Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 5 February 2013:

(1) How many neonicotinoid pesticides are registered for use in Australia, and can a list be provided detailing on which crops each is registered for use.

(2) Is the department aware of the finding by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that the neonicotinoid pesticide Imidacloprid poses an 'unacceptable danger to bees feeding on flowering crops'.

(3) In light of this ruling, will the department review the registered uses for Imidacloprid in Australia; if not, why not.

(4) Is the department aware of the growing body of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that neonicotinoid pesticides are significantly contributing to bee decline in Europe and the United States of America, and what steps has the department taken to review these studies.

(5) Has the department: (a) obtained; and (b) reviewed, studies by the companies producing neonicotinoid chemicals, who claim that they have research proving the safety of neonicotinoid products for bees, and has the department made any effort to make such research publically available.

(6) Given the EFSA findings that there is a widespread lack of information, and that current regulations contain 'major weaknesses', will the department review Australia's regulations in regard to neonicotinoid pesticides; if not, why not.

(7) Is the department aware of, or actively researching, effective and safe alternatives for the main neonicotinoid pesticides used in Australia.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the senator's questions are as follows:

(1) Six neonicotinoid active ingredients are approved for use in Australia and of these, five are included in products registered for use on crops. The following table shows which crops each active is registered for use on.

(2) No, the EFSA assessment of imidacloprid, released on 16 January 2013, concluded that there were some risks but that others could not be assessed on the basis of the available information, and identified the data gaps that would need to be filled before regulatory action is considered.

(3) The APVMA is responsible for reviewing agvet chemicals. It monitors international developments in relation to imidacloprid, including any reports from EFSA.

(4) The department is aware of studies on neonicotinoids and bees, and the APVMA has reviewed them in conjunction with the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

(5) The department has obtained and the APVMA has reviewed studies by the companies producing neonicotinoid chemicals as part of the normal registration process. Summaries of such information are available in Public Release Summaries published on the APVMA website at: www.apvma.gov.au/registration/assessment/ public/index.php. In addition, anyone can request a technical assessment report for any product that the APVMA registers. If any new studies are received after registration, brief summaries are published in advice summaries, available at www.apvma.gov.au/registration/assessment/advice/index.php.

(6) There are no provisions in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Regulations 1995 specifically in regard to neonicotinoid pesticides. The current risk-based approach to assessing the hazard and exposure of non-target organisms to pesticides when used according to the mandatory label statements is appropriate and is consistent with world's best practice. If a risk is identified after registration of a chemical product, the APVMA may review label instructions and conduct additional assessments of new studies as part of its review program. In addition, the government has introduced legislation that will require re-approval and re–registration of all agvet chemicals. Re-registration requires the APVMA to regularly look at chemicals available in the market and see if there are concerns about the chemical that need to be addressed with a formal review.

(7) The department is aware of the registered alternatives to neonicotinoids, which are all safe when used according to the mandatory label directions. Researching alternatives is an industry responsibility. In 2012-13, the department provided $235.9 million in matching payments to support rural research and development.