Application for the reassessment of a hazardous substance

Under Section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act

1996

Name of substance(s): Paraquat and paraquat-containing substances

Application number: APP203301

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE

Paraquat Reassessment

Hearing held at: Chartered Accountants, Level 7, 50 Customhouse Quay,

Wellington

on Wednesday, 11 September 2019

DECISION MAKING COMMITTEE:

Dr Ngaire Phillips (Chair)

Dr John Taylor (Member)

Dr Nick Roskruge (Member)

P a g e | 2

I N D E X

Opening 3

Introductions 5

Application Presentation/EPA Staff Assessment 6

Questions from the DMC 21

Questions from Submitters 31

Sapere Presentation 34

Questions from the DMC 38

Questions from Submitters 43

WorkSafe Presentation 47

Questions from the DMC 54

Questions from Submitters 56

Federated Farmers Presentation 57

Questions from the DMC 62

Questions from the Applicant 65

Grower Organisations Presentation 67

Presentation from Mr de Bruin, Kumara grower 72

Vegetables NZ Presentation 78

Questions from the DMC 82

Questions from the Applicant 91

Potatoes News Zealand Presentation 94

Questions from the DMC 97

P a g e | 3

Wednesday, 11 September 2019

(9.04 am)

OPENING 5

CHAIR: Morena everyone. I think we'll make a start.

(The hearing began with a mihi from Mr Jackson)

CHAIR: Ka pai, Julian. 10

Morena everyone, my name is Ngaire Phillips and I am the Chair of this

Decision-making Committee. On my left here I have Dr John Taylor and on my

right I have Dr Nick Roskruge.

So we're here to consider and decide on application APP203301 to

reassess Paraquat. 15

The hearing is specifically about this -- addresses this application and the

HASNO Act. It doesn't commit the Committee to make the decisions on any

other substance that are currently approved as part of this process.

The Committee shall decide any application other than an application which

is the subject of a ministerial direction under section 68 of the HSNO Act and 20

shall have in relation to any such consideration and decision on any matter and

the same immunities and privileges as are possessed of a District Court Judge

The object of this hearing is for the Decision-making Committee to be as

informed as possible in the matter on which we are charged with making a

decision. 25

The way the proceedings will run is that we will first hear from the applicant,

who is of course in this case the EPA. And they will introduce the application

and then the EPA staff will also present their staff assessment report, and then

we will have the submitters who have indicated they wish to be heard.

After the submitters, the Committee will have final questions and then the 30

applicant will have the right of reply.

At which stage the hearing will be adjourned for consideration by the

Committee.

And as you are all aware, we're due to run this hearing through until

tomorrow. 35

P a g e | 4

When you do speak, please speak into the microphone, there's some

roving microphones around, when you are asking questions or when you are

answering questions. Because we've got audio recording going. It would be

helpful for the audio record if persons putting a question could identify

themselves before they actually put their question. 5

Some housekeeping rules:

To evacuate in an emergency, if it is not an earthquake please leave the

building by the main entrance that you entered through by the stairs

All cell phones to be turned off or on silent, if you wouldn't mind just

checking those now? 10

Are there any media present? No. Okay, so we'll leave that one.

And I'm just going to read, this is specific to this room:

So, toilets are located past the lifts opposite the reception. There is a

disabled toilet on the 6th floor and there's some stairs down to the 6th

floor -- although, or the lift, I was just thinking that, yes, I know I shouldn't have 15

said that, but anyway, and that actually to get to the 6th floor through the lift you

actually need an access card, so you need to go to reception.

Emergency exit talked about is at the rear and left of this floor.

If the alarm sounds please make your way to the exit, proceed down the

stairs and assemble on Panama Street outside the rear of the Hotel 20

Intercontinental and follow instructions from wardens.

In the event of an earthquake, drop down on your hands and knees, this

protects you from falling and lets you move if you need to. You can tell I don't

live in Wellington. Cover your head and neck, or your entire body under a

sturdy table or desk. If there is no shelter just cover your head and neck and 25

your arms and hands, and then hold on to your shelter until the shaking stops.

Do not attempt to leave the building unless instructed to do so. There is a first

aid kit at reception.

Smoking is not permitted on any of the balconies. And you are required to

actually go downstairs into the street level to smoke. 30

And just a note, the windows are not designed to be opened, apparently.

Okay. So I'm just going to ask all of the participants to introduce

themselves. Firstly, the applicants, if you would like to introduce yourself and at

the same time the EPA staff, obviously.

35

P a g e | 5

INTRODUCTIONS

MR PHIPPS: My name is Daniel Phipps. I am one of the application leads for the

Paraquat reassessment for the EPA.

MR WATERS: I'm Jim Waters; I'm a specialist in the toxicology side of things.

DR ALLEN: Matthew Allen, Senior Advisor, co-lead. And I will be presenting the 5

ecotoxicology part of the presentation today, in place of our absent colleague,

Michael Berardozzi, is unwell today.

CHAIR: So if we have any questions, so my understanding is that your group will ask

the ecotoxicology questions to the best of your ability, but if you are unable to

answer them because Michael is a specialist, the idea is that we will take note 10

of those and Michael can provide us with some written responses if that's

necessary is that okay?

DR ALLEN: That is our understanding.

MS BLAKEMORE: I am Milana Blakemore and I am a team leader for the

reassessment guys. 15

MR JACKSON: I am Julian Jackson and I am in the Kaupapa Kura Taiao team at the

EPA, the Māori policy and operations team.

MS COLLIER: Good morning I am Susan Collier from WorkSafe New Zealand.

MS PRING: I am Rachel Pring, also from WorkSafe New Zealand.

MS MCKENZIE: I am Phillipa Mackenzie from the legal team at EPA. 20

MS YOUSIF: I am Kareema Yousif from the Hazardous Substance Compliance

Team, EPA

MR DAVIES: Kia ora koutou, Preston Davies from Sapere Research group who

prepared the economic analysis.

CHAIR: Just to clarify, so you are presenting on behalf of the applicant team? 25

MR DAVIES: Yes.

CHAIR: Now can we go on to the submitters?

MR PATTERSON: Good morning, I am Kevin Patterson, I am a regulatory expert with

Syngenta Australia.

MR SALTER: Good morning Committee, my name is Stephen Salter. I will be 30

presenting later today on behalf of Buttercup Squash Council of New Zealand,

Onions New Zealand, Processed Vegetables New Zealand, Summerfruit

New Zealand, and Vegetables New Zealand.

And later in the day, Potatoes New Zealand are unavailable to make it

today, so they have asked me to make their presentation for them as well. 35

P a g e | 6

Just joining me from the airport, I will get them to introduce themselves,

are:

MR DE BRUIN: Andre de Bruin, Vegetables New Zealand.

MR PARKER: Mike Parker, I'm also Vegetables New Zealand, but also presenting on

behalf of Federated Farmers with Karen Williams who is going to arrive shortly, 5

thank you.

CHAIR: Is Andy Cook here?

MR PATTERSON: No Andy Cook sent his apologies for the meeting.

CHAIR: Just to clarify, so that Syngenta is represented by yourself?

MR PATTERSON: Yes. 10

CHAIR: You will notice in the hearing schedule that we allowed for the applicant and

the EPA presentation to be repeated tomorrow in the event there were

submitters who were not able to come today, but it seems to me that pretty

much all of the submitters are here except as you say the ones coming from the

airport. Are any of the submitters aware of anyone who may only be here 15

tomorrow.

MR SALTER: So the two who have arrived from the airport are here now. That's Mike

and Andre. Know that Antony Heywood is speaking on behalf of Hort

New Zealand tomorrow. I will try and get in touch with one of my colleagues

Rebecca Fisher who I know is intending to come along later and see if she can 20

get in touch with him and see if he is able to -- well, I guess he won't be here in

time for their presentation anyway.

CHAIR: No, that's fine. We can we repeat it.

So I think we are ready to go. So we will start off with the applicant's

presentation. 25

APPLICATION PRESENTATION/EPA STAFF ASSESSMENT

MR PHIPPS: Good morning everyone, and welcome to the hearing for the Paraquat

reassessment.

My name is Daniel Phipps and I am one of the application leads for the 30

Paraquat reassessment along with Matt Allen here.

First off, I would like to do a couple of thank yous, thank you to Marree

Quinn for organising the hearing and the logistics and everything, and also all of

the submitters for their attendance today and the participation in the

P a g e | 7

reassessment there has obviously been a lot of hard work that has gone into

the submission that have been provided to us.

So just briefly I'll go over how the structure of how this presentation will play

out.

So I will take us through a brief background and introduction onto the 5

Paraquat reassessment.

Then Jim Waters will take you through the human health risk assessment.

Followed by Matt Allen who is standing in for Michael Berardozzi to take us

through the environmental risk assessment.

I will pick us up again at the cultural assessment and take us through the 10

weigh up of risks and benefits and some of the control measures that we have

proposed.

So Paraquat has been around since the 60s. It's a broad spectrum

herbicide which has found use in controlling a number of broad leaf weeds and

grasses. It’s also found use as an alternative to glyphosate and combatting 15

glyphosate resistance. And its efficacy and its use in wide application types is

in part due to its mode of action being in group D. So only Paraquat and Diquat

are the active ingredients that are approved in New Zealand that have this

mode of action.

An interesting and notable attribute of Paraquat is that it deactivates upon 20

contact with soil, not being biologically available.

This reassessment covers 7 HSNO approvals as well as 12 products

registered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

Some recent regulatory activity regarding Paraquat. So, it is no longer

approved in the EU, nor Brazil. 25

So in Brazil it's currently going through a phase-out period.

Its use has been restricted in the US and also Canada, following recent

special decisions that have implemented additional risk mitigation measures.

And it is currently under review in Australia with the APVMA publishing

some useful documents regarding the toxicity and the neurotoxicity that have 30

been used to inform this assessment, so those were published in 2016.

Also, notably Burkina Faso has recommended Paraquat be listed in annex

3 of the Rotterdam Convention, however it is not a chemical that requires prior

informed consent at this stage.

P a g e | 8

So, in terms of the regulatory history of Paraquat in New Zealand:

Paraquat, the approval for the active substance and also the two most used

approvals for Paraquat containing formulations, were deemed approved via the

transfer process in 2005.

So, substances approved by this process do not have a quantitative risk 5

assessment with them, or didn't at the time of transfer.

So, when the Para-Ken application came in in 2015, so the Para-Ken

application was an application for a new substance which contained Paraquat,

a quantitative risk assessment was performed and it was found that both the

risks to human health and the environment were quite substantially 10

unacceptable.

Following that new information -- well, the grounds were established using

the new information gleaned from there assessment and then we proceeded

through the reassessment process from the grounds for reassessment through

the call for information, until here we are today at the hearing. 15

So the approach to this assessment was that the assessments done for the

Para-Ken application were modified and incorporated -- or incorporated

information that was provided in the call for information period, and this was

made publicly available for stakeholders to comment on earlier this year.

So the feedback that we received on the assessments and the initial 20

application form, the feedback that we received in the submission period

was -- allowed us to further refine our assessments into what we are -- what we

have presented in the update report, which was made publicly available a

couple of weeks ago now and what we are also presenting today.

So from here, I'd handover to Jim Waters to take us through the 25

toxicological aspects of Paraquat and also the human health risk assessment.

MR WATERS: Yes, so I am Jim Waters. I am senior hazardous substances advisor

at the EPA and taking you through the human health assessment.

So, as Dan has said, we've got the previous assessment. So that when we

considered what the assessment was that gave rise to this sort of effectively the 30

grounds, which was the Para-Ken assessment was unacceptable, you have to

realise that that was taking effectively a somewhat a quick look, it was using

quite conservative assumptions. It used default absorption values for dermal

absorption. It considered the maximum application rate that that application

allowed which was 1500, 1.5 active ingredient per hectare. And the modelling 35

P a g e | 9

for the boom spraying and handheld spraying was upwards direction,

particularly handheld, was upwards; so we didn't have a way of modelling

downwards, which would be more appropriate for herbicidal application.

And then the predictive exposures for the operators during mixing, loading,

and application were well above the AOEL even if full PPE, including 5

respirators, was worn. And the predicted exposures to bystanders 8 metres

away from the edge of an application area were also greater that was

acceptable. And buffer zones, quite substantial buffer zones would have been

required.

So that's where we sort of started. 10

And sorry, just to suspend the risk assessment for a moment, when we

came to do the reassessment we also looked at information in relation to the

classification of Paraquat. And you will see in the middle, there the current

classification that we have assigned based on the transfer information. And

then on the right-hand side what we're currently assessing. And you will 15

perhaps be a little surprised to see that the classifications are reducing

effectively in their degree. And the reason for that is that when transfer was

done, effectively we looked at a quick look at the information and we basically

chose the lowest values we could find anywhere, and then applied that. And

when we came to do this again, you're looking 15 years, 10 years later, and you 20

can say well of those values which are the values that people say are reliable

and what have other regulators used as their basis for classification? And that's

why the classification was actually slightly reduced for the acute toxicity.

But you will still see that the acute inhalation toxicity is still considered high.

And there's no new information in terms of CMR, carcinogen, mutagen, 25

reproductive toxic classification. So, essentially, there was no significant

change there. And it doesn't actually affect the impact, if doesn't actually affect

the risk assessment which was based on the AOEL, which we'll come to now.

So when we did the Para-Ken assessment we had an AOEL which is

based on NOAEL using an uncertainty factor of a hundred. And there is also 30

an absorption factor which is the old absorption of that dose. And when we

looked at it again, we used a slightly higher NOAEL based on more recent

information. And a 13% absorption now, interestingly enough, because the old

absorption is giving you the internal dose, 13% absorption of course gives you

P a g e | 10

a slightly higher value. So that calculation0 gives rise to only a very slight

increase in the AOEL as criterion from 0.0005 0.0007.

And then we look at what the boom estimates were based on our

modelling. And you are seeing now of course in Para-Ken we were modelling

the high rate, when we were doing this again we worked out what the risk would 5

be from a 600 gram per -- of active ingredient per hectare would be. You will

also notice the dermal absorption values are substantially reduced, on the

left-hand side 6 and 30 they were the default values that we were using, and

effectively in relation to Paraquat because it's an ionised active ingredient, it's

not nearly likely to be easily absorbed through the skin. So you can see that on 10

the right-hand side 0.4% was the value that was used overseas for both the

concentrate and the spray. And quite clearly, that's going to make a substantial

difference; that's going to be the major contributor rather than the AOEL

change. But you can see that what we ended up when we did the modelling

again, you end up with a value on the right-hand side at the bottom there, RQ of 15

0.98 which essentially is 1. I mean, the risk quotient, it's the exposure divided

by the AOEL. So that's effectively sort of just okay, basically.

And then if you look at the knapsack sprayer, when we did the

reassessment initially in the application, we were using 390 or 400 grams of

active ingredient per hectare, which of course again was lower than the 20

Para-Ken. But we had an unacceptable RQ, just over. And on my right-hand

side here you've got the results after taking into account the submissions that

were received on our application. The submissions were received from the

industry which pointed out information that basically indicated that the modelling

approaches we'd taken were unnecessarily conservative. 25

And the summary of the reasons for that are on the right-hand side, but you

can see looking at this revised modelling, we end up with an acceptable risk

with full PPE, and indeed maximum respiratory production, but we come into

that in a minute on the right-hand side with 600, even for knapsack spraying,

that sort of handheld stuff. And of course I think by my own understanding is 30

that this on the right-hand side is assuming a lower height target.

So, the conclusions then are that the modelling was deemed

conservative -- the modelling we'd previously done was conservative relative to

the likely exposure. Written data and rationale were supplied by submitters that

indicated that in relation it is not a relevant route of exposure, that's because 35

P a g e | 11

Paraquat isn't volatile and because you're spraying a herbicide you use

relatively large droplet sizes, and it's not likely you'd end up with reciprocal

spray.

And then there was another thing that was done and that was that they had

field data for studies in the field with Paraquat in biological monitorings, you 5

know, measuring of urinary levels and stuff, which showed that that actually the

exposures were not as high as would have been expected. And that actually

supported that inhalation was not a significant route of exposure.

And so in the end, the conclusion from the human health assessment is

that the modelling as revised indicates that 600 grams of Paraquat per hectare 10

for both boom and knapsack spray can be considered acceptable.

DR ALLEN: Good morning everybody, I am Matthew Allen, I am standing in for

Michael Berardozzi in presenting the environmental assessment.

So as you've heard from Dan and Jim, the starting point for our assessment

was our previous assessment for the Para-Ken 250 herbicide carried out in 15

2015.

The application as you've already heard looked at rates of up to 1500

grams per hectare and the environmental risk assessment was carried out with

the information that was available at the time.

The sources of the information for that assessment were the EPA's internal 20

database as well as other regulators' information, namely information that was

used in the EU reviews, the United States, and the Canadian reviews.

But still somewhat limited, I would suggest, in comparison to the

information that was obtained subsequently via our Call for Information, so

there is a difference in the quality and quantity of information available 25

previously and what we found -- what we've used for our reassessment

evaluation.

Nonetheless, the approach we took was based on the Para-Ken approach

using different and updated data.

A bit about the environmental toxicology and the environmental properties 30

of Paraquat.

So the key points: Paraquat is persistent, generally accepted seven or

eight years half-life in the environment, but there are citations of up to 20 years.

It is notably immobile in soil, ie, it gets deactivated in contact with soil, and

P a g e | 12

readily binds to soil almost irremovably, as reflected by the KOC value there of

15,473 millilitres per gram of content.

Paraquat as a herbicide is toxic to plants to both terrestrial and those in the

aquatic environment; so it's highly also highly toxic to alga. It's highly ecotoxic

to birds. Interestingly, not toxic to soil dwelling organisms even at the higher 5

rates. It's also ecotoxic to bees through contact or oral exposure routes.

What the Para-Ken 250 assessment identified was that there were risks

greater than the level of concern which we considered weren't able to be

mitigated through buffer zones calculated in excess of 250 metres.

There were risks to non-target plants identified but we considered those 10

could be managed through the use of buffer zones.

Risks to bees we considered to be managed through the application of

controls, namely the default controls in the HPC notice primarily, the Hazardous

Properties Control Notice.

But we identified acute and chronic risk to birds and we considered there 15

was no mitigation for those, so they were outstanding risks.

We didn't identify any risks to soil and sediment dwelling organisms.

And these factors, as well as some of those identified for the human health

assessment, lead to the application for Para-Ken 250, the application being

declined. 20

Subsequent to the Para-Ken 250 application, when we decided that we

were actually going to proceed and do a reassessment of Paraquat, Syngenta

provided information in response to our call for information, which was a large

dossier of Paraquat related information. And it specifically provided us

responses to the aquatic and bird risk assessments. 25

The main argument being that the rapid absorption of Paraquat to sediment

reduces the bioavailability of Paraquat that's in the environment. Interestingly

an argument that was accepted by EFSA as part of their Diquat review, Diquat

being a related compound to Paraquat.

We accepted that argument and revised the risk assessment approach that 30

we'd taken for Para-Ken and in our initial application we presented risk

assessments of up to 600 grams per hectare with the new values for algae,

which were considered to be led to reduced risks, required buffer zones of 5

and 15 buffer zones for ground and aerial application respectively.

P a g e | 13

In terms of the bird risk assessment, Syngenta provided rationale for

changing the acute end points; also suggested new values for the chronic risk

assessment but suggested no rationale was provided at that point as to why we

should change the value from what we'd used in the Para-Ken application

The revised assessments up to 600 grams per hectare concluded that 5

there were acceptable levels of risk to aquatic environment, soil organisms,

non-target plants, bees and non-target arthropods but there remained acute

and chronic risks to birds above the level of concern at all rates above 100

grams ingredient per hectare.

So all of that information was provided and put out for consultation in our 10

application and Syngenta subsequently provided by way of submission further

rationale and extra studies relating to the specific end points and justification as

to why different end points values should be taken.

So there is a lot of information on this slide, but the bottom line basically

shows the original end point that we used in our application being 54 mg 15

kilogram body weight. Syngenta suggested by way of HD5 value dissemination

using geometric means that that should be increased to 61.4.

Interestingly, you know, upon review of the studies we considered that five

of those studies were not necessarily robust enough for us to accept.

The value that we ended on, following a similar approach to that taken by 20

Syngenta, was 82 mg per kilogram body weight.

So actually substantially higher than where we started and what Syngenta

were proposing.

Similar arguments, I guess, for the chronic end point determination. We'd

used a value of 1.7 mg per kilogram body weight. Syngenta suggested this 25

should be somewhat closer to 4. And upon review of the information that they

provided we determined that we should use a value of something closer to 3,

3.23.

So all of these changes in the end point values that were being used

allowed us to refine the risk assessment that we'd done, looking at the effects 30

on birds.

The scenarios that Syngenta provided were based on European use

scenarios. And the two criteria there, one's called stale seedbed scenario, and

the other is orchards, orchard is quite self-explanatory, it's talking about

cropping situation. Stale seedbeds is much more representative of a sort of 35

P a g e | 14

bare soil application, or pasture renewal situation, which is quite relevant to the

approaches -- the use patterns that Paraquat finds itself in New Zealand when

we're talking about things like cultivation, or maybe preparing paddocks for

clover seed production.

So we reviewed the information that Syngenta provided and we have used 5

that information to refine the assessment that we've taken, in addition to the

revised end points that we used in our calculations.

And this is a summary of the overall level of bird risk that we've determined.

So there's sort of three key use scenarios, we've got pre-emergence,

pre-emergence use scenario which is essentially before your crop has started 10

coming out of the soil, you want to blitz the weeds to give your crops the best

chance of being healthy and productive.

Lucerne growing is sort of a scenario where you've got an existing

vegetation on a paddock, and that's different again from clover desiccant use

which is talking about application pre-harvest onto clover for the purposes of 15

seed production.

Without going into too much detail, the acute risks tend to be all below the

level of concern, based on the revised assessment. We still have chronic risk

to birds remaining in the case for threatened species, and above the level of

concern in pre-emergence and Lucerne scenarios, whereas in the clover 20

desiccant use we've said that actually the risks there are acceptable.

And the fifth and sixth columns there, they indicate how far in exceedance

of the levels of concerns the risks were estimated to be. So we're talking in the

region of between 1.5 and 1.2, and 3 times the level of concern value. So,

within the same order of magnitude, which is an interesting point to note. 25

And that is the end of the environmental assessment.

MR PHIPPS: Thank you Matt, and thank you Jim for taking us through the

environmental and human health risk assessments.

Okay, so the cultural assessment.

So this was initially presented in appendix E of the application form. 30

The cultural risk assessment is of course informed by both the human

health and environmental risk assessments.

Some of the key concerns that were highlighted in appendix E of the

application form were that Paraquat is persistent in soil and waterways, so this

P a g e | 15

raises concerns about contamination of Papatūānuku and Te Marae o Maru, so

the earth and the fresh water environments respectively.

The environmental risk assessment found that risks to birds were

outstanding, which is of course of concern to Māori.

And looking to protect taha hauora, human health and well-being, the 5

cultural risk assessment was supportive of our proposals to revoke approvals

for Paraquat containing substance that were classified as carcinogens,

mutagens or reproductive toxicants.

In the same vein on the human health side of things, the cultural risk

assessment was supportive of the proposed prohibition of handheld use and 10

the requirement for closed cab application methods to protect human health

and well-being, taha hauora,

So using information gleaned in the submission period, both the human

health, environmental risk assessments were refined and accordingly, some of

the views presented in the cultural risk assessment were revised. However, as 15

you can see from this slide, there are still of course concerns with the

persistence of Paraquat in soil and waterways; risk to birds is still outstanding

with the revised risk assessments presented in the update report.

We're still proposing to revoke carcinogen mutagen reproductive toxicant

classified approvals and the cultural risk assessment is still supportive of this. 20

However, with the revised human health risk assessment this has indicated

that cab-less application methods and handheld application, the risks to those

can be managed. And, accordingly, these are application types not likely to

generate significant concerns regarding taha hauora.

So one submitter, Market Access Solutionz, provided some commentary on 25

the cultural significance of kumara and how perhaps the cultural significance of

kumara -- like, the cultural significance of kumara should allow for multiple

applications of Paraquat to be applied.

However, it's difficult to reconcile the use of Paraquat and pesticides in

general on any crops, especially kumara, being a taonga vegetable, a treasured 30

vegetable. And it's not consistent with the practice of kaitiakitanga and the

relationship of Māori with Papatūānuku.

Nonetheless, the proposed application restrictions accommodate for this

use type and multiple applications on kumara at low rates and I will talk more

about that when I get to that slide in the controls section. 35

P a g e | 16

So our economics assessment was generated for us by Sapere, by Preston

Davies and Corina Comendant who will present directly after the questions

section.

So I won't go into too much depth with the economics.

So just some main points, the estimated contribution that Paraquat makes 5

to GDP, gross domestic product, is between $39 million and $NZ75 million

annually.

And of this, a restriction of 600 grams of active ingredient per hectare,

which we are currently proposing, puts only up to 0.35% of the Paraquat value

at risk, so that's 0.14 million in gross domestic product. 10

Weigh-up of risks and benefits and also risk mitigation measures.

So, we have our benefits that are measured in GDP so, our dollar values

and our risks measured in risk quotients or RQ values. So in order to compare

these two we assigned qualitative descriptors to the quantitative values.

So, for example, in the application form we considered that 400 grams of 15

active ingredient per hectare would present low risk but still outstanding risks,

while offering a medium to high level of benefit.

So we explicitly requested submitters to comment on our risk appetite and

how we have weighed up our risks and benefits. However, no submissions

really directly talk to this point; commenting more on what was weighed up, 20

rather than how we have weighed that up.

Notably the weigh up of risks and benefits informed how we generated our

proposal. So the last bullet point on the slide here, the proposed prohibition of

handheld use, the restriction to agricultural use and revocation of CMR, or

carcinogen mutagen and reproductive toxicant classified approvals, and also no 25

use approvals, that is approvals that do not have an associated registration with

the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. We didn't consider

that these prohibitions or restrictions would lead to any decreased benefit in

Paraquat use.

This slide is intended to be like a comparison between representative 30

formulations for Paraquat, as well as some other herbicides that submitters

have indicated can be used as alternatives for Paraquat.

So just a couple of caveats before I talk too much about this. The

classifications here are not representative of risks. The alternatives are not

like-for-like due to Paraquat's wide range of uses. However, the intention here 35

P a g e | 17

is to sort of give some context about the hazards and the toxicity of Paraquat to

both human health and the environment

So, if we look at just notably the human health acute toxicity classifications

Paraquat is classified as a 6.1A whereas the rest of these formulations are 6.1C

or less hazardous. 5

I will flag that the 6.1A classification of course as Jim has discussed, relates

to the inhalation toxicity. But Paraquat is still a 6.1C for via the oral route. So

on par with Diquat presented here is still more toxic than the other formulations

that are presented.

But please keep in mind that this is not representative of risks that would 10

identify following a risk assessment.

A brief overview of submissions:

So we had quite a range of viewpoints that came through in the

submissions from people that wanted to ban Paraquat outright, to people that

supported the use of Paraquat, as well as the restrictions that we had proposed 15

in the application form.

The largest group however, could be represented by this last point here,

and these submitters supported the reapproval of Paraquat but opposed the

additional controls that we proposed in the application form.

The controls most of concern to these submitters were the maximum 20

application rate and frequency restrictions, as well as the additional record

keeping requirements which ties into the Product Stewardship Programme

which we've now termed the Responsible Handling Information, as well as

some of the WorkSafe controls.

So some notable controls that we proposed in the application form are 25

represented on the left here.

I have highlighted the changes from the application form to the update

report which have been informed by the submission period. So these are

highlighted in red where our view has been altered.

I'll talk more in depth about these highlighted controls but first off, regarding 30

the proposed prohibition of handheld uses. So following discussion with

WorkSafe and getting to know better how the HSNO Act and how the Health

and Safety at Work Act align, we decided together that any prohibition of

handheld use to protect operators from exposure would be in the jurisdiction of

WorkSafe rather than EPA. 35

P a g e | 18

So the responsible handling information, as I mentioned, this is formally, we

called this the Product Stewardship Programme in the application form with a

very brief description of what this would include with the hope that submitters

would provide some ideas to inform how we would formulate what this would

look like. 5

So the point of this control is to address concerns that we have with end

user compliance. I mean, Paraquat has been around since 1960s, so perhaps

growers, end users, would develop habits and understand that they can use

Paraquat in a particular way. So the point of this is more as information

provision to alert end users that things may have changed following the results 10

of this reassessment application and, yeah, mainly information provision.

Similar resources to what we're proposing for the Responsible Handling

Information exists overseas. For example, in the US, it's kind of tide in with a

training requirement with the US EPA where end users have to watch a half an

hour video and do a little quiz following in order to -- in addition to their 15

certification requirements. And Syngenta in Australia offer a series of short

videos on how to handle one of their products Gramoxone in a safe manner.

We envisage this to be accompanied by interim accompanying information

so this is something like a lid sticker or a bungee cord with a flier attached to

alert users that this information would exist and that they would be encouraged 20

to make themselves aware of it.

Some submitters have suggested that the content of the Responsible

Handling Information is just a repeat of what's printed in the SDS and the label.

Yeah, we do recognise that some of this information would be repeated.

However, we do consider that there is some merit to consolidating all this in one 25

place in an easy to use and easily accessible medium.

Notably we're no longer, proposing to require declaration of understanding,

an additional record requirement that we initially proposed in the application

form.

However, we do consider that it is in the interests -- it is in the best interests 30

of end users to voluntarily make themselves aware of the content of the

Responsible Handling Information.

So in regard to the content, this would of course include information from

the label, SDS, and more regulatory requirements that end users should make

P a g e | 19

themselves aware of and also how to keep the environment safe while working

safely.

We proposed four additional label statements to be added to the label in

addition to the prescribed controls in the EPA notices.

And the top two on the left-hand side here were intended to help prevent 5

spray drift.

Also we were looking to prevent accidental consumption.

As well as the last two, intending to prevent run off.

But as highlighted by one submitter, run off is not really of concern with

Paraquat as Paraquat tightly and very rapidly absorbs to soil. Accordingly, we 10

agreed with this point and recognise that the attributes of Paraquat; so

accordingly we are not proposing to require the run off -- the statements related

to run off in the update report.

The maximum application rates:

So in the application form we proposed to restrict the application of 15

Paraquat to 400 grams of active ingredient per hectare once per year.

This was considered to put 33% of Paraquat value at risk with the revised

numbers; so these have been revised from the information in the submission

period.

Risk to birds at this application rate was still considered to be outstanding. 20

However, outweighed by the benefits that Paraquat offered at this application

rate.

In the application form we did not consider the benefits offered by Paraquat

at 600 grams of active ingredient per hectare to outweigh the risks posed.

So that following the submission period we've revised our assessments 25

using the information that submitters have provided to us, and we are now

proposing that the maximum single application rate should be 600 grams of

active ingredient per hectare with a maximum annual application rate of also

600 grams of active ingredient enter per hectare. So this allows for some

flexibility in end users where they potentially would like to split the one 30

application of 600 grams of active ingredient per hectare; so six lots of 100 or

two lots of 300 grams of active ingredient, or any combination of that.

600 grams of active ingredient per hectare puts up to $0.4 million in GDP at

risk. It should be noted that the risk to birds at 600 active ingredient per hectare

are outstanding, however they are less than what we anticipated in the 35

P a g e | 20

application form with our initial proposal of application rate restriction of 400

grams of active ingredient per hectare.

With a high application rate there are also buffer zones that would be

required in order to protect non-target plants and also waterways.

In the application form regarding the agricultural uses we proposed to 5

restrict Paraquat use to agricultural use only.

We did not consider biosecurity use to be a significant use type; so didn't

account for it in the application form, as we received no information from the

Call for Information regarding that kind of use type. And we intended to include

forestry in this restriction. 10

However, in the submission period, some submitters suggested that there

was Paraquat use in biosecurity as well as concerns that this restriction would

prohibit the use of Paraquat in ornamental horticulture.

So we got in contact with biosecurity and there's an information request

and biosecurity's response available online. And they have advised that any 15

biosecurity uses would not be able to function adequately in the use restrictions

we're proposing for agricultural type uses.

So accordingly, we've revised our proposals in the update report to restrict

to agricultural use and biosecurity use only where biosecurity use would require

permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act. This type of permission would 20

allow for use outside of the restrictions we're proposing for agricultural use.

And we do consider that the benefits of use of Paraquat in biosecurity uses

provide a large benefit. So, this would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

We're no longer intending to include forestry in our definition of agricultural

use. 25

Mainly because we have had no evidence of significant forestry use coming

from the submission period, as well as a recent report released by Agcarm

about two months ago that suggests that Glyphosate, Terbuthylazine, and

Hexazinone make up 95% of herbicide use in forestry. So, we assume that of

that remaining 10% Paraquat wouldn't make up a significant amount of that 30

herbicide use.

And also forestry rates are up to 1,000 grams of active ingredient per

hectare, which is somewhat above the 600 grams of active ingredient per

hectare restriction we are proposing.

And we are intending to include ornamental horticulture in this restriction. 35

P a g e | 21

So that brings me to the end of the presentation.

In conclusion, once we've factored in the prescribed controls, the additional

controls, we consider that the residual risks are outweighed by the benefits

offered by Paraquat at rates up to 600 grams of active ingredient enter per

hectare. We consider that the risks to human health are manageable with 5

controls up to this rate. However, the risk to birds is still outstanding.

The restriction of Paraquat to 600 grams of active ingredient per hectare

puts up to 0.35% of Paraquat value at risk. And the persistence of Paraquat

still is of concern to us, however we do note that once absorbed to soil it is not

biologically available. 10

Okay, so that brings me to the end of the presentation.

The question session I guess starts now. I will just sit back down with the

rest of the team and if you can direct your questions to me and I'll sort out who

can answer them on our end.

15

QUESTIONS FROM THE DMC

CHAIR: Thank you Dan.

DR TAYLOR: Thank you team.

I've got a few questions, really first of all just some contextual questions.

You explained that of a number of herbicides that are available in 20

New Zealand, Paraquat is the most acutely toxic. I notice that you mentioned

that toxicity is not representative of risk, do you want to just clarify what you

mean by that? Why would something that's less toxic be potentially of greater

risk?

MR WATERS: I think the logical thing, if you look at the way the modelling is done 25

where using the amount of AOEL is our criterion which is effectively a repeat

dose derivation, you're taking a repeat dose estimate and working out an

acceptable daily intake from that. Whereas acuity toxicity is based on a

single -- more or less a single exposure.

One thing that one of the submitters brought out, which perhaps my 30

presentation didn't, is Paraquat is a 6.1A very very highly toxic material by

inhalation. But in practical terms that's not likely to be achieved. You achieve

that Paraquat exposure in a study by making an extremely finely prepared mist

in exposing your rats, generally, to a very very fine spray of mist. Which is an

artificial situation you're not going to achieve in a field situation, because in the 35

P a g e | 22

field situation you're not -- you're producing a relatively course mist which

wouldn't actually get into the lung and you wouldn't absorb. So really, in real

terms, probably the oral exposure route with the lower 6.1C classification is

perhaps more relevant.

But the important thing is that strangely enough even though the exposure 5

of a person working with Paraquat is mostly from dermal and possibly

inhalation, but obviously you wouldn't expect a person to get much from oral.

But it still targets the lung, which is sort of slightly strange, that was one of the

things that one of the submitter's made, a point made, that once it gets into the

body it tends to be absorbed and concentrated in the lungs and the kidneys and 10

it causes severe lung damage, but that's actually from a systemic exposure, it's

not actually necessarily inhalation. I don't know that that's answered your

question.

The other thing about the risks is of course the risk takes into account the

exposure, the application rates and how much you're applying. So those other 15

pesticides you're applying, you can't compare on the basis of hazards, because

what's the application rate of glyphosate per hectare, Paraquat per hectare,

what the application method is, whether you're spraying it with booms or air

blast sprayers -- no, not air blast sprayers, with handheld material. So, the risk

is taking into account the method of application, the application rate, the dermal 20

absorption values, those sorts of things. And so you can't compare it directly

with the hazard assignment

DR TAYLOR: So can the EPA comment on the history of medical incidents that have

occurred due to the use of Paraquat in New Zealand. And perhaps compare

that with some other herbicides? 25

MR PHIPPS: So we do have some incident data relating to Paraquat poisonings. So,

yeah, like most of the incidents relating to Paraquat are due to like accidental

exposure or end users not using the appropriate PPE. We've also got some

coroner data that suggests that Paraquat poisonings having decreased since

the HSNO Act has come into force in like 2005. And most of these poisonings 30

were intentional poisonings as well.

MR WATERS: I think the important thing to understand is a lot of those controls are

designed to deal with this issue. One of the major problems with Paraquat has

been people repacking it into containers that aren't appropriate and leaving it in

the shed, or something like that. And then someone comes along and thinks 35

P a g e | 23

it's Coca Cola because it's a dark liquid. And sort of one mouthful is enough, if

it's an accidental situation.

So that a lot of formulations, they have the emetic and stenching agent to

try and make it absolutely clear it's not a potable material and the emetic is to

try and get rid of it as much as possible from the body as quickly as possible. 5

But the accidental poisoning, I think there have been some cases and there

have been some suicides. It is a major problem overseas and in the

Pacific Islands. But I think it has declined in New Zealand.

DR ALLEN: Maybe just to further answer your question, we don't necessarily have a

direct comparison of Paraquat incidents to other herbicides, unfortunately. 10

Yeah, I mean the reassessment being the focus on Paraquat we haven't gone

out and done the same level scrutiny on the other alternatives, unfortunately, so

we don't have that comparison for you.

DR TAYLOR: Thanks. I wouldn't have thought there would be a large number of

adverse incidents by approved users, and I appreciate what you're saying, is 15

that somewhat notorious history of Paraquat really involves deliberate use,

suicide, or accidental use by people drinking out of a bottle in which one

wouldn't expect Paraquat to be.

But beyond that, are you aware of any adverse incidents that occur from

what might be considered professional use or agricultural use? 20

MR WATERS: There are one or two cases overseas, I believe, where people have

used equipment, handheld sprayer-type backpacks where the material was

leaking, the equipment was leaking, and so that was getting onto their back or

they weren't wearing adequate personal protection, and in that situation, the

amount dermally absorbed is sufficient if they didn't take action quickly, and 25

they carried on using it. I think that's the only case I am aware of really.

DR TAYLOR: Okay thank you.

Just going on to the risk to birds, what is the exposure route to birds that

presents a risk?

DR ALLEN: So primarily its exposure of birds via consumption of contaminated 30

matter. So, be that seeds or insect, food sources, basically.

DR TAYLOR: So a bird that's foraging on the grounds of an area that's been sprayed

would be at long term risk because of the long-term half-life -- it's cumulative

basically?

P a g e | 24

DR ALLEN: Yeah, I mean it comes down to the biological available fraction I think, but

the models that we've used assumes that the consumption, the oral

consumption is via the contamination of their food stuff. So, yeah, I mean, it's

an interesting conundrum, as to we're talking about a single incident of

Paraquat spraying giving rise to a chronic effect assessment. 5

What we don't have, in terms of information, is good information on the bird

life habits in New Zealand. So, we're making the assumption that actually at

the times that we're looking at, birds will be there foraging and consuming

contaminated foods. But that may or may not actually be the case, but we don't

have study data to say that actually at this time of the growth cycle birds will or 10

will not be present. So we take a conservative position of saying we'll actually

we'll assume that they will consume the matter.

DR TAYLOR." So the half-life of Paraquat is quite long. But you said loses its

bioavailability on contact with soil. Is there evidence for that? Is that proven? I

mean, if you take soil or particulate matter to which Paraquat has absorbed and 15

fed it to birds, would those birds be at risk?

DR ALLEN: I think I would defer that question to perhaps Syngenta the submitters

who are the intellectual owners for Paraquat.

Yeah I mean, I believe some of the information that they provided to us

would indicate that actually in order to release the Paraquat from the 20

contaminated soil, for example, you have to put it under some pretty extreme

acidic conditions to actually destroy the soil so you can work out how much

Paraquat has actually bound to the soil. So those situations are unlikely to

materialise in an everyday environment. So on that basis you would say

actually it's almost irreversibly bound to soil. But I couldn't answer specifically 25

whether there's bird study data, but maybe Syngenta could shed some light on

that?

DR TAYLOR: Couple more quick questions. First of all the use in forestry, it wasn't

quite clear to me what was going to happen in regard to your proposed use.

Would you make an exception for a higher application rate for the forestry 30

industry?

MR PHIPPS: No we're not proposing to include forestry in our revised definition of

agricultural type uses. There hasn't been any suggestion of any use type to us

in the reassessment process. So we consider that there's no benefit offered by

that use type. 35

P a g e | 25

And also, yeah with the numbers from the Agcarm report there doesn't look

to be like a significant portion of Paraquat used in the forestry sector. And the

use types that they would want, would be above what we were proposing to

allow, so, yeah, we're proposing to prohibit forestry uses on that basis.

DR TAYLOR: Okay and my last question is, why are you not requiring a declaration of 5

understanding? What's wrong with that?

MR PHIPPS: So we've received some information from submitters that this is kind of

an administrative burden for them to keep a record of that they have

understood the information that would be provided in the Product Stewardship

Programme and they've also asserted that other certification and training 10

requirements under the WorkSafe legislation, as well as some of the training

requirements under our legislation, kind of already exists. So yeah, so the

declaration being an administrative burden and an overlap of requirements that

perhaps already exist.

DR TAYLOR: Thank you 15

DR ROSKRUGE: Kia ora. I have a couple of quick questions, just about the birds,

because I was wanting some elaboration, but I think you've probably half

answered it, but the exposure period post-application when it is at risk to birds,

is that understood at all? Is it a 24 hour exposure period, or do we know?

DR ALLEN: Yeah, I'm no expert in this field, but I will get this clarified. But my 20

understanding of the way the model works, is it assumes that the contaminated

matter makes a significant proportion of a bird's diet, I think maybe it was

something like 70% of the diet comes from the field treatment, something in

those areas. And it's simply that exposure, that quantity they would be exposed

to by that consumption compared to the level that is known to give them 25

chronic --

DR ROSKRUGE: So there's no time factor built into that?

DR ALLEN: No, but as I say I'm not absolutely certain so I'll double check and get a

response to confirm.

DR ROSKRUGE: And just for my benefit, could you re-state the definition for 30

agriculture as against horticulture as against ornamental horticulture? So I

know how I interpret them; your focus is saying agriculture, I know there is

certainly a horticulture interest; so how well does that definition marry up? And

certainly what you would call ornamental horticulture.

P a g e | 26

MR PHIPPS: So we've got some proposed wording for this control in the update

report. And so the definition of agriculture we explicitly say includes

horticulture. So yeah, the definition we have here is:

"For the avoidance of doubt agricultural purposes includes use for

horticulture and agricultural purposes, but not does include use for forestry 5

plantation, or biosecurity purposes."

DR ROSKRUGE: So why separate out ornamental horticulture?

MR PHIPPS: Just for the avoidance of doubt and due to like some submitters -- I think

one submitter in particular, being concerned that the restrictions to agricultural

use would prohibit use in ornamental horticulture. We consider that kind of use 10

pattern to be similar to some of the agricultural use patterns that we're allowing,

yeah so, we are not intending to prohibit those sort of users when they have

similar sort of --

DR ROSKRUGE: They are quite different use patterns -- entirely different use

patterns if you're talking about broad spectrum on the field crops to ornamental 15

crops. I am a horticulturist from the past, so my interpretation of horticulture is

certainly not agriculture, but if you separate out ornamental horticulture then it's

another thing again. So it's clearly a statement that there is some different sort

of use patterns across different agricultural sectors and whether we need to

consider how we define that, I think that's what I'm getting at, I guess. 20

MR PHIPPS: Yes. Some consideration could go into this in terms of writing that, but

we were intending to include horticulture with our restriction.

DR ROSKRUGE: And my only other point of interest was the lack of iwi submissions

considering there is a quite a full on cultural assessment, nothing has come in

from iwi, not only from a cultural space, but also from an economic space. It's 25

only an acknowledgment, rather than expecting a response. But yeah, the sort

of lack of that from iwi.

CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.

Just continuing on about the discussion about bird exposure and the

exposure routes, what evidence is there that Paraquat accumulates in food 30

sources? Because it's an assumption in the model 70% of the food is the major

exposure pathway, that makes the assumption that the food sources such as

insects are accumulating in Paraquat. So what evidence is there for that

bioaccumulation? And also does that also biomagnify, travel up the food

P a g e | 27

chain? And is it -- there is a couple of questions here obviously, and is it

therefore, you know, how long is it stored in a bird's body?

DR ALLEN: Yeah, so those are specifics that are a bit outside my grasp, so we'll take

those away and get some responses for those.

CHAIR: Okay. And continuing on with the bird thing -- actually no it kind of relates, 5

because it relates to the soil issue and I saw the KOC, so it is very very high,

that's absolutely certain. So I guess one question and you made a reference to

acidic conditions and perhaps I'll ask this question to Syngenta as well. So,

inside a bird's stomach, I don't know, but I am assuming that it is reasonably

acidic as it is in humans. So could that be a potential pathway for release and 10

for making it bioavailable?

MR PHIPPS: This is perhaps a question that we'd defer on to Syngenta. But the one

study that I have in my head that I've read about the analysis of Paraquat from

soils is the conditions that they use to extract the Paraquat of soils was reflux

and sulphuric acid for like six hours, I think it was around that kind of time level. 15

So I mean like reflux and sulphuric acid, I'm not sure how acidic a bird's

stomach is, but those are pretty harsh conditions.

CHAIR: So continuing on that theme, and this relates actually to the question of the

removing the requirement that relates to the concern about run off.

So the first question is the KOC, does that relate to all soil types? I am not 20

sufficiently familiar with how that is defined. I assume if it's a standard soil type

that's used, but you've got a huge range of soil types. So is the binding going

to be the same for all soil types is the first question?

MR PHIPPS: Yeah, I think we might have to defer this one. But it definitely absorbs

quite strongly to a large range of soil types. But perhaps, yeah a question to be 25

deferred to Syngenta or our ecotox.

CHAIR: And the second question related to that, and this relates to this removal of the

requirement for any consideration of run off. Yes, it will be bound to the soil,

and it will be -- highly bound to the soil, but there will be run off, we're talking

about agricultural environments here, we get run off, we get soil going into 30

streams and lakes. Under anoxic conditions could the Paraquat again be made

available? You can get pretty low pHs for very long periods of time, especially

in lakes. Now, I don't know where these agricultural settings are, but it's

certainly quite a possible. So again that's another thing, just sort of a blanket

assumption that the run off that goes into water ways isn't going to present a 35

P a g e | 28

risk, I have a little bit of concern about that. I guess. It would be good to get

some more information around that as well.

DR ALLEN: Just one comment that I can make there is that in aquatic systems where

there is some present, you know, the Paraquat binds extremely well to the

aquatic sediment. 5

CHAIR: Yeah, but I'm thinking about situations, for example, in lakes where you get

stratification occurring and you get very low DO conditions and anoxic soil

conditions and you get changes in redox potentially, is there the possibility that

you could get release of these contaminants into the overlying water body,

okay? 10

DR ALLEN: We will take that question away as well.

CHAIR: Like Nick is a horticulturist, me as an ecotoxicologist has a particular interest,

I can ask these kind of questions.

So just I guess the -- it was interesting that the Para-Ken application was

considered in 2016 which was only three years ago and it seems like since, 15

with this Call for Information, a huge amount of more information has actually

come out. And I was just sort of interested to know, exploring why that

information hadn't come out for the Para-Ken application?

DR ALLEN: Yeah, I think simply it's a question of availability or access to data. So

Para-Ken was by a third party manufacturer, and as I alluded to earlier, 20

Syngenta are the intellectual property owners. It was simply a case of they

didn't have the information to give to us for that application. So we relied on

sort of default values in our assessments. It was only when it became a

broader project, such as the reassessment, that we actually went out more

broadly to source whatever information we could. 25

CHAIR: Because it's not like they were all studies that were done between 2016 and

2018, some of them were quite old.

Thank you.

When you were -- which slide is it on? I was just interested in your slide 22

where you are talking about comparing, this is for the acute bird end point and 30

you were comparing your original reassessment to the Syngenta submission. I

was interested to know why in your original assessment you used lowest value,

whereas in your reassessment you use geometric mean, which is quite

different?

P a g e | 29

DR ALLEN: Yeah, I think it's simply a case of us accepting the methodology that

Syngenta proposed by way of their submission.

So we reviewed the information and the approach they had suggested.

Whilst we didn't necessarily agree with all of the data that they had used; we did

agree that actually it was a reasonable approach and an approach that 5

was -- had been accepted in other jurisdictions in their assessments also.

CHAIR: I have a question about handheld, but I guess that's more of a question for

WorkSafe than yourself.

So in your recommended -- I'll just get to the slide, and this relates again to

the birds, I'm just getting to the right one. So this is your slide, it's the one 10

about application rate restrictions.

So your assessment shows that there is still levels -- still risks above the

level of concern for birds for chronic toxicity and your rates of, rate

restrictions -- and those rates -- sorry, those risks are above 400 grams per,

and so what you're proposing is that there's a maximum annual application rate 15

of 600 and a maximum single rate of 600. So therefore, what you're advocating

is a level that an applicator could actually apply 600 grams, which is above the

level of risk for acute toxicity to birds, is that what you're saying?

DR ALLEN: So I think the revised assessment said that the acute toxicity was all

below the level of concern 20

CHAIR: Yeah, but chronic.

DR ALLEN: But the chronic yeah, so on balance basically we're saying there's an

additional level of benefit that is obtained if you allow rates of up to 600

compared to if you only allow rates of up to 400, and we consider that that level

of additional benefit is sufficient to offset the residual level of risk that is 25

presented to birds. And what I neglected to say, but Dan did pick up on, is that

the estimated level of risk used from our refined assessment at the higher rate

of 600 is actually lower than the estimated level of risk that we presented in our

application of 400. And the rationale we've made is that, well, if we were happy

to propose keeping 400 in the application, we must be happy to propose 30

something that's lower in the refinement. So that's how we ended up there. So

we are acknowledging there is some residual risk associated with keeping the

higher rate, but we consider that the benefit by doing so, which I think, I can't

remember, it's maybe another 20% value attained, it was something along

those lines. 35

P a g e | 30

CHAIR: In terms of economic benefit?

DR ALLEN: It's sufficient to offset.

CHAIR: Okay, so I guess that comes back again to this, I guess because one of the

things that the DMC has to decide is what is an acceptable level of risk. And I

guess this all comes back to this question of how well -- how strong is that 5

binding of the Paraquat to the soil or in the food does it bioaccumulate?

Because obviously the chronic risk relates to how long the contaminate stays in

the organism's body and what impact it has on, for example, reproductive

success, that's what chronic is, as you know. So, I guess I still see that

perhaps there are some questions, unanswered questions, in my mind, about 10

that, that we can explore.

In terms of the biosecurity, is there anyone here from Biosecurity

New Zealand? No, because I am aware that they were invited. But that's fine.

So what you are proposing in biosecurity use is basically a case-by-case

basis isn't it, essentially what you're providing? And I'd be -- is that correct? 15

DR ALLEN: Yeah that's right

CHAIR: So I'm interested to hear what WorkSafe has to say about that, because I

guess my assumption is that it could be that there are, based on the biosecurity

response, is that the levels that are being proposed may not be effective for

them. So there may be a requirement to allow higher rates of application rates, 20

is that correct?

DR ALLEN: That's right, they may want to operate outside of our proposed

restrictions. And we are generally accepting of that, I think, in knowing that the

permission process could allow a way to assess on a case-by-case basis the

specific benefits associated with the operation in question. 25

MR PHIPPS: And the additional controls that might need to be in place, implemented,

so like buffer zones and that. But we are aware that our permissions scheme

does not allow WorkSafe controls to be varied. So that is something that would

be front of mind in any permission application.

CHAIR: Yeah, I could kind of see that, I can see what you're trying to get at, that's 30

great. I can see it getting quite complex as well, so it's just the practicalities of

it.

That's all the questions I've got. I now invite the submitters to ask

questions. If you just grab the microphone and state your name and who you'd

like the question directed at. 35

P a g e | 31

QUESTIONS FROM SUBMITTERS

MR SALTER: Stephen Salter, speaking on behalf of the five grower groups

mentioned earlier.

I just thought I'd foreshadow that some of the things that you have raised in 5

your submission I'm not planning on asking about right now, but will be raised in

our submission later. So just letting you know of that.

First of all I want to clarify one thing. So, the EPA mentioned that the

APVMA have Paraquat under review and that they'd produced a toxicology

report that made comments about neurotoxicity, and I just wondered if you 10

might allow me the opportunity to read from their website what their report says,

one of the key points? It's like one paragraph

CHAIR: Yeah, that's fine, thanks.

MR SALTER: Thank you.

So just to clarify they say: 15

"The APVMA has published the Paraquat Toxicology Assessment Report

which determined that there is no data which would impact the approval status

of Paraquat.".

Just thought I'd clear that up so as to make sure that their position is known

to give full balance to the Decision-making Committee. 20

One of the controls that you are proposing, and Dr Phillips has already

mentioned it, is in relation to permissions under section 95A of the Act. Now,

for permissions which are required for sodium nitrite, which is a previous

reassessment that the EPA undertook, I can't remember the exact year, but

essentially they allow that when that's being used on DoC land, a permission 25

from the EPA isn't necessary. Has the EPA staff approached or consulted with

MPI about the possibility of some sort of similar arrangement such that if

Biosecurity New Zealand, or whichever division of MPI is responding, wish to

use Paraquat in some way, that they may delegate that authority to them?

They would still be bound by section, I think, it's 36 of the Health and Safety at 30

Work Act which says they have to take all reasonably practical steps to ensure

the health and safety of the people. But being able to respond quickly to an

incursion greatly influences the likelihood of you being successful when dealing

with it.

P a g e | 32

DR ALLEN: So we've not specifically considered whether we would delegate the

permission sign-off responsibility to a third party. We framed up the permission

scheme as presented pretty much as a bare bones at the moment to say what

sort of considerations we may give by way of the permission process. We're

thinking that there may be some flexibility in allowing higher application rates 5

based on a particular level of concern or a particular level of benefit that could

be achieved for a given application.

Whilst we say yes we'll assess things on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't

necessarily mean it has to be operation-by-operation, it could be for a

programme of work that is due to last five years and permission could be issued 10

for that entire programme. It could be for any -- so the actual size and scope of

the permission is yet to be determined. And we'll probably require some

additional fleshing out should that be the way that the decision makers

ultimately want to go.

Yeah, I'm -- I think the -- we would have some level of reluctance I think as 15

the EPA in terms of the assessment that we would want to carry out as to

whether biosecurity have necessarily the environmental assessment and

human health assessment expertise that the EPA does, so that would be the

considerations that we would have to give some thought to if we were going to

proceed down a delegation route. 20

MR SALTER: I guess the one thing I would almost propose with that though is that if

biosecurity are using it for a biosecurity purpose then it would comply with all

the other controls, except for the use in agriculture definition, then consider

whether you might find that acceptable; so if they could spray at 600 grams, for

example, and follow buffer zones and everything else. 25

Speaking of buffer zones, you are proposing some. So, I think generally

the proposed distances should be workable for the growers that me and my

fellow presenters will be submitting on behalf of today. But, I was just

wondering if you could, when preparing the control, make it really clear about

what a non-target plant is, because with herbicide use you're targeting the 30

weed, and I don't want there to be a situation where a grower is technically

being non-compliant because they're treating a weed within 5 metres of their

crop, that would greatly impact the ability to be able to derive the benefits from

Paraquat.

CHAIR: Was that a question? 35

P a g e | 33

MR SALTER: A request that that be considered.

Our next question, so at the end of our submission we asked that the

Decision-making Committee be provided with a copy of the response that our

five groups made to the Call for Information. Were they provided with this?

MR PHIPPS: Yep, I put that in -- I requested that be uploaded to Boardbooks as well. 5

MR SALTER: Thank you, just wanted to confirm.

Lastly, it's not particularly relevant to the crops that I'm representing, but it

gets back to the definition of agriculture which has been mentioned by a couple

of Decision-making Committee members. So in paragraph 8.17 of the staff

update report the EPA say that they consider forestry nurseries should be 10

included in the definition of agriculture, but this isn't actually reflected in the

executive summary or in the proposed controls in table 7. So could you please

clarify this, whether or not it's intended to be included?

DR ALLEN: I mean, there is some difference between forestry plantation use and

forestry nursery use. Nursery use is much more akin to regular horticulture, I 15

would suggest. Forestry plantation use, you know, exactly what it sounds like,

you would almost be required to probably aerial apply substances on a broad

acre scale. So yes, we do intend that forest nurseries be covered by the

definition of agriculture.

I think what this is pointing out, is that there's some apprehension about the 20

definition that we use for agriculture.

In the control we proposed using terminology for avoidance of doubt and

we can certainly add in additional statements, but it's not supposed to be an

exhaustive list. So if you can legitimately argue that you're growing as part of a

common understanding of what the term "agriculture" would mean, which 25

routinely includes in the Venn diagram of agriculture, horticulture and other

things, agriculture seems to be an all-encompassing definition, whereas

horticulture is more a subset of agriculture. But that depends on who you are

talking to. So, yeah, what I'm understanding is that there should be some more

thought or more precision placed around how we define that if that's the way we 30

have to go.

MR SALTER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Any other questions from any of the submitters?

No. Do the Committee have any other questions arising at this point?

All right we are bang on time for morning tea. 10.35. 35

P a g e | 34

So we will break for 15 minutes and come back here at 10 to 11, thank you.

(10.35 am)

(A brief adjournment)

5

(10.56 am)

CHAIR: Welcome back everyone.

We will now hear from the Sapere presentation on economic contribution.

SAPERE PRESENTATION 10

MR DAVIES: Thank you. As mentioned earlier, I am Preston Davies from Sapere

Consulting, an economics consulting firm that were commissioned by the EPA

to undertake an economic assessment of, I guess, Paraquat, and its use in

New Zealand.

I need to introduce my colleague, who is sitting on the other end in 15

Auckland. I didn't introduce her earlier, sorry Committee, because the

technology wasn't available then, but Corina Comendant, who was the -- did

most of the heavy lifting on this work to be honest, is in Auckland, and I will use

her as a safety blanket if I can't answer any questions.

CHAIR: Just to clarify, she is on the phone? 20

MS COMENDANT: Yes. Yes, I am. Good morning everyone.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Welcome Corina.

MR DAVIES: So our task was to estimate the economic contributions of Paraquat and

by implication, which I'll explain in the restricted scenarios, what happens if

Paraquat is banned. So we started from a -- you know, that was never an 25

option on the table necessarily, but we started from a perspective of no change,

to a complete ban on Paraquat, and were tasked with determining what the

economic impact or effect of that would be.

So that required two things. First of all, a baseline estimate of the current

contribution to GDP of Paraquat. So that's basically the size of the prize as it 30

were. And then some kind of modelling of a restricted scenario that involved

application rates and/or frequency of application, and a number of other things

that we'll talk through as I get into the presentation further. I'll try and keep it to

time, but basically the key equation that I've put up here, might be familiar to

you from the reports, but I think it's useful to go through just to clarify, because 35

P a g e | 35

in the submissions and other aspects of the work, it wasn't clear that we were

clear enough in our explanation there.

So the reason we chose the contribution to GDP as the measure is that

GDP data is readily available. It's relatively easily understood and comparable

to other studies. So people sort of say well, the contribution to GDP of XYZ is 5

this, so we can easily compare across elements, and it just so happened that

there was a study done by New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that

had estimated the crop contribution to GDP, which is the first element of our

equation.

The second element is what role herbicides play in crop yield, which we got 10

and adapted from a paper in the US. Actually, it's quite an old paper, but that

was the best available information we had at the time. Adapted it to

New Zealand conditions, which I won't necessarily go into unless people ask

me to, and the third element was, what role does Paraquat play within the

herbicide use within New Zealand? 15

So the second two components really just are a disaggregate of one

parameter.

Now, multiplying those through gives us what we've termed the baseline

crop contribution to GDP that we can ascribe or attribute to Paraquat.

So that's the starting point from where we set out the baseline, and the 20

baseline estimate is, as was highlighted before, between 39 million and 75

million in GDP per annum. So that's -- GDP is a measure of value added or

income. So it's an expression of how economically well off or rich we might be,

and done by crop, you can see the most notable thing there is for kumara and

Lucerne. At the high and low scenarios, which were based on the percentage 25

attributable to Paraquat specifically, are the same for those two crops, or

those -- yeah, two crops, because of the importance of Paraquat and the lack of

alternative substitutes for Paraquat that we gleaned from our conversations with

submitters and review of available material.

So the high and low scenarios are basically a proxy for the availability of 30

substitutes, which we had no direct data for, so we used available literature and

interviews with stakeholders to determine the range of estimates there. Coming

up with one particular number, probably of spurious accuracy, so that's the way

we dealt with deriving a range, but just again, the proxy for availability of

P a g e | 36

alternatives is in that high and low scenario. So for those two crops, there is

none, is the assumption we've made in our model.

From there, we determined what a restricted scenario -- well, we were told

by the EPA what a restricted scenario would look like, and we -- the modelling

was based on looking at the minimum and maximum baseline application rates, 5

which is grams per active ingredient per hectare.

The frequency was also considered in terms of -- because that's a part of

the scenario that the EPA were recommending. It had much less of a role in

the modelling. So largely, the modelling of restricted scenario, which would

give you a value of GDP at-risk from restrictions, is based on the application 10

rates, which we derived from conversations with stakeholders and submitters.

Plotting through from 100 -- or 600 to 100 in terms of the maximum

concentration allowed under a restricted scenario showed this stepwise pattern

that at about 400 -- well, from 600 to 400, it's largely linear and then there is a

big step change at around 400, and after 300, you know, almost all of the GDP 15

contribution to Paraquat is gone, or at risk, at those more restrictive conditions.

Largely due to clover, but also kumara as well, at those -- yeah, the X-axis

shows those restricted scenarios.

So, really the action is around the middle of those restricted concentrations

and despite preferences, we understand that the economic assessment, this is 20

only a small element of it, but that's the major news story out of the restricted

scenario.

And, moving on. Yes, so just to reiterate, the baseline scenario or the

baseline values of between a minimum of 39 and a maximum of 75 million of

GDP per annum represents about -- well, less than one half of one percent of 25

total GDP. So it's not big nationally, necessarily, bearing in mind that the value

of crops and horticulture and weed protection more generally is considerably

higher. The restriction of 300 grams puts basically, you know, 96% of that GDP

at risk.

400 is much less. 30

These -- well, the percentages aren't there, but the percentages we talked

about before are relative to the upper bound 75 million. So at the 600 level, it's,

you know, $140,000 per annum, which is only about -- less than point 2 of a

percent of the upper bound of the 75 million in GDP, and at 400, it's about a

P a g e | 37

third, as you can tell, the relationship between 75 and 25. Yeah, those are the

sort of headline results.

Just a couple of comments. This is an estimation process. GDP is

basically an estimate; it's not a naturally occurring thing. We have to calculate

that, even at Stats New Zealand, and make assumptions. There was a relative 5

lack of data, so we did have to rely on assumptions and inputs from literature

overseas and the stakeholder -- or the submitter interviews we undertook.

But I think it represents the best estimate that we could think of, given

nothing had been done like this before, so we had no off the shelf model.

And following the initial report, we had -- we did an initial report, submitted 10

it, and then got responses from submitters. We received 12 issues, or

questions, out of the 18, I think it was, submissions that related to our piece of

the work.

We made six changes. The most material of those -- the most material of

that was the adjustment from the 2012 data to the 2017 data, using industry 15

growth rates rather than inflation, which we'd done before. That largely raised

the estimates by 9 and $15 million, respectively. So we increased our -- from

30 and 60, up to 39 and 75.

There were some omissions as well, but they were largely immaterial to

the -- they increased -- they contributed to the increase, but not materially. 20

We had left stone fruit out, I think. One part of the stone fruit and I think

some elements of plantain were also missed. So those omissions are included

in our revised results.

And some of the submitters were saying well, the value you've used for our

crop is not right, and your sales revenue, but you know, GDP is a measure of 25

income or value added, rather than the sales revenue. So, we didn't make any

changes to those aspects. We just clarified what the relevant measure was.

In terms of sensitivity analysis, how sensitive is this to changes in

parameters? The only aspect we really changed, or could change with any

confidence, was the translation of the US data to New Zealand equivalent, and 30

we raised that by a factor of 3, and it had virtually no effect on the GDP

estimates that we made, because most of the highly contributing crops were

insensitive to that factor that we'd used. So, they didn't change at all, the really

high value stuff like kumara and Lucerne and clover.

P a g e | 38

So, that's me completed in terms of a quick run through of our work. I don't

know if questions come now or after someone else? Oh, Corina, did you have

anything to add?

MS COMENDANT: No, I'm good. I'm happy to take your questions though.

5

QUESTIONS FROM THE DMC

CHAIR: I think, yeah, we'll go to some questions now. So just so I understand what

you've done, so my assumption, if we go to your graph of GDP reduction -- so

my assumption is that you're assuming that the reduction in -- what you've done

is you've worked out what the reduction in GDP would be. If we look at the 600 10

figure here, you are assuming that all crops use 600 in your analysis? Is that

correct?

MR PRESTON: Equivalently no crop would be allowed to use over 600, yeah.

CHAIR: Yeah, but you are assuming that all would use 600?

MR PRESTON: Yes, if they needed to. 15

CHAIR: Yes, if they needed to. So then if you go to your previous slide, and you look

at -- now I assume this is actual data, is it?

MR DAVIES: Yes, from submitters and responders.

CHAIR: So, I am just thinking about, you know, in terms of, you are working out what

is the reduction in GDP assuming a maximum application rate, but the reality is, 20

based on this data, that most industries don't use anything like that application

rate. So, therefore, the reduction in GDP based on 600 is actually not -- to me,

that's not a realistic scenario, because you've -- unless I'm interpreting this

wrong. That's what I want to check with you.

MS COMENDANT: No, can I just clarify, so that graph on slide 5 -- 25

CHAIR: Sorry, Corina, it's quite hard to understand you.

MS COMENDANT: The graph on slide 5, that would take the actual application --

CHAIR: Sorry?

MR DAVIES: Corina, I think it's probably not working. So why don't I just answer the

question? If I understood it correctly, the -- this is a threshold, the 600, to the 30

extent that all the crops that are under 600, they're not affected. So that GDP is

not at risk. So then we tally up all those things. If you set a mark at 600, it's

only those crops that require greater than 600 grams of active ingredient per

hectare that would lose the value.

CHAIR: Okay. 35

P a g e | 39

MR DAVIES: So it's not saying you have to use 600.

CHAIR: No, and I'm just trying to figure out what that number of almost 0 GDP

reduction actually represents?

MR DAVIES: Oh, well it's basically the stone fruit high scenario.

CHAIR: Okay, so it's only those three? 5

MR DAVIES: Yeah.

DR ROSKRUGE: Just on that graph, can I just clarify? So, on the right-hand side is

the frequency?

MR DAVIES: Yep.

DR ROSKRUGE: So that, say for stone fruit, the 800, that's across four 10

frequent -- four applications rather than --

MR DAVIES: No, the application rate -- the frequency is -- basically is 1.5.

DR ROSKRUGE: So 800 is here, so if you look at the stone fruit, 800 is their total. If

it was applied over -- split between four applications?

MR DAVIES: Yep. No, no, but the application is this line here. So for stone fruit it's 15

1.5.

DR ROSKRUGE: Yes, sorry, I am looking at the -- looking at your high end. So, the

bar.

MR DAVIES: But this measures the baseline application rate, and that's the frequency

of it. So it's at 1.5. 20

CHAIR: Okay.

DR ROSKRUGE: So the frequency is very different? Okay.

MR DAVIES: Yes, sorry, I didn't explain that well enough probably. So it's not 4. It's

1.5 in the high scenario and the low scenario for stone fruit.

DR ROSKRUGE: That changes how I see it. Thank you. 25

CHAIR: I think that's my only question actually.

Thank you.

John?

DR TAYLOR: Thank you. So I know this is modelling and in modelling you've got to

create the inputs. In your introduction, you pointed out that there was a paper, 30

a work published, I think from the US, that you'd adapted to New Zealand

conditions. You didn't say why. I'm going to ask you -- or how? I'm going to

ask you how you adapted that work, and what did that work explicitly provide

you in your modelling?

P a g e | 40

MR DAVIES: We adapted it by using what has been termed an island factor. So it

was US data which -- it was applied in the -- in an Australian context, and their

estimate of the value of -- or the relationship of the value of herbicides to crop

yield was estimated, and in Australia it was increased by a factor of 1.45 to

represent different conditions of growing in Australia and different crops, and 5

then we adjusted that for -- on a relative basis, I think there is an appendix in

the original report, for New Zealand conditions as best we could, which brought

that island factor down to -- scale factor down to .46. So it was just a scalar

that was applied in the equation itself.

And that's the aspect that we adapted or -- that we undertook sensitivity 10

analysis on, to see what impact it actually has, and in that case we used the

1.45 from the US study, and it had virtually no effect on the results, or about 6%

at the 400 gram application rate.

DR TAYLOR: So the US study is what? A generic theoretical appraisal of the value of

herbicides versus no herbicides? 15

MR DAVIES: Yeah, what proportion of the crop yield is explained by the use of

herbicides? So if there weren't any, then you'd lose X percent of the crop yield,

which we adapted to New Zealand conditions and took that as a -- the same

proportion of GDP would be lost if herbicides weren't used, and then worked out

the Paraquat contribution of that separately. 20

DR TAYLOR: So, how much of your model relied on information provided by growers

in New Zealand?

MR DAVIES: In terms of the higher -- this last part here (indicates), the upper bound

was taken from the -- an overseas paper and the lower bound was taken

directly from the growers and the submitters. So that was 1% and 3.2%. So 25

there's quite a bound.

DR TAYLOR: I'm just trying to figure this out, how you would go about doing this

study. Obviously, there's a large number of different crops, and those crops,

presumably, are subject to different invasion by different weeds, and there must

be a -- you know, a very wide spectrum of scenarios whereby your yield will be 30

impacted without the use of any single herbicide, depending on the type of

environment you're in. So, I'm finding the enormous variation in the use of this

a confounding factor in accepting such a neat summary figure on the impact on

GDP or on yield.

MR DAVIES: In what way does it -- 35

P a g e | 41

DR TAYLOR: Well perhaps the growers, later in their submissions, can give me some

insight into how they would quantify the effect of Paraquat not being available,

and it will become clear at that point?

MR DAVIES: One table that wasn't in the -- that was in the paper, was -- it was in an

appendix of the original paper -- actually had -- so the maximum we assume for 5

that value, for that parameter, was 50%, which was basically if there was no

herbicides, half the value would be gone of a crop, and we applied that to those

kumara and I believe Lucerne and, you know, that's an estimate and

assumption based on some of the discussions we've had, which suggests quite

a large impact, and then that flowed through into these values for those 10

particular crops.

Some of the impact of herbicides on crop yield were down as low as 2%,

6% estimated. So there was a lot of variation, like you say, but it was applied

by crop, rather than across the board.

One thing that was applied across the board was the last share of Paraquat 15

in New Zealand herbicide use. There was no hard data as such, or relatively

little hard data, as such. So that's the 1% and the 3.2% high and low estimate

that we used there. That came -- you know, if we had data, if there was data,

we would have used it.

The 1%, just at the risk of repeating, the 1% came from the interviews and 20

the 3% came from that paper overseas.

DR ROSKRUGE: So I only have one question that fits on this. So the first box, which

is from the 2015 data, did you build in an adjustment for the period from 15 to

now?

MR DAVIES: Yes, it was 2012 data, in the 2015, and we did it up to 2017. Initially, 25

using inflation rates, and then submitters said -- or responses came through

and said oh, that's wrong, because potatoes have grown by 20%. So we used

industry growth rates to adjust those, and that explained the increase in the

GDP figure, or largely explained it, not completely.

DR ROSKRUGE: So that is the 9 to 15 variation. 30

MR DAVIES: Increase, yeah.

CHAIR: Actually, I had one more question. And it's -- so just to confirm that you are

not able to incorporate the potential offset, if you like, from using alternative

herbicides into your equations, were you?

P a g e | 42

MR DAVIES: Not directly. In the case of particularly kumara, you know we accepted

there was none. So the high and low scenarios were the same, for that crop.

We tried to get some data on non-herbicidal alternatives. So, manual

labour costs, and did get some data that it was basically prohibitive, and there's

a risk of doing that as well, to crop damage. So realistically that wasn't an 5

alternative, even though we did some numbers on that.

But the -- you know, the high and low scenarios were a proxy for the

availability of substitutes, and alternatives I should say, indirectly, because

there was forthright views on how available and efficacious the alternatives

were, but we had nothing to base any change to the numbers on, other than 10

how we've treated it. So, in the sensitivity analysis, that would have been

something we could have done if we had any, I guess, basis to change it.

Whereas, for the scale factor, the island factor, the -- in getting from the US to

New Zealand, we have a series of papers that said it could be this; it could be

that; it could be that. So there was some justification for making those 15

changes, other than just picking numbers to change them by.

DR ROSKRUGE: So what about, like, you know, the cultural assessment indicates a

preference for organic production, and there certainly is, for some crops more

than others, but what about a case scenario where it's -- the organic sector, for

example, still produce crops without this type of chemical, and there's a 20

variation in yield obviously between organic and non-organic, but you haven't

built any sort of scenario?

MR DAVIES: No, not on that. To be honest, we didn't think of that. From memory, I

don't believe it was included in the original sort of base data. So it's something

that is possible in the future, but it's unable to be captured here at the moment. 25

DR ROSKRUGE: So it's doing a case study of two sectors almost?

MR DAVIES: Yep, and it's possible, but if there's no data, or very little data at the

moment on the sort of norm, then my guess would be there would be just as

sparse amount of data on that side. So it would require a bit more primary

research, I think. 30

DR ROSKRUGE: And published data is one type of data, but it's about finding

alternative data. Certainly, from a cultures base, if you go up the East Coast

they'll give you their view of how production works for them, which is different

again.

P a g e | 43

But that's all. It's just -- yeah, it's not a total yes, total no sort of a situation.

You can still grow the crops.

CHAIR: Okay.

DR TAYLOR: One final question, something that came to mind. So there are regions

of the world now where Paraquat is banned, and no longer in use, and some of 5

those regions still presumably carry out agriculture. Has there been an

opportunity to collect any economic data from those regions as to what impacts

there may have been on production?

MR DAVIES: Corina, shall we try -- I know Corina undertook a literature search and

review as part of the work, which I wasn't involved in. Shall we try and see if we 10

can get an answer?

MS COMENDANT: To see what the --

CHAIR: Sorry, Corina, that's just not working.

MR DAVIES: Yeah, maybe we could come back to the Committee with that answer?

I can't answer that question at the moment, sorry. 15

CHAIR: Okay. I don't have any more questions.

Okay, so, does the applicant have any questions? No. Or the EPA staff?

No?

MR PHIPPS: No questions.

CHAIR: Thank you. Do any of the submitters have any questions? And please, 20

remember to identify yourself before you ask your question.

QUESTIONS FROM SUBMITTERS

MR DE BRUIN: Andre de Bruin, kumara grower. These are GDP figures; you're

talking about an economic scenario. Was there any consideration given for 25

actual regional impact within this? Why I ask that is because the figures you

have there for kumara, over 80% of it is produced within 50 kilometres of

Dargaville, which would have a -- change of that would have an enormous

regional impact.

MR DAVIES: The short answer is, no. I'm thinking about your question. The 30

availability of data on Dargaville GDP is -- I'm not aware there is some. So that

would have required estimating that, either at a regional level, which there's no

officially published regional GDP estimates either; it's all national. But it is a

good point. Yeah. So the effect of loss of GDP on kumara would be felt

P a g e | 44

particularly in the Northland region. So it won't change these, but I think it will

change the relativity, from a regional perspective. I agree.

MR SALTER: Stephen Salter speaking. Thank you for your presentation. Could I get

you just to move to slides four or five because I have a question relating to

them? 5

So I think Nick touched on it a little bit. On this graph, could you please

confirm, the maximum baseline application rate that's listed for each of the

crops, is that per application, or over the course of a year?

MR DAVIES: That's per year, yep. It's not 800 times 1.5 in the case of stone fruit, no.

MR SALTER: In that case, the graph does not accurately reflect the information we 10

provided. Those are the individual application rates. So, for example, for

brassica, I have it here. So for brassica, we had a few use patterns that we

provided to you. One of those was two litres of a 135 gram product, applied

two to three times per year. The other one was 1.5 to 2 litres of a 200 gram

product applied once a year. So the maximum application rate displayed there 15

for brassica is 400 grams of active ingredient per hectare, but the highest

annual application rate from the use patterns we provided is 810, which is the

three applications at the 2 litres by the 135 gram product. The reason that I'm

asking and raising this is because when -- on the next slide, we look at the GDP

that's at risk by the EPA scenarios. That figure's valid only if we assume one 20

application, and many of the use patterns are reporting multiple applications,

which makes it more complex in determining how much GDP is at risk if some

of the lower end applications reported, such as the 400 grams per -- of active

ingredient per hectare for brassica, once per year -- if they're sort of acceptable

under the proposed controls, but the higher ones aren't? 25

MR DAVIES: The application -- or the restriction also says the frequencies to be

restricted to once a year. So, that is sort of implicit in it, which would bring -- at

the moment, the application rate for brassica is 2.5 per year, and in the high

scenario that's 400, but in the low it's much lower. So that's a constraint on our

modelling is also that the application must be a maximum of one a year, which 30

affects the GDP at risk, yeah.

MR SALTER: Yeah. So, are you saying that, on the next slide, slide 5, that in actual

fact more GDP is at risk at those higher points because of -- because the

growers are reporting, I use three times a year at 135 grams at 2 litres, so I

P a g e | 45

actually use 810 grams of active per hectare, but the EPA model won't allow it,

but on the previous graph, that's sort of under the bar?

MR DAVIES: Yes. Yep, it if that's an error, then it would be higher.

MS COMENDANT: Can you hear me now? Good. I may have missed some of this,

but I just wanted to clarify that slide 4, that's per application. So when we 5

arrived at the restricted scenario, we assumed the worst case, that if you -- if a

crop relies on this level of application, and you remove at least one -- you

remove one instance of where that application is required. So if you then -- the

whole GDP value can be at risk, and the value associated with that crop. So it's

the maximum value that can be at risk. 10

So, we're saying that if you can't apply at that level during the year, then the

crop is at risk.

MR SALTER: Okay. Could you please explain how that differs from, when in the

EPA's presentation they stated that their proposals, which also have the annual

limit at 600, as well as the single application limit, would the findings that you've 15

just described differ if you were instead modelling those constraints, given that

many crops apply Paraquat at the rates in the graph 4, for several applications?

MS COMENDANT: I think yes. I think you're right, and yeah, if we're saying

that -- but if it's a -- no, so this model says that if there was a restriction at 600

application -- active ingredient per hectare at one application, then you've got 20

that GDP value at risk. And if -- in the situation where that 600 is spread across

the year, then there would be no -- that wouldn't, you know, that would do -- the

restriction -- the GDP value would not be at risk, because the restriction is

actually higher than 600 divided by say, I don't know, 12 months. If I'm making

any sense? Am I being clear enough? So I'm saying that 600 divided -- 600 25

spread for a year, means that per application it's lower, right? It's less active

ingredient per application?

MR SALTER: I don't mean to speak for the EPA, but if you have a maximum annual

limit of 600 grams per hectare, then you can either apply that in one single

application of 600 grams, or you could apply that in ten applications of 60 30

grams, or however you choose to make it up. However, if you are still wanting

to say, spray three times at 400 grams per hectare, that would not be permitted,

and if a crop, such as brassica in this example, where they're spraying at 270

grams, up to three times per year, were wanting to do that, a portion of the GDP

attributable to that use pattern would still be at risk under the current proposal? 35

P a g e | 46

MS COMENDANT: Yes. No, you're right. So, that adjustment to the restriction as

described is not reflected in here. So we need to get more details from users to

be able to understand how you would spread that across the year.

MR DAVIES: Yeah, I think, given the quick arithmetic that I've done, that looking at

brassica in total, you know, a high value of 1.3 million, there would be some 5

more of it at risk than we have at the moment, but relative to the overall total,

I'm not sure that it's material? But it needs to be right, I agree. It wouldn't

capture that at the moment, the way we have it.

CHAIR: So, just to clarify, what you're saying is that perhaps this data is not reflecting

the real world conditions? Is that what you're saying? 10

MR SALTER: I am, yes.

CHAIR: And that's your concern?

MR SALTER: Yes. So, I agree with the general finding that less GDP is at risk with

the EPA setting the controls at the 600 than the 400, but that it doesn't appear

to account for where multiple applications that on their own are less than 600, 15

but would add up to over the 600, do occur.

CHAIR: Yep, we understand that.

MR SALTER: Thank you

CHAIR: And you understand that?

MR DAVIES: Oh, absolutely. And, yeah -- it didn't come up in the response to the 20

initial paper. It wasn't a question that was raised then, so it wasn't addressed, I

guess, is what I'll say.

MR SALTER: Yeah, that's perfectly fair. Initially the EPA were proposing just the one

application, which played some role in what we were and weren't concerned

about. 25

Thank you.

MR DAVIES: So if need be, we can readjust that and adjust those figures accordingly

with new information. Yep.

CHAIR: Well, it's certainly -- you know, from -- again, from the DMC's perspective, our

job is to look at the risks and the benefits, and this is being considered as a 30

benefit. Therefore we need to be reasonably accurate assessment of what that

benefits could be, so we can weigh it accurately too?

Did you have any other question?

Any other questions?

P a g e | 47

MR PARKER: Mike Parker. In this instance, I'm representing Federated Farmers,

and a question, did you take into consideration, if we did away with our clover

industry, and our plantain industries, what effect that would have on the whole

livestock industries of New Zealand?

MR DAVIES: Corina, I can answer unless you want to jump in? 5

The GDP estimates that we used in the initial, took account of the whole

production chain, as it were. So, the value attributable to feedstock, for

instance, isn't just the sale price of those crops; it's the value in the agricultural

sector. So, to the extent it's covered in GDP already, through the calculation of

the downstream effects of the crop as an input, then it's already included in the 10

analysis.

MR PARKER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Any other questions from submitters?

Okay, thank you very much.

We now move on to the presentation from WorkSafe. 15

WORKSAFE PRESENTATION

MS COLLIER: Thank you Madam Chair. My name is Susan Collier. I am a technical

specialist in hazardous substances and work related health at WorkSafe.

I am just going to -- these are the things I'm going to cover, but because 20

this is an EPA process, the change to the legislation has given WorkSafe a role

in this process. So I'm going to try and explain to you what our role is and talk

about some risk management with hazardous substances. There are a number

of areas in our legislation that cover hazardous substances, not just the

hazardous substance regs. So, there's some duties relating to upstream duties, 25

upstream suppliers, and then -- I will then talk about the Paraquat, what the

default requirements are, and what the risk mitigation measures that WorkSafe

is considering.

So on 1st of December 2017, we got this new legislation. So for hazardous

substances, what happened was that all the workplace controls from HSNO, for 30

human health, came over to the Health and Safety at Work Act, and we have

these new regulations called Hazardous Substance Regulations.

We did not have a process like the EPA does where, for individual

substances, additional controls can be added by way of section 77A and B. We

have what are called safe work instruments. So that's a legislative tool that 35

P a g e | 48

actually comes from the Act, not from the regulations, so it's not specific to

hazardous substances. So I'm just going to explain a little bit about that as well,

how that works, later on.

We also have other regulations. There's the Act, some duties in the Act,

and the General Risk in Workplace Management Regulations. So some of the 5

things that we talk about are from those other regulations, not just the

Hazardous Substance Regulations. So I just want to make that clear.

Why is WorkSafe particularly interested in participating in some of these

applications?

We've just got new figures that have come out that 750 to 900 people a 10

year, in New Zealand, die from work related disease. And it's often not easy to

tell what exactly these people are dying from. You may think it's asbestos and

silica and those sort of things you always hear about, but there are a lot of other

substances that people could be exposed to that will be contributing to this

number. So this is why we're very interested in making sure that people can 15

get the best protection they can when using hazardous substances.

There is also an estimated 5 to 6,000 hospitalizations every year due to

ill-health from work related exposures, and that's 15 times the number of people

in New Zealand that die from -- the 750 to 900 is 15 times higher than the

number of people who die in workplace accidents in New Zealand a year. 20

So when we come to EPA applications, WorkSafe's role is to work with the

EPA. So for a reassessment like this, which is a chief exec initiated

reassessment, we usually participate in the project team. So we will be working

alongside the EPA during the whole process.

So for all applications, we review the information that is provided by the 25

EPA to us and we look at it to see whether we think that the risks associated

with the use of that hazardous substance can be managed by the existing

regulations. So that will include the General Risk and Workplace Management

Regulations and the Hazardous Substance regulations.

We can also sometimes comment on upstream duties, and this comes from 30

the Health and Safety at Work Act, those duties. So if we think there may be

some risks that can't be managed from those regulations, we can set additional

or modified requirements, and that's by way of a safe work instrument.

Because this is probably a new process to most people, I'm just going to

explain a little bit about what safe work instruments are. 35

P a g e | 49

So safe work instruments are in the Act, sections 227 and 228. So in 227,

it says that the Minister may approve, revoke or amend safe work instruments.

These are developed by WorkSafe, and the purpose is to define terms,

prescribe matters, and make other provisions in relation to any activity including

the control of substances. 5

So that's where we get the power to add additional controls or modify

existing ones; sometimes we actually take controls off if we don't think they're

necessary for certain substances.

So another important thing to remember is section 228. So that gives legal

effect to a safe work instrument, and it says that it only has legal effect if it's 10

referred to in the regulations.

And that means that we can't just change anything that is in the regulations;

it actually has to refer to a safe work instrument in the regulations.

So for Paraquat, the regulation that we would be referring to is 13.46 in the

Hazardous Substance Regulations. So I'll just -- just want to go -- this may be a 15

little tedious and I think some of the Committee members have heard this

before, but just so you understand what criteria we have to work to when we're

developing safe work instruments. I'll just go through these criteria.

So:

"The Minister may approve a safe work instrument for the purposes of this 20

regulation if satisfied that compliance with the provisions of the regulations that

apply to a class 6 or 8 substance will not appropriately control risks associated

with a substance."

And in deciding whether to approve a safe work instrument, "...the Minister

must have regard to the following matters: 25

A) whether compliance with the provisions of these regulations being

considered will eliminate or minimise relevant risk so far as is reasonably

practicable.

And (b) whether it is practicable for relevant duty holders to comply with

those provisions. 30

C) whether compliance with a modified form of these provisions, or with

additional or alternative requirements, would be more practicable and no less

effective in eliminating or minimising risk;

P a g e | 50

And (d) whether a modified form of these provisions or additional or

alternative requirements would be more appropriate to the nature of the

hazards and risk being considered."

The reason I'm telling you this is, as submitters, if you consider these things

when you make submissions to us, so that we can address these issues, 5

because you're the ones that are using these products. We don't know all this

information. So we really need your help, when we are determining these types

of requirements.

So if WorkSafe decides to proceed with developing a safe work instrument,

we have a process to follow. So, we would propose some requirements, or 10

controls. Then we will have a consultation period, which would be 4 to 6

weeks, and anyone can make submissions on that. So obviously, we would

include all the people that are submitters here as part of that process.

We would then consider the submissions and revise a safe work instrument

if needed. The submissions would be published, and so we would present a 15

final draft of the safe work instrument to the Minister, and the Minister would

then consider that safe work instrument. So that's an important factor, that it

has to be signed off by the Minister.

And if it's approved, it would be notified in the New Zealand Gazette.

The next point about when it comes into effect. Currently, WorkSafe hasn't 20

considered when certain things may come into effect, because actually we

haven't decided that there are any specific things we're actually going to do yet.

So, we would align those with the new controls that EPA will be putting in place.

So there would be a period before they came into effect.

And it can't be more than -- less than 28 days, but it's more likely to be 25

along the same timelines as the EPA has proposed for their new requirements.

So in effect, that could take up to six months to actually go through that

process, because you can imagine if we have to get Ministers to sign it off, and

there is a consultation period, that actually takes a reasonable length of time.

There are some differences between HSNO and Health and Safety at Work 30

Act, and one of these differences is that in the Health and Safety at Work Act, in

the General Risk and Workplace Management Regulations, there are some

duties for the duty holders that they need to manage the risks appropriately. So

as a part of that, we have this hierarchy of controls.

P a g e | 51

So, the first thing that should always be done, when assessing the risks in a

workplace, is you need to assess -- can you actually eliminate that substance?

Do you have to use that substance?

Or do you have to do that thing?

So that's the first step, and obviously there are many submissions that 5

there is no alternative to Paraquat. So the next step could be to minimise risk,

is to substitute it for a safer one, but obviously in some cases, that's not

possible.

So then you would look at other minimisation steps.

So they include isolating or preventing contact, and/or engineering controls. 10

So then, if you can't put any of these things in place, or you've put some of

those in place and some risk still remains, then you go down to the next level,

which is the administrative controls. So that would be controls such as having a

certified handler, for example. So, a certified handler doesn't actually protect

the person in the workplace; they're still getting exposed, but they actually 15

understand the risks so then they can better manage them. That's how those

controls work.

So then, the General Risk and Workplace Management Regulations,

regulation 6 then says, after you've done all those steps, and if risk still remains,

then you should use some personal protective equipment. 20

So, PPE should not be the first thing you choose for risk mitigation. And

obviously, you should be monitoring the performance of the measures you've

put in place to see if they're still working, and maintain and review that system

all the time.

Potentially, if some new technology comes along to allow you to manage 25

the risks better, you should be considering those things as well.

Section 39 to 42 of the Health and Safety at Work Act has a section on the

duties of designers, manufacturers, suppliers and importers, and what it

basically says is so as far as reasonably practicable, they must ensure that a

substance is without risk to the health and safety of persons. 30

So that's quite a high bar, but obviously sometimes, say, for example,

Paraquat, obviously has certain hazards, and if you've got Paraquat products

they're probably always going to have the hazards of Paraquat. So what we

would look at in this case is, if you are adding other components into that

product, can you have components that don't add additional hazards, for 35

P a g e | 52

example? So EPA have proposed to revoke a number of approvals, and these

approvals have additional hazards. So WorkSafe supports this proposal to

revoke those approvals, because that is in line with the upstream duties under

HASWA Act.

The other duty that the upstream PCBUs have is that they must provide 5

adequate information to the users of the products.

So, it says that the information provided must be about the purpose for

which the substance was designed or manufactured, any hazardous properties

of the substances, and any conditions to ensure the substances without risks to

health and safety when used for the purpose for which it was designed or 10

manufactured.

So I think that's quite interesting, that a substance is without risks to health

and safety.

Okay, so now coming on to Paraquat. Unlike a HSNO approval, where

once you get an approval the controls are then sort of -- not assigned, but they 15

attach to the substance -- the Hazardous Substance Regulations under

HASWA will apply based on what the classification of the substance is. So, if I

have a 6.1A classification, for example, the controls in our regulations that

apply to a 6.1A will apply to that substance. We don't have to go through a

process to apply them to do anything. So they just apply. 20

So in the regulations, we have generic requirements. So those include the

inventory, labelling, safety digest, packaging, emergency management,

signage, information and training, and a general thing about managing risks.

So those will apply to all hazardous substances.

For a class 6 substance, class 6 and 8, part 13 is the section that applies to 25

those substances.

For pesticides, there are some requirements that apply because it's a

pesticide as well, but the types of things that apply are records of application,

equipment, PPE, requirement to have substances secured, tracking, separation

distance, storage and segregation requirements. 30

So some of these will only apply when you get certain quantities. So, some

of the storage requirements, for example Paraquat may require hazardous

location compliance certification. For example, on a farm, if you had over a

hundred litres there you would require -- you would have to meet those

requirements in the regulations. 35

P a g e | 53

The last one I've separated out here is the certified handler. Obviously,

Paraquat already requires a certified handler, but WorkSafe is in the process of

developing the performance standard, and that is what is used by the

compliance certifier when they're certifying people for -- to meet this

requirement, and in that performance standard, we are considering saying that 5

the certificate has to be substance specific for a class 6.1A. So the idea behind

that is that the certifier is just checking that the person actually does know

about Paraquat. It's not just they get a certification that's generic to 6.1As,

because for class 6s, the hazards aren't always the same, because the

exposure routes, how it's actually affecting you, all of those things are really 10

important in knowing how to manage the risk. So that is one of the reasons

why we considered that would be important, that the certifier is checking that

they actually have that information. If your people are already trained and know

all that information, this -- putting this into the performance standard should not

make a difference to people getting certified, if they actually have that 15

information already, but we just want to make sure that when people are getting

certified they do actually know how to handle the substances safely.

Okay, so in our initial report we did for the EPA, we had quite a few

proposals of additional requirements that we could put on. I'm not actually

going to talk about all of them because we've just come down to two now. So 20

I'm just going to talk about those ones.

We changed our proposal based on what the submitters were saying. So

now we are only considering these two risk mitigation measures.

So the first one is closed cab application. So if you think back to the

hierarchy of controls, this is about isolating the person from exposure, and 25

actually the closed mixing and transfer system is a similar.

So, closed cab application may be more long term exposure effects, and

closed mixing and loading, there are some acute effects from Paraquat. So if

someone spilt it on them and their PPE had a rip or something and it went

through, then a closed mixing and loading transfer system would eliminate that 30

possible risk.

So, we're looking at these particular ones because they are higher up the

hierarchy, and the higher up the hierarchy, the more likely they are to work.

So obviously in the submissions, people weren't -- submitters weren't

necessarily aligned with this approach. So, if we decide to go ahead with the 35

P a g e | 54

safe work instrument, we will be looking for the industry to provide us some

information, particularly around whether these are reasonably practicable things

to do, what effects that will have on the industry, et cetera.

So one of the major things is whether the cost of putting these measures in

place is disproportionate to the risk. So any information you can provide on that 5

will help us with this process.

And that's all. Thank you.

QUESTIONS FROM THE DMC

CHAIR: Thank you. Nick, any questions? 10

DR ROSKRUGE: Nice clear presentation. Thank you.

DR TAYLOR: Yeah, it was a very nice presentation. Could you just -- for the

purposes of the hearing as they say, could you just define what you mean by a

closed cab application?

MS COLLIER: We haven't come up with a definition yet. It's sort of at the proposal 15

stage and we would be interested in what the industry -- their views on what

that could look like would be. So I think it's fair to say we haven't really come to

a firm view on what that is, but a method that would significantly reduce the

exposure to the person undertaking that activity.

DR TAYLOR: So the phrase "Closed cab", just generally applies to a method that 20

will --

MS COLLIER: No, I'm sorry. I'm not really saying that, but we would be open to

suggestions from industry of what that might look like.

DR ROSKRUGE: There are some examples from overseas though. I think you

mentioned Canada or somewhere? 25

MS COLLIER: Yeah, there are some examples from overseas where they use that

terminology, but yeah, we are very open to industry suggesting what that might

look like. As long as it meets the goal of reducing the exposure, obviously.

DR TAYLOR: So, one of the difficulties, as you've outlined, there's a relatively new

legislative framework in which workplace specific controls can be set, and one 30

of the difficulties for a decision-making committee under HSNO is that where

we might want to approve a substance and at the same time set controls under

which that approval can be granted, we now no longer have the legislative

power to enforce and set those workplace controls.

P a g e | 55

So I guess, as you've outlined, we have to sort of work with you, and as

you've said, if we decide to go ahead with the safe work instrument -- so, how

can we -- there's a bit of a chicken and an egg situation here. How can we set

controls that we think may be adopted and ratified by your safe work

instrument, when we don't know if you're going to decide to go ahead with the 5

development of such a safe work instrument? How do you see this process

working in a way that cooperates, allows the full cooperation? Do you see

benefit in us suggesting explicit controls that might, if not then be adopted by

you, give you an indication as to what kinds of level of control we think are

necessarily for an approval? 10

MS COLLIER: We are always open to any suggestions that you may have, and

generally EPA does suggest controls that may come under HSWA. So it does

usually work like that. So we do work quite closely together on what our

proposals are. One of the issues we have is around the modelling using PPE,

and if you look at our hierarchy, it basically says that you should only choose 15

PPE if you've got nothing else you can do. So -- and I think HSNO is about

managing risk, and HSWA is more about eliminating and minimising risk, which

are actually two different things, slightly. So there is a conflict there, but I know

that you're on other applications where we do have this chicken and an egg

thing. We think we're still lacking some information on whether the controls 20

we're proposing are reasonably practical for industry. So we would like to get

some more information on those. We, potentially -- if we did propose the two

controls we're still looking at, in a safe work instrument and went out to

consultation and industry could come back with a whole lot of information

saying well, it's not reasonably practicable, then we wouldn't be able to put 25

them in place. So I guess you're asking when are we going to know whether

we're going to do a safe work instrument or not? Potentially after this hearing,

we may know whether we go forward or not, but then there's still no guarantee

that if we did go forward, that there would be a safe work instrument. I don't

know if that really answers your question, but it is a difficult situation we have; I 30

totally agree.

CHAIR: That was going to be my question too.

Actually, I do have another question and that relates back to the discussion.

So you've been following the discussion about the biosecurity application and

the proposal to have it as a separate -- outside of this process. And I guess, 35

P a g e | 56

from your description of how you apply your controls, because it relates to the

risk, the hazard classification, and the class, rather than the specific substance,

would that get around the issue of the fact that, Biosecurity New Zealand might

want to apply at a higher rate?

MS COLLIER: Well, the regulations will apply to them, if they're using the substance. 5

So they will automatically apply. So it's not like they won't have any

requirements, but potentially at a higher rate, there may be additional risks,

because as the EPA have explained, that risk is not -- it is associated with

hazard, but it's -- you know, you might have a higher risk of a lower hazard

substance, depending on the application rate. So, we do have some concerns 10

around the fact that we wouldn't be able to put additional controls on,

if -- because using a permissioning system, because we've only got a safe work

instrument, and it's sort of a one-off use, potentially, that's not really what a safe

work instrument is designed for. So we would not be doing a safe work

instrument for something like that. 15

And the only other way to change requirements is for people to apply for an

exemption. I don't think that would be applicable in this situation, because we

might want to put additional controls on and we wouldn't necessarily be taking

anything off. So we would assume that if we did have a safe work

instrument -- any safe work instrument requirements for Paraquat set, they 20

would also have to follow those, if they were using it. No matter what

application rate they were using.

CHAIR: Okay. That makes sense.

That's good. That makes sense, thank you.

Okay. Do submitters have any questions for WorkSafe? Sorry, the 25

applicants? No?

Do the submitters have any questions for WorkSafe?

QUESTIONS FROM SUBMITTERS

MR HEYWOOD: Antony Heywood from Horticulture New Zealand. You mentioned 30

some stats right at the start around kind of work deaths associated with latent

chemical use. Is there anything that you can be specific about Paraquat, or a

formulation like that?

MS COLLIER: No, we don't have any Paraquat specific information. One of the

problems is because it takes so long for some of these effects to show, they're 35

P a g e | 57

not attributed to a specific exposures or specific exposures over time. So that's

why it's really difficult to get that information. So I guess we're looking at the

management of all chemicals, basically, and potential exposures.

MR HEYWOOD: Thank you. I don't have any further questions, thank you.

CHAIR: Any other submitters have any questions? 5

All right. Thank you very much.

Okay. So that concludes the presentations on behalf of the applicant, and

so now we start on the presentation for the submitters. And first up we've got

Karen Williams? Just to confirm, this is the Federated Farmers' presentation?

MS WILLIAMS: Yes, it is, thank you. 10

FEDERATED FARMERS PRESENTATION

MS WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. Thank you for having us appear today. I'm Karen

Williams, and I am the Chair of the Arable Industry Group for Federated

Farmers, and I am on the Board of Federated Farmers. I am also a cropping 15

and sheep and beef farmer, based over in the Wairarapa, where we have 224

hectares, where we grow various seed and cereal crops.

I'm going to take our submission as read, but I just wanted to point out that

it has been prepared in conjunction with the Foundation for Arable Research, in

consultation with Dairy NZ and our membership. 20

Today I'm not here as an expert, with the application of Paraquat. We have

engaged Mike Parker, who is behind me and will give a presentation. Mike has

had many years’ experience working for the Foundation for Arable Research

and working with this chemical.

We will both be available for questions, but I'm going to hand over to Mike 25

now.

MR PARKER: Good, thank you, and kia ora everybody. I'd also like to point out that I

am speaking on behalf of all farmers and growers, Māori as well as -- or other

ethnic groups. So it's not a significantly one race or another.

I'd just like to give you a little bit of background about myself. I am not 30

involved in models; I am involved in the real world, real application. I have

been applying Paraquat formulations myself for 45 odd years. I am a registered

agrochemical applicator, which means I've gone through significant courses to

achieve, including over 200 hours of spray application.

P a g e | 58

I am also a WorkSafe compliance certifier for certified handlers. So on the

one hand, I am an applicator, and on the other -- so I can, perhaps, give some

insight into the other side of the equation as well.

Do we need the lights? I think if somebody wouldn't mind just flicking off

the lights for us? 5

It's a little bit difficult to see, but I prefer pictures, because they tell a lot of

story and I'd like to talk to them. That's a combine harvester on a clover seed

crop. Little difficult to see, but, yeah.

That's a Paraquat application to clover, to clover seed crop in winter. You

can see there's -- the clover seed is very small. The likelihood of any birds or 10

anything being in there is exceedingly remote.

CHAIR: Is that the seed in the middle or where is it?

MR PARKER: Yes, the little green is the seed. Little bit hard to see

CHAIR: So you have got three rows? I can see the growth.

MS WILLIAMS: I'm pretty sure it was through there as well, and there (indicates). 15

MR PARKER: You will understand that Paraquat is a desiccant, but it will not kill

clover. So it knocks the clover right back, but does not kill it, and that's the

advantage of Paraquat, particularly for clover seed production, and also for

other uses as well, plantain in particular.

So that's a sort of an application in winter, which is reasonably standard. 20

Not all growers apply. Obviously, it's only when they have particular weed

species.

That's a second application there. That was done on a trial area. You can

see the browning off of the clover again, but it's taken out the weeds.

And there is a clover seed crop in full flower, which has been pollinated by 25

bees. Obviously, no applications of Paraquat are through that whole period.

So just a little bit of background, and I did ask Sapere, the gentleman from

Sapere, on the economic benefits, and I'm sure the economic benefits are

much greater in terms of seed production for the livestock industries. Our main

pasture species, for those of you who don't know, is rye grass, perennial rye 30

grasses, and clover, red and white clover seed mixes, which provide nitrogen

for the rye grass through symbiotic bacteria.

65,000 hectares it's about. I mean obviously, we haven't got any really

precise information, but it's about that.

P a g e | 59

It's essential for winter and early season broad spectrum weed control;

there are no alternatives.

And there's generally two applications per season.

400 active ingredient per hectare is way too low for our uses. We could live

with 600, although we would prefer it to be higher than that. 5

For plantain seed, it is a little difficult to see. On the right is a control block;

it's got a lot of shepherd’s purse and chickweed in there. You can see the

application on the left. It does burn off the plantain, but it kills the weed as well,

but plantain is tolerant, and so within two weeks after that application, the

plantain will be recovered completely and growing. 10

Again, there's no other alternatives. You can use a little bit of Dicamba, but

it distorts the plantain. So really, the only possible solution is Paraquat, and

remember that plantain, it is a low methane producing forage crop, and under

the latest research for dairy cows, and it also reduces nitrate concentrations,

which are one of the bigger concerns about the environment currently. 15

And for this very reason, I think plantain will increase in production.

So you can see from the -- you know, we can argue about the economic

benefits of some of these crops to our systems, but they are far reaching in

terms of our whole GDP and our whole agricultural way of life.

And then we turn to Lucerne. Lucerne, bit difficult to see in that photo, but 20

yeah, approximately 130,000 hectares grown in New Zealand. It's an essential

forage species. It's nitrogen-fixing. It's deep rooting, and therefore it's drought

resistant. Their roots will travel down to up to 20 metres if not impeded by

stoney soils or whatever.

It's used as a high protein supplement feed for all classes of livestock. 25

Horses, as well as the cows.

Paraquat applications are made in winter when the plant is dormant.

Lucerne is dormant in the wintertime, and they are made to give some broad

spectrum weed control without phytotoxic effects to the plant. And we submit

that we require at least a minimum of 600 active ingredients per hectare to be 30

effective. In fact, we would prefer higher rates.

So I want to talk now with my other hat, as a compliance certifier for

WorkSafe, which I've, in the last six months, been granted through various

exams and long lengthy -- and as the previous speaker spoke, since 2017,

we've gone from a fairly low level approved handler, to the very high level 35

P a g e | 60

certified handler. Now as a compliance certifier, I have to go through and look

at the hazardous properties of the substances that person that's applying for the

certified handler is applying for. He has to describe to me what controls he

would put in place, what he understands the properties are. A certified handler

has to have a prerequisite of a GrowSafe certificate, which is a one day course. 5

We have to look at his inventory, his emergency response plans, his safety data

sheets. We actually have to look at his personal protective gear to make sure

it's fit for purpose, and we actually get him to put it on, so that we understand.

We also need to see videos of him actually applying the chemical or mixing.

So this is -- and by the way, yes, for all 6.1As and B's, we now have 10

tracking. So right from purchase of the product to disposal of the container,

generally through Agrecovery, we -- every time you use Paraquat, all the

records have to be kept, from the purchase to the empty container and how it

was used.

So these are quite stringent controls and the level has now been set from 15

about this level to this level. And so what I'm suggesting to you is, as a way

forward, and also to my -- to WorkSafe, is that if you have a current certified

handler, you should meet all the requirements of safety, and remember that risk

is all about the hazard, times the exposure, and if we have PPE fit for purpose,

we are eliminating the exposure, and so, what is the risk? 20

And that is what we submit, a record of risk assessment is not required, nor

a controlled substance, because we feel that the new certified handler

requirements should meet all those requirements.

Now, you sir did ask about a closed transfer system and also about in-cab

filtration system. So closed cab is charcoal impregnated filters within the cab, 25

but can I suggest to you that you still need to mix the agrochemical. So we'd

still need PPE. So you go right back to the certified handler. So as long as

you've got a current certified handler, you should be meeting every requirement

under this system.

A closed transfer system, by the way, most of them, even though they may 30

suck out of a thousand litre pod, you still need to undo the lids et cetera. So

you still need PPE. So I go back to my risk times the hazard times the

exposure. If we are removing the exposure, then we reduce the risk.

So a little bit about birds. There's been a lot of talk about birds and bees.

P a g e | 61

I've had years of experience. Paraquat formulations dry very rapidly, and if

you're spraying in a paddock, you can't see any bees. Tractors, particularly

aircraft, are very noisy machines. There is no birds whatever, and when the

product dries, what is the risk? I've never ever, in all my years, and this is only

anecdotal evidence from me, but I am a guy that's out there in the field doing 5

this stuff, and I've never ever seen anyone birds dying following a Paraquat

application.

Besides, most of them are done when there's no seeds on the plants

anyway. So, you know, I think we get -- personally, I think we get too carried

away with what you can see in a model, but ideal in the real world. 10

And that's not a criticism of the models, by the way, but it's a different

scenario.

I think that's pretty self-explanatory, that slide, anyway.

Somebody else mentioned that the Paraquat, and by the way some of the

islands don't do this still, some of our island neighbours, which can hence be 15

why there's been some accidents there, but we have stenching agents and

emetics, by law, in our Paraquat formulations. All the recorded poisonings

today relate to suicide, non-use of personal protection equipment, or

non-agricultural use.

Fed Farmers does not have an issue with Paraquat being prohibited for the 20

domestic use, but we do have concerns around the term agricultural.

Remember that parks, golf courses, nurseries, are in effect not actually

agricultural, but we don't want to prohibit their use, and so we come back to

what I would say would be the requirement that they have certified handler

requirements. 25

If you're a certified handler, you have been trained in the safe responsible

use of those chemicals.

We do use -- apart from those products, used in crops such as Lucerne,

plantain and clover seed production, we do have some minor uses around

weed control around farm buildings, and I will talk a bit later on today, when I'm 30

presenting on behalf of my own property and vegetable growers.

We have glyphosate novavax in group G, or glufosinate, and remember

glufosinate is group 8, but it also kills clovers, and we talk about agrochemical

resistance, where we repeatedly use the same mode of action chemical. So we

need to occasionally alternate. So it is good for -- to be able to alternate some 35

P a g e | 62

of these chemicals and so Paraquat is most useful in part of that rotation

strategy.

And I'll open to questions, thank you.

QUESTIONS FROM THE DMC 5

CHAIR: Thank you. Nick, have you any questions?

DR ROSKRUGE: I do have one or two. One is just a clarification. So it's clover and

plantain for seed crops, rather than any other sort of situation with them?

MR PARKER: Yes, that's correct.

DR ROSKRUGE: That's just for clarification. The other is, when you say there's no 10

alternatives, and I appreciate what that means, has there been some trial work

that looks to back up the no alternatives space? Are you aware of any?

MR PARKER: I have been involved in 14 years of research in agrochemicals.

Currently no. No, there are no alternatives. We are still looking. As I said,

there is a little bit of Dicamba use in plantain, but it does distort the crop. You 15

know, it's a phenoxy.

DR ROSKRUGE: So have they published any of that? Have you been accessing -- or

whether they have --

DR ALLEN: Yeah, I mean, I don't think we've seen any published research on

alternatives. The analysis we did on alternatives was very much label claims 20

against similar weed types. There's Dicamba.

DR ROSKRUGE: I have seen a bit of similar stuff when I have been out in the field,

but I just wondered if there was anything sort of accessible that supports that

from the literature, at all?

DR ALLEN: I mean, the responses that we got through submissions would indicate 25

very limited availability of alternatives for several uses, for sure.

DR ROSKRUGE: Thank you for that. Thank you.

DR TAYLOR: Yeah thank you. That was really interesting. I'm not a farmer as you

probably can tell, so it's nice to know how you use the substance.

In that regard, do you think -- is New Zealand agriculture particularly reliant 30

on Paraquat, by international comparison? Is there something about what we

do or what we expect out of agriculture, or our particular exposures to weeds

that make us disproportionately reliant to this chemical, to say a farmer in

Ireland?

MR PARKER: I think, I mean, we are a little bit similar to Ireland, perhaps? 35

P a g e | 63

DR TAYLOR: It was just a hypothetical.

MR PARKER: Yeah. We are an agricultural country. We have a particularly, what I

would say generally mild climate. Therefore, you know growth of weeds is

significant. We do have -- compared with around the world, we have a lot

higher organic matter in our soils. We have more recent soils. So I think -- and 5

because our whole economy is really -- I mean most of our GDP is derived from

the livestock sectors. I'm not saying that horticulture isn't also very significant,

because I'll be talking about that later, but in terms of dairy production in

particular, and clover seed production for pastures is exceedingly important,

and overseas, they don't -- there's not quite that same reliance. There is a lot 10

of other cropping work in America, for instance. It's -- the corn belt is probably

the most significant. We call it maize here, but they call it corn. Their livestock

industries aren't -- in comparison, while they're very large, they're larger than

New Zealand's, I mean we're -- in proportion to what our size of our country is,

they're much more proportionally large. If that makes sense? 15

DR TAYLOR: Yeah, no, it does, but from the information you showed at least anyway,

and from the submission that you've both made, clearly you regard continued

use of Paraquat as critical to maintaining the efficiency of your sector?

MR PARKER: Exactly, yeah.

CHAIR: Thank you. 20

I'm also not a farmer, but I am a pretty keen gardener.

So I just want to ask you a bit more about the birds, and the potential

exposure to birds, and so I just want to get a picture of how you actually apply

Paraquat, and when and what the weeds and what the seeds that you are

planting -- presumably? So how does it actually work? Describe to me how 25

you would apply Paraquat, and what the weeds -- what condition the weeds

would be in? Is there lots of green and --

MR PARKER: Most herbicides, the most efficient way to use a herbicide, is when

weed growth is relatively small. So either at the cotyledon or the two or three

first leaf stages. 30

So, when you're applying, the plants are really quite juvenile, but they've

obviously got to be there, and I will talk about some other uses this afternoon.

So if you could semi-park that question, I will -- because when we talk about

stale seed beds and some of these other uses, it will become a little bit more

apparent, but for now, yeah. Particularly in these crops, and you'll appreciate 35

P a g e | 64

that in wintertime, when particularly things like Lucerne are dormant, and to

some extent clovers, when the temperatures are cold and growth is slow and

microbial activity is very slow, applying at that point, the weeds aren't

significantly large either.

CHAIR: Yeah, I'm just trying to get a picture of, you know, if I'm a happy little pukeko 5

that's coming along or a seed eating bird that's coming along into these fields

and what -- am I likely to be attracted into this field, or is there a tiny little stubs

of green that probably aren't particularly interesting, versus a field full of weeds?

MR PARKER: If you went into a field of birds and you clapped your hands, they would

take off. When you come in with a boom and a tracker that's, you know, we're 10

normally using 540 revs per minute, depending on the power take off speed,

which actually drives the sprayer unit. It's making a significant noise. With the

aerial, you can appreciate a helicopter. You can probably hear a helicopter

coming from half a kilometre away.

CHAIR: I guess I'm thinking about after it's been applied? 15

MR PARKER: But the Paraquat's dry within -- by the time you've got to the end of the

paddock, the first lot you've -- the first one of the swathe is dry.

CHAIR: But how does that -- that doesn't impact on whether a bird will eat -- will take

a piece of green leaf?

MR PARKER: Yeah, well when you are looking at -- supposing you were doing, we'll 20

say 5 hectares of a formulation, which brings you back to about 250 active

ingredients per hectare, you're talking about 10,000 square metres in a hectare.

You think about, you know, there would be one, probably point 001 of a gram

per maybe half a metre. So you're talking a very -- because you know, our

water rates are quite high when we're applying. So you're talking about 25

miniscule amounts.

CHAIR: How long does the Paraquat take to actually the kill the plant?

MR PARKER: Depending on the temperature, but it's pretty rapid. Often you can see

it -- in the warmer months, you can actually see it almost going black behind

you. So it's very quick acting. 30

But because its mode of action is on photosystem I, so what it actually is

doing is inhibiting one of the chains in photosynthesis. So effectively, the plant

is dying, because it can't -- so when it's actively running, it kills quicker. At this

time of the year, it probably takes 2 or 3 days before you notice any really

browning. 35

P a g e | 65

CHAIR: Thank you. That's very useful. Any questions from the applicant?

QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT

MR PHIPPS: We've just got a couple of questions around the use of Paraquat on

clover and clover seed production. 5

So in the submission from Federated Farmers, it suggested that Paraquat

is used as a harvest desiccant for clover seed. How soon after the spraying of

Paraquat on the clover seed would the clover seed be harvested and

made -- like, taken out of the environment?

MR PARKER: Paraquat is occasionally used as a desiccant, but most of the growers 10

use Diquat as a desiccant, but having said that, it is normally when the clover is

mature. So within 2 or 3 days of application, but it does vary. I've just

explained how the kill depends a little bit on the temperature. It also depends a

little bit on soil type and organic matter in the soil, et cetera.

So, these are some of the decisions -- and I'd like to point out to the 15

Committee that growers -- when we talk about making substitutions and going

through the flow chart, growers are always doing that. Nobody -- we don't

make decisions without -- chemicals cost us a lot of money. We don't like using

chemicals if we -- so we go to alternatives beforehand. Those decisions are

made all the time as a grower. The main decision is what is the weather doing 20

out there, and is it going to rain tomorrow? Do we do this job or do we do that

job? Those are the -- you know, I think probably we don't give our fellow

growers enough credit for the thought and the time and the effort they go into,

to producing crops. And the decision-making that they do. Yeah, it's an

enjoyable lifestyle, but it's a hard working one, so. 25

CHAIR: Did you have any other questions?

MR PHIPPS: Yes, just a couple of other questions. We understand that more than

one application of 400 grams of active ingredient is typically used on a stand of

clover. So how many applications would you anticipate, like you'd need,

from -- I guess renovation through to harvesting of clover seed? 30

MR PARKER: Most growers would use probably one, or two. Some might do three,

but it depends. Once again, it depends on the weather and the weed growth

and the spectrum. Every farmer is a little bit different; you can appreciate. The

weed spectrum of growers in the South Island is a little different to those in the

North, and it depends on what other crops they've grown, and the weed seed 35

P a g e | 66

bank is different. These are decisions that you have to make on your own

property by looking at the stage of growth, what the weed seed bank is, and

you make that decision.

MR PHIPPS: Thank you.

MR WATERS: Yes, so I suppose a follow-up question to that. So, if we've got the 5

maximum application rate of 600 per year, and you've got a grower who needs

to, or feels he needs to apply three times in a season, or three times a year,

would he be able to get away with using three by 200 rather than -- or would he

need, you would say he needs a higher rate each time?

MR PARKER: No, well I mean, one of the things about it is resistance management, 10

and if we continually use low rates, then resistance may become a problem.

So, as a grower, we follow label rates, because label rates are set by the

agchem companies for -- obviously with a little bit of fudge factor in there, but to

give an effective result. And remember that all agrochemicals applications, in

terms of New Zealand Standard 8409 which the whole GrowSafe programme is 15

based on, is the safe, responsible, but it's also about the effective use of

agrochemicals. So safe, responsible and effective use of agrochemicals. So

following label rates is particularly important.

CHAIR: Are you guys done?

MR PHIPPS: Yes, I think that's all from us. 20

CHAIR: Okay. Any questions from other submitters?

No. Okay.

Thank you very much. I think we'll adjourn for lunch. Just before we head

off, I just wanted to check the timetable and check in with everyone. We are

due to finish at 3.45 and we are a wee bit behind schedule now. So, if we -- we 25

are 20 minutes behind schedule. So we can either shorten the lunch, or if

everyone is okay, we can allow for a bit more of a -- or actually, we could just

do away with afternoon tea, and that brings us back on track. We might do that

then.

So we will now adjourn for an hour, and see everyone back here at 20 to 2. 30

(12.40 pm)

(The luncheon adjournment)

35

P a g e | 67

(1.40 pm)

CHAIR: Welcome back everyone. We will make a start.

So, we have the submissions, through -- a bit of a mixed bag here. So

starting off with Mr Salter here, is that right?

5

GROWER ORGANISATIONS PRESENTATION

MR SALTER: Yes. So good afternoon everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to

speak here today. Thanks in particular to you, Dr Phillips, for granting our

request for additional speaking time above the 15 minute standard that is

explicit in the hearing guidelines. We really appreciate that. 10

We have three presenters today. First, you'll hear from me. I'll talk about

things which are more general in nature and relevant to all five of the grower

organisations that are represented by our presentation and the submission that

we made. Then you're going to hear from Andre de Bruin, a kumara grower,

and you're then going to hear again from Mike Parker. 15

So this presentation is on behalf of five horticultural product grower groups,

the New Zealand Buttercup Squash Council, Onions New Zealand, Processed

Vegetables NZ, Summer Fruit New Zealand, and Vegetables New Zealand.

The five product groups represented collectively make a really big

contribution to New Zealand, and as Andre alluded to earlier, especially to the 20

regions in which that growing activity takes place, and I don't just mean

economic contribution. They also provide a really large proportion of the fruits

and vegetables that go into New Zealanders' diets.

You will recognise this table from our submission, so I won't go into it in too

much detail, but the figures that really stick out to me the most are the ones 25

relating to employment, and particularly and given that most of those people

who are employed are in regional communities where the population is lower,

this growing activity is quite an important contributor to the well-being of those

communities.

In obtaining information to contribute to this reassessment process, each of 30

the five grower organisations sent out questionnaires to numerous growers, at

least in the dozens. I don't know if it hit the hundreds; they did that

independently, but what I do know is that, for example, for kumara, we received

responses from growers responsible for about half the total volume produced.

So I think we got pretty good feedback and I think that the information we got 35

P a g e | 68

allows us to provide a growers’ voice to this process. As we all know, sections

5 and 6 of the HSNO Act require all persons exercising functions, duties and

powers under the Act to recognise particular matters and account for them, and

to also recognise certain principles, and having that grower voice really, in my

view at least, enables everyone to be able to make decisions which better meet 5

those sections of the Act.

We spoke in our submission about the various benefits that Paraquat

provides to growers. It's rain-fast, fast-acting, contact only; it doesn't

translocate, and because of these properties, it really is quite critical for some

production scenarios, and for lots of other production scenarios, where there 10

perhaps are alternatives that they include in a rotation, it having its unique

mode of action makes it a really good thing to include in that rotation to help

ward off herbicide resistance, which is a big concern for growers, and

something they know and care a lot about.

Something else that our growers care a lot and know a lot about is using 15

Paraquat in a safe and responsible manner.

Some of you will remember this graph from our submission. We, in

addition to the information directly from growers, contacted the National

Poisons Centre and asked for records of how many calls they received relating

to Paraquat over a 15 year period. So we asked for the information when the 20

call for information was put out. So mid-2017, that's why it doesn't go all the

way up to the present year, and we've presented that here as a three year

rolling average, just to even out the bumps. With the sheer numbers that you're

dealing with there, statistically, you do get extremes. You'll have a year with

one call, a year with 8 calls, the year after -- so balancing and smoothing that 25

out, I think, presents it as a better graph.

In our submission, we break down what those calls actually are. I won't

read that verbatim, but what it boils down to is that really only one of the calls,

there's a likelihood that it may have come from someone who, I guess I'd say,

was using Paraquat properly. They were observing safe -- they claim they were 30

wearing PPE, observing all of the safety precautions that they had to. A lot of

those other calls were things like Jim mentioned earlier about oh, there was

Paraquat in a soft drink bottle in a shed somewhere, or a container that has

been around since 1970 ruptured and has spilt and someone is calling for

advice. As well as, sadly, some intentional misuse. 35

P a g e | 69

Nonetheless, I think, in my view, that the strong downward trend there is

still a really good sign. It shows that even though there aren't many incidents of

"Proper" use of Paraquat causing undue harm, those other potential pathways

to harm are still reducing.

Now aside from human health, the EPA seem to be quite concerned about 5

risks to birds.

As Mike mentioned, birds display your typical startle response when

spraying takes place. So they won't be directly impacted, but the EPA have

attempted to assess dietary risk to birds. It's a bit of a shame that Michael is

not here today, because we do have significant concerns about the validity of 10

the approach that they've taken and the accuracy of the model findings. I think

some of what I am about to say in the next wee while probably answers your

question to Mike Ngaire about Paraquat being on the seeds and birds being

able to eat them.

We raised a lot of these in our submission, but to varying degrees. They 15

haven't really been addressed all that much in the staff update report. So, I'm

going over them again for you.

The model that the EPA have elected to use is one used in the EU to

assess risks to birds.

Now EFSA have an accompanying guide, which explains how it works, and 20

lists various assumptions that it makes.

Now one of those assumptions is that, even when the crop is unpalatable, it

is assumed that weeds and weed seeds will be available as food for birds and

mammals.

Now to me, that's potentially an okay assumption if you're modelling the risk 25

from fungicides or insecticides that you're spraying on a crop, but with a

fast-acting herbicide, that's not a valid assumption and is something that needs

to be accounted for.

We reported in our submission, and Mike also said earlier, that growers try

to time their applications of Paraquat in order to be most effective to target 30

weeds when they're at that very early growing stage, before they produce seed,

because otherwise the seed will just fall into the ground and go back into the

seed bank, which is bad from the grower's perspective.

And what this means is that in the real world scenario, you're going to have

far fewer seeds available for consumption by granivorous and omnivorous birds 35

P a g e | 70

in the treated area, which means that they'll essentially be forced to obtain a

higher proportion of their diet from outside of the treated area, which means

that they're being exposed to less Paraquat than the model would otherwise

suggest.

The model also doesn't appear, and looking through the update to the 5

EPA's ecotoxicology assessment I couldn't see anywhere where such

allowances had been included, but it doesn't appear to account for compounds

that don't translocate within weeds. This is another way in which this risk is

overestimated, because even if a grower does slightly miss that spraying

window, and they spray but seeds are starting to form within the weed, because 10

the Paraquat when it lands on the weed won't translocate that into the seed,

unless it's landed on the seed itself, then the actual amount of Paraquat that the

bird is being exposed to through eating that seed is less than the model is

assuming.

I haven't been able to find in the EFSA guidance or the EPA report any 15

allowances for how much a compound does or doesn't translocate, but most of

them do. So I'm fairly sure that the model is assuming that translocation does

occur.

What this boils down to is that because Paraquat won't translocate, there

will be less Paraquat on those seeds than the model assumes, and both the 20

acute and chronic granivorous and omnivorous bird models that the EPA have

reported, they have stated that they used the EFSA default RUD or residue unit

dose value, but in reality, the amount of Paraquat on those seeds will be less

than this.

Another shortcoming that we -- well, it's not really a shortcoming. Another 25

thing that we pointed out in order to hopefully make the modelling more realistic

was suggesting that the EPA use LD50s of birds for each of the different dietary

models that came from birds that have that -- a similar diet.

They've adjusted their approach in that they've used a geometric mean for

the acute modelling, but not so for the chronic modelling. This isn't really what 30

we were suggesting, and we get that that approach is perfectly defensible, but it

would have been good to see the results if you had applied more diet like for

like matches, as you go through each of those model scenarios, because there

will be biological similarities between birds with similar diets, be they enzymatic,

P a g e | 71

metabolism things. They're going to be more like for like, and will present a

more realistic depiction of what occurs in the field.

Going on to other controls.

So the proposed maximum application rate, which is stated as a yearly, as

also a single application limit. The flexibility in that is, in general, a good thing. 5

If application rates were set like that, it's good to give growers that flexibility, but

as I alluded to earlier during Sapere's submission, it doesn't allow for all of the

use patterns that were reported by growers. So, most of the information that

we got growers had reported a range that they use, both in terms of

concentration and the number of applications, and taking a worst case 10

scenario, so assuming that the weather is as unfavourable as possible, and

everything goes badly, the growers of each of those crops, according to the use

pattern data we received, may require more like the values that we've indicated

in grey there.

Other controls: 15

So the proposed buffer zones are probably workable in terms of distance,

for most of our growers, but the EPA is also proposing coarse droplet's or

larger. I think that's a control that's sort of flown under most people's radars,

including our own at some point. Because Paraquat is contact only, growers

need really good coverage. Most of the use data that we received indicated 20

that growers use it at medium, or sometimes even fine droplet size. So we do

oppose that control and have some concerns about what that may mean in

terms of how efficacious Paraquat will be. If you get poor coverage, you may

need to spray again, which isn't ideal for the grower, the biostandards or the

environment. 25

In terms of the responsible handling information, there aren't any strong

objections. Growers are supportive of any information that helps them better

use products safely.

I have already spoken about the permissions for biosecurity use earlier. So

my last point in terms of other controls is the timing in which they take effect. 30

So, I think I'm correct in that the EPA's proposing that 12 months after the

decision, the actual application restrictions will take effect, but that in order to

allow time for the ACDM process and label renewal process to take effect,

companies will have 24 months to update their label. We're a little concerned

about this just because it introduces an area for confusion. Yes, there probably 35

P a g e | 72

will be messaging going out to growers saying okay, well these are the controls

you must follow by X date, but it is still introduces the possibility of confusion.

Whereas we have we considered that a 24 month introductory period would

probably be appropriate. We note that Section 25 of the labelling notice

requires that labels include and describe any such application restrictions like 5

application rate. So having those two dates aligning would also be consistent

with the EPA's labelling notice, and we consider that, based on the Poisons

Centre data, having that extra 12 months of potentially use higher than

whatever application rate restrictions are set by the Committee, is unlikely to

pose undue harm. 10

So that's me. I guess, depending on whether the Committee want to ask

questions now or ask at the end of the presentation either way works for us.

CHAIR: Keep going, thank you.

MR SALTER: Thank you.

15

PRESENTATION FROM MR DE BRUIN - Kumara Grower

MR DE BRUIN: Good afternoon. First thank you very much for this opportunity to

speak. As a kumara grower, I'd first like to acknowledge the privilege that we

have of growing such a culturally significant crop to Māori, and the significance

kumara is to our wider community in the north, and of course the privilege of me 20

being here speak on behalf of all of our commercial kumara growers, but I'd

rather call them professional kumara growers, because over the last 15, 20

years the movement from commercial to professional grower has been quite

stunning.

So my name's Andre de Bruin. I am actually the Chair of Vegetables 25

New Zealand, and my day job, I am a kumara grower, from Dargaville.

Paraquat is an extremely important tool for us in the kumara industry for

controlling weeds.

So today I'm actually going to use our -- my own family garden as a case

study to illustrate what we really do with Paraquat, because we are out using it, 30

out in the real world.

And what we do on our garden is very typical of our entire industry, and it's

a very tight industry. 80% of it is within 50 kilometres of my place, and news

travels fast, and so new methods, new changes to the industry, travel extremely

fast amongst our growers. 35

P a g e | 73

We all operate under NZ GAP, and that's a quality assurance programme

that runs our business basically about how we treat staff, how we use

chemicals, right through to complete trace of what inputs we're putting, from not

just agrochemicals, from fertilisers, from everything, and follows our whole

growing process. So you can pick a kumara in a bag out of supermarket; you 5

can give me that trace code. I can tell you everything that went into applying on

that number.

And you can see our mission there as a family.

Just to put you in the situation, this is where the kumara industry is based.

Our maunga is tira mohe(?), it oversees our whole district. Dargaville is 10

situated around the coast -- sorry, not the coast, the edge of the river, and that

is the mighty northern Wairoa river flowing out to the Kaipara harbour, and it is

the delta of the northern Wairoa river which has got such beautiful soils and

climate that allows us to grow what is essentially a tropical crop in a temperate

or subtropical environment, rather than a tropical one. 15

And much of this land, including one of the blocks I grow on, has been

growing kumara for a long time before Europeans arrived in New Zealand and

we're still growing it on the same soils, and I hope that the way we grow, we'll

still be growing it many generations into the future.

Just a quick snap shot of the kumara industry. Kaipara being the area. 80 20

to 90% of New Zealand's kumara. 2,000 hectares. Now that's probably a

different number than you have, because 2,000 hectares is what we use, but

we're only growing 12 to 1500 hectares a year. The rest is part of our rotational

strategy and non-cultivated parts of the farm or gardens.

The industry employs around about 200 full-time people, and there's a 25

further thousand seasonal workers. The majority of these are actually locals

from Northland, and so we're an extremely important industry for local people.

Returning around about 50 million over the last four years average to the

district.

There was questions about why we don't use similar chemicals as 30

potatoes. Kumara planting and potatoes -- well, kumara and potatoes are very

very different. Kumara is in the Convolvulus family. Potato is not; it's in the

tomato family.

So, kumara, we are planting plants, and that is some of my staff members

cutting plants, preparing them, and actually planting them. So hopefully you 35

P a g e | 74

can see it in the light, and that is from our seed beds. So in a potato planting

operation, you are planting the potato. So you use totally different chemistry,

when you are trying control weeds, and I think that's actually really really

important, and can't be forgotten. Is, growers are using techniques specifics to

what they're growing. A vegetable is not a vegetable. There's a huge number 5

of vegetables and each one needs to be grown according to what works for that

vegetable.

Coming to Paraquat. We use Gramoxone mainly, which I know it's a label

from one chemical company, but it's very important to us. We've been told

about alternatives to use. There was a list of possible alternatives in one of the 10

EPA slides. Every single one of them will kill our crop. So they are not

alternatives.

The closest we came to on that list was Diquat, and Diquat will completely

decimate our crop. It will survive it, but you won't get any yield -- or very little

yield. 15

If you see the in row picture, hopefully you can actually see the size of the

weeds there. That is the size that we're controlling the weeds, which is why the

kumara industry uses very low rates, because we're trying to control the weed

at that stage. If they are past that stage, we will not control them, and that's

why we use progressive, more than one application, because when the next 20

weed strike comes, we've got to be able to control it again.

Once they are past that stage, we do not have any chemicals which will

control it, other than grass weeds, which we can use a product like Fusilade on

it, but not flat weeds, because they will all take out the kumara.

We do put an additive in some time, bentazone, and that will heat the 25

Paraquat up to help us control any resistant weeds, but again, we have to be

very careful. There is another product called Oxy, that you can use. We do not

like using it, because it really destroys the growing tips of the kumara. Sets

your crop back between 7 and 14 days and really destroys your yield.

In this picture here, there is a green bit through here and a green bit 30

through there (indicates). They're not because we didn't weed it in previous

years, although it could be partly due to that, but that is actually a slightly lower

spot. This is after rain. That was slightly damper and that was the massive

weed strike within that area. This block had had pre-emergent spray. So if

people think we can do it with pre-emergence, you might be able to in the 35

P a g e | 75

States when they have no organic matter in their soil, but we are running very

high organic matter soils. It's fabulous country, but the price you pay is most

pre-emergent sprays do very very poor jobs.

And then Northland's lovely weather, we get quite heavy rain drops, and we

get regular rains, and every time you get a rain you get this germination issue. 5

So, there's questions about why we don't just mechanically weed it. That's

in the row weeds, compared to between the row weeds. In the row

weeds -- between the row weeds we can mechanically weed. In the row,

between the plants and under the leaves of the plants is a different story.

I've particularly put this picture on this side for a reason. That leaf, that 10

leaf, that leaf, and there's a fourth one, that leaf (indicates), they have been

sprayed probably three times with Paraquat, but you'll see, these shoots, they

have very clean tips on them, and that is actually the reason -- one of the main

reasons we're using Paraquat, is it's not taking out the tip, the growing point of

the plant. And so, they just jump out of it and respond really quickly. If we 15

increase the rate of Paraquat application, we will take the plant out altogether.

So we're very rate sensitive and there is no value in any of our growers

increasing the rate or spraying more than is necessary, because it will actually

decrease our crop.

If you get your spraying wrong, you get your timing wrong, this is what you 20

end up with, and once the weeds are at that stage, that crop was hoed in and

started again. There is nothing that we can do to save that crop at that stage.

Basically, those weeds will beat the crop, and it's not that crop that I'm

really worried about, because we'd still get some yield, although it's very hard to

harvest when it's full of weeds, but the weed bank from the next season and the 25

season after and the season after.

So, this is the other thing we get in Northland. We have lovely weather

sometimes, but those of you who have been to Northland for a holiday know

that we get dumps of rain. When we get these dumps of rain, we get

germination on the flood lines of the rain, and that germination, we cannot 30

inter-row cultivate it manually, with the machine, because in 7 days from then,

we're going to -- the rain will be gone, the rows will be dry, but they're not dry

inside. So if we start to mechanically cultivate, we will actually wreck the soil

structure. We'll also bring up a whole lot of new fresh ground, and that will start

the whole process of weed germination again. 35

P a g e | 76

So that is really where our inter-row spraying, that was part of our controls,

is really quite important.

This is actually me spraying in the tractor. There was a question about

birds. There's no birds. It's young crops that we're spraying like that, is a

desert for birds. We don't see birds. If you go into the paddock over the road 5

through that hedge, that's a dairy farm with grass; it will be full of birds.

If you go on the other side of the canal, there's a paddock set up for silage

in this particular case, it will have a lot of seed. There will be a lot of birds

there. There is no birds there, because they're not there. There's no reason for

the birds to be there. 10

When you first plant, you might have birds follow the planter because some

worms will be right on the surface, but 7 days after you've planted, there's no

worms sitting on the surface. That's not an environment for them, so they're

down deep, and there's no flowers, so there's no bees. It's actually quite a

desert for wildlife. 15

And as that says, just finished 7 am, all of our spraying is generally done

between -- most growers won't start until 9, 9.30 pm at night, before they start

the sprayer. The reason for that is the leaves are too hot and they're

dehydrated, so if you spray then you actually burn the plant. So we don't want

to burn our plants; we only want to kill the weeds. 20

And also, at the end of the day the weeds are closed up, because of the

sun, and we want a little bit of moisture in the air to open the leaves out so that

we can hit the apical bud, because that is what kills the cotyledon stage of

weed. And then we will be finished at 7 o'clock in the morning.

So although I employ 30 staff during the season, to plant, there is no-one 25

other than me, at my place, when we're spraying, because they're at home.

And there is no reason, there is to re-entry problem into this block, because

there is no reason to go into it for the next five days.

From this point on, once we've got canopy closure, we're not using any

agrochemicals on our crops, other than if we have a grass weed problem, and 30

we have a specific number of chemicals that you can use on grasses over a flat

weed crop, and effectively we're a flat weed crop.

Top left, that's the first day of hand weeding. By the time we got to week

three of hand weeding this year, there were four of those people left, plus one

that's not in the picture, and three of them were my kids. That's how excited 35

P a g e | 77

people are about hand weeding. They will -- they just don't front. They don't

turn up, so the question about why don't we just hand weed? The only time we

can hand weed is to catch weed escapes from when we've done a good job

weeding. We can't hand weed a crop that hasn't got weed control.

And on our farm, we're very -- we're big on trying -- on sustainability. We 5

have a long-term rotation, in which we have some cattle; we have shorter term

rotations in which we're rotating kumara, grass in the winter, and going back to

kumara. And the grass in the winter, we're bringing in sheep to control weeds,

and we're putting green feed crops through. That's a mustard crop. Helps

suppress the weeds when we turn it in. You actually get effectively a mustard 10

gas, and it knocks your weed population around.

So, we are doing a lot of these cultural controls. It's not Paraquat,

Paraquat. It's Paraquat and, it's part of our toolbox. It's not -- it's part of a

whole system of integrated growing.

There was one question about us, and I understand that our submission 15

was accepted about using Paraquat to knock the canopy, at harvest. Again, it's

different crops do different things. We actually mulch the canopy, and that is all

green fed back into the ground, and you can see there still the green of the

canopy sitting as the harvesters go up through, and the kumara on the

harvester are still attached to the wines, and so they're physically pulled off by 20

the crew, and they have to be hand done because the skin of the kumara is

very soft, and it goes black if you knock it around.

And that's just part of my crew there.

So, just sort of a few summary things and I hope I haven't forgotten too

much along the way. 25

We only spray when required. I don't like spraying anything. I've got -- it

costs money; it takes time, and I actually have better things to do with my life

than spraying. We spray as a tool as part of our overall management, and

growers spend a lot of time walking. My wife gave me a step-ometer one day,

because she says she'd done so many thousand steps, and she gave it to me 30

in the evening. I gave it back to her when I came back from my crop walk, and

it had 15,000 steps on it. So we are doing a lot of crop scouting. We are only

spraying when we have the critical number of weeds to spray, but in our

business, repeat spraying is a must. If we don't repeat spray, we get large

weed populations in our harvest. It's not this year that's the problem. We can 35

P a g e | 78

still harvest; we can work through the weeds. It just slows everything down. It's

next year, and the people that follow us the year after and the year after.

We really don't believe we have bird issues or re-entry issues, because we

just -- there's nobody there when I'm spraying, and that's quite standard in our

industry. No-one sprays late, because we damage our crop. 5

We do do some handgun spraying and that's really specific uses around

the kumara nursery beds, and that's because there is no residue. So if we use

any product that has a residue, that potentially will translocate, and then we go

and plant that plant out, we don't get a crop.

All of our growers in our district are operating under GrowSafe and NZ 10

GAP, and we really, I believe, are quite professional growers as an industry,

and we have a very strong growers association that brings in new things to the

industry as soon as we do have them.

As far as research goes into other alternative chemistry, we have done a lot

over the years. We did a number of years have issues around night shade 15

resistance. We have worked systems with our growers, and particularly, more

importantly, with the people that spray the sides of our roads, to try and control

that issue and with the techniques we use today, the industry is well on top of

that.

So, unless, there's any questions at the moment I'll -- 20

CHAIR: We'll keep going thank you. Thank you very much. That was very

informative.

Okay, now we have got Mr Parker.

Just before you start, Mr Parker, I was going to say, is it possible for us to

get a copy of the presentations like your earlier presentation and this 25

presentation?

MS QUINN: I can put them in Boardbooks.

MR DE BRUIN: Thank you for visiting our place and our people.

VEGETABLES NZ PRESENTATION 30

MR PARKER: Kia ora, again. I am here this afternoon representing a number of

vegetable growers. Andre has talked about the kumara industry. I am

representing about the other 50 crops that are part of the vegetables.

So just a little bit about my home block. I have been a vegetable grower

now for about 45 years, but in my old age, I have stepped back a little bit, and 35

P a g e | 79

so now I am mainly growing maize, sweet corn, watermelon, rock melon and

we have some livestock.

We do have some additional lease land, as well. So I'm not a big grower

any more, but I was a reasonable sized grower up until about ten years ago.

So my particular property, which I farm with my brother, is a mixed 5

enterprise. So a little bit hard to see, but sweet corn and watermelon, rock

melon, maize, and we do have some winter livestock.

The things I was going to talk about right now is -- it may be a little bit

difficult to see, but we do use a technique what we call a stale seed bed. So

forth the melons in particular, we lay polythene. We do use one pre-emergent 10

herbicide, which has a life -- well, an effective life on weed growth,

pre-emergence of about 30 days, but what we do is we apply Paraquat. I would

like to say, we can use some alternatives, and I'll talk about the reason why we

use alternatives in resistance management a little bit later on.

So we let the first flush of weeds come away, and when the weed is very 15

small then we apply either Paraquat and then something like alachlor which is a

chloroacetamide herbicide, and that will keep the area weed free, largely until

we plant.

Now, all our planting is in through the polythene, and you can appreciate

that it does require some soil disturbance as you're planting, and therefore we 20

get some other flushes of weeds. So spot spraying, particularly with Paraquat,

is very beneficial to us. So we actually do that by nap sack. We do it very early

in the morning or late at night, and you can see them runners are starting to

grow, and you can see there that it's very difficult to put a -- any boom down

there. So the nap sack application actually becomes very important to us. So 25

we will do that maybe three times until we get full canopy cover, and you heard

Andre talk about canopy cover in his system. So you can start to see canopy

cover there, and certainly you can see it there.

At that stage, obviously, we're not applying any herbicide, and by that stage

we're probably only 2 or three weeks away from harvest. 30

So those are some of the uses. So it is split application.

We're using around about 40 mls per 15 litres of nap sack. So all we're

doing is just spot spraying down on top of the odd weed that's growing up

between the plants, and why is Paraquat so beneficial? It's because should

anybody be a little bit off target, it will only cause a spot on some of the leaf 35

P a g e | 80

tissue. If we use glyphosate or say glufosinate, then it's translocated right

through the plant and so we lose the plant. So, it's a very useful tool. The

alternative is to go down there with a hand hoe, and I can tell you that it

probably takes -- to do one row of watermelon, and it's about 250 metres long, it

takes you at least an hour, depending on the weed growth, and can take up to 2 5

hours. So when you've got something like 500 rows to do, you can appreciate

it's not a very satisfying task, nor is it actually a practical one.

Another area that we use it is in crop boundaries. You can see, particularly

down here, because I have livestock in my system, we have an electric fence,

which if we allow weed growth it shorts out the fence, so while we're cropping, 10

we keep that weed free. We do use some residual herbicides as well, but

because of resistance management, and I talked about this a little bit earlier in

the day, it's very good to have an alternation. So we try and alternate every

four to five applications, and I was originally project manager with the

Foundation for Arable Research on the avoiding of glyphosate resistance in this 15

country, and we'd just started that project and we'd found glyphosate resistance

and we've now got glyphosate resistance to some of the other modes of action

as well. So it's very important that growers are able to have these tools and

these are the three that we've got.

For my particular situation, I can use some of these alternatives. As I 20

talked this morning, we can't for some crops. So every situation is different,

every farm is different.

I've already talked about the birds earlier in the day, but I will repeat it

there. The likelihood is extremely remote and other speakers have talked about

this. 25

And, I know it's not science, even though I am from a science background,

and in 40 odd years of applying Paraquat formulations, I have never seen birds

enter the paddock while spraying was in progress, and I've never seen a bird

die on my property. We've got quail; we've got pheasants; we've got pukekos;

we've got thrushes, miners; we've got tui. So I can only speak as a sort of 30

anecdotal.

I don't really want to repeat much of this, because I did talk about it this

morning, but the more stringent requirements of the certified handler, but I

would like to say and you'll see down the bottom, we do get audited. All

vegetable growers are under the New Zealand Good Agricultural Practice. We 35

P a g e | 81

get audited every year and one in three years, an independent person from

AsureQuality or one of those other independents comes along and audits us.

Our produce is always randomly selected for agrochemical residues, but as

Andre said, from seed to plate, a full traceability system to harvest, the auditors

come along and check that our MRLs, our maximum residue limits were met in 5

harvest. They check that our storage, our agrochemical, our protective gear.

They do all those sort of audits on us. It's all -- it's very much related to the

GrowSafe programme. So, I'd just like to reiterate what Andre was talking

about.

Closed cabs should not be necessary. They are desirable. You saw that 10

Andre's system, he had a closed cab where he has got filters in the cab. A

number of our growers still have -- my cab is open. It's a semi cab, but the

booms will be well out behind. We use air induction nozzles, not all growers

use that, but an air induction nozzle has actually got an air droplet in it, so it

makes the droplet much more heavy. Very low drift nozzle. There's been a 15

swing right to low drift nozzles. Obviously, we want to keep everything on

target anyway, and most growers apply early in the morning or late at night.

And one of the reasons for that is, when you're wearing full protective gear,

you appreciate that you've normally, if you are in the heat of the day, it can get

like 45 degrees if you are in a suit. It's nice and uncomfortable and in terms of 20

WorkSafe, we don't want people being dehydrated. So we tend to spray very

early in the morning, and late at night, and the reason is that there is a lot less

wind at that time.

I don't believe that closed mixing and loading systems should be

mandatory, as I said earlier. They do cost between 5 and $10,000 depending 25

on the size of the system. They still have lids that need to be removed, and

most of them, you still need to apply. So you actually have to tip the drum of

chemical into the closed system as it pumps it into your spray unit.

So once again, you still need that full PPE, and in terms of nap sacks, I've

tried to explain to you how we use it, in terms of spot spraying. Some growers 30

actually use their little nap sacks if they're doing a little seed bed. It might only

be a hundred metres long by 5 metres, but they're using it for that task, around

sheds, hay barns and that sort of thing, killing weeds, seldom would you use a

motorised application.

P a g e | 82

So it's important that we still have that as a means. It's very low -- very low

risk. I mean, you're only talking about droplets. I mean, you noticed in some of

the EPA, I think you were talking about in some of the data was up into the air.

We certainly do not use that in that manner.

Applications are made to small or vulnerable leaves and that's principally 5

because of the lack of wax on the cuticle. They're not in flower.

And while 600 grams would be acceptable in my growing operation per

crop, or per season, would make more sense, and I see that if we're reducing

the risk by wearing protective gear, whether you're 600 or 700 or 800 is

irrelevant. You're isolating yourself from the hazard, and so you reduce the 10

risk. I really -- and somebody said oh well, what if you have a rip in your spray

gear? Well, we look at our spray gear; we get audited. We're checked. I

mean, it's -- you know, people take personal responsibility. We go back to the

motor car, the motor car kills people but we don't ban the motor car. Growers

aren't stupid. That's what I'm trying to portray to you. 15

So, thank you very much.

CHAIR: Do we have someone speaking on behalf of summer fruit New Zealand?

MR SALTER: No, so at the time when we were trying to put in our request for the

extended speaking time, we thought that they may be going to have an

individual talk, but that turned out to not be the case. So apologies for that. 20

CHAIR: No, that's totally fine.

Okay. So we'll start with some questions. John?

QUESTIONS FROM THE DMC

DR TAYLOR: Thanks to all the presenters. 25

Like I said before lunch, it's easy for me to get the impression that were it

not for Paraquat we wouldn't have a horticulture industry in New Zealand.

The case you're making is that this is an exceptionally important herbicide for

you to make a living. And I could ask each one, or any one of the presenters

who've talked since lunch, how do people who are perhaps farming in the 30

organic sector manage to produce a crop and make a living? And I know

there are some clear differences in that sector, in general, but it must be

possible to produce this crop without using Paraquat?

If I could ask a specific question to you Andre? Are there organic

growers of kumara in the Dargaville region? 35

P a g e | 83

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, there is one to my knowledge that's left. I have seen three try

and disappear. The weeds get them. The one that is still organic at the

moment, his biggest problem is, of everything, is weeds. And how you hand

weed and how you actually get staff to do it. So he has remained on a small

scale and he gets -- yes, he gets a premium in the market, quite a massive 5

premium in the market, but the market is very small for that. He doesn't sell

all of his product as organic because he cannot sell it all as organic. The

market doesn't sustain that.

DR TAYLOR: What about some of the other vegetable crops?

MR PARKER: There is the odd one. They tend to be very small, sort of home 10

garden type operations of maybe half a hectare. There is one grower in

Hawke's Bay who has done it reasonably successfully, but he has recently

pulled the plug. It's difficult. They use a lot of mechanical cultivation

machinery. You can appreciate, as soon as you get another rain fall event,

another flush of growth. So what is actually happening is they're starting to 15

destroy their soil structure and the organic matter with the repeated

cultivations and mineralisation that's occurring. So it's difficult.

So basically, the organic industry is, you know, really sort of home

garden type situation, not always, but fairly minor. And while we represent

those growers, we, you know, they do have some particular problems. There 20

have been efforts to use steam as part of -- and hot water, but then it's

opened up to other safety features as well.

So, yeah perhaps that has answered your question?

DR TAYLOR: Yeah it does. But let me go a bit further then, and say without using

Paraquat, are we at risk of the security of food supply, of vegetable supply in 25

New Zealand for the domestic market?

MR PARKER: Well it's certainly going to make it difficult. Perhaps Andre has a

comment? Because it's, you know, obviously Paraquat is exceedingly

important to his industry. In my industry there are a few alternatives, but it

would make it very difficult for my operation. 30

MR DE BRUIN: In the first couple of years the supply would reduce and we would

tend to get away with it, as the weed numbers built up in our paddocks. It's

actually long- term. It's actually sustainability. It's whether we can keep that

seed bank out of -- under control. Because in the organic growers that I have

seen, that is actually the issue. 35

P a g e | 84

It's a little bit different if you go back a hundred years ago, because you

weren't growing large acres and people paid a huge amount of their

disposable income on food. At the moment we have to pay wages and hand

weeding is just something that our workers no matter what you are willing to

pay them, don't want to do. And that's really the struggle. 5

I'd love to be an organic grower. If you could solve the weed problem for

me, I'd be happy.

DR ROSKRUGE: See that, for me, indicates that scale is the issue as much as

anything else.

So, the smaller farmers have one set of tools and some industries use 10

RSE workers for, you know squash in Gisborne and all of that, but how does

for example, in Europe if it's a bad chemical how do they grow their crops?

There is some big scale growers, so what chemicals are they using in other

parts of the world where it's not allowed? So what do they --

MR DE BRUIN: Most of the world's kumara production is in thirds world countries. 15

DR ROSKRUGE: I know the kumara, because I worked with that in South America,

but for vegetables -- you're talking about vegetables, you're talking about

kumara, you're talking about fresh produce. If there are parts of the world

where Paraquat is not allowed, they're clearly using alternatives which still

allow them to supply the market. The organic industry would probably argue 20

that they're not as -- they're not running out of business, like, you know, I

know there's a difference of what production looks like between sectors, but

there's still some good producers who use RSE, who use different tools

besides chemicals, and sure it's not cheap, but they use those tools and they

can still be economic. I am a bit disappointed the economic thing didn't 25

diverse itself out to look at some of those sectors. But I still think, I used to

work in the US, North Carolina was sweet potato, and they never used

Paraquat at all. So they still produced good crops. They had a different soil

programme, they had different seasonal activities, you know, they came out

of different winters and what have you, so I understand all of that. But it still 30

tells me that the innovative space can still explore these places to find

alternatives, rather than just saying we can only use Paraquat. Because the

future has to still look for something rather than just sitting on same space,

does that make sense?

P a g e | 85

MR DE BRUIN: In North Carolina they are on very different soil. They have

virtually no organic matter in most of that land. They are very very successful

with pre-emergent sprays. They don't tend to have the continual rain events

that we have. So their products like Alachlor do a very good job for them,

Alachlor just does not do a very good job for us. We do use it, but the weed 5

escapes from that is just incredible, it drops it from billions to millions of

weeds per year.

DR ROSKRUGE: What I'd like to see for my satisfaction is your -- not yours but the

season from start to finish, where the applications, how many times, for

example, you apply the chemicals, like a calendar, to get a sense of you 10

know there are seasonal differences to the effectiveness of different

chemicals, but also because they don't understand exactly how the

production cycle works. But do you have a simple calendar?

MR DE BRUIN: I'd be happy to supply that for you. If you saw my farm there, I run

all different paddocks. If we take this season just been, there was one 15

paddock that we used Paraquat only once on. There was no use to use it

any more. We didn't get a second germination. We had dry weather. We

didn't have follow-up rain. There was no germination. Everything was

beautiful.

Some of the other paddocks that picked up the other rain events, that 20

was a very different story. So we're actually using different timings, amounts,

controls on different paddocks, in different soil types even within the own

grown operation.

DR ROSKRUGE: That's what I want to hear. Because that tells you that the tool

has different ways of being brought into the system. So it's not just -- 25

MR DE BRUIN: It's not just Paraquat, no.

DR ROSKRUGE: So that's the message, it's effective, but there are different -- it's

effective because it has a multi sort of faceted input, you know, you can use it

in different ways, you're saying some years it's -- so that's the story, that's the

message. 30

MR DE BRUIN: So if we have a very dry spring, a nice dry period we will do

inter-row cultivation and that will clean up all your weeds inter-row. It does a

beautiful job. It's when it rains beyond that. So it sets you back to point 0

again.

P a g e | 86

DR ROSKRUGE: That's starting to put some flesh on the story about how it can be

effective, yeah.

MR DE BRUIN: In the things we have done for this, it's generally the things we've

done is about the maximum. And we sometimes use the maximum. Most of

the time we are nowhere near the maximum. 5

DR ROSKRUGE: That's coming to my other question.

MR PARKER: Can I help answer that too? Andre touched on crop rotation. For a

lot of vegetable growers, you know, particularly I used to grow vegetable

brassicas, so cabbage, cauli, broccoli, lettuce, celery, potatoes, so we use

rotation as part of our controls on weeds, because we could obviously use 10

different chemistry for different, and in terms of disease. So, growers are

using all these tools. But what we're trying to say today is here, is you know,

don't take away some of the tools that make our businesses efficient and

sustainable.

And I also sit on the Vegetables Research and Innovation Board and we 15

are looking at new and novel ways and alternatives all the time. And growers

through their levy are spending a considerable amount of money into

research. So that is an ongoing as well. So I hope that answers the question

as well.

DR ROSKRUGE: That's good. And it's good additional messaging on the thing. 20

My other question was that if the limit is set at 600 how does that

affect -- so what would you, if you're applying 2, maybe 3 applications during

the season, how much does that affect your ability based on that limit? So

you can still use Paraquat some years that would be under the limit, and

some years it wouldn't, which you sort of half-answered just before 25

depending on the soil and the season.

MR DE BRUIN: Quite a number of our crops, many of them, would be well under

the limit no problem. The question that comes when we get -- it's Christmas

that gets us, when we get those very monsoonal rains and you've just -- the

plants take off and the weeds take off. It's actually at that stage where it 30

becomes the really critical use. And if we've used up our -- the amount we

can, and we let that grow, it won't be sustainable year in year after that.

DR ROSKRUGE: So in many cases it's the threshold that's the problem, because

when you're asking about per year or per season, which are actually quite

P a g e | 87

different things, but if 600 is the threshold, that may be more of the problem

than --

MR DE BRUIN: For kumara the year and the season is really the same, because

we're only growing one crop per year

DR ROSKRUGE: If they do it on a calendar year, you're sitting between two. I 5

don't know.

MR DE BRUIN: Is that not just trying to fudge the line?

DR ROSKRUGE: But it depends how you define the period you use it, so if you

define it as a season then that's a growing season. But if you define it as a

year, what is that? Is it to November to November? 10

That's less of the issue.

So that threshold of 600 potentially creates issues if you need to use

more than two applications, for example?

MR DE BRUIN: In that paddock that was in the picture with the weeds, I would walk

away from that paddock. I would not continue growing on that at all, because 15

of the weed burden in the ground, unless it was going through probably a 10

or 15 year rotation out of cropping to try and drop the seed burden.

DR ROSKRUGE: Out of my interest, what do you rotate with for the kumara?

MR DE BRUIN: Grass really. We run three rotations. One we go kumara summer,

grass in the winter. And then we will put sheep on it to control all weeds, 20

they do a beautiful job, it's like a lawn. And then we will go back; often we

will just turn the grass over so there's no herbicide at all, and then work it up

and then go into the new season. Sometimes if we get spring rains and the

sheep have had to be sold, because we do store lambs, we will spray it off

with Roundup, Glyphosate, just so we can -- so you don't get -- so prior to 25

planting we'd use other chemicals. It's just once we have the kumara plant in

the ground, it's actually over top of the plant that's the issue.

And so, that's a six month rotation kumara/grass, kumara/grass. And

then if we are harvesting, particularly harvesting, if it's wet, we will make a

mess and we will destroy the soil structure a bit, or we've got a problem with 30

scurf or some other disease, we will rotate that paddock out, we will lay it out

down with permanent grass and that might go out of rotation for one, two,

three, four five years, and then come back in.

Some growers are putting maize in the rotation. Maize has one downfall,

is one of our kumara major diseases can hold in maize stubble. 35

P a g e | 88

DR ROSKRUGE: So preferably not.

MR DE BRUIN: Preferably not. But we are heavily tile drained. So every 20

metres under out paddocks, there's tile drains, so there is a huge

infrastructure; so you can't generally grow to have a five year rotation.

And that's because we can grow good kumara crops in the dry, but not 5

under water.

DR ROSKRUGE: That's all good to know.

I wouldn't mind just a very simple calendar that just says your timing of

when those sprays on an average year, just to be able to share here. But

when you're ready. 10

MR DE BRUIN: We will supply that to Stephen.

MR PARKER: Just I used to grow a lot of cauliflower, we would do three months,

three and a half months, four month, four and a half month, five months,

maturity from seed to harvest.

So when we talk about year and season, it's also per crop. So it's quite 15

fudged. In say a five hectare paddock we would have had celery, we would

have had cabbage, cauli, and we might have had some lettuce. So it makes

it quite difficult to say that this is the maximum per hectare when you have

multiple crops and multiple rotations.

DR ROSKRUGE: And that's why I asked the question earlier about agriculture and 20

horticulture, because my understanding, and I work in horticulture, is that it's

not just the intensity, it's the cycles of crops and everything else creates quite

a diverse set of scenarios, you know? And it's how well that gets captured in

saying agriculture, and on a yearly cycle. So I get all of that.

And it's something we are going to have to try and think more about how 25

it gets captured into this, yeah. So thank you for that though.

CHAIR: My first question have you ever thought about growing rice in Dargaville?

It sounds like it could be a reasonable crop up that way some of the time,

anyway.

MR DE BRUIN: I thought about it yesterday, we had 32 mls in under an hour. 30

CHAIR: That wasn't really a question.

MR DE BRUIN: We've really looked at a lot of rotations, not just from the weeds

point of view, but particularly for our people, because it's very seasonal by

nature and we would really love to have a lot more of our employees full year

round. But wet winters and our clays, if we grow in those clays we damage 35

P a g e | 89

them so much trying to operate machinery, it's not sustainable. The rotation

of what we're doing in our industry, paddocks are now as good as they were

30, 40 years ago. And with the tile drainage infrastructure and the way we

have growers ripping rows and that, we have really made huge strides in

dropping the amount of sediment that goes off properties, dropped the 5

amount of nutrient required. And so we've made a lot of environmental

benefits along the way. And yeah, it's all part of that growing package, which

is why we're doing what we do.

CHAIR: I had a couple of questions.

Mr Salter, I guess you had a slide up there which was talking about how 10

much some industries use in terms of application rates and talking about how

the 600 grams doesn't reflect some of the use patterns. And the one I noted

was for cherries which was 2,160. And I think there was another one that

was around the 2000 and I guess my question is if the decision is made that

the limit is not 600, whatever, you know, however it's applied, the maximum 15

annual, how is that going to impact those industries?

MR SALTER: So I think Andre touched on it a little bit before in that in some years

it won't matter too much, because the way that those values have been got

to, so growers reported to us the range of concentrations which they use and

the number of applications. And there's quite a bit of variation in between 20

those. So off the top of my head, I think that the particular cherry use pattern

that did trigger that really high value was between one and four applications.

So in a really bad year that may be the level they need to use. But in a good

year, it's a quarter of it, which is a lot closer to the limit

So I guess as Andre was saying before. In some years it won't matter if 25

the limit is at that 600. But if there isn't allowance for the conditions that

create those bad years, then it could impact.

CHAIR: But what will they do in those bad years if the limit is 600?

MR SALTER: For cherries, I'm not a hundred percent sure.

DR ROSKRUGE: They're probably the least of your problem, the cherry ones. 30

I was trying to work out why perennial systems would want so much

Paraquat?

MR SALTER: For the cherries. Let me just have a look here.

DR ROSKRUGE: I saw what they had in here.

P a g e | 90

MR SALTER: The one thing that perhaps isn't reflected in the table, in the Call for

Information response was that I know that they use it on suckers.

CHAIR: On what, suckers?

MR SALTER: Yeah, so cherries, they like branch out and other cherries.

CHAIR: Yep, I used to have a cherry tree, didn't do anything. 5

MR SALTER: So I'm happy to go back to Summerfruit and ask if they can provide

information on that, because I don't know.

CHAIR: It would be interesting to know some of these crops that have got the very

high requirements, why they need such high requirements. Because they

are substantially higher than quite a few of the other ones. That would be 10

useful.

MR SALTER: I will find out. All I can do is speculate. I know it's particularly

important for the young developing trees.

CHAIR: That would be a good example of where you know, have they really looked

at alternatives? Because it's significantly higher than a lot of the other crops 15

that have suggested that actually 600 is probably manageable. Based on

what's been be presented today.

My second question, you made a comment about droplet size and you

said that most of the applications prefer fine or medium, and I can

understand that in theory that because want to increase and maximise your 20

coverage, but again I thought I heard today that actually that the coarse

droplet size would actually be acceptable? So based on some of the

presentations today, I had got the impression that that would be okay?

Because that's what the risk assessment is based on. So I guess if we're

thinking about -- it seemed to me that there's a number of comments that you 25

made suggested really, and I'll be interested to see what the applicant says,

but you were sort of suggesting that actually we really need to re-do the risk

assessment, which is quite a substantial undertaking. So there needs to be a

decent justification for that, I guess, is what I'm saying.

MR PARKER: In theory the larger the droplet the less drift. But the more important 30

factor is pressure.

CHAIR: Pressure?

MR PARKER: Spray pressure, so generally the higher the pressure the more

likelihood, you know, atomisation of a liquid can only last a matter of seconds

before it evaporates. 35

P a g e | 91

Yeah, as I stated earlier, most growers are now using air induction

nozzles. Now air inductions nozzles, some of them, have to be operated at a

higher pressure to get the correct pattern. Most growers calibrate -- well,

every New Zealand grower calibrates, and they usually use a patternator(?)

to make sure what the pattern is. A lot of them use water sensitive papers to 5

actually see what's the distribution pattern on the plant. But, yeah, coverage

is very important, because it's not a translocated chemical, coverage is

important. So water rate is also high. And pH of water can also be

important. So, application technique is something that a lot of us are putting

a lot of time into training growers on use of adjuvants and all sorts of other 10

things, pH, pressures, water rates all that sort of thing. So it's quite a science

involved in it. And to broadly say oh we just use coarse or medium is

probably a little bit irrelevant really, it's reducing drift, and that's where the

whole -- you know, it's a whole series of factors.

CHAIR: Sure, and I guess where I'm coming back to is what the risk assessment is 15

telling us and how the risk assessment has been done. And so I appreciate

what you're saying is that the actual, the application of the substance onto

the weeds is quite a complex process, and I totally get that. But then does

that tell us actually that the risk assessment model is not sensitive enough?

And I mean, as I say, I'm interested to hear what the applicant has to say in 20

response to Mr Salter's questions.

MR SALTER: Yes, in our Call for Information response we did indicate medium

droplet sizes for a number of the crops.

CHAIR: Thank you. Okay.

I think the DMC has finished with their questions unless you've got 25

anymore?

DR ROSKRUGE: No ka pai.

CHAIR: I will now ask the applicant do you have any questions for the submitters?

QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT 30

DR ALLEN: A follow-on comment for you really about droplet size. Yeah, so we

have to input a set of -- in order to undertake a risk assessment we need to

input a set of parameters. Our general understanding of herbicide

application is that herbicide applications are undertaken using

P a g e | 92

coarse -- droplets towards the coarser end of the spectrum, for sure. So it's

interesting to hear that fine droplets could be used.

Now, the significance here is that the size of the droplets is used in order

to determine the level of buffer zone that would be appropriate for protecting

aquatic environments or other sensitive areas. 5

And so, if our understanding of how herbicides are generally applied,

which I would question that we do know it to a pretty decent extent, the

smaller the droplet size the greater propensity for drift, albeit taking into

account what Mike is saying there are other parameters other than droplet

size that factor into this. But for the purpose of the modelling is primarily the 10

droplet size which gives rise to the buffer zones that we determine.

So, if are our modelling is carried out on coarse droplets ground based

application, and I think coarse or super coarse or extra coarse for aerial

application; if they were to be remodelled it would almost certainly require

greater buffer zones that what is proposed in order to adequately protect -- or 15

protect those environments to the same extent that we'd already identified.

So that was really just a commentary on the droplet circumstances and

bits and pieces.

There are a few other things, bits and pieces, that Mr Salter raised about

the approach that we took and the EFSA guidance and the assumptions built 20

into the modelling, yeah I don't want to wash my hands of this completely but

to say that I'm not necessarily the expert. But what we did do, yes, we

certainly followed the guidelines for the assessment that was produced and

presented in the application. In terms of the refinement, we were largely led

by the refinement process that Syngenta laid out in their submission. And so 25

they -- we followed the same sort of protocol and procedures that was laid

out in there, having accepted the approach laid out there.

I would say that there may be some reservations about the applicability

of the availability of weed seeds for birds as detailed by the EFSA guidance.

But I would say we should look at the refined risk assessment, and we'd 30

need to look a bit closer there to see whether those same sort of

assumptions are built into that approach that we took for the refinement.

CHAIR: Mr Salter brought up a few things, and so I was interested in your

response.

P a g e | 93

I guess this is sort of your opportunity to -- maybe this should really

be -- the question about the translocation to other parts of the plant, maybe

this is something for your right of reply?

DR ALLEN: I think we can take that up, get in touch

CHAIR: Given that this is meant to be your opportunity to question. 5

Yes, ma'am the only other question that I had, I'd direct to Andre and it

was in relation to the sort of lower rates -- lower use rates for Paraquat in

kumara, and you did touch on the herbicide resistance effects, so I mean, it

was interesting to hear that you believe you've got those under control by

other mechanisms, not simply by increasing the application of Paraquat, for 10

example.

MR DE BRUIN: We don't increase the application rate of Paraquat, because it

burns our plant if we do. So there is no value in a grower increasing the

rates.

What we have done is used a product called Troy Bentazone. And that 15

tends to heat, effect the affect up on the weeds, but for some reason it's not

heating the affect up on the kumara. It actually burns the leaves less, and it

takes an extra day to knock the cotyledon weed out but it takes it out. So in

some cases we've actually reduced the Paraquat rate. And we are talking,

you know, if in our thousand litre tank, if we put an extra 200 mms of 20

Paraquat in, we'd take our plants out. So it is -- we are managing it fine.

If we have heavy rain or good rain that have freshened up the crop, if the

spray's after that, we always reduce the Paraquat rate because the weeds

are soft. They knock out easier. The kumara is soft. It burns easier. If we

haven't had rain for a little while and you've got a weed strike you get 25

hydrophobic issues, then there is a layer of dirt on the leaf, and we will up the

Paraquat rate by in a thousand litre tank an extra 40 mms, 50 mms and that

will just overcome that. So there's -- the growers are actually doing a lot of

judgment work when they are using it. It's not just full it up and go and spray.

And one other point I never brought up in my speech was we are often 30

asked what we do with our waste spray. On my sprayer I know the area

I'm going to spray and we will not be within 10 metres of the ends of it and

we will have finished our spray. We do not -- and this is one of the reasons

we're not keen on closed systems, we only put the amount of water and the

amount of chemical in the tank that we're going to use. Because if we sit that 35

P a g e | 94

overnight to use it the next day or some other time, it will burn our plants to

bits. So we cannot use Promoxone or Paraquat that's 24 years old because

it takes out our kumara. So we're actually using it as a very specialist use.

CHAIR: Does any of the applicant team have any other questions?

DR ALLEN: No that's it, I think. 5

CHAIR: Including WorkSafe, you don't have any questions? Okay.

Any other submitters have any other question of these submitters? No.

Okay, thank you very much. It was a very interesting and useful

discussion.

Our final presentation is again Mr Salter presenting on behalf of Potatoes 10

New Zealand.

POTATOES NEW ZEALAND PRESENTATION

MR SALTER: Thank you everyone again for another chance to speak. Potatoes

New Zealand, their Chief Executive, Chris Claridge is unable to attend and 15

present today, so he sends his apologies.

This presentation will be quite a bit shorter than the last one, so hopefully

we'll be able to make up all the time that we were lacking earlier.

So the potato industry. There are 176 commercial growers in

New Zealand. That's across table potatoes, processed potatoes and seed 20

potatoes.

Now table are the ones that you eat in your kitchen, or prepare in your

kitchen and you eat. Processed ones, as their name suggests, are

processed foods that are made from potatoes, crisps, chips, potato flour,

potato flakes all sorts of things. And then seed potatoes are the potatoes 25

which produce the seeds from which further potato crops will be produced.

There's over 10,000 hectares planted of potatoes in New Zealand.

There are also you'll find if you go through the various growers, that many of

them grow other vegetables too and they do practice rotations. So there will

be operations that grow onions and brassicas and potatoes, and they'll rotate 30

their various paddocks between various different groups.

Over half a million tonnes is the typical average yield from New Zealand

farms. There's a fair bit of variance in that. I think in the figure that Potatoes

put in their submission that they mentioned 525,000 tonnes, but I'm pretty

sure that for this year the figure is 575; so there is some variation depending 35

P a g e | 95

on whether particularly in critical regions like Pukekohe and then also I know

they've been dealing with a response over the last year or two to potato mop

top virus down in Canterbury.

Around 2,500 people are employed per year throughout the production

chain. So that includes various processing facilities and operations. So 5

people working at Eta who are responsible for the potato chips, for example,

that figure includes those.

The figure below that, the value of potatoes across the entire value chain

has just ticked over a billion dollars is the most recent estimate. So that isn't

just the farm gate sales value, it's the sales of table potato, processed 10

potatoes, seed potatoes, exports and domestic consumption and considers

value right throughout everything that is done with potatoes. So you'll know

that that's quite different to the GDP number that Sapere mentioned this

morning, that's the reason why, they're two different measures even though

they both have a dollar value. 15

Now all fresh potatoes in New Zealand are grown in New Zealand

including seed potatoes, so that's a good thing for the potato industry

because from a biosecurity perspective it means there's less risk to them of

various diseases and insects, pests, that would otherwise be of concern

coming in and causing problems with potato growers. But it does mean that 20

anything that goes wrong or that is bad for potato production does impact on

domestic supply.

In potatoes Paraquat is usually used by boom application. I did help

Potatoes New Zealand back in the Call for Information when they were

getting information from their growers. I think they had about a dozen 25

responses and all of them themselves use boom, but did say that knapsack

use wasn't uncommon and that other growers do use it, particularly smaller

ones, who perhaps can't afford the investment in a big rig.

Often it is with medium nozzles also, so that's worth noting.

It's typically sprayed at the pre-emergent to early emergent stage of 30

crops.

And very rarely it's used as pre-harvest control of seedling weeds just

before they're harvesting, if there are too many weeds nearby.

I know that there is some confusion about whether or not it's used for

desiccation in potatoes. In New Zealand, I believe that's extremely rare and 35

P a g e | 96

usually only Diquat is used rather than the dual active product which contains

Diquat and Paraquat.

And Paraquat makes up an important part of potato growers herbicide

resistance management strategies. That's one of its primary benefits to the

wider potato production system. Resistance to not only just herbicides, but 5

also to insects and fungicides is a pretty big concern high up on the list of

most procedures. So part of the reason that Paraquat is included in their

rotation of herbicides is to try and stop that resistance from occurring in the

first place, because when you use unique modes of action it makes it less

likely that within a population if spontaneously a genetic feature which leads 10

to resistance to one mode of action pops up, which it does, having several

unique modes of action makes it more likely that you'll be able to kill that

individual or those individuals within the paddock so that that trait doesn't

spread throughout the wider population.

The fact that it's contact only limits the phytosanitary risk to potatoes. So 15

that if a stray droplet does land on the leaf, as I think it was Mike mentioned

earlier, the damage from that is quite limited, it's not going to kill your entire

plant.

And the potato growers have said that this is particularly important in

relation to seed crops, because they're typically more vulnerable than 20

potatoes, and if they were forced to use alternative herbicides, one of the

growers has relayed this, that some of the things that they can use on the

mature crops, so the ones that will make it to the table, if they try and use

that on the seed crop then it will have adverse effects on the quality of seed

that they produce. 25

Another benefit of Paraquat for use in potatoes is that it's efficacious in

dry conditions.

Just some commentary on the proposed controls that the EPA have

recommended.

So, based on the use patterns that were reported, the 600 grams of 30

actual ingredient per hectare per year should be workable. The buffer zones

which the EPA have suggested, the 5, 5, 5, and the 0, 0, 5 in the table,

should also be workable.

P a g e | 97

It's always applied -- well as far as Potatoes New Zealand have been told

by their growers and their technical advisor, it's not applied aerially, so those

buffer zones won't be of concern.

I will just mention again though that some of the growers did say they

use a medium droplet size, so obviously there's a possibility that those 5

proposed buffer zones may be subject to change.

On the responsible handling information, the potatoes growers have

much the same view as vegetable growers, when I was up here speaking a

little while ago, that it's always good to have information about how to use the

product safely. If that does contain information that isn't likely to be on SDSs 10

and labels then that's probably a beneficial thing.

And then also Potatoes have told me to highlight to WorkSafe that they

probably will respond to a consultation if one is initiated for a safe work

instrument.

Questions? 15

QUESTIONS FROM THE DMC

CHAIR: One thing that just struck me, is, you know, one of the things that's coming

about is how important it is for resistance management because of the

unique mode of action; my understanding is Diquat has the same or similar 20

mode of action?

MR SALTER: Similar. So there are differences. So as Andre mentioned, there are

crops where you spray Paraquat and a few drops get on the crop rather than

the weed and damage is limited, whereas with Diquat, that damage is quite a

bit more extensive. 25

CHAIR: Okay that answers that question. Because, yeah, that was a thought I had,

why -- I guess it's just picking up on the idea that Paraquat is useful for

resistance management and therefore why not introduce Diquat into that as a

similar mode of action? But you've answered that question.

MR SALTER: In some they can be and they will, but there are some instances 30

where to do that would cause yield reductions and harm to the crop.

CHAIR: John any questions?

DR TAYLOR: I think I also am getting a view that Paraquat is an established

existing tool; it's been used for a long time in the management of various

crops, including potatoes. There are clearly herbicides that are effective in 35

P a g e | 98

managing and growing potatoes that don't involve Paraquat that are very

successful potato growing industries in other countries where Paraquat is no

longer used. I just wonder how much effort has gone into trying to manage

potatoes in New Zealand without Paraquat? How much of the attitude

amongst growers is simply this is what we've always done, let's keep doing 5

it?

MR SALTER: So I don't have a definitive answer to --

DR TAYLOR: I don't imagine you do, but I'm just giving an indication of what I'm

getting from your presentation.

MR PARKER: If it would please the panel, I could perhaps answer that as an 10

ex-potato grower.

Yes, there are a number of other chemicals that when use for potato

production that is true. But I think the important one is around that resistance

management and yeah, for the potato industry it's -- they could probably in

some respects get around not using Paraquat, but it makes life difficult in 15

terms of resistance management, it's another tool that we can avoid

resistance occurring. And once resistance occurs it's a major problem and a

major problem, economic problem. And, you know, I can't stress that, being

involved in glyphosate resistance projects it's going to cost, you know, well in

Australia alone it's costing about another $80 per hectare for some of the 20

crops and some of them up to $300 a hectare. So perhaps our friends from

Syngenta tomorrow might talk about the double-knock effect as well.

CHAIR: Yeah, because I think that's what we're struggling with a wee bit here, is

we hear about this, well, how it's important for resistance management, but

there's no evidence actually been presented to show how effective it is, how 25

important it is in a resistance management framework, I guess, if you like. I

mean, there was some reference in the -- that's my perspective anyway,

reference in the documentation we had around how there has been a species

of rye grass, I think it is, that has developed resistance. So clearly

Paraquat -- there will come a time when there will be crops that will be 30

resistant to Paraquat, so then what do we move on to? I guess that's kind of

where our growing view is around where does this particular herbicide fit, you

know, is this -- yeah, without a lot of actual data to look at comparative to

actually use for comparative purpose. Because this is how we need to work

out what the benefits are to this product, is how does it compare to what else 35

P a g e | 99

is there? And as Nick said, you know the economic analysis would have

been a very good opportunity to at least have some measure in terms of

benefit. But yeah, sort of just struggling a little bit I guess here.

MR PARKER: Well in Thailand where they have very warm temperatures they've

got resistance in some of the nurseries where they grow container trees, 5

they've got resistance to Paraquat, glufosinate and glyphosate. So it's

costing them a fortune. You know, we talk about prevention being better

than cure. And so, if we start to lose the efficacy of our three main knock

down herbicides, not only do we put the -- at risk, the direct drilling industry,

which is conservation of our soils, and so there can be a huge downstream 10

costs. And so, can we put an actual figure on it? Well, you know, it's very

difficult. But can I suggest to you that should we do get resistance, it's going

to cost this country a lot more. And it's going to cost growers a lot more. So,

you know, don't throw management systems the alternation properties of our

herbicides, we haven't got that many of them, and they're very expensive 15

from the chemical company's point of view to find some new chemistry. So

you know, I guess that's all I can say is it's most important to avoid

resistance.

CHAIR: Sure, no, appreciate that, it's just from our perspective as decision-makers,

we need to weigh up the costs and the benefits, and that's what we're trying 20

to do, and the more information that we can have to provide comparative

comparisons with alternatives, given the fact that this is a product which

actually has some not such nice qualities about it, for want of a better word.

And so that's what we're trying to get at here.

MR PARKER: Appreciate that 25

CHAIR: Nick did you have any questions?

DR ROSKRUGE: Nothing in particular.

MR SALTER: If I may just add about resistance management?

CHAIR: Sure.

MR SALTER: So one of the things that potatoes put in New Zealand as a critique of 30

the economic assessment was exactly what you just said, that they haven't

accounted for herbicide resistance. Now that's admittedly a really hard thing

to do, but that's what we would have liked to see from the economic side as

well. Because in some ways it's easier to think of it, as a more common

example, most people are more familiar with antibiotic resistance because it 35

P a g e | 100

develops in the exact same way. Yes, you have different sort of time scales,

just because microbes live far shorter than weeds, usually. But basically

there is -- ignoring the names of herbicides, if you have four that are -- if you

have just one, so if the Committee were to say okay we're going to pick the

safest herbicide in the world and that's the only one people can spray, 5

resistance will develop to that one, then the second and then the third and so

on, and that will occur quicker than if those four safest, for example, you use

in rotation.

CHAIR: Sure, no I understand that, that's not the issue.

MR SALTER: And I completely agree it would be great if it could be quantified with 10

a dollar value.

CHAIR: Well not necessarily -- some comparative analysis, doesn't have to be a

dollar value.

And equally for, just looking at alternatives, some sort of comparative

analysis. So a relativity thing. 15

MR SALTER: I know there's a university in, I think it's Western Australia, so one of

their web pages, one of the references in our Call for Information, "our" sorry,

being the five product groups, not the Potato one, that we mentioned. I think

they have like an Institute, I think it's the Australian Herbicide Resistance

Institute and one of the web pages in that describes and has a predictive 20

model of just involving two herbicides, as I think Mike mentioned it talks

about using a double-knock which is spraying with glyphosate and then

catching the stragglers, if you like, with Paraquat and how that greatly

extends the timeframe under which resistance will develop and spread. It's

only the two compounds so it's not as indicative as I'd like. 25

CHAIR: I think we understand that.

Okay, applicant have you got any questions for this submitter?

MR PHIPPS: No questions.

CHAIR: No questions.

Do any of the other submitters have any questions for this submitter? 30

No. Okay.

MR SALTER: Thank you, Dr Phillips.

CHAIR: All right. So I think that actually leads us to -- in fact we're actually ahead

of time.

So we will now adjourn the hearing until tomorrow morning at 9 am. 35

P a g e | 101

And just before you go, I think we will make a decision in the morning

about whether there is a need to hear the applicant's presentation again

based on who is in the room, basically. Because -- or are you -- is the

applicant thinking that you might address some of the questions from today

at that point, or will you save them all for your right of reply at the end? 5

DR ALLEN: I think probably the right of reply, depending on availability of our

experts

CHAIR: That's fine. Thank you everyone for your considerations today. We'll see

you tomorrow.

(3.28 pm) 10

(The hearing adjourned until 9 am, Thursday 12 September)