❓ A parliamentary question addresses the ban on fenitrothion for on-farm grain storage in WA, contrasting it with practices in eastern states, and explores alternative treatments and their cost-effectiveness. The answer defends the WA approach due to insect resistance and market advantages.
AnsweredQoN 849Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GRAIN PRODUCERS — FENITROTHION
849. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the
Minister for Agriculture and Food:
I refer to
fenitrothion, which has been used since 1959.
(1) Why are
Western Australian grain producers who store grain on farms not allowed to use
this product even when our eastern states counterparts are allowed to?
(2) What
chemical has replaced fenitrothion?
(3) What is the
cost and performance effectiveness in comparison?
849. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the
Minister for Agriculture and Food:
I refer to
fenitrothion, which has been used since 1959.
(1) Why are
Western Australian grain producers who store grain on farms not allowed to use
this product even when our eastern states counterparts are allowed to?
(2) What
chemical has replaced fenitrothion?
(3) What is the
cost and performance effectiveness in comparison?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question.
(1) The
nationally mandated export standard is for nil tolerance of insects in export
grain. In Western Australia, it was decided that the best way to attain this
standard was to not use fenitrothion and similar chemicals on farms because of
predicted insect resistance to these chemicals. This has eventuated as a
significant problem for grain growers in other Australian states. This decision
was taken by the grain industry through the grain weevil liaison committee in
the mid-1980s. In WA, fenitrothion and other similar chemicals can be used for
storage, as long as they are applied by a registered seed cleaner. In addition,
bulk handlers may use the chemical, but in WA's case CBH Group has not
used fenitrothion on export grains since 1990.
(2) A system of
sealed silos and fumigation with phosphine is the Western Australian standard
treatment. Phosphine resistance is very rare in insects. This has allowed
Western Australian grain to be marketed as chemical residue-free, which is
important for markets such as Japan and South Korea. There is an alternative
treatment, diatomaceous dust, which can be used but does not meet the CBH
standard because it impacts on the grain flow rate.
(3) Phosphine is
a cheaper treatment. Phosphine usually only requires a single treatment in a
sealed silo. There are some additional initial capital costs to growers when
purchasing a sealed silo, but the return on that investment will last for
decades. The use of fenitrothion and similar chemicals in the eastern states
requires a combination of different chemicals to be applied, depending on the
insect species and resistance level, to achieve the nil insect requirement.
However, grain undergoing this treatment can fail to meet the chemical
residue-free marketing standard.
some notice of the question.
(1) The
nationally mandated export standard is for nil tolerance of insects in export
grain. In Western Australia, it was decided that the best way to attain this
standard was to not use fenitrothion and similar chemicals on farms because of
predicted insect resistance to these chemicals. This has eventuated as a
significant problem for grain growers in other Australian states. This decision
was taken by the grain industry through the grain weevil liaison committee in
the mid-1980s. In WA, fenitrothion and other similar chemicals can be used for
storage, as long as they are applied by a registered seed cleaner. In addition,
bulk handlers may use the chemical, but in WA's case CBH Group has not
used fenitrothion on export grains since 1990.
(2) A system of
sealed silos and fumigation with phosphine is the Western Australian standard
treatment. Phosphine resistance is very rare in insects. This has allowed
Western Australian grain to be marketed as chemical residue-free, which is
important for markets such as Japan and South Korea. There is an alternative
treatment, diatomaceous dust, which can be used but does not meet the CBH
standard because it impacts on the grain flow rate.
(3) Phosphine is
a cheaper treatment. Phosphine usually only requires a single treatment in a
sealed silo. There are some additional initial capital costs to growers when
purchasing a sealed silo, but the return on that investment will last for
decades. The use of fenitrothion and similar chemicals in the eastern states
requires a combination of different chemicals to be applied, depending on the
insect species and resistance level, to achieve the nil insect requirement.
However, grain undergoing this treatment can fail to meet the chemical
residue-free marketing standard.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.