What gives? All about Act 36 of 1947

Roleen la Grange, Regulatory Manager at CropLife South Africa, recently responded to questions regarding the contentious Agricultural Remedies Act 36 of 1947 at the Agbiz Media Day held at Elsenburg. She was part of a panel discussing Realities, Regulations, and Resilience: How Agriculture Brings Safe Food to Our Tables.

Question: It is often said that our legislation – The Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act 36 of 1947 – is very old and needs to be replaced. While the industry is not opposed to revising the legislation, Act 36 has recently been strengthened through new regulations. Could you tell us more about these regulations?

Roleen: It is true that the Act regulating agricultural remedies in South Africa dates back to 1947. However, it is important to recognise that the Act has been amended multiple times since then, and various regulations have been issued to support it. Consequently, as long as the Act is not limited solely to the changes introduced by these regulations — which I do not believe it is — new requirements and procedures can be readily added through amendments and regulations.

The most recent regulations published under the Act are the ‘regulations relating to agricultural remedies’, promulgated in August 2023. Several new requirements were introduced with these regulations:

• The most notable changes concern highly hazardous pesticides. There is a global trend to phase out such pesticides where possible, for instance, when risks cannot be effectively managed and alternatives are available and affordable. The latest regulations bring South Africa in line with this worldwide effort. Products that pose a chronic hazard to human health, such as carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins, have been largely eliminated by these regulations. Products that pose an acute hazard are now heavily restricted and may be purchased and used only by registered pest control operators who are trained in the risks associated with these products.
• Luckily, the regulations also allow the registrar to prioritise the registration of alternative remedies to replace some of the highly hazardous pesticides being phased out, and to expedite the registration of low-risk remedies and minor uses, meaning these products can enter the market quickly.
• Further changes include aligning with international quality control systems for trial and food safety data submitted for registration, ensuring global consistency in chemical labelling, and harmonising with other local legislation. It also involves including additional data on the potential effects of the product on pollinators and vulnerable groups (especially children), as well as conducting risk assessments for aerial application of remedies—all aimed at aligning local legislation with international standards.

Although the Act is old, and we should continually amend our legislation to keep it current and aligned with international standards, a new Act is not the only way to introduce new regulatory requirements.

Q: We are often compared to European countries and faced with the fact that the EU has banned certain substances that we still use. Is this a fair comparison? What alternatives exist to current remedies, and are these being adopted?

Roleen: While it is important to consider how other countries regulate plant protection products – particularly our trading partners – it does not make sense to merely mirror their decisions without critical assessment.

Firstly, it is important to understand the difference between a product being banned and a product not being approved. In many cases, products in Europe are no longer approved, but this does not necessarily mean they are banned. When the European Commission reviews an active ingredient, registration holders are often required to submit additional studies to support continued approval and use. In some cases, the risks associated with a product may outweigh its benefits, leading the registration holder to discontinue it voluntarily. However, in other situations, an active ingredient may lose approval simply because the registration holder chooses not to defend it.

This decision does not necessarily mean that the substance is too dangerous or that the risks cannot be managed. It might instead be influenced by commercial factors – for instance, when the cost of gathering new data for risk assessment exceeds the expected income from ongoing sales, or when a company aims to promote a new molecule and phase out older ones to reduce market competition.

Secondly, local context is important. South Africa’s agricultural conditions differ significantly from those in Europe. We cultivate different crops, encounter different pests, and operate in distinct climates. An illustrative comparison, though not related to agriculture, is the Department of Health’s ongoing use of DDT for malaria vector control. While DDT is not allowed in agriculture, it remains crucial for malaria control because the mosquito vector has developed resistance to other insecticides. This situation does not apply to our European counterparts.

It is also worth noting that many European farmers are experiencing unrest as they struggle to stay globally competitive after losing access to several crop protection tools. EU farmers receive income support from their governments to offset these losses. For the period of 2023-27, the planned EU budget for income support is nearly €188 billion. Over the past 10 years, income support has accounted for almost half of farmers’ income – a significant share! South African farmers lack this safety net. Therefore, removing these tools without providing equivalent support could lead to severe economic consequences for local producers.

Lastly, although there are alternative remedies in some cases – and many South African farmers already include them as part of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programmes – numerous factors must be considered. Alternatives are not always exact replacements when they have identical label claims. For instance, biological products often offer pest suppression rather than full control, so it might not be feasible to use a biological remedy to control, for example, a phytosanitary pest where zero tolerance is required. Biological products also tend to be species-specific, targeting only one pest or a small group of pests, whereas chemical products generally provide broader control. Consequently, additional measures may still be necessary to manage remaining pest species, often requiring more products for effective control. Additionally, many newer alternatives are more costly, which could increase production expenses.

The ideal situation is a well-planned integrated pest management programme that combines chemical, biological, and cultural methods, minimising chemical applications and targeting them more precisely.

Find the Agbiz Media Day press release here: Press Release Agbiz Media Day WC

Caption: All the speakers at the Agbiz Media Day. At the back: Petru du Plessis, Michael Esmeraldo, Kobus Hartman, Dr Boitshoko Ntshabele, Temba Msiza. In front: Media Petersen, Annelize Crosby, Dr Ilze Trautmann, Fhumulani Ratshitanga, Paula Bester, Roleen le Grange and Wolfe Braude.