New Zealand is quietly losing investment in crop protection innovation. This article highlights the increasing challenges APHANZ members are facing to make the case for innovation and investment in New Zealand.
Before an overseas research and development (R&D) company decides to bring a new crop protection product to New Zealand, they step up to the plate to answer three questions:
Q1: How long will approvals for R&D trials take?
Complex and long - STRIKE 1.
Q2: How long will full regulatory approval for new products take?
Ministry for Regulation review report estimate 5-8 years - STRIKE 2.
Q3: Can data generated in New Zealand be used overseas?
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) labs who do this work are scaling back - STRIKE 3.
For New Zealand, where being a small market size is already a disadvantage, the answers to these questions are critical. If the answers are uncertain, the business case falls apart.
Three strikes — and New Zealand is out.
Public debate in recent times has focused on regulatory approval timelines.
We’re now seeing the impact of other signals out in the field but not acted on in the playbook.
In 2021, a major New Zealand laboratory conducting Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) research—an international standard required for registering products globally—reported through AGCARM’s submission on the HSNO (Hazardous Substances and New Organisms) Act amendments that its residue testing work had fallen by more than 40 percent since 2016. This was not a short‑term decline. It showed that companies were already choosing to carry out their research elsewhere.
At the same time, companies seeking containment approvals from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) signal the process is becoming increasingly complex — driving up costs, pushing out global timelines for bringing innovation to market, and eroding confidence in approval timeframes.
Containment approvals are a temporary EPA approval allowing small quantities of product to be trialled in a controlled manner to obtain the necessary data for registration in New Zealand. Companies fully support strong safeguards to protect people and the environment, but say the process is weighed down by unnecessary red tape, including duplication with requirements already covered under the ACVM system. A backlog of containment approvals had previously built up, and while the EPA invested effort to clear it, the underlying issues remain.
Although there is currently no containment approval queue, companies are concerned that this signals a decline in R&D, rather than processing performance, and point to several areas.
There were just two approvals for agrichemical containments reported in EPA’s Hazardous Substance Updates (Jan-Mar 2026) and zero approved in March 2026.
APHANZ’s Pulse Check survey in February 2026, which included a deep dive into the impact on R&D also signal New Zealand being viewed as less attractive than other countries for launching innovation based on the regulatory approval system. Some of the company feedback from the survey below.
Due to complexity and cost, it is almost impossible to drive product development specifically for the NZ market.
Timeframes are a significant factor for making investment decisions - NZ is seen as not attractive at all for investment.
In late 2025, New Zealand’s major analytical laboratory signaled to industry that it would not be accepting GLP studies after the end of this year. Non‑GLP trials continue to support New Zealand’s regulatory requirements, but the data they generate is not accepted by most trusted overseas jurisdictions. For many R&D companies, that can determine whether future investment is viable. Trials that cannot support international registrations cannot justify international investment, leaving New Zealand a scientific cul‑de‑sac rather than a contributor.
APHANZ members, FieldTek and Eurofins/Kalyx are two of New Zealand’s key providers of GLP field trials and analytical services. They are seeing first‑hand the impact of declining R&D activity on their ability to support both local and global agrichemical innovation.
Sean Lange, Managing Director - FieldTek, says the delays and cost of agrichemical regulations in New Zealand have created a reduction in the supply of new globally developed actives and a demand for GLP residue studies.
“The withdrawal of our analytical laboratories GLP accreditation in New Zealand has forced us to look across to Australia for GLP residue analysis, which brings with it a raft of logistical issues.
“With the loss of this analytical capacity, the field GLP services we provide for global agrichemical companies will rapidly decline. New Zealand will struggle to provide GLP residue data for global purposes in the future if we lose our field and analytical capabilities now,” says Sean.
Jarrod Harvey, New Zealand Business Manager - Eurofins/Kalyx adds:
“Ongoing regulatory delays in New Zealand have contributed to a steady decline in demand for GLP trial work. As laboratories withdraw services and analytical capability erodes, New Zealand risks losing its ability to support globally acceptable GLP data packages—once that capability is gone, it will be very difficult to rebuild.”
The result is predictable. Companies have already advised they are exiting. Products are trialled elsewhere. New tools reach overseas growers first — and may never reach New Zealand at all.
The result is predictable: some companies have already exited, trials are shifting offshore, and new tools are reaching overseas growers first — with some unlikely to reach New Zealand at all
Hitting the home run
In February 2025 a Ministry for Regulation review on the regulatory approval process for agricultural and horticultural products also supported greater uptake of Group Standards as part of Recommendation 5 in the review report.
For truly experimental substances, which are the exception, industry fully support the EPA’s view that these should remain under containment.
This is not about lowering standards. It is about certainty, international alignment, and whether New Zealand remains connected to global innovation — or cuts itself off.
Right now, R&D companies say New Zealand is striking out – they are no longer stepping up to the plate. Innovation is leaving quietly, and increased costs will come loudly: borne by growers, with flow on impacts on productivity, and the long‑term resilience of our food system.
Industry stands ready to work with the EPA to progress the long‑standing Group Standard proposal — or a viable alternative — needed to help New Zealand hit the home run.
The playbook is there. We are calling for regulators to give our innovators and investors the best chance to step up to the plate and hit the home run.
Comments are closed.