Analysis of Australia's highest-volume pesticide use has revealed the majority of products widely used in Australian agriculture are banned in other parts of the world, according to a new study led by Griffith University.
Researchers from Griffith's School of Environment and Science analysed 45 pesticide products used in volumes of more than 100 tonnes per year, identified through the Australian Government's now archived Agricultural Chemical Usage Database.
The international regulatory status of each chemical was benchmarked globally and the findings were stark: 60 per cent of Australia's high-use pesticides were now banned in the European Union.
A further 24 per cent were approved in Europe but banned in at least one other country, and just 16 per cent retained full international approval.
"These findings set Australia apart from the rest of the world and raise questions about how our chemical regulatory frameworks and pesticide-use patterns differ from the rest of the world," said co-lead author Professor Susan Bengtson Nash.
"The continued use of pesticides banned overseas places Australia increasingly out of step with leading international chemical policy reform and may complicate trade, particularly given that more than 70 per cent of Australia's primary produce, worth nearly $80 billion annually, is exported."
Professor Susan Bengston Nash
The authors identified two key socio-political factors contributing to Australia's anomalous stance on pesticide use.
On the one hand, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), responsible for pesticide approval and registration in Australia, used a risk-based assessment approach where risk ranking may be influenced by, for example, application protocols.
The authors argued this approach created an illusion of managed risk surrounding intrinsically hazardous compounds, and could not adequately account for chemical impacts once they were released into open environmental systems, where biological and biogeochemical interactions were unpredictable.
Secondly, a recent review of the APVMA flagged agricultural sector stakeholders were calling for modern alternatives, suggesting global chemical companies were slow to register newer, potentially safer alternatives in Australia.
This dynamic left Australian producers dependent on legacy pesticides, while chemical companies preserved a market for products that were no longer viable elsewhere.
"Chemical inputs via agricultural applications pose a unique human and environmental health risk as they are intentionally applied at the base of the human food web, migrate widely in the environment, and therefore impact systems at every scale from the degradation of soil microbial biodiversity, to negative impacts to human health," Professor Bengtson Nash said.
"Diverse pesticidal products have been linked to, for example, human impaired cognitive development, cancer, obesity, and reproductive failure."
The researchers said restoring comprehensive surveillance and public reporting was essential to align Australia with international best practice and safeguard environmental and human health.
"Archiving of the Australian Government Agricultural Chemical Usage Database in 2022, and lack of upkeep in the years prior, represents a significant obstacle to industry transparency of Australia's pesticide use," said co-lead author Associate Professor Leah Burns.
"Addressing this gap would support a key recommendation of the Matthews Review which called for comprehensive surveillance and data collation systems among other recommendations."
The study 'Australia's Blind Eye; Exploring the Nation's Permissive Stance on Harmful Pesticides' has been published in Environmental Science & Technology.
The authors acknowledge the guidance and assistance of numerous Australian government chemical regulatory employees in data acquisition.
