Adapting available compounds

Press, 24 April 1980, Page 11

Adapting available compounds

By R. W. (BOB) MOFFAT, research manager with Ivan Watkins-Dow in New Plymouth, outlines his view of the future facing the pesticide industry, looking at such aspects as research costs, new product criteria, new areas of research and public opinion: The type and amount of pesticides used in New Zealand are dependent on the developments in the United States and Europe so conditions in these areas, directly dictate what will become available here. This highlights two important features in our country’s position: the first being that our total pesticide rse is less than 0.5 per cent of the total world production; and second, none of New Zealand’s indigenous pests oi* diseases are of sufficient market size to warrant development of a product designed specifically for their control. Thus; New Zealand manufacturers are primarily concerned with adapting available compounds to suit local needs. In the United States it costs in the order of SISM and takes from 10-12 years from the time of synthesis of a new compound to the marketing of a new product.

Many companies now consider that the business risk is not worthwhile unless the potential market for a compound exceeds S3SM to SSOM a year,

despite the fact that only 25 of the present products market exceeds SIOM.

Apart from the normal inflationary conditions which have existed, the major reason for this rapid rise in costs is the dramatic increase jn tUe amount and type of data needed to support product registration and the maintenance of those products already on the market. The total research budget of a major research orientated agricultural chemical company these days is roughly split into twothirds for maintenance and one-third for the active synthesis of new compounds. This does not just stop with industry as much research in both universities and gpvemment is .of the “reinvent the wheel” or regulatory type. The number of significant new products reaching the market has reduced from a steady stream to a mere trickle over the past 15 years.

This is partly due to the rising cost but also related to the significant advances made with new products introduced in recent times. It is much more difficult to improve efficiency over a standard giving 90 per cent control than it is for one giving a 70 per cent result. Nevertheless, countries continue to demand complete absence of certain

pests and diseases or lack of damage on much of the produce grown for human consumption. Some of the major characteristics for an ideal pesticide of the future are: • At least 99 per cent effective for whatever job it is required. • Residual in or on the plant or pest so it necessitates a minimum number of treatments (preferably one) in any one season. • Activity specific to the particular disease, pest or plant. • Must have no adverse effects to man or the environment under recommended use or gross misuse- „ . • More cost efficient than the current standard treatment. These characteristics could be expanded but they are sufficient to demonstrate that it is a major challenge which many would say will be very difficult to achieve.

Scarce resources of technological skills and investment must be released from defensive activity if reasonable progress is to be made.

These include, for instance, the use of synthetically-pfoduced hormones which affect the life cycles and breeding characteristics of insects; the addition of chemicals to the plant or soil which assist the forage plants and crops to make more effi-

cient use of soil nutrients; the use of herbicides and insecticides in conservation tillage techniques for establishing crops; the more widespread use of growth regulators to lessen the effect of environment on production or act as growth promotants giving increased yields. These are just a few of many projects which will undoubtedly become commonplace in the future. The progress of many research programmes will slow down or fail unless there is a marked change in attitudes of some sections of the community. Pesticide research worldwide is being stifled by. a mass of regulations, many

primarily produced by political -over-reaction to a very vocal minority. No-one can disagree that an informed public should play a part in deciding on the safe and efficient use of pesticides but criticism must be constructive, not destructive.

The present position taken by minority groups, however well meaning their motives, is performing a disservice to society by channelling scarce resources of technology away from relatively more important health and environmental issues.

Industry must increase its efforts to explain to the public the requirements of pesticides.