Feedback on Agchem Forum 2008

A real buzz at Agchemforum, part of the Chemical Industries Regulations (CIR) series of events Photo: Ryan Thomas

Informative, comprehensive, topical, intense and controversial - just some of the words delegates used to sum up this years Agchem Forum 2008.

This year's conference began with a highly charged session which examined the potential impact of the draft regulation and addressed the challenges of designing a policy that balances demand for food and safe use of pesticides in Europe.

Opening plenary panel session. Speakers, from left: Herman Fontier, EFSA; Mrs Hennicot Schoepges, European Parliament; Richard Davis, PSD; Hiltrud Breyer, European Parliament and Dominic Dyer, Crop Protection Association UK Photo: Ryan Thomas

With speakers representing those driving the regulatory reforms and those directly impacted by the proposals, our chairman Terry Tooby certainly had his work cut out ensuring that all speakers were given an opportunity to put forward their views during the panel session.

There were plenty of questions for our panellists before time run out, so if you were at the session but did not have the opportunity to voice your opinion, please post a comment to share your thoughts.

Following the morning coffee break, the event then split into three sessions: Human Risk Assessments, Environmental Risk Assessments and Regulation of PPPs and MRL Regulation.

Drinks at CIR: The glasses did not stay full for long! Photo: Ryan Thomas

Within the Human Risk Assessment stream, endocrine disruptors again proved to be a subject of much debate along, with all of the talks that dealt with Cumulative Risk Assessments.

For the Environmental stream, the recent publication of EFSA guidance on birds and mammals ensured that the session on the new guidance and panel on addressing failure rates were met with much enthusiasm.

Croc meat anyone? Photo: kevinzim/sxc

Finally, in the PPP Regulation stream, it wasn't surprising to find that delegates were keen to get the latest information on all of the subjects associated with the new proposed regulation.

The new day on MRLs also proved popular. I learnt something new as before, sitting in on the session. Any sentence which had contained the words "crocodile" and "safety" would have instantly made me think about sharp teeth and nasty bites rather than MRL considerations of their meat!

Also new for this year's was the launch of our new exhibition, Chemicals Industries Regulations (CI), to run alongside Agchem Forum and the other events in this series.

Marie, Sarah and Lucy make sure you get the 2009 dates in your diary nice and early! Photo: Ryan Thomas

Our exhibitors reported a busy few days (with both delegates and exhibitors enjoying the networking drinks in the exhibition area at the end of day one.

Next year sees the conference and exhibition leaving Berlin to take residence in Barcelona. The dates have been set for 23-24 September, so we hope to see you there!

Off-patent innovation

How do you beat that in-built obsolescence in some products? We will discuss that at our event

The summer months have been spent researching and putting together the conference agenda for the last agrochemical conference that we are holding in 2008: Crop Protection: Post Patent Products, IPR and Parallel Trade.

Although I've previously researched this topic when speaking with some of my contacts this year, there seemed to be a shift in content that they wanted on the agenda.

People that I have spoken with are now talking about innovation with off-patent products and product lifecycle management, with a big drive towards looking for new commercial opportunities for old molecules and developing strategies to improve a molecule's competitive profile, and also expand a molecule's scope or extend it's patent life.

It seems as if the boundaries between innovator companies and top end generics are blurring, with both types of companies conducting more original research with old molecules.

It's not all new, though.

The result of late potato blight. We need science to help combat this problem Photo: Scott Bauer/ARS - USDA

Once again, the regulatory requirements and impacts of the revision to 91/414 were near the top of most people's "must-have sessions" (Warnings mount on food impact of EU agrochemical plans, Agrow.com, April 30th, 2008).

Within the regulatory landscape, the topic that seems to be causing most interest at the moment is mutual recognition - in particular, the differences in attitudes towards mutual recognition that exist across Europe.

The ECJ judgement in France vs. Commision relating to common origin was also flagged up as something that needed to be put on the agenda.

These topics, coupled with the impacts of AIR, 91/414, will mean that the six regulators that we have confirmed to speak should have plenty to talk about (and possibly many questions from the attendees).

With the agenda now complete, it is evident that an event that was originally conceived as a meeting place specifically for generic companies has transformed into an event that will serve any company working with old, off-patent molecules.

With the brochure now complete, I hand over to the marketing team. And if they have been as busy as me, your copy of the brochure should be landing on your desk soon!

My next job is getting ready for Berlin and the Agchemforum - I'll be reporting back on that event later next month.

To register for the event, email us or call +44 (0) 20 7017 7481.

Up in smoke? Not really

Accept it: The cancer stick is not going away any time soon Photo: Ria Hills

On 14th July, we published a story on the effort by scientists to significantly reduce the level of harmful carcinogens in cured tobacco leaves (Research helps reduce cancer-causing compounds in tobacco).

I have kicked the habit, developed during my rookie years at a newspaper, more than a decade ago. Although I am not a great fan of smoking and smokers, I’ve had the opportunity to work with the tobacco companies in the past. Not for a life science title, of course.

I found the people working at these companies quite friendly. They weren’t necessarily smokers, too. Some, like an Asia Pacific-based executive from Imperial Tobacco, were well-known for their philanthropic works outside the industry.

Unlike some people from other maligned industries, they readily admitted to me that smoking is harmful. It is. But so is alcohol. And yet alcohol is liberally promoted, sacrilegiously on TV around Christmas time, as a product of status and a symbol of goodwill.

The tobacco people’s attitude is: “We are just catering to the consumer’s demand.” The tobacco industry is not going to throw the business away any time soon because so much money is involved. So many livelihoods depend on the nicotine cravings of millions of people.

Of course, the regulatory bodies are not always tolerant of tobacco. But the tobacco industry, always imaginative, is not without backup plans. In some parts of Latin America, the industry utilise its knowledge in the management of the tobacco supply chain to offer a new kind of service: third-party logistics.

It is not uncommon to find a tobacco company in that region providing logistical services to businesses outside the tobacco industry.

The other plan is to commission scientists to develop cigarettes that are not carcinogenic. That’s where agbiotech comes in.

I am still not sure about non-carcinogenic cigarettes. But if Bayer and Icon Genetics succeed in developing tobacco plants that can be used as drugs to fight diseases such as cancer and to vaccinate against the common cold (Bayer uses tobacco plants to develop patient-specific drugs, 21st July), then hats off to them.

It will give tobacco growers a good reason to do business.

Talking of tobacco, in 2004, a life science journalist went to a summit on genetic modification (GM) held in Brazil, where the Latin American and Caribbean countries discussed the state of GM developments in the region.

The Brazilian representative, he informed me, readily admitted that although there are laws in place to limit the use of GM technology in agriculture, the Brazilians simply shrugged them off and went on to cultivate millions and millions of hectares of GM soybean.

The Cuban representative, however, found himself in a different predicament. His department succeeded in developing tobacco plants that were resistant to blue mold virus. But his boss wasn’t too happy about it. He was told to get rid of all the GM tobacco plants.

It wasn’t that the boss has any moral issues. Far from it.

The representative was told by his boss that Cuban cigars are known for its quality and purity. People have an image of Cuban cigars being rolled on the thighs of virgins. Using genetically engineered tobacco implies ‘technological advancement’. It would simply shatter the romantic illusion and the public perception of ‘tobacco purity’.

Agchem Forum 2008: Endocrine disruption a main issue

The full conference agenda for this year's Agchem Forum has only been on the market for a couple of weeks but it is already attracting considerable interest.

Whilst researching the event back in January a number of people set me the challenge of trying to put together a plenary session made up of the main stakeholders.

I didn’t quite manage to get them all on (next year maybe!) but by bringing together representatives of the European Parliament, EFSA, PSD and Industry I’m hoping that we’re going to get the conference underway with some lively debate.

Given the recent international press coverage on demand for food and price increases, the theme of the panel, Designing a Regulatory Policy that Balances Demand for Food and Safe Use of Pesticides, is now very much in the spotlight. I’m going to try and get some questions together for the panel before the event so if there is something that you’d like the experts to address leave a comment.

An extreme example of eutrophication of the Potomac River, US, evident from its bright green water, caused by a dense bloom of cyanobacteria. Eutrophication is an increase in chemical nutrients in an ecosystem. Delegates are interested to know about the effects of agrochemicals on the environment Photo: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Wikipedia

Whilst researching the agenda, it became apparent just how much has happened in the areas of human risk assessments, environmental risk assessments and regulations since we last run the event. I probably spoke to over 80 people when researching and there was a lot of continuity when quizzing people on what they wanted to see on this years agenda.

In human toxicology, top of most people's lists were testing for endocrine disruption (both defining endocrine disruption and testing strategies - this also came up when researching the two other areas). The EFSA opinion on cumulative risk currently underway also means that there seems to be a need for information in this area.

Finally, people were eager to hear about developments in the field of exposure (models and guidance).

For environmental risk assessments, more and more people seem keen to find out how exposure and effect can be better linked, and any ideas that may help break down the barriers between two traditionally different areas.

Apples going to waste in Murcia, Spain. EU agrochemical legislation could potentially make the production of many crops problematic Photo: Fran GC

Number one subject was the revisions to the birds and mammals guidance documents and how regulators and industry would be using the recently published guidance.

In the regulatory stream, as expected any information relating to the revision of 91-414 including proposals on criteria for active substances, comparative assessments, substitution and data protection were all rated as high interest. Something that we have done slightly different for this year is introduce a dedicated day on MRLS - Regulation food and safety in response to the hurdles or challenges that companies are facing when working with the new regulation.

After a busy few months trying to identify who the best speakers would be and securing contributions, the agenda finally finished with over 60 sessions (made up of presentations and dedicated discussion time to allow questions to be put to the experts and ideas shared). The brochure can be downloaded at http://www.agchemforum.com/

If you think that there is anything missing or are interested in participating in this or future events, leave me a note.

Picture this

Adrian Riley: "All of my photos for the butterfly book recently published were taken using a compact Nikon 4500." Photo: Enterprise Io

You don’t get to discuss photography in the context of crop protection that often, but Google can really throw up some interesting details that enable you to join the dots.

While googling for the photograph of Dr Ian Denholm to illustrate Dr Jackie Bird’s article on the EU agrochemical plans, I came across a very interesting website called Enterprise Io.

It so happens that Dr Denholm is one of Enterprise Io’s panel of experts which also include researchers John Bater, Dr Jason Chapman and bird photographer Gary Thoburn.

Founded in January 2007 by former Rothamsted scientist Adrian Riley, Enterprise Io offers tailor-made trips or single days out to see butterflies, dragonflies, and also birds.

It also offers other services such as a comprehensive online photo library of butterflies, dragonflies, moths, birds and orchids, identification surgery, ecological surveys, editing and proof-reading, database services, and the monthly Enterprise Io magazine.

The online photo gallery is currently being used as a ‘shop window’ to promote the tours. I asked Riley what camera he uses for his photography. “All of my photos for the butterfly book recently published were taken using a compact Nikon 4500,” he said.

“Yes, really. Even with the most basic of equipment, success can be achieved if you understand how, where and when to 'hunt' your quarry. Bird photography is something I am not qualified to talk about. It is also an extremely competitive field. Thank heavens we have Gary Thoburn on board.”

There is a similarity, I find, in scientists and photojournalists. They observe and gather visual information. And they like their cameras.

I asked Riley if he agrees with this, and he said: “Scientists have enquiring minds and like to collect as much data as possible before drawing conclusions.

“I took about 100 shots of an orchid today (on the day of the interview) so that I could identify which form of which species I was dealing with. It worked!”

Aris Chloridis, Dow AgroSciences project leader, is an accomplished photographer Photo: Salina Christmas

Another scientist I met who is really into his photography is Aris Chloridis, one of the project leaders for Dow AgroSciences.

At last year’s Agrow Awards in Glasgow, we spoke at great length about camera models, lenses and such. Chloridis said he observes and gathers plenty of visual information on plants for his job, and that occasionally, in his spare time, he holds photo exhibitions of his personal works in Greece.

Considering that scientific research and photography are closely linked, you would think there are many life science photography competitions out there.

The annual Wellcome Image Awards is one such event, backed by a very famous organisation. And then there is the British Council Greece Science Photography competition for kids aged 15 and below.

Last year there was the Annual Nexxus Life Science Award in Scotland. But none of these competitions have the same eminence as, say, World Press Photo.

But why not? Life science photography is still photography – a form of portraiture if you like – and when used to support a piece of news, not just a research paper, can still be considered as photojournalism.

A very busy Registration of Agrochemicals Conference

Panel Session-Terry Tooby JSC International, Wolfgang Reinert European Commission, Anne-Cecile Cotillon, European Commission, Hurbert Deluyker, EFSA Photo: Ryan Thomas

Two very unusual things happened at this years Registration of Agrochemicals in Europe conference that took place earlier this week in Brussels............

1- The grey skies and rain that we normally associate with holding a conference in Brussels at this time of year were replaced with blue skies and brilliant sunshine

2- The chairman (Terry Tooby from JSC International and a regular fixture at the event) when summing up the conference finished with a cautionary but optimistic note (even more surprising than the blue skies and sunshine!)

This year's conference was once again very well attended and at times had over 170 people in the sessions. This is the 5th year that I've been involved in organising this meeting and it was good to see a number of familiar faces at the event in addition to people attending for the first time. A number of delegates commented at the end of the event that this was the best conference that they could recall on this subject and so I'd like to thank all of the speakers who contributed to this event.

The conference kicked off with updates from the EU Commission and EFSA. Our Commission speakers were made to work very hard as in addition to taking questions on the papers they presented they were also on hand for the majority of the event where they were able to answer a number of questions that arose in later sessions.

Panel Moderator Terry Tooby, JSC International. Panellists - Vibeke Bernson, Swedish Chemicals Agency, Kostas Markakis Ministry of Agriculture Greece, Claudio Mereu, Field Fisher Waterhouse, Mathias Uteb BVL & Diane Castle Syngenta Photo: Ryan Thomas

The session that generated most discussion on Day 1 was a panel made up of speakers looking at the European Parliament Recommendations and Impact on the Agrochemical Industry. With speakers covering a range of topics including cut off/hazard triggers, zonal approach , parallel trade and options for data protection and sharing there was certainly plenty for attendees to discuss with a number of different points of views exchanged between industry and member state representatives.

At the end of the session attendees continued the discussions over a cool glass of beer/wine in the networking drinks reception which thanks to the sunshine we were able to hold on the hotel terrace.

Day 2 opened with an update from Prof Tony Hardy, "Central Science Laboratory on Progress with Revisions to Guidance Documents", with industry representatives once again keen to find out why industry seems to have less input in the development of these documents.

Chris Orpin, Dow AgroSciences and a new speaker for 2008, gave some real industry insight with a case study on Mancozeb which was well received by all attendees.

In the afternoon regulators, from Spain, Finland, Czech Republic and France gave updates on the zonal approach (this is a topic that we have included the past few years but this yea,r due to a number of projects taking plac,e real life examples were discussed).

Chris Orpin, Dow AgroSciences presents to a full conference room Photo: Ryan Thomas

The event finished with talks from Syngenta, BVL and EFSA on MRLs which once again promoted a number of questions from industry to both EFSA and Member State representatives.

As always, there was as much discussion going on during all of the breaks as in the conference room. We'll be notifying all conference attendees about this blog so if there are any themes that you'd like to keep the discussion going on or if you have any feedback on the conference then please leave a comment.

So that was the beginning of the week and now that I'm back in the office my attention is turning to the next big Agrochemical event Agchemforum. This event is being held in Berlin in September. This weeks meeting showed there's a lot to discuss in the area still, so hopefully I'll be seeing some of you in Berlin.
Ryan

Agrochemical conference team back from the U.S

The past few weeks have been pretty busy for the Informa agrochemical conference team. Having just returned from Washington D.C, US where we launched the Regulation of Crop Protection Chemicals in the US we are now turning our attention to the annual “Regulation of Agrochemicals in Europe” conference that is taking place in Brussels 13- 14 May (www.informa-ls.com/agrochemicals).

The Washington meeting was run in partnership with CropLife America and was an information packed (and rather hectic) 2 days. The agenda was made up of over 40 speakers (needing good time management skills from the chairs), including 8 speakers from the EPA and examining some of the hottest issues taking place the other side of the Atlantic.

More on Informa Life Sciences event 15th Annual Registration of Agrochemicals in Europe; Crowne Plaza Brussels City Centre, Brussels, Belgium Tel: +44(0)20 7017 7481 registrations@informa-ls.com www.informa-ls.com/agrochemicals

The event covered a diverse range of topics including The Endangered Species Act, Ecological Risk Assessments, Inerts, Joint Reviews, Endocrine Screening and MRLs (in true regulatory style some topics proved to be more controversial than others which ensured that there was lots of discussion).

Top of most peoples lists of concerns at the moment seemed to be the Endangered Species Act, Joint Reviews and MRLs. Europe too had a mention with particular attention being paid to how changes in the EU system (especially relating to MRLs) are set to impact the rest of the world.

Seeing how the US industry clearly had some thoughts/opinions on the EU sytem I was wondering what would happen if I posed the same question to an EU audience about the US system. If you currently have products on the US market what are your biggest concerns/challenges with some of the changes being introduced or discussed within the EPA- leave a comment in order that we can see if there are any common themes.

Anyone that wants more information on the US event some of the topics discussed at the event are currently being written up as a series of articles that are/will be appearing in Agrow.