Thursday, March 28, 2024

Caution over glyphosate limits

Avatar photo
A Nuffield scholar has questioned how low glyphosate residue levels should go after recent moves by Japan to block New Zealand honey after samples exceeded its residue limits.
Canterbury arable farmer Hamish Marr devoted his Nuffield Scholarship to examining how glyphosate fell from grace in the public eye and what farmers can to do to preserve it as an invaluable crop treatment.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Japanese authorities have cautioned NZ honey producers that if more than 5% of exported samples exceed the country’s 10pp billion limit, further exports will be banned.

Japanese glyphosate limits are globally very low, at only a tenth of NZ’s domestic limit of 100ppb.

Canterbury farmer Hamish Marr completed his Nuffield scholarship in 2019, examining farmers’ use globally of glyphosate and consumer perceptions about its application.

“My take was that Japanese consumers were very conscious of food quality standards and are prepared to pay,” Marr said. 

“But my take on Japanese farming was that the level of environmental awareness was quite low. When we asked about agri-chemicals they were not as up on things like residues as we were.”

However, Marr says there is also room in NZ for heightened education among farmers about glyphosate use, possibly around practices like avoiding spraying out pastures with flowering clover in them during the day when bees are about.

“It’s a good tool and it deserves some respect. If we lose the use of glyphosate the consequences are dire,” he said.

Marr says this was reinforced when he presented his Nuffield findings at a primary industry conference before Christmas.

Fellow speaker and regenerative farmer Hamish Bielski recounted his continuing reliance on the spray as a less impactful weed controller than physical cultivation, with the accompanying soil disturbance and erosion risks.

“When regenerative farmers are saying how important it is, then it is extra important that we look after it,” Marr said.

The ultra-low Japanese limits have been likened to a non-tariff trade barrier by some beekeepers.

Marr agreed it was approaching where the limits were so far below recommended maximum safe levels (MSLs).

Marr’s Nuffield work estimated 6% of farmland is sprayed with glyphosate in NZ, and the value of its application to farm systems was estimated at between $300 million and $500m.

The area it is used on is a relatively small amount due to NZ’s reliance on permanent pasture in farming systems, compared to extensive broadacre operations in Europe, Australia and the United States.

Glyphosate’s use in NZ has been secured with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) confirming its safety in a 2015 approval, stating that it was unlikely to be carcinogenic.

NZ’s food safety standards are also in line with most other major countries.

Results released from MPI on a honey survey last year found 78% had no glyphosate residue and none of the retail samples had residues over NZ’s regulatory limit of 100ppb.

AgCarm chief executive Mark Ross says there are Codex limits that monitor countries’ limits on such agri-chemicals, preventing them setting their residue levels too low.

“Usually, countries are pretty sensible about these things. Japan has lower rates, it has a right to do that. I understand they could lower further, but that would be challenged. It would almost become a non-tariff trade barrier,” Ross said.

He expected such a move would be noted and raised by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

It is understood Japan has had low glyphosate levels for some time, but it is relatively unique with this ultra-low setting. However, glyphosate residue levels and use are also being challenged in Europe.

France and Germany agreed to ban glyphosate by 2023, despite European Union rules preventing individual countries making specific national rules. 

Marr says it has been acknowledged by the minister that the cost of farming will rise and environmental challenges will only increase.

Ross says there is an impending decision on glyphosate use in Europe, and it was unlikely to be a clear-cut decision. 

He says glyphosate is a globally-accepted chemical and there was no other chemical presenting itself as a replacement that offered the same efficacy and safety.

“It would be disastrous to go back to the 60s and 70s, we would have to use harsher products that have been taken off the shelf. It’s a well-tested product,” Ross said.

An MPI spokesperson says there has been no communication from other trading partners stating they intend to test for glyphosate.

He confirmed countries are free to set their own import requirements, but NZ’s MRLs are based on the international food standard authority Codex Alimentarius Commission.

“It is important to note there is already a high level of international coordination on glyphosate with Codex Alimentarius MRLs being set for many crops to support international trade.

“Many international bodies such as the OECD are doing work to harmonise approaches to honey which NZ is contributing to,” he said.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading