- Print Friendly - Help

AgVetLink December 2003

Previous page  | Contents  |  Next page

---

Regulations prohibiting use of certain substances as agricultural compounds

The ACVM Group is working with the NZFSA Policy team to recommend to Government new Regulations under section 75(1)(f) of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 prescribing substances that are prohibited from use as agricultural compounds or as ingredients in agricultural compounds.

For a range of reasons, the following substances were prohibited for use as agrichemicals under the Pesticides Act:

• Aldrin
• BHC
• Chlordane
• Dieldrin
• DDT
• HCB (except as an impurity)
• Heptachlor
• Lindane
• Mirex
• Inorganic arsenics
• Nicotine sulphate
• Nitrofen
• Strychnine.

Some of these were not strictly prohibited but were subject to a permit requirement under the previous legislation.

With the repeal of the Pesticides Act 1979, the basis for the previous restriction is no longer valid. However, the need to prohibit their use is still relevant, and it seems prudent to use the powers provided in the ACVM Act to do so.

Considering the loss of the statutory basis for regulatory control of these substances, it has become essential to make these Regulations as soon as possible.

AVMAC was consulted at the November meeting and endorsed the making of the Regulations, especially given that they do not result in any additional restrictions for agricultural compounds.

This set of Regulations will clarify and resolve potential issues with the exemption Regulation that we have in place for ‘own use’ of products. It will also reduce the potential for confusion with updates being made to the HSNO Act for some of the substances listed above.

The ACVM Group is in the process of developing standards (see ‘Standard for Own Use’, page 3) that refer to the prohibitions and create obligations and expectations in regard to the prohibitions.

In developing the policy base for the Regulations, NZFSA will be asking advice on the list at left and on whether there should be any other substances, including active ingredients in veterinary medicines, that should be added to the list. Keep an eye on the ACVM part of the website for developments.

Changes to GRAS application process

This month sees the trial run of the recently re-vamped GRAS application process. In the past applications have taken up to six months to process because this is a non fee paying activity, which means all other business has priority over it.

The old process was set up to allow 30 days for an expert panel to assess the substances proposed followed by 30 days for public discussion. After this, John Reeve (Programme Manager – Toxicology and Residues) would hold all proposed substances for finalisation, and the accepted substances would then be put onto the GRAS list. The approximate time scale was six months.

The new and improved process places the expert approval and public discussion time frames together, thus decreasing the first part of the process by a month.

When this deadline has been reached, a meeting is held between Richard Dickson-Lowe (Assessor, Technical Standards – Toxicology) and John Reeve to finalise and sign off. Accepted substances are then put on to the GRAS list, and the approximate time scale will be two months.

Hopefully, this new process, which allows for a more rapid insertion of deserved substances on to the GRAS list, benefits everyone.

Class Determinations

With the change in ‘agricultural context’ definition (see article on page 4), a number of previously issued class determinations will not be valid after 1 July 2004.

The ACVM Group will be writing to all those affected by the change, but if you have made your own determination, we would suggest you revisit this to ensure compliance with the ACVM Act.