GRDC's Bayer deal under the microscope

The Herbicide Innovation Partnership (HIP) was set up in 2015 as the GRDC sought to ensure there was further private sector research and development (R&D) into novel modes of action to control ryegrass, Australia's major problem weed, along with another 11 weed species identified as significant issues in Australian cropping systems.

The GRDC entered into the HIP with Bayer with a view to leapfrogging other nations in terms of Bayer's research priorities.

Via the HIP, Australia was promoted to a 'priority one' country in Bayer's global development program, putting the specific weed control needs of Australian grain growers on an equal footing with much larger markets regarding herbicide development and commercialisation.

However, Western Australian agronomist and 4Farmers Australia general manager Bill Crabtree said the deal, which has seen tens of millions of dollars of GRDC funds invested, was yet to provide sufficient return on investment and that Bayer was not necessarily looking at all avenues that could be beneficial for Australian farmers.

"A recent story in Ground Cover (GRDC's magazine) suggests that without the HIP Australia might miss out on Bayer's molecules," Mr Crabtree, whose organisation is also involved in the crop protection space, said.

However, he said that an old compound that had shown good promise in controlling ryegrass had been registered elsewhere globally but not in Australia needed to be looked at further.

"There is a molecule called isoproturon, which Bayer have all the global data for, it is a molecule from the 5C group that kills even large ryegrass and is safe in wheat and barley."

Mr Crabtree called upon Bayer and the GRDC to push for its registration.

The GRDC said in a statement that the regulatory process would have to be adhered to in regards to isoproturon.

"Isoproturon, initially developed in the 1970's, is not an approved active or a registered product in Australia, a full toxicology package to contemporary standards (including human toxicology, public health, worker exposure and environmental safety) will be required, the statement said.

It said it did not participate in the toxicology assessment stage of product development.

"GRDC has a longstanding principle that it is a registrant's responsibility to determine the underlying hazard of the compound they wish to register for use in Australia and to develop the required regulatory toxicological data package."

"This data package needs to be developed by the registrant before GRDC will consider co-investing in the development of suitable Australian use patterns typically targeting grain and forage residues, and/or targeted safety and/or efficacy field studies."

Mr Crabtree also criticised the transparency of the HIP.

"It's purpose is to find new chemistries to kill ryegrass, among other weeds, and secondly to look for a new knockdown."

"The GRDC says it will get royalties from successes, but I doubt that a transparent audit will ever occur."

Woomelang, Victoria farmer Chris Kelly was another critical of the deal at the time and remains dubious of its value.

"I don't feel like giving money to a global giant like Bayer is the best use of Australian grain growers' levies," he said.

"We are told we are now a priority but are we just going to have to keep paying all the big crop protection businesses for them to keep doing research relevant to Australian growers."

South Australian grain grower and former GRDC director Andy Barr was on the GRDC board when it decided to set up the HIP.

"We worked through those issues regarding whether this was the right path but what we saw was the decrease in effective products farmers had to control ryegrass and faced with the long lag time to bring new molecules to market we thought we had to act," Dr Barr said.

"The project is going to be a long term thing before it pays off but if we end up with something we can take and use to control our problem weeds than it will be worth it."

A Bayer spokesperson said the HIP would benefit Australian grain growers.

"Our partnership with GRDC aims to identify and develop new herbicide modes of action, putting Australian growers at the forefront of herbicide molecule development to support the future sustainability of modern crop production systems in Australia for decades to come," the spokesperson said.

There have been some promising breakthroughs as part of the partnership.

The Bayer spokesperson said the HIP investment has resulted in several promising new chemistries for new herbicide modes of action.

"If these candidates progress to commercialisation, they will have been tested in Australia earlier and optimised for Australian weeds and growing conditions, meaning they will be a better fit for Australian growers and farming systems."

However Mr Crabtree said he felt as part of the deal Bayer should pass over its data on other compounds to Australian regulators.

"Now that Bayer have taken funding from Australian farmers via GRDC it seems it should be incumbent on them to pull out this old molecule isoproturon and register it."

"If they are not prepared to do that then I believe they should be obliged to release their old data to the APVMA."

"This would allow others to use that data, and the APVMA could then tell others what extra data is needed to get it registered."

He argued the need for a full registration process for isoproturon was overkill given it was registered and used all over the world for 45 years, although due to commercial concerns it had never been registered in Australia.

In highlighting the difficulties in registering new products with the APVMA the Bayer spokesperson pointed out the cost in registering new active ingredients, saying that a CropLife Australia study had found it cost $465 million on average to just register a new molecule.