KEY POINTS:
A ban on a widely-used pesticide will lead to increased sports-ground closures, and the speed of its introduction will cause problems for the citrus industry, observers say.
The Environmental Risk Management Authority yesterday announced it would revoke approvals for the use of endosulfan in New Zealand, because of
its toxicity to humans and waterways.
The ban comes into force in four weeks, on January 16.
The chemical has been in New Zealand for 40 years, and its use has gradually declined. It is now used primarily to control earthworms at golf courses, bowling clubs, parks and sports grounds, and in the citrus industry. Those industries find it most effective for the pests they battle, and it is cheap and multi-purpose.
But even those who use it agree it has passed its use-by date, and the authority said two of the three companies that still produce endosulfan formulations agreed with the ban.
However, the New Zealand Sports Turf Institute, a consultancy for turf maintenance and management, said if earthworms could not be adequately controlled on sports pitches, the result would be increased winter closures.
"Endosulfan is the most effective product for the control of earthworms, which are a major problem on sports turf because they create muddy conditions," said the institute's turf adviser, David Ormsby.
"It means maintenance costs will go up and if we have muddy, wet conditions then venues will not be as available as they are now."
He said there were other chemicals available for the control of earthworms but they were not as effective.
The horticulture industry expressed disappointment at the timing of the ban, describing it as "drastic action". HortNZ chief executive Peter Silcock said the industry did not disagree with the rationale behind banning endosulfan, but citrus growers needed more time.
"We expected a time frame measured in years not days," Mr Silcock said. "In particular the citrus and tomato industries are now going to be under huge pressure."
He said HortNZ had asked for five years to phase out the product, so some sectors could find alternative products to use. In a couple of cases though, there were none. Mr Silcock said endosulfan was used only where no alternatives existed, and only once or twice in a growing season at most.
"No endosulfan makes some pests extremely difficult to control, meaning reduced yields and quality, and that means growers not making money, less work for their employees and a financial impact on rural communities."
He added there were systems in place to ensure its safe use.
Federated Farmers had suggested improved labelling of endosulfan formulations to ensure their safety.
"We're not going to object but we wouldn't like to think it's open slather on pesticides," said plant pest manager Philip York. He said it was cheap and generic but old, and "nothing we've seen suggests it's that bad".
The chairwoman of the decision-making committee, Helen Atkins, said
the chemical was "acutely toxic" to humans at high levels and particularly for those involved in its manufacture, transport and use. The authority would allow time for its safe disposal.
