Total alcohol consumption has been falling over recent years, though data on home consumption aren’t
yet available.
Demand for dairy products has increased across the board, not just those targeting older consumers.
Adoption of autonomous vehicles on-farm is not yet apparent (topography on a typical New Zealand farm might prove a deterrent).
The last of the top five was about 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.
Much has been written about the potential benefits of “biologicals” and there’s a growing view that more “natural” options such as biologicals can replace “chemistry”.
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 most advanced in terms of use and proof within a productive system are the bio-pesticides.
Many countries are already using formulations not yet approved in New Zealand.
Following Bayer’s exit from research because of regulatory delays, 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 here.
Last month, Kent Davies, the commercial unit leader for this area for Corteva, told Agriculture Minister Todd McClay that New Zealand farmers used to have access to the latest and best innovations.
This reflected 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, Davies said.
He 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.
Corteva is a global leader in developing and commercialising new active ingredients, particularly in the biological sector.
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.
The Animal and Plant Health Association New Zealand (Aphanz) is the peak industry association of companies that make, sell and distribute animal and crop health products, including biologicals.
The Aphanz’s global member companies spend an estimated annual US$3.8 billion ($6.43b) on crop protection research and development before the release of any new product.
By 2030, another US$4.32b will be spent on biologicals (and another US$2.32b on precision and digital technologies).
This money is more than New Zealand has in its total national research budget, let alone that for agriculture.
More data indicate that companies’ expenditure on research and development takes the bulk of the funding but 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.
All regulators have rigorous internationally accepted guidelines that are designed to ensure the safety of any product introduced.
While all countries are focused on reducing exposure to hazards, some are not invoking the precautionary principle as much as in New Zealand.
Road cones are an 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: “If we’re unsure, we pause and say no for now.”
However, a recent paper from the University of Massachusetts 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, the Aphanz and its 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.
