Submissions
Environmental Protection Authority
Private Bag 63002,
Wellington 6140
Email: [email address]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Submission on EPA Risk Assessment Methodology for Hazardous Substances
This submission is made by the Apiculture NZ Science and Research Focus Group with comments
directed at the EPA Document Risk Assessment Methodology for Hazardous Substances dated May
2018.
Our concern is that any product used in a wide dispersive manner in the environment presents an
environmental hazard to foraging honey bees.
All references are with respect to the EPA document mentioned above.
Section 1.1 – Context – 2nd Paragraph, page 1. This statement is not correct.
“…. (the EPA) regulates
the use of hazardous substances in New Zealand, and processes all applications for the approval to
import and manufacture new hazardous substances in this country”. We wish to point out that
many hazardous substances are approved for importation and manufacture under various Group
Standards, by importers and distributors. Group Standard approvals do not require an assessment of
the risks, costs and benefits to be analysed by the EPA.
Section 3.1. Understanding exposure paths during the life cycle of the substance. This is a significant
change for the EPA and Apiculture NZ supports this change. The major problem with the ecotoxicity
classification (Hazard Class 9) is that the invertebrate toxicity classification is limited to the acute oral
and dermal chemical toxicity tests alone (OECD 213 and OECD 214 test guidelines). Our work shows
that bees are affected by many hazardous substances that do not show any toxicity when tested to
the above test guidelines, especially surfactants.
Example; the use of metsulfuron-methyl used to control broadleaf weeds, in particular gorse and
broom in NZ. Metsulfuron is considered to have low toxicity to bees, but when used it has a label
recommendation to tank mix with an organo silicone surfactant. This combination has been
observed in a number of bee kills when spraying is conducted during the day and bees are foraging.
This is a well known exposure pathway.
Unfortunately there is no ecotoxicity data for the organo silicone surfactant, which has been self-
approved by the importer under Group Standard HSR002503. The Group Standard does not require
mandatory disclosure of ecotoxicity data on the Safety Data Sheet or the label when the substance is
used in a wide dispersive manner. And where surfactants have been tested for dermal toxicity
subject to OECD 214 test guidelines they have been shown to below threshold. But when used in the
foraging bees’ ecosystem they are ecotoxic!
We are aware that organo silicone surfactants are used alone in glasshouses as an insecticide to kill
whitefly and mites, without any SDS or label warnings about biocidal action. They are biocidal.
1
Spray contractors do not place spray droplets on the thorax (OECD 214) of bees. They spray the
whole bee if it is foraging in the target crop. There should be a specific ecotoxicity test for foraging
bees, not just a chemical toxicity test for Class 9, if we are going to assess risks of these hazards.
An ecotoxic test would include the risks; of inhalation by bees, of asphyxiation if breathing spiracles
are blocked, of chemical reaction with the hemolymph (the fluid inside the exoskeleton of the bee
bathing all the internal organs) etc. The OECD 214 test is a chemical toxicity test and not one to use
to assess risks of hazards on a honey bee ecosystem or suitable for ecotoxicity. Using the right test,
in the correct exposure pathway will mean that adverse effect qualitative descriptors in Table 1 will
be accurate and correct.
Section 3.3.1 Quantitative models used by the EPA. The Apiculture NZ Science and Research Focus
Group is supportive if the use of the US EPA pollinator risk assessment. We are concerned that
this risk assessment can be used to support a product when in fact it may be hazardous to bee
health. An example is that the US EPA risk assessment is often for the sole pesticide and not the
tank mixture, so no synergistic effects are taken into consideration – see example of
metsulfuron above.
C.3.2 Model Used. Our experience with spray drift models references APP202774 EXIREL where
the applicant proposed a 100 metre downwind spray buffer zone and the EPA suggested a 10
metre downwind spray buffer zone for aerial spraying. At the hearing neither party could
explain the difference nor would they disclose the model they used. This is clearly not good
enough.
If the EPA or an applicant are using a quantitative model such as AGDRIFT or AGDISP for
supporting an application the model and data used should be fully transparent to all including
public submitters.
C.10 Pollinators
C.10.1 Exposure linkage assessed. Does foliar sprays include tank mixtures including the use of
surfactants?
C.10.2 Model used.
C10.3. Assumptions and Uncertainties. The value of these models such as BeeRex is dependent on
the data available at the time of assessment.
Earlier this year Apiculture NZ supplied the EPA details of 14 surfactant products where the Safety
Data Sheet did not clearly identify the substance as required in the Group Standard.
The following example shows where chemical companies are gaming the EPA and withholding
essential ecotoxicity information.
Example Canola Oil: There are a number of products containing canola oil used by growers either as
an insecticide or as a surfactant. To illustrate this I have identified two products with the same active
ingredient canola oil.
BASF HASTEN is a spray tank surfactant for use with insecticides, fungicides and herbicides.
The SDS identifies that this product's active ingredient is the ‘Ethyl and methyl esters of fatty acids
produced from food grade canola oil > 60%’i. BASF have claimed this product is non-hazardous under
the HSNO Act and have not referenced any Group Standard.
There is no publicly available evidence of any regulatory oversight by the EPA of this product.
2
Horticentre Eco Oil is one of 7 canola oil insecticides registered as pesticides by MPI.
Eco Oil contains a minimum of 85% canola oil. It is clearly identified as substance with biocidal
action. It is used as an insecticide to control two spotted mite, whitefly, scale, and green peach aphid
on a variety of crops.ii
Horticentre have a HSNO Act approval by the EPA as a hazardous substance – HSR02504
Horticentre have an ACVM Act registration by MPI as an insecticide - P007069
Here we have two products with the same active ingredient.
Eco Oil claims control of insects and Hasten does not.
Any risk assessment would clearly identify that BASF HASTEN will be as effective against
invertebrates as Eco Oil after all they are both canola oil.
If this data supplied by BASF for Hasten in their SDS was used in BeeRex it would show it was safe to
bees.
None of the above products have any warnings to prevent damage to beneficial insects such as
pollinators. Both would likely kill honey bees if they are sprayed whilst out foraging.
Both products can be sprayed in a ‘wide dispersive manner’, take out invertebrates – beneficial,
indigenous and pests – one product has environmental controls and the other none!
Now what you are seeing here is a possible gaming of the HSNO regulations and the model by
nondisclosure of key environmental factors. There should be a full investigation of these products
which demonstrate manipulated data. Apiculture NZ has identified other candidates for the
expected EPA reassessment of surfactants.
C.10.8. Alternative options considered. It is disappointing to hear the EPA has not looked more
closely at the EFSA bee risk assessment model. In New Zealand last year we are aware of two
bee kills of foraging bees involving herbicide use. Fungicides are now being considered a
possible causative factor in colony collapse in the US after being found in significant quantities in
bee products (Mullin et al 2010). Our concern is that the EPA has made a judgement against the
EFSA bee risk assessment to soon.
Can the EPA supply more detail of how they determined that the “EFSA approach, will not
necessarily introduce better management of bee health”?
The HSNO Act supports the use of the precautionary principle, and this decision goes against
this.
There is no mention of Environmental Exposure Limits (EELs) being established for all pesticides
approved by the EPA as an alternative. This is disappointing as it is a clear statutory
responsibility of the EPA. The EPA has avoided setting EELs in recent years. Perhaps they should
bring them back.
Measuring and monitoring data. There is no information on the use of measuring and monitoring
data in NZ in order to refine risk analysis. A key understanding of Risk Management principlesiii is the
requirement for monitoring and reviewing the risk analysis with new information.
3
The EPA does not collect data on the amount of product used, the environment the product is used
in, the high hazard areas of the country etc. This particularly important for environmental exposures
by hazard substances. And where EELs have been set there is no monitoring of them and the levels
that are in the environment, except for sodium flouroacetate.
The Apiculture NZ Science and Research Focus Group thanks the EPA for this opportunity to submit
on the proposed risk assessment methodology. If given the opportunity we would be willing to take
part in further discussion of what are the best options for managing pollinator safety and health in
New Zealand.
Yours faithfully
D.N. MacLeod
Apiculture NZ Science and Research Focus Group
i
http://agro.basf.co.nz/Libraries/Product_Documents/Hasten_SDS.sflb.ashx ii
http://www.horticentre.co.nz/23/products-services/pest-disease-control/crop-chemistry-biologicals-growth-
aids-and-cleaners/insecticides/eco-oil
iii AS/NZS ISO 31000 Joint Australian New Zealand International Standard Risk Management – Principles and
guidelines.
Apiculture New Zealand
PO Box 25207, Wellington 6146, New Zealand
+64 4 471 6254 | www.apinz.org.nz | [email address]
4
