Farmers could unwittingly be using and storing chemicals

Farmers could unwittingly be using and storing chemicals which are no longer registered for use unless they sign up for alerts from the industry regulator – a moved slammed by leaders.

Victorian Farmers Federation grains group vice-president Ryan Milgate said the APVMA had “lots of holes in the net”. Picture: Yuri Kouzmin

Farmers across Australia could unwittingly be using and storing chemicals which are no longer registered for use unless they sign up for alerts from the industry regulator.

Chemical recalls are issued by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, but farmers need to subscribe to an email alert system or check the APVMA website to be aware of any changes.

And even if chemical companies are told to recall products, the time taken for the APVMA to check this process could mean they could have already been used.

One agronomist told The Weekly Times he believed the number of farmers and even fellow agronomists on the APVMA recall list would be “very minimal”.

Victorian Farmers Federation grains group vice-president Ryan Milgate said the APVMA had “lots of holes in the net”.

“There should be a way of notifying people very quickly of changes in chemical uses or it could become a major problem very fast,” Mr Milgate said.

“I would have thought there was a process that would account for the chemical sold within a certain time frame, to make sure there weren’t issues from its use if it had changed.”

An APVMA spokesman said email notifications on recalls were on an “opt in basis” and would not disclose how many people or organisations were on the distribution list.

“Stakeholders are encouraged to remain up to date with APVMA communications, however subscriber lists are not a database of registrants or users of agvet chemicals,” the spokesman said.

“The APVMA strongly encourages holders of agvet chemical registrations, users of agvet chemicals and anyone storing chemicals for commercial or personal use or retail sale to stay up to date with advice from the APVMA by subscribing to APVMA communications.”

Earlier this month, the APVMA issued a recall notice for the herbicide Chlorthal-Dimethyl 900 where the wrong labels had been attached to the product.

Nufarm, the manufacturer of the chemical, initiated the recall for the product which was sold between August last year and June this year and did not contain a warning not to graze treated areas or cut for stock food due to residue risks.

While Chlorthal-Dimethyl 900 is not routinely used as a herbicide in grazing situations, the earlier label did not say that it should not be used.

Nufarm Australia commercial general manager Peter O’Keeffe said customers had been notified through supply channels.

“This product, although it had a legacy registration for perennial grasses and lucerne use, it was rarely, if ever, used for that purpose and is a predominantly a horticulture product,” Mr O’Keeffe said.

“When we were informed of the formal change to no longer support the product for perennial grasses and lucerne use by the APVMA, we immediately moved to a voluntary recall.”

The APVMA said it regulated chemicals used in the management of pests and diseases in plants and animals “up to and including the point of retail sale” but did not commit to always following through to check if recalls had been done fully.

“Whether a recall is initiated by the supplier (voluntary recall) or the APVMA issues a notice to a supplier requiring the recall (compulsory recall), it is a legislative requirement for the supplier to notify consumers,” the spokesman said.

“However, if necessary, the APVMA can impose conditions that a supplier must report within a stated period on the action taken.

“Action taken may include informing all consumers … Following this, the APVMA can determine from the report provided if all resellers have been notified.”

Mr Milgate said he had never been contacted by either an agronomist or a chemical reseller over a recall.

“Theoretically, I could have bought a chemical and used it according to its label, and if I was not aware it had been recalled or its label use has been changed, could have been doing the wrong thing and not even know that I have,” he said.

“This could have huge implications for trade if that use results in residues.”

Grain Producers Australia southern director Andrew Weidemann said there was a strong case for labels to be made electronic to avoid issues when uses changed or when there were recalls.

This would mean farmers could scan a QR code to find out the latest use and safety information on a chemical.

“Surely in this modern day, we could have communication of label changes by electronic means,” Mr Weidemann said.

“It is frustrating that we can’t move this on for industry.”

VFF livestock group president and sheep and cropping farmer Scott Young said it was nonsensical that producers needed to be on an email alert system to know if chemical uses had changed.

He said a solution could be to issue text messages to all those who held an Agricultural Chemical Users Permit, which could detail a chemical recall quickly and effectively.

A stakeholder survey by the APVMA, which closes this Friday, will try to gauge what the organisation is doing well, and identify problem areas.

The APVMA is funded through cost-recovery — the fees and charges paid by chemical companies to register their products plus levies on wholesale sales of chemicals.