CROPLIFE Australia has led a blistering attack on Safe Work Australia (SWA) and the Department of Employment over the introduction of an excessive and duplicate labelling regime on farm chemicals.
The peak national plant science body wants Employment Minister Michaelia Cash to reverse moves to introduce the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) in Australia on January 1 next year.
CropLife says the GHS has been designed for developing countries like Burkina Faso and Turkey that lack an appropriate, independent and technically proficient agricultural chemical regulator.
But the labelling regulations only undermine and duplicate existing scientific, evidence-based risk assessments of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) for ag-vet chemicals.
CropLife Australia CEO Matthew Cossey said the new labelling system was a “classic example of bureaucracy gone mad” where the two government departments had put farmer and other agricultural workers’ safety at risk.
Mr Cossey said the duplicative ag-vet chemical labelling regime would also force an extra $58 million of unnecessary red tape costs onto Australian agriculture.
He said the GHS was never meant to be implemented in jurisdictions where a high-level risk assessment process was already in place, like in Australia with the APVMA.
“That is why our major trading partners with comparative regulatory systems, such as the US, specifically exempted agricultural chemicals from GHS in recognition that their existing regulatory system provides the best work, health and safety requirements,” he said.
“It is crucial that Australia apply a similar pragmatic, sensible and logical approach.”
In calling for Senator Cash’s intervention, Mr Cossey said introducing the GHS labelling regime was a mistake that originated under the previous government but was “ushered in under this government’s watch”.
“From January 1, 2017 the colossal confusion of these confusing and dangerous regulations will undermine worker safety,” he said.
“This is one of those ridiculous bureaucratic solutions in search of a problem and is more about justifying the existence of relevant policy branches and SWA than about actually improving worker safety.
“We hope that common sense will prevail.”
Mr Cossey said SWA had admitted at Senate estimates hearings that there had been no workplace incidents relating to the lack of a hazard and precautionary statement, on agricultural chemical labels.
But he said the two government agencies had “belligerently” pushed ahead with the new regulations, despite strong objections from farm representative groups, all relevant industry bodies, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and the APVMA.
Mr Cossey said the GHS introduction was “one of the most mindless and ridiculous bureaucratic actions by a government department and agency that I have ever seen”.
“It seems almost macabre that an agency that is supposedly tasked with worker safety will in fact compromise the safety of farmers and other users of crop protection products by requiring confusing, duplicative and entirely unnecessary extra labelling on already fully assessed, registered products with comprehensive labels,” he said.
“To add insult to injury, if implemented, these new requirements will impose an additional $58 million of red tape costs onto Australia’s farmers.
“The fact that the SWA board and management have failed to take corrective action on this is deeply concerning.
“Accordingly we call on Senator Michaelia Cash and her relevant State government colleagues to immediately restore confidence in Australia’s world-class ag-vet-chem regulatory system and reinstate the recognition of APVMA approved labels.”
The GHS labelling issue has also been critically examined by NSW Liberal Democratic Senator David Leyonhjelm during Senate estimates hearings last year.
Senator Leyonhjelm said he understood the National Farmers Federation (NFF), manufacturers and the Department of Agriculture were concerned about potential duplication, given the APVMA was “entirely capable” of product risk assessments.
But SWA Work Health and Safety Framework Branch Manager Julia Collins dismissed concerns of any potential duplication saying the GHS labels provided additional information on risks to workers handling dangerous chemicals.
At an estimates hearing in October last year, Ms Collins said the APVMA assessed physical hazards like flammability and carcinogenicity, but those risks were sometimes not reflected on product labels.
She said a direct assessment of APVMA-approved ag-vet chemical product labels was also conducted before deciding to introduce the GHS regime, which identified label inadequacies.
A list of eight examples from that assessment was also provided in response to a question on notice.
But Senator Leyonhjelm said intrinsic hazards were not missed by the APVMA which undertook “extensive” risk assessments to ensure only intrinsic hazards, not appropriately mitigated to a negligible level through formulation or prescribed use instructions, appear as a hazard or a precautionary statement on the label.
He also gained an admission that an ag-vet chemical company could have a product legally approved under the ag-vet code but would still be liable for prosecution for failing to comply with the additional GHS labelling requirements.
Ms Collins said there had been a five-year transition period for industries to get across the labelling requirements which was due to end on January 1 next year.
“We have been working quite closely with our regulators and with industry to assist in this transition phase to provide the information they need to help them implement the requirements,” she said.
Senator Leyonhjelm said a 2011 Regulatory Impact Statement confirmed that industry and government portfolios for health and agriculture were opposed to the labelling changes.
“My advice is that when this was raised with both Health and Agriculture, Health said, 'No, this is our responsibility', and the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) said, 'We are responsible for this. This is not your responsibility. Stay out of it’,” he said.
“Agriculture was asleep at the wheel - so we ended up with this duplication of labelling requirements.”
“One company in order to comply with this is moving ahead because it is not at all confident that this is going to be handled in a sensible fashion prior to January 1, 2017.
“The cost just to comply with this is between $800,000 and $1 million - just one company.
“You can anticipate that this will remain a sore point until some common sense prevails.”
In detailing the GHS changes, the Comcare website says currently different countries have different systems for classification and labelling of chemical products which makes regulation difficult, imposes an additional burden on business and can impact on safe use at the workplace level.
It says the GHS is published by the United Nations and includes “harmonized” criteria for classification and understanding of physical, health and environmental hazards.
The Productivity Commission is currently investigating agricultural red tape - as part of the Coalition government’s Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper - with a draft report due by the end of May and final one by August.
