Magazine - No More Agro - Campaign

2 Jan 2010 by vid

I can understand opposition to illegal or grey imports and I applaud enforcement of guidelines to protect the public and the environment, so for the most part I agree with your campaign Dave.

What I dont understand is your or anybody elses opposition to the use of identical agricultural products that just happen not to have 'amenity use' printed on them.

The true scandal is that we are paying more for the same product.

Why is it safe for a product to be used in agriculture but exactly the same product not safe to use in amenity horticulture. Are farm workers, ramblers and consumers (after all they EAT the product) more resistant than golfers, bowlers, footballers etc. Or is it that because there are fewer numbers of them and the incidence lower they dont matter - ridiculous in my view!

I get the feeling that the amenity chemical suppliers are trying to protect an unjustifiable price for their product.

Apart from 'Agral' wetting agent that I used 20 years ago on a bowling green I have never used an agricultural product but the price differential of identical products is an absolute disgrace.

Are you sure Dave that you are pinning your flag to the right campaign or is this the latest in product price protection that we are expected to swallow.

We should be able to use these products often from the same company at the same price.

Your campaign should be Agro equality - rules that govern us equally. Product labels should cover all areas for the same product.

The health and safety and risk issue is whether the user is keeping to the product instructions and therefore protecting the environment, not including these instructions should be the illegal point.

Much more helpful would be a label that says quite clearly not for amenity use if that is the case. Telling us that we cant use the same product at the same concentration from the same company purely because they can squeeze more money out of us than farmers is clearly wrong.

4 Jan 2010 by Dave

Hello Vid,

Over the coming 12 months there will be a wealth of information printed in the Pitchcare magazine and this website about the whole subject. We will also be exploring the use of parallel and grey imports as well.

We hope that by the end of the year, nobody will be under any false illusions about the dangers of illegal chemical use, but will also understand the true cost to our Industry if people don't adhere to the rules and regulations.

However I agree that the governing bodies do need to look at the price differentials and see if there are ways of reducing the registration costs involved.

Happy New Year!

Dave

12 Jan 2010 by IGS

Come on Dave,
You know and I know as well as any other person in agronomy whether is it agricultural / horticultural / amenity.
The price fixing for watered down products into the amenity sector is a sham.

Having first hand and current experiences on the farm and in amenity sports turf the same active ingredients of the various products are used to manage pests.

In agriculture the average cost is £30.00 / Ha so how come it is £500 + / Ha in sports turf.

Can it be for profit - obscene profit?

If you are going to be your worth in this, your professed industry, then get yourself and Pitchcare (ALS) behind a protest to get these costs to a fair and reasonable rate.

After all, all sprayer operators have their licenses and hopefully will handle the products with great care. A big difference is that in agriculture the products are going into the human / animal food chain - is this why the levels of cancer, etc are so high, as opposed to minimal amounts applied to the thick sward of turfgrass that is usually mown away of any product washed off with irrigation / rain, etc.
It seems to me to be back to front
Personally, having spent my younger years selling such like materials I now hate any pesticide but when needs must they can be a requirement for growing plants and the turfgrass manmager.

As it is it looks like you are promoting the enforcement for you and your commercial companies gain.

Happy 2010

Mark

13 Jan 2010 by Dave

Strong words Mark, that I hope you are able to substantiate.

13 Jan 2010 by IGS

Hi Dave

Yes! It will take strong words to get some proper action on this and other issues as the usual pussy footing around or PC, rules apathy here in the UK

At the end of the day the amenity sector is being sold pesticides at 100's time higher than the ag market.
I can get as many agric agronomist and farmers to tell you what they pay for their pesticides if you wish

I only write what I see or in this case read, however I may have interpreted the article differently to what was intended to be expressed

See you at the BTME

14 Jan 2010 by redwhiteblue

Dave
Lets put it this way.
If you new somebody had purchased Carbendazim from an agricultural retailer and sprayed the product on amenity turf at the manufacturers recommended rate, would you report that person to the authorities.

14 Jan 2010 by Dave

Chaps,

First of all, Pitchcare is happy to support the campaign, which will run throughout this year and provide a wealth of information to help everyone understand why non-approved chemicals shouldn't be used.
I'm not leading a personal campaign.

I have though openly admitted that I have been guilty in the past of using cheaper Ag chemicals occasionally. But there are some damn good reasons why we, as an Industry, shouldn't continue to use them.

People seem to be really concerned about EU legislation banning pesticides so that there's nothing left for us to use.
This probably couldn't be further from the truth. In fact we've lost far more chemicals due to the manufacturers pulling out of re-registration of existing products due to the prohibitive cost and unlikelihood of any profitability.

What everyone should be aware of, is that the continued use of non-approved products means that the chemical companies will stop registering new products for our market due to the poor economic return and then we will have nothing.

This campaign can run on a few different fronts and we can certainly use it to ask the government departments to look at ways of making the registration process cheaper.

For each Active ingredient (AI) developed and brought to market there are huge costs involved that run into the £ hundreds of millions. For each different use of that Active ingredient, there are a lot of additional research, trialling and registration processes that, by law, have to take place. For the Amenity Industry, the overall use and sales is tiny in comparison to the Agricultural Industry.

Therefore if a registration costs £20,000 and there are 100 customers in the amenity industry, that cost is spread out, so £200 each. If the same AI is used for agricultural use and there are 10000 customers the cost per customer is £2.
That's why there is such a large cost differential.

With regards reporting people, that should be down to the Crop Protection Department (CPD) to police the use and abuse of chemicals.

14 Jan 2010 by vid

Hi Dave, this just isnt right. No-one I should hope would approve the use of an inappropriate agricultural chemical being used for amenity purposes, nor would they question your dedication to our industry

However I can think of no circumstance where the public or the environment are any more at risk from amenity application over agricultural application and yet amenity usage is the one that gets restricted and overcharged. This is absurd and not fair. Who is separating out these costs and what extra registrations are being made on these products for amenity use and why?

Why are farmers who are equally responsible for the environment and safe usage not equally sharing the cost.

Why are identical products getting easier passage for use in agriculture.

This registration cost just doesnt cut it. Why are you trying to educate us about this lack of equal treatment. Why arent you on the back of this ridiculous line from Europe - go and educate them not us.

The chemical companies think that there is more money to be made out of sports than farmers and are maximising their profits from the amenity market. We all know whats going on, you need to turn this on its head. Your argument falls down flat when the product and pack size are identical but the agricultural price is lower. It is not right at all that we should be penalised for this, the risks to the public, the environment and ourselves is the same.

This is money for the government back room boys and bureaucrats, money for the big chemical multinationals and plainly very unfair for our industry. If this is not your campaign Dave why not tell them to get real - for all our sakes and bring some uniformity and common sense to this very important but neglected part of our industry.

I started just wanting to give a short reply, but I'm afraid I get angrier and angrier as I write!!

14 Jan 2010 by Mike

Vid - it seems that you have caught the bug which I have... typing too much!!

You will have to excuse my simplifying of this matter, but I see it like this:

2 separate industries
Same chemicals used by both industries in most cases
Different pricing structures for both industries

I can't see that the problem lies in registration fees and such like, although I do see Dave's point regarding potential markets and such like. Looking at the points I made above, the problem stands out like a sore thumb (or it does to me anyway), and that is that there is two industries when two industries simply aren't required. If the amenity and agricultural sectors combine, there is an even larger customer base to share registration costs, research and trialling amongst, and as such price reductions to the end user are available to all of us. We all work with soil, crops etc, so what's the difference? Some would say that people are more exposed to the amenity sector - every person on the planet is exposed to agriculture as every mouthful of food that eat has come from agriculture in one way or another, and we can even look at public exposure to agriculture by way of public rights of way and such like, which are predominately on agricultural land!

How about the head honchos of agriculture and amenity sit down, have a chat, combine forces and share the mutual benefits... simple!

14 Jan 2010 by vid

Same industry - 2 profit margins - thats why and on top of that Agriculture would share the cost and we would share the benefit. Thats why it doesnt happen unless an independant or official opinion takes effect. Who will get the ball rolling?? I dont hold out any hope at all that we will see a benefit. We will continue to pay more and nobody cares, thats why I get angry. Lots of hot air no action - happens all the time. Come on someone prove me wrong - I have absolutely no faith in anybody simplifying anything or doing anything for the common good - not if government is involved.

More complication, more paperwork, more fines, more jobs for officials, more taxes for me........cynical......YOU BETCHA!

14 Jan 2010 by IGS

Several European countries have banned pesticides from golf courses, etc.
So now the turfgrass managers have to get products from the black market?
Ban the products that are dangerous to the environment, animals of all types, humans, fish etc.
There is NO safe PESTICIDE – PESTICIDES KILL.

The real issue is, are the manufacturing companies exploiting users with their high prices?

There certainly are issues and my suggestion that 'the trade' petitions the manufacturers in one shape or another should really be made - I'm sure our French cousins would do so.

Certainly, all regulations regarding product efficacy, safety, etc are of paramount importance and do need to be as stringent as is possible.

In 2008 the introduction of REACH registration where all companies dealing with chemicals that make up any product had to registered individual materials - this was a preregistration and if the quantity is under 100 tonnes the actual registration and payment will be required in a few years time. The cost of this will be for companies. Over a 100 tonnes the registration had to be completed before that deadline.

I know of a company manufacturing Phosphite foliar - this material is useful for plant protection yet it is not a pesticide. The cost of registration forced the company into a position that it was not commercially feasible to continue. So that company does not make or sell that eco-friendly product.
Therefore pesticides will be applied to take the place where their product had been used.

Are there strings being pulled ?

In reality as Mike suggests the industry -Agric / Hortic / Amenity - could be one with harmonised prices across the board.
Before the attention now focused on the turfgrass market products from agriculture were used and as we know was not the best. With this realisation manufacturers got to work, for example:-

The smart fertiliser manufacturers developed a niche market and produced micro granular fertilisers that can be applied evenly onto fine turf areas. Nothing wrong there.
But then the nutrient content become so low it was almost negligible. The infamous 8-0-0 plus a bit of Mg and ppm of trace elements add 50% filler and sell it at a high cost.

The same is now apparent for pesticides but backed with 'reasons' of costs involved with registration and so on.

The issues would appear to be Profit mongering - not to cover the cost of registration but profit only.
Profit is obtained after all the development costs, registration, production costs have been allocated, so £30 / Ha for agric min £500 / Ha for amenity!!!

Glyphosate, discovered by ICI at Jealots Hill all those years ago but dismissed as they were looking for a fungicide - taken up by Monsanto sold for ridiculously high prices until the patent ran out and it became as cheap as chips (pre 1976 chips).
The reason was profit - get it whilst you can.

Imagine a golf course coming out of this period of snow / ice and No Play - No income over the past 3 - 4 weeks. that is now infested with disease and requires treatment. let’s say £500 / Ha when in reality the agric product at £30 plus say 250% mark up would be £105/ Ha
or 1565% mark up and that is minimal
Can the now hard up golf course afford to treat this disease outbreak?

I do not see any 'hard up' pesticide manufacturers, do you?

The government may bow to these companies as not only do the registration fees, etc raise income / provide jobs for civil servants, but also the corporation tax from the companies means the manufacturing companies have clout and influence.

A recent article on the toxicity of a Strobilurin based fungicides illustrates the potential danger of such materials, where after application the treated field could not be entered for 7 days. Unfortunately some did and suffered the effects of the products toxicity.
Are we really safe? Are we paying through the nose to be poisoned?

Even with the high costs we do not really know.


Information regarding registrations can be obtained from:
Pesticides are approved by the Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD) - part of the H&S - http://www.pesticides.gov.uk Is the governing body to which companies submit their applications in order to get approval.

16 Jan 2010 by Vic Demain

If this is not profit related, can anyone explain why Rescue is approved for golf use (large areas) yet not bowls?
Could it be that the trials would be too expensive to carry out and the income would be minimal?
At least 3 people in the industry have recommended the same agricultural product to solve the problem, but so far I have ignored it in the hope that Rescue may get license, however getting any information as to when is near impossible.

18 Jan 2010 by has 2 mow

Agree with mr Demain that rescue is not available to all sports turf users , is it to do with costs or trust in our ability ? .

Most of the golf clubs round here would not use and have no need for it, but there are quite a few green keepers ( in bowls) that would love to use it and no doubt several groundsman . I run over 25,000 sq mtrs of fine turf but its not available to me or my customers ? .

8 Feb 2010 by Wilson Boardman

Dave,
Wow.... nice can of worms - open wide and they're wriggling off in all directions.

I hope by the term "grey imports" you weren't referring to perfectly legitimate parallel registration products, which by their very definition are imported?

Just a short point, regarding parallel import products. I'm afraid I must take issue with you in order that a little balance be brought to the argument: You are quite wrong to claim as you have elsewhere that they exploit a "legal loophole", no such loophole exists. The paralleling of agrochemicals was first made legal back in the 1970's and the procedure has been refined several times since and is now almost a common system carefully regulated and policed throughout the EU.

Pitchcare readers need to understand that in order to import and re-label a parallel product, it has to be sourced within the EU, and the original manufacturer (be they Bayer, Syngenta, or whoever) has to agree in writing to the regulatory authorities that the material is their product, not a copy or a generic version.

So, in order for there to be an opportunity to bring in a parallel product the manufacturer has to have sold it in another EU country with the same label recommendations at a lower price. This is their responsibility to ensure commonality of pricing, if they could achieve that then opportunities for parallel imports would cease. They are clearly selling at their required profit level which sustains new product development and market share, even before the paralleler buys it. IF that paralleler can then put it into our market at an attractive price, we ALL benefit and no-one loses out anywhere? Lets be nice to the lovely parallelers (who take massive risks with exchange rates and pre-season purchases) and not give them too much AGRO?

I endorse your sentiments regarding the use of ag-labelled products in amenity areas.
Lets stay legal shall we?