CEO, Grain SA
IN RECENT MONTHS, TWO MAJOR REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS HAVE BROUGHT THE REALITY OF CONSUMER WELFARE, AGRICULTURAL REALITIES AND SCIENCE INTO SHARP FOCUS.
The first, a welcome decision by Minister John Steenhuisen and the Department of Agriculture to revoke Leaf Services’ designation as an assignee under the Agricultural Product Standards Act. The second, Cabinet’s intention to ban the pesticide Terbufos – a move that threatens grain productivity in regions with sandy soils. These decisions illustrate the volatility of regulatory shifts and the need for balance between oversight and agricultural sustainability.
The revocation of Leaf Services’ mandate, announced by the minister in May and gazetted in June, is a win for the grain industry and for accountable regulation. While intended to ensure quality, Leaf Services’ role since 2006 brought costly problems. These concerns were validated by a 2021 Appeal Board ruling, yet the inspection regime was still being advanced. Its implementation would have cost the grain industry tens of millions of rands, with limited value in return. The revocation was a corrective and a clear step towards balanced regulations that protect the public and support industry equally.
Minister Steenhuisen’s decision was grounded in legal and procedural failings under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and lack of meaningful consultation. It reflected a broader shift that sees regulation not as a blunt instrument, but as a lever for inclusive growth and food system resilience. Earlier this year, senior officials of the department emphasised the need for regulation to support inclusive growth and job creation. The minister’s decision on Leaf Services reflects this shift and signals progress for the sector.
This approach aligns with global best practices, as seen in countries like Denmark and New Zealand, where regulatory models prioritise transparency, consultation, and proportionality with a ‘regulatory continuum’ favouring the least intrusive, most effective mechanism to achieve policy goals. South Africa appears to be taking meaningful steps in the same direction under the guidance of Minister Steenhuisen.
But just as this shift offers hope, it is tempered by the troubling announcement that Cabinet intends to ban Terbufos. Grain SA recognises that Terbufos, like medicine, is a dangerous substance if too much is used and ineffective if too little is used. However, that is not a sufficient argument for its outright ban. As in the case of fuel and fertilisers, this technology can be applied to great benefit for society. Its risks are governed through a strict regulatory framework and does not require an outright ban. If its use is withheld without affordable and effective alternatives, producers risk lower yields, higher costs, and potential exit from the sector which is a threat for food security and economic stability. In many parts of the world, dangerous technologies are not banned but managed through regulatory frameworks that enable their responsible use.
It is concerning that regulatory decisions are increasingly being shaped by international trends and activist sentiment, rather than data-based science and local experience. What may be appropriate in the European Union, with its temperate climates and totally different agricultural base, may not be appropriate for South Africa’s unique economic realities and agro-ecological zones. One-size-fits-all solutions in the name of global alignment can have devastating consequences on producers and consumers.
The agricultural sector is increasingly confronted by regulatory trends driven more by political agendas than by scientific evidence or practical realities. Such developments risk limiting producers’ access to the tools and technologies they need to produce food efficiently and sustainably. Organised agriculture must respond with stronger advocacy for evidence-based regulation and clearer public engagement. It is vital to explain that all tools and technology have inherent risks but can be used safely. Producers need a complete set of options to feed a growing nation. Policy decisions must be based on both agricultural realities and long-term national interests.
If the revocation of Leaf Services reflects a positive shift in regulatory thinking, the Terbufos ban reminds us how quickly the pendulum can swing in the other direction. It’s a dual lesson that progress is possible, but fragile. Our collective responsibility – government, industry and civil society alike – is to build a regulatory system that is fair, enabling, and attuned to the realities of consumer welfare and farming on South African soil.
With a focus on agricultural progress and evidence-based advocacy, the grain industry can continue to weather the storms – both natural and institutional.
