Chlorpyrifos reassessment – proposed ban APP204694 2024

Original text below: PSGR's submission to NZEPA's 2024 call for feedback: Chlorpyrifos reassessment – proposed ban APP204694 (PDF copy).

Link to NZEPA Chlorpyrifos page. (Downloadable submission form):

NZEPA Questions about the reassessment of chlorpyrifos (in the downloadable submission form. PSGR's response:

Do you agree with the EPAs proposal to revoke the approvals for chlorpyrifos?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Agree or oppose in part (provide comment)

What are your comments on the risks of chlorpyrifos? Please provide information in support of your assessment or comments on the risks associated with chlorpyrifos. Where possible provide quantitative risk assessment and/or quantitative information which supports and/or is evidence of your consideration of these risks.

Chlorpyrifos (CPY) is a well established developmental neurotoxin. The evidence that supports this is contained 50 years of toxicological and epidemiological research. The primary risk concerns risks to pregnant women and children who live on, or near sprayed sites, or pregnant women working in and around sprayed sites, including nurseries, crops, turf, sprayed fields for pasture and arable cropping and publicly accessible areas. The risk is extensive and cannot be contained, and there is evidence that very low exposures are associated with developmental harm and reduced IQ. Please see our attached appendices discussing the extent of studies already considered by global regulators.

What are your comments on the estimated benefits of chlorpyrifos containing substances? Please provide information on any benefits you have identified. Where available please provide quantitative information and where possible provide information which indicates the specific contribution to these benefits that is attributable to the use of chlorpyrifos.

The estimated benefits cannot be weighted against the risks. There are substitute products that confer far less toxicity, particularly to pregnant women and children.

What are your comments on the assessed impacts of chlorpyrifos approvals, and the proposal to revoke these approvals, on Māori? Please provide information on any impacts you have identified. Where possible provide information which indicates the specific contribution to these impacts which is attributable to the use of chlorpyrifos and/or the impact of these substances becoming unavailable.

For far too long Māori farmworkers and growers and their families have been exposed to CPY. This is exacerbated by New Zealand lagging other jurisdictions to start the revocation of CYP process, and now, taking a long time for consultation.

What are your comments on the estimated costs of the proposed revocation of chlorpyrifos approvals? Please provide information on any costs you have identified. Where possible provide information which indicates the specific contribution of chlorpyrifos being unavailable to these costs, or the specific costs of replacing the use of chlorpyrifos with any available alternative.

Resistance of agricultural chemicals (not just herbicides) is far more common than publicly acknowledged. Increasing toxicity of insecticides to cope with insect resistance, to substitute, diazinon, or clothianidin, use of which are banned elsewhere, or restricted from outdoors use, presents a trade-related risk. FAR acknowledges that the market is driving NZ away from more toxic ‘solutions’, as New Zealand is not a leader in stewarding highly toxic chemicals, we will be a follower of offshore regulatory decisions. If brassica growers are concerned about costs PSGR recommend that ozone (O3) treatment is considered. O3 reduces fungal infection and insect populations, while promoting growth, producing larger brassicas. We have added this information as part of our appendices. New biologics used by the organics sector, in addition to focusing on soil biology support a shift away from toxic insecticides.

What are your comments on the estimated costs of retaining chlorpyrifos approvals and ongoing use of substances which contain this active ingredient? Please provide information on any costs you have identified. Where possible provide information which indicates the specific contribution of chlorpyrifos to these costs

Risk from contamination in export meat of chloryprifos and the primary metabolite may present a trade-related risk if that product is shipped into markets such as the European Union where CYP is banned. Lamb/sheep meat may be especially vulnerable to contamination due to bioaccumulation in meat fat.

What are your comments on the overall assessment of risks, benefits, impact to Māori, costs, and any other effects of chlorpyrifos substances over their lifecycle. If not already provided in evidence for a previous question, please provide evidence to support your comments.

As above.

Do you have any comments on the proposed revocation timeframe? If yes, please explain.

☒ Yes

☐ No

The long feedback time of 3 months is unusual, and PSGR consider that the long ‘go-slow’ time to consult, then disseminate the information and come to a finding is designed to pacify the industry applicants. NZEPA lags behind OECD nations in revoking chlorpyrifos. By the time these processes have filtered through, and a transitional phase-out period of 6 months, we presume this could be end of 2025. The tentativeness of the NZEPA, is in part due to a long-standing siloed culture that is enhanced by the absence of funding and resourcing for research into soil, plant and animal management using integrated pest management processes which reduce dependence on hazardous chemicals. As there is no crosstalk between the agency and independent research institutions, and restricted funding for long-term independent research institutions for agricultural research unless connected to IP-related development, the default for NZEPA is greater dependence on chemical-industry facing and financed organisations and representative groups. The status quo has produced a culture where NZEPA is a low-bar regulator and, although New Zealand attempts to represent itself as clean and green, the chemical industry identifies New Zealand as an early entry point for both higher, more concentrated formulations of hazardous chemicals that would not be permitted, eg. in Europe, and a laggard in pulling products.

What are your comments on the additional controls proposed to be applied to the approval before the revocation is proposed to take effect? Please provide details, including suggestions on any controls that should be added or removed, the change in risk mitigation that these controls would have and any comments on potential barriers to compliance.

PSGR urge IMMEDIATE cessation in public areas where pregnant women and children may be exposed; and an immediate instruction for an added sticker on labels to workplaces (cropped areas, fumigation sheds etc) and areas where turf is publicly accessible, such as golf courses, to warn pregnant women from entering for two weeks after treatment.

If chlorpyrifos approvals were retained would your comments on the controls which should be applied to these approvals change. Please provide details including suggestions on any controls that should be added or removed, the change in risk mitigation that these controls would have and any comments on potential barriers to compliance.

We ask that NZEPA do not capitulate and replicate Australian practices. Brassica controls should not be removed, due to demonstrated use of O3 as a substitute product for over a decade in the Bay of Plenty. Pasture use must be withdrawn and NZ not replicate Australia to permit on pasture. NZEPA can also draw on common scientific knowledge that insect resistance to chemical insecticides is common. EPA can take steps to acknowledge that chemical substitution such as replacing chlorpyrifos with diazinon, harms farmers, sprayers, and farming families. Improving soil practice and using soil biologics may be a key transition process. The NZEPA must also take steps to inquire into the impact of biologics to soil biology and insect populations, however, at this stage indications are that non-GMO biologics are less harmful to soil organisms over time. Taking another year to withdraw due to months that would be required to produce the Decision Document and then a six-month phase out period is ethically questionable when cessation in public areas and the production of warning labels would still mean that NZEPA regulation lagged years behind best practice. Imitating Australia, while ignoring European decisions and export market considerations will give people cause to doubt NZEPAs regulatory and scientific independence.

General feedback

Do you have any general comments on the contents of the reassessment of chlorpyrifos including the regulation of the substance and the proposed revocation of its approvals.

Taking another year to withdraw due to months that would be required to produce the Decision Document and then a six-month phase out period is ethically questionable when cessation in public areas and the production of warning labels would still mean that NZEPA regulation lagged years behind best practice. Simply pivoting to imitate Australia, while ignoring European decisions and export market considerations will give people cause to doubt the NZEPAs regulatory and scientific independence.

Please note: PDF of PSGR submission document. These appendices were attached to our submission:
[A] Report: The Erosion of Risk Assessment practice at the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. The case of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl. December, 2024.
[B] PSGR: Three page information document Chlorpyrifos and risk
[C] Re: PSGR brassica discussion (above): Effects of Ozonated Water on Horticultural Products and Future Applications.
[D] Re: PSGR brassica discussion (above): Growlink testimony and customer information.

Download