QCAR has publicly thrown its support behind the principle that regulations affecting farming practices must rest on science that is complete, transparent, and open to scrutiny.

QCAR General Manager Tara Malpass said QCAR was actively questioning the science on behalf of its members.

“Following the June APVMA decision to remove paraquat from the sugarcane label—based on an incomplete environmental risk assessment relating to birds—we have helped establish an independent, cross-industry working group,” Tara said.

“This group will develop the evidence needed to close that data gap. If the science supports relisting, we will put that case to the APVMA. If it does not, we will accept that decision.”

She said this was a standard that should apply to all regulatory decisions.

“Farmers are entitled to see the evidence, understand how conclusions were reached, and have a pathway to respond when they believe data is incomplete.

“This is not an opposition to environmental regulation; cane farmers have invested heavily in practice change and continue to do so,” she said.

Good environmental outcomes and a viable cane industry are entirely compatible. Both depend on the science directing farm practices being sound and able to withstand review.

She said QCAR welcomed and supported that scrutiny.

For those interested in broader discussions surrounding data quality assurance and scientific review within the agricultural sector, further information on ‘checking the science’ can be found on the Dr Peter Ridd Facebook page.