Isocycloseram Berry Residue Limits — Take Action Now!
If you’ve landed on this page from social media, thank you for taking the time to learn more.
A decision is currently being considered in Australia that could significantly increase the legal pesticide residue limits permitted on berries for the insecticide isocycloseram. For some berry crops, the proposed increase is around 500 times higher than the current limit. Before this decision is finalised, thousands of Australians are asking one simple question: Can we please see the full safety assessment first?
We’re not claiming berries are unsafe. We’re not asking people to stop eating fruit. We’re asking for transparency, independent scrutiny and a precautionary approach before these higher residue limits become law.
Step 1: Sign the Petition
It takes less than 30 seconds. If you’ve already signed, thank you. Every signature helps demonstrate that Australians expect decisions affecting our food supply to be transparent and evidence-based.
Step 2: Email Your Senator (ThiS IS the MoSt Powerful Thing You Can Do)
If you have another five minutes, please email one or more of your senators.
A petition shows public support. A senator can ask questions in Parliament. They can request documents. They can seek greater parliamentary scrutiny.
A small number of personalised emails can often have more impact than thousands of petition signatures alone.
If you can, personalise the opening sentence with why this issue matters to you, as a parent, grandparent, health professional, farmer or consumer.
Copy-and-paSte letter to your Senator
Copy everything in the box, fill in the [brackets], and send. Change nothing else if you’re short on time.
To: Senator [Name] Subject: Isocycloseram berry-crop MRLs — please put the safety assessment on the public record
Dear Senator [Name],
I am a constituent in [your state/territory], and I am writing about the increase to the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for the insecticide isocycloseram on berry crops — reportedly up to roughly a 500-fold increase on cane berries — made through the agvet MRL Standard and the related Schedule 20 variation to the Food Standards Code.
Both instruments are exempt from parliamentary disallowance and from sunsetting, so this change to human-health limits in food takes effect with no parliamentary oversight and no expiry. Isocycloseram is not approved for use in the European Union. Before these limits are finalised, I ask you to help ensure the public-health basis is made public and independently examinable.
Specifically, I ask you to press the APVMA and the responsible Minister on the following:
- Will the APVMA table the dietary-exposure assessment it relied on to be satisfied these residues are not harmful to public health?
- The international acute reference dose (ARfD) was set on a neurotoxicity endpoint, not on the rat developmental endpoint (developmental no-effect level 7.5 mg/kg/day, based on a rare skeletal defect, bifid sternebrae — findings Health Canada characterised as “serious in nature”). On what endpoint is the APVMA’s acute benchmark based, and does it protect women of childbearing age and children at that developmental level?
- For berries, the residue definition is parent isocycloseram only. How does the risk assessment account for the metabolites and degradation products that occur in the fruit but are excluded from that definition, including the parent-plus-11 degradates the US EPA flagged as residues of concern, whose toxicity EPA assumed (rather than tested) to equal the parent’s?
- Does isocycloseram degrade to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) under this berry use pattern? TFA is a persistent PFAS “forever chemical” that the European Chemicals Agency’s scientific committee recommended in June 2026 be classified as toxic to reproduction (Category 1B). If TFA forms, at what level in the fruit, and how was it weighed in the assessment?
- Will the APVMA place its reasons on the public record before the Schedule 20 variation proceeds?
I would be grateful if you would consider an Order for the Production of Documents, questions at Senate Estimates, and a referral to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation regarding the exemption of this public-health instrument from disallowance and sunsetting.
Thank you for representing [your state/territory] on this.
Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Your suburb/postcode]
Who to Send it to (Suggested SenatorS)
You can write to any senator, but these are the highest-impact targets. Every Australian is represented by 12 senators for their own state (or 2 for their territory) — start with yours.
- Your own state/territory senators. Find them and their emails here: aph.gov.au/senators (Parliament House: “Senators and Members”). Writing as a constituent carries the most weight.
- Hon. Julie Collins MP — Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the responsible Minister for the APVMA).
- Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm — Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (a senator in the agriculture portfolio).
- Members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) Legislation Committee — this is the committee that examines the APVMA at Senate Estimates. Find the current membership at aph.gov.au → Committees → RRAT.
- Members of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation — the committee that scrutinises exemptions from disallowance and sunsetting. Current membership at aph.gov.au → Committees.
- Crossbench senators (Greens and independents) — several have standing interests in food safety, PFAS/”forever chemicals,” and pesticide regulation. Check their current portfolios/spokesperson roles on their own websites.
- Senator David Pocock (Independent, ACT) — senator.pocock@aph.gov.au
- Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Australian Greens, TAS) — senator.whish-wilson@aph.gov.au
- Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network, TAS) — senator.lambie@aph.gov.au
- Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation, QLD) — senator.roberts@aph.gov.au
Tip: send individually (not one email cc’ing everyone), and personalise the opening line. Ten personal emails beat a hundred identical ones.
Share this letter far and wide!
Credit & sources
Research, template letter and briefing prepared by Dr Gina Wood, and shared with the Organic & Regenerative Investment Cooperative. We’re grateful for their work making this technical decision legible and actionable.
Facts on this page are drawn from primary regulatory documents:
- FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR, 2023) and the WHO prequalification assessment — ADI 0.02 mg/kg; ARfD 0.5 mg/kg set on an acute neurotoxicity endpoint; developmental NOAEL 7.5 mg/kg / LOAEL 15 mg/kg, based on bifid sternebrae.
- US EPA isocycloseram new-active-ingredient review and November 2025 tolerance decision — 28 degradates; parent plus 11 flagged as drinking-water residues of concern; degradate toxicity assumed (not individually tested) to equal the parent’s.
- Health Canada PMRA (PRD2025-11) — fetal rat skeletal findings characterised as “serious in nature” and evidence of “increased sensitivity of the developing young.”
- European Chemicals Agency Risk Assessment Committee opinion (5 June 2026) — recommending TFA be classified toxic to reproduction (Category 1B), PMT and vPvM.
- APVMA / FSANZ Schedule 20 gazette notices.
- Isocycloseram is not approved for use in the EU. Its US approval is under challenge in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Center for Biological Diversity & Center for Food Safety v. EPA, filed January 2026, represented by Earthjustice).