EPA Bans Crop Insecticide After Reassessment
The ban will come into effect progressively during an 18-month phase-out period.
Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide used to control pests in pasture and grain crops such as wheat and for biosecurity treatment of pests.
The chemical is banned in the European Union and Canada, and its use is heavily restricted in Australia. It is in the process of being phased out internationally via the Stockholm Convention, of which New Zealand is a signatory.
As part of the reassessment, the EPA considered new information, called for submissions, and held a public hearing. A decision-making committee found that risks to people and the environment of using the insecticide outweighed the benefits.
"Operators spraying the insecticide and bystanders are most at risk from immediate and long-term health issues," says Dr Shaun Presow, Hazardous Substances Reassessments Manager. "New evidence shows that even full personal and respiratory protective equipment don't fully mitigate the health risks.
"The health risks for children exposed to chlorpyrifos in particular are concerning, which is why we have put in place an immediate ban on using the chemical in public places," says Dr Presow.
"Chlorpyrifos also has harmful effects on plants and animals on land and in waterways."
An EPA decision-making committee set an extended phase-out period for the use of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-containing substances to allow users to transition to alternative products.
"We acknowledge the concerns of some farmers who will need to find alternatives to chlorpyrifos products to control New Zealand grass grub," says Dr Presow. "This is why we have approved and extended the 18-month phase-out period for farmers to find other ways to manage native grass grub.
"We are equally mindful of the risks to human health and the environment, and that the phasing out of chlorpyrifos is supported by some industry groups. Furthermore, our international trade partners are already imposing restrictions on the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops."
From 10 July 2025 the use of chlorpyrifos will be phased out:
- over 18 months for those using the active ingredient to control grass grub
- over six months for all other industries
- immediately in public places.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
23-07-2025
- Scoop
EPA Approves New Fruit Fungicide
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has approved a fungicide with a new active ingredient that controls blackspot and powdery mildew on apples and pears, and Botrytis on grapes. UPL New Zealand Limited applied to import or manufacture Rhapsody, a fungicide containing 218 g/L ipflufenoquin, a chemical new to New Zealand. UPL says Rhapsody gives growers an alternative to other products that may be becoming less effective due to increasing resistance, gives another option for late season use, and is lower risk to human health. "This approval means growers will have access to an innovative tool with a new mode of action, helping protect crops vital to New Zealand's primary sector," says Dr Lauren Fleury, EPA Hazardous Substances Applications Manager. The apple industry contributed almost $2 billion to the New Zealand economy last year, and the wine export value reached approximately $2.4 billion. The decision to approve Rhapsody was made following a rigorous assessment and consultation process, says Dr Fleury. "As this product contains an active ingredient that is new to New Zealand, we assessed the scientific data and evidence, as well as economic and local information, to enable access to new chemistry while continuing to protect people's health and our unique environment." Ipflufenoquin has been approved in other countries, including Australia, Canada, Japan and the USA. This decision is the latest for the EPA, which has reduced the queue of hazardous substance release applications by almost 21 percent since 1 July 2024. The EPA has set ambitious assessment targets for the coming year, including increasing the number of assessments for substances containing new active ingredients. "We understand the importance of timely access to new products. Continuing to reduce the queue and assess new active ingredients is a top priority for us." The substance can only be used by professionals in commercial settings, and users must comply with specific controls. As an agricultural compound, Rhapsody must also receive approval from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) before it can be used in New Zealand. Note:
Scoop
10-07-2025
- Scoop
EPA Bans Crop Insecticide After Reassessment
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is banning a crop insecticide, chlorpyrifos, after reassessing the chemical. The ban will come into effect progressively during an 18-month phase-out period. Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide used to control pests in pasture and grain crops such as wheat and for biosecurity treatment of pests. The chemical is banned in the European Union and Canada, and its use is heavily restricted in Australia. It is in the process of being phased out internationally via the Stockholm Convention, of which New Zealand is a signatory. As part of the reassessment, the EPA considered new information, called for submissions, and held a public hearing. A decision-making committee found that risks to people and the environment of using the insecticide outweighed the benefits. "Operators spraying the insecticide and bystanders are most at risk from immediate and long-term health issues," says Dr Shaun Presow, Hazardous Substances Reassessments Manager. "New evidence shows that even full personal and respiratory protective equipment don't fully mitigate the health risks. "The health risks for children exposed to chlorpyrifos in particular are concerning, which is why we have put in place an immediate ban on using the chemical in public places," says Dr Presow. "Chlorpyrifos also has harmful effects on plants and animals on land and in waterways." An EPA decision-making committee set an extended phase-out period for the use of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-containing substances to allow users to transition to alternative products. "We acknowledge the concerns of some farmers who will need to find alternatives to chlorpyrifos products to control New Zealand grass grub," says Dr Presow. "This is why we have approved and extended the 18-month phase-out period for farmers to find other ways to manage native grass grub. "We are equally mindful of the risks to human health and the environment, and that the phasing out of chlorpyrifos is supported by some industry groups. Furthermore, our international trade partners are already imposing restrictions on the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops." From 10 July 2025 the use of chlorpyrifos will be phased out: - over 18 months for those using the active ingredient to control grass grub - over six months for all other industries - immediately in public places.
Scoop
19-06-2025
- Scoop
EPA's Glyphosate Decision Challenged In Court
The Environmental Protection Authority is being taken to court over its decision not to re-assess the pesticide glyphosate. The Environmental Law Initiative is arguing that there is enough new evidence around the human health and environmental effects of glyphosate, or Roundup, to warrant a reassessment from our chemicals regulator. The hearing has now finished and we are awaiting the judge's decision. Professor of Toxicology Ian Shaw, School of Physical & Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, comments: 'Glyphosate, the active compound in Roundup, was licensed in the mid-1970s. We have learned much about the compound since then and, importantly, its use profile has changed significantly. This points to the need for a review to determine the current risk-benefit balance for environmental and human impact (via operator exposure and food residues). In 2022, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decided that a review was not warranted based on its call for information upon which it based its decision. The EPA's report quotes farmers who extol the virtues of glyphosate as evidence against the need for a review. The farmers' views illustrate the key role (benefit) that glyphosate plays in New Zealand agriculture, but does not take account of its risks. 'In my opinion, there are too many unknowns relating to glyphosate's long-term environmental impact and its effects in humans not to review the compound. In addition, the current approval is largely based on 1970s toxicity data (environmental and human): we have learned much (risks and benefits) in the intervening 50-years that warrants consideration via a review. Importantly, other countries have reviewed or are in the process of reviewing glyphosate. 'More recently, the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) has proposed an increased maximum residue level (MRL) for glyphosate in some crops and their food products from the default 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg. This is a completely different issue to the need for a glyphosate review. Indeed, a simple glyphosate residue in food intake calculation shows that the proposed MRL increase will have negligible or no health impact on consumers. This is not evidence against a review of glyphosate's use in New Zealand.' No conflict of interest declared. Professor Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, comments: 'In my view, the New Zealand EPA was entirely correct to state that there isn't enough new evidence to support another review of glyphosate. There have been extensive reviews by regulatory agencies worldwide on this issue, including those of the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the European Union (the EU Commission reapproved glyphosate for 10 years in July 2023). There would have to be substantive new information indicating the risk has changed to warrant the expense of another review in New Zealand, and there just isn't any. 'Judges and court decisions don't make science. Science is based on evidence and logical deduction. However, the Federal Court of Australia reached a similar judgment to others in 2024 in what is known as the McNickle case. The court found no conclusive scientific evidence linking glyphosate/Roundup to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 'It is also worth noting that non-Hodgkin lymphoma is not a single disease but rather a catch-all term for approximately 60 different lymphoma subtypes that are not all the same. It is a little like classifying all voters as Labour voters or non-Labour voters. It is technically correct but misses essential context. 'Bayer and Monsanto may or may not be perfect corporate citizens, but the overwhelming scientific evidence from over thirty years of testing is that glyphosate does not cause cancer even in the most exposed users such as farm workers.
