How bizarre, how bizarre!

In sport, one of the golden rules is that you never complain about the referee, unless you win. The reason is obvious: if you win you can’t be seen as a winger.

On that basis I’m prepared to be critical of the NZ Food Safety Authority’s decision to not audit ‘novel’ fertiliser importers, manufacturers and traders under the ACVM Cost Recovery Provisions.

Novel fertilisers fall outside of mainstream ‘conventional’ and ‘organic’ products, and cover a grab bag of products some of which claim to improve pasture or plant growth through processes that often defy good science, or is said to be ‘proved’ by research and testing that does not enjoy peer support.

In its latest ‘Slice of Life’ review of the fertiliser industry, the Authority’s reviewer recommended that a targeted selection of importers, manufacturers and traders of novel fertilisers should be subject to a formal audit.

The Authority’s rather weak response to this recommendation is: Fertilisers are considered low risk and a formal audit programme is considered as placing an undue compliance cost on this industry sector. It explains the Authority responds to suspicions or allegations of non compliance rather than pro-active monitoring and audit.

The fertiliser industry feels let down by this decision. While mainstream players have to jump through hoops and comply with endless requirements (which we accept on the basis of good governance) those that practice at the margin of the nutrient spectrum ignore the rules with impunity.

On approaching two of these novel fertiliser vendors, the Authority’s reviewer notes in the report the vendors: ‘actively avoided or, in one case, signalled their refusal to be interviewed’.

From our experience not only do some of these novel fertiliser merchants often make the most outrageous claims for their products, they also often have the cheek to imply that those who have to meet stringent controls before they market their products are hoodwinking farmers.

To mimic the words of a well know pop song: ‘how bizarre, how bizarre’.

And why have I the courage to complain about the Authority’s decision? In commenting on Fert Research’s two member companies – Ballance and Ravensdown – the Authority stated: [they] had very good awareness of NZFSA jurisdiction and ACVM Act requirements … They provided clear evidence that they were operating under strict process control, ensuring that product they produced was labelled appropriately ‘fit for purpose’.

Hilton