CALGARY – Canada’s crop protection product manufacturers have accepted the concept of user fees in federal pesticide regulation, but believe proposed charges are too high.
“I think everyone in the industry was quite stunned,” said Jack King, Crop Protection Institute president, referring to the proposal that industry contribute more than half of the Pesticide Management Review Agency’s budget.
In 1997-98, the agency’s budget is expected to be $28 million, of which industry would pay $16 million through user fees.
Pat Talwin, vice-president of Zeneca Corp. and head of the institute’s government affairs committee, said during the group’s annual convention last week that it will cost millions for manufacturers to make the needed changes.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
He said a significant portion of these costs would be passed on to farmers and others who use the products, causing pesticide prices to increase by several percent.
But the cost could be justified if the agency can show its operations are efficient and needed and if it can speed the approval process.
The agency wants to approve products in 18 months, down from an average of four years.
But that should only be a starting point, Talwin said.
“That won’t be good enough because the U.S. … is down to nine-to-12 month review times. The goal posts are moving, and moving rapidly,” he said.
Manufacturers are encouraged to see the agency is working more closely with other countries to harmonize their regulatory process and co-operate in application reviews.
But manufacturers are particularly concerned that the regulatory agency’s so-called cost recovery program might make applications for minor use products uneconomical. Minor use products are chemicals needed for small acreage crops where the costs of registration are spread over few sales.
But Claire Franklin, head of the pest management agency, said minor use certifications are usually less costly label extensions, meaning that products already certified for some situations are allowed for additional crops.
The agency will review the appropriateness of cost recovery for minor use products and will exempt the fees or reduce them in line with expected sales.
“With the exemptions, there should be no impediment on the availability,” she said. “But in many instances, it is a company decision whether they want to come in for a minor use.
“They have potential for a large amount of liability for a very small dollar return. So it is a combination of reasons why products are available or not.”
The crop protection industry is negotiating with the agency and Talwin is optimistic a compromise can be struck.
