial role in ensuring Australian farmers have access to safe, effective and modern crop protection products that assist them to farm more productively and sustainably. These products are also crucial for our nation’s environmental land managers combatting threats to our natural environment.
Following a tumultuous few years relocating the APVMA to Armidale, reviewing Australia’s regulatory framework for agvet chemicals provides an opportunity to streamline the regulatory operations of the APVMA, deliver genuine efficiency gains and ensure Australia keeps a world-class scientifically and technically competent regulator.
CropLife welcomes the appointment of Mr Ken Matthews AO as the Chair of the expert review panel. Mr Matthews has significant experience in agvet chemical regulation as a former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Mr Matthews remains a person of high standing in Australia’s agricultural sector.
We also welcome the expertise of Dr Craig Suann, Dr Mary Corbett and Dr Anne Astin PSM on the review panel.
The plant science industry directly underpins more than $20 billion a year of Australian agricultural production. Any reform process must deliver benefits and be done in a measured way that doesn’t cause unnecessary disruption.
The plant science industry will constructively participate in this review process and is hopeful it will deliver much‑needed regulatory improvements, unlike some previous reform agendas.
The expert review panel is due to report to the Minister for Agriculture by February 2021.