Maximum residue limit changes closely monitored by grain growers

However, changing requirements from important export markets in the form of maximum residue limits (MRLs) mean that some chemicals will not be be able to be used in practice due to MRL concerns even though they remain officially registered for use.

Gerard McMullen, chair of the National Party on Grain Protection, told farmers at a recent Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) update at Minyip in Victoria's Wimmera that applying chemicals according to the label rate did not necessarily mean grain would meet external market requirements.

"Internationally we're seeing a real tightening of the rules regarding MRLs particularly in places like Europe, which are very important export markets for us, particularly for canola," Mr McMullen said.

"We've seen this with products such as haloxyfop, a herbicide that has traditionally been a key part of Australian canola growers' chemical rotation."

"Due to the changes in European MRLs we are now advising the Australian canola industry to use alternative products even though it is still registered for use, given Europe is such a big part of our canola industry."

READ MORE:

While there is technically the possibility of segregating product treated with haloxyfop separately for marketing elsewhere where higher residues are accepted, Mr McMullen said this would not work in practice.

"The bulk handlers will not want to operate inefficiently with more half full segregations and there are alternative herbicides available for use so we would expect growers will comply with the call to phase out haloxyfop usage."

However Grain Producers Australia research and development spokesperson Andrew Weidemann said while the European market was important growers were weighing up the importance of the market against the right to use legal products.

"We're getting to the stage now where we're considering whether these markets with really tough MRL requirements are worth it," he said.

"There are a lot of places across the world that would be happy to buy safe and clean Australian grain if the Europeans decide they want to continue down this path of stricter and stricter MRLs."

"Our big worry is that this may be the thin end of the wedge and we may be basically defaulting to European standards even though the production systems are totally different and what is safe in Australia may not be in Europe and vice versa."

Mr McMullen said the Australian grains industry was going to have to face challenges on the chemical regulation front across the globe, not just in Europe.

"The European Union Farm to Fork policy is the one that has attracted the most attention and has some of the strictest conditions, but there are challenges in a lot of other markets."

"Each destination has its own specific chemical legislation and that means different MRLs can apply for the same chemical and commodity."

"Indonesia for example is missing a number of MRLs, Japan scrutinises imports very closely while Saudi Arabia has a complex system regarding the default MRL position."

"As an industry the export sector, working together with growers, needs to come up with solutions to the minimise the risk of crop chemical residues jeopardising markets."