An Overview of Generic Pesticides
Product familiarity helps speed up decision-making. No one wants to do extensive research on all market options, so having a high-quality option with reliable performance takes away some of the burden of trial and error. As consumers, we do this in the grocery store, choosing Black Diamond or Unico over the store-provided brands of No Name and Compliments. They’re fundamentally the same product, but the differences between them mean we’re able to pick our favourites. The same is true for agrochemicals.
Agricultural chemical values and their movement are multi-billion-dollar industries with herbicides (weed management) contributing the most to these values. Globally, 30 per cent of the pesticide market is in generic brands and, in Canada, only around 15 per cent of agrochemicals have a generic counterpart. While, nominally, this is the minority of the market, generic chemicals are gaining reputation in the farming community with their performance similarities, improved cost per acre, and company collaborations. Chemical input decisions are made consciously with land and farmer safety in mind; there is no single best product or brand, which complicates the choice to switch to generic. However, the market is making generics increasingly available where 95 per cent of generic applications made to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) are for agricultural use.
Interestingly, the reputation of the name brand can complicate generic adoption. As the reputation of the name brand increases, so, too, does the active ingredient within the generic equivalent; the patent expiration of RoundUp in 2000 allowed glyphosate formulations to take up some space once occupied by its expensive competitor, and dropped the price of generic equivalents by half. Yet, an extremely successful brand can signal superior quality and push generic brands out of the marketplace; it’s similar to how Coca-Cola and PepsiCo dominate the cola market. Increased diversity reduces input costs overall, as it forces companies to price competitively, although rotating agrochemicals (not brands) to reduce herbicide resistance does more to reduce input (application) reliance.
The Cost of Fame
Independent of specifics, brand preference is a form of risk management, signalling to the farmer that that chemical formula is accurate and that it has been rigorously tested and screened for safety. Chemical performance, in this case, is inconsiderate of farm differences, which may alter the relative performance of a given pesticide, but the chemical must still complete the tasks written on the label. Similarities between a name-brand and generic chemical does not discredit farmer situations which may change the likelihood to adopt a new input, as a well-known product, alone, is less important to cost, application rate, farm needs, and growing conditions.
The difference between a branded chemical and a generic chemical might be less than you think. When a farmer buys a chemical, they are looking at the active ingredients (which act as the direct pest management) and the adjuvants (which are like additives to help pesticides perform), which both can be protected and patented. The name brand is typically the first formulation of the pesticide (or the first successful combination of substances to reduce pests) – a major reason behind why agrochemical companies want to protect their intellectual property with patents. When the active ingredient comes off patent (between 2023 and 2028, there are expected to be 19), generic versions can be developed. The presence of the main active ingredient remains unchanged, but the concentration and combination it is used with changes from brand to brand.
The manufacturing strength in the United States unfortunately increases the cost of name brand chemicals in Canada, highlighting the importance of cost-effective pest management and their availability. When innovations and technologies like biologicals and precision agriculture are too expensive for farmers, generics are strong economic competitors. This strength, however, differs by region and formulations for sale, with the price range for RoundUp in western Canada varying by $3 per litre, but the range for glyphosate treatments in general is closer to $33 per litre. Provided generics’ cost efficiency (i.e. value per acre sprayed) remains competitive, as they have been trending, market diversification and generic adoption will improve. Despite all the similarities between bottles, generic development faces additional financial burdens in its regulatory and commercialization processes.
Registering a Generic...
When an active ingredient comes off-patent, generic chemical formulations can be developed and must then move through its own PMRA approval process. In theory, it should be easier for generics to prove controlled modes of action and chemical safety, as the maximum residue limits are set for the chemical, not the brand. Unfortunately, to some, any chemical is too much chemical, which is best exemplified in the long-running critique of glyphosate. Glyphosate and its risks have not been assessed since 2017 and while to some, this signals a lack of oversight, the PMRA only reviews chemicals in 15-year cycles in part due to the strength in Canada’s strict evidence-based regulatory system. Increased legal challenges for RoundUp, which has become the glyphosate punching bag in part due to its name recognition, has increased the price of glyphosate to the point that herbicide sales are declining and the fate of future glyphosate availability is uncertain.
Prior knowledge and understanding of what chemicals are available and how they work are important steps to developing a generic equivalent but that is not the nature of intellectual property rights. Research, patenting, and the PMRA approval process costs time and money, often setting generic commercialization back by at least two years. Within those two years, farmers are free to use more costly (but available) brand names and may therefore develop a preference over which generics cannot overcome. In Canada, the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Health may provide the generic applicant with a list of relevant information sources to reduce the registration burden.
Canada’s 2025 budget aims to remove PMRA’s 15 year re-evaluation requirement and improve the speed at which herbicides (named or generic) safely enter the market. If this passes, it will be a great step towards diversifying the products available for farmers and improving our slow regulatory process, although it does nothing to address the previously denied information-sharing between brands and regulatory agencies. Chemicals are necessary tools in integrated pest management strategies; without physical and economic access to generics, our input systems will become increasingly concentrated, and the price of our food will be more reflective of the production challenges faced.
.
