- Print Friendly - Help

AgVetLink April 2004: Page 4

Standards update

Summary of submissions: Draft Standard for Vertebrate Toxic Agents

Fifteen submissions were received on the draft standard for the management of vertebrate toxic agents (VTAs) (the summary of submissions is on the ACVM Group website). Submitters expressed support for the need for controls on the use of these pesticides. However, most submitters were of the opinion that this draft standard under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act 1997 duplicates controls that are being developed under other legislation, primarily the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.

Submissions strongly opposed the idea of having two separate licensing systems under the two Acts. It was felt that two systems would result in excessive costs and ‘red tape’; the result would be detrimental to pest control schemes throughout the country. The opinion was expressed that the ACVM Group and ERMA New Zealand should be able to work together to develop one system that would ‘cover’ the requirements of both pieces of legislation in terms of licensing, public notification, record keeping and approvals.

The ACVM Group agrees entirely with this intent and is working with ERMA New Zealand to develop efficient regulatory control. The draft standard states the requirements under the ACVM Act so that regulatory action can be taken under that Act. This could not be done if the requirements were imposed under the HSNO Act alone.

The fact that the ACVM registration conditions and HSNO control are virtually the same will make it easier to establish a joint regulatory system that does not require two separate licensing systems or duplicate regulatory costs. At the moment regulatory control is achieved by the ACVM Group under the Pesticides Act (via the HSNO Act transitional provisions) but this has a limited life. While ERMA New Zealand is establishing its controls and its ‘approved handler’ system, the ACVM Group will maintain control over the products and users. As the new system becomes operational, the old system will be subsumed into it. However, it is imperative that the new system adequately manages issues such as food residues and provides a basis for export certification as well as protection to the public and the environment.

Public notification was an area that drew considerable comment in the submissions. In general, it was felt that requirements under this draft standard duplicated HSNO requirements but that the notification time period (one month) was insufficient.

A few submissions said that public notification should be required only for VTA applications on public land and for aerial applications. Requiring notification for all forms of VTAs would add extra cost disproportionate to the added benefit in public safety.

The ACVM Group accepts these comments and will modify the draft accordingly.

There were differing views regarding classification of VTAs. Some thought that the need to classify was debatable because all registered trade name products have controls specified on the label already. Others said that a fourtier classification system (over-thecounter [OTC], regulated, controlled and restricted) would be more useful.

The opinion was expressed that decisions on classification should be open, transparent and subject to public consultation. Several submissions said that it was unclear which products were in which category. Some also requested clarification as to which classes of products were subject to the conditions listed in the appendix.

It became obvious that the classification was too limiting given the variability in products. Consequently, the classification will be removed and conditions will be imposed on an individual product basis, with a level of control on distribution, sale and use appropriate for that product. For the most part this will reflect existing controls, but some will have to be adjusted in light of residue and export certification concerns.

The subject of promoting/advertising vertebrate toxic agent products was raised in several submissions. Companies involved in the manufacture of such products felt it would be irresponsible not to advise users of the benefits of using their products, circumstances of appropriate use, best practice and so on. The public should know about product successes and failures. It was felt that a ban on promotion would be unacceptable, unworkable and unenforceable. The ACVM Group agrees that the example activities are responsible dissemination of information, not promotion to increase market share.

Broadifacoum-based products, which were mentioned in many submissions, generated the most disagreement. While some said the risks in these products should make them Class 2 VTAs, others said present controls are sufficient. This is clearly an area that requires more consideration. However, as stated above, rather than force the products into an ill-fitting class, the ACVM Group will impose conditions on a case by case basis.

Approximately one-third of the submissions questioned the adequacy of the consultation. More widespread coverage and a longer period of time for submissions were suggested. It must be noted that this was only the first draft and the ACVM Group intends to work through the issues over time and to allow sufficient dialogue to develop efficient and adequate regulatory control.