-
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth writes –
At the beginning of the year, Rabobank set the scene for 2025 by discussing trends for the next five years (Top global trends impacting New Zealand food & agri to 2030). Six months later, some of the trends are appearing.
Anti-obesity medicines have been in the media (Ozempic-style weight loss drug finally coming to New Zealand | RNZ), though more about availability than actual use.
Data aren’t yet available on alcohol consumption at home (to save costs), but total consumption has been falling over recent years (Alcohol available for consumption: Year ended December 2024 | Stats NZ).
Demand for dairy products has increased across the board, not just those targeting ageing (Dairy boom: Economy in line for $10 billion boost if farmgate milk price stays high – NZ Herald).
Adoption of autonomous vehicles on farm is not yet apparent – and the topography on a typical New Zealand farm might prove a deterrent. The situation is different overseas where large areas of crop are planted on flat country with no trees or fences.
The last of the top five trends was on-farm usage of ‘biologicals’. These were described as natural products which ‘can enhance plant growth and health by improving nutrient uptake, pest resistance and soil health’. This description resonates with the increased interest in achieving more (or at least the same) for less, and there’s a growing view that more ‘natural’ options like biologicals can replace ‘chemistry’.
So far, however, publications have been more about the ‘potential’ for biologicals rather than on results from research in the field showing benefits.
The products tend to fall into one of three categories – bio-fertilisers (providing nutrition such as nitrogen), bio-stimulants (enhancing growth) and bio-pesticides (providing crop protection).
The bio-pesticides are the group most advanced in terms of use and proof within a productive system. Many countries are already using formulations not yet approved in New Zealand.
Following Bayer’s exit from research because of regulatory delays (Crop protection challenges as Bayer closes Hastings research site – Dr Jacqueline Rowarth – NZ Herald), there are now concerns that other companies will follow suit. The New Zealand market is small in comparison with markets in other countries where new active ingredients are being embraced and the cost-benefit analysis isn’t stacking up.
Last month Kent Davies, the commercial unit leader for this area for Corteva, met with Agriculture Minister Todd McClay. Corteva is a global leader in developing and commercialising new active ingredients, particularly in the biological sector (Biologicals Corteva Agriscience).
Mr Davies explained that New Zealand farmers used to have access to the latest and best innovation, reflecting a regulatory approval framework that ensured timely evaluation. In the last five years, however, New Zealand has slipped from being a world leader, resulting in other countries getting earlier access. Corteva has written “We are pained to think that farmers in New Zealand will be a decade behind their counterparts in other countries in accessing innovative and improved products to address their challenges”.
Mr Davies stated that the regulatory process in Australia was roughly two years from submission to approval, whereas in New Zealand, regulatory delays resulted in a process that took upwards of three years.
For any company to release a new product on the market, a functioning, reliable and timely regulatory system is critical for it to recoup the investment made.
That investment is millions of dollars. It ensures that new products are safe and do what is claimed – and meets the requirements of regulators, conditions of registration, sector codes of conduct, and policies and programmes. APHANZ (Animal and Plant Health Association New Zealand) is the peak industry association of companies that make, sell and distribute animal and crop health products including biologicals.
APHANZ’s global member companies spend an estimated annual US$3.8 billion on crop protection research and development before release of any new product. By 2030, another US$4.32 billion will be spent on biologicals (and another US$2.32 billion on precision and digital technologies). This money is more than New Zealand has in its national total research budget, let alone that for agriculture.
More data indicate that companies’ expenditure on research and development takes the bulk of the funding, but that registration costs now account for 13.9% – almost double the costs from 1995.
This explains the concern about whether companies will stick with New Zealand. If they leave, so will their developments – the chemistry, the biology and the gene technologies.
All regulators have rigorous internationally accepted guidelines that are designed to ensure safety of any product introduced. They use the precautionary principle (The precautionary principle: Definitions, applications and governance | Think Tank | European Parliament) to enable decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.
While all countries are focussed on reducing exposure to hazards… some are not invoking the precautionary principle as much as in New Zealand.
Road cones are the example.
The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, with a vision of ‘An environment protected, enhancing our way of life and the economy’ explains the precautionary principle as 3, 30, 300 years: our intergenerational strategy | EPA “If we’re unsure, we pause and say no for now”.
However, a recent paper from University of Massachusetts (Lowering exposures without considering biology and tradeoffs is not precautionary – ScienceDirect) states that ‘precautionary principle-based decisions reflect outdated science and risk management principles’ and ‘failure to use updated science and decision science may result in more harm than good’.
New Zealand regulatory bodies, APHANZ and their member companies all want the same thing – a system that allows New Zealand farmers and growers to have access to a broad suite of new developments. Farmers and growers want access so that they can continue to support a vibrant economy.
The Government is committed to change and is serious about supporting innovation in New Zealand.
Time is ticking while other countries move ahead. This doesn’t bode well for the export economy.
————–
- Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, is a director of DairyNZ and Ravensdown. She is also a member of the Scientific Council of the World Farmers’ Organisation. jsrowarth@gmail.com.
A version of this article was published on the 5th August as: Red tape slows New Zealand’s adoption of biological farming products – Dr Jacqueline Rowarth – NZ Herald
