Author: Danny LeFeuvre, CEO AHBIC 

Issue: May 2026

Subject: An important insight into how varroa miticides are approved for use in Australia. The differences between emergency permits and full product registration and what role AHBIC actually plays in the process.  

There has been commentary across industry about the APVMA process for varroa miticides and what role AHBIC plays. It is important to separate three things: emergency permits, full product registrations, and AHBIC's advocacy role. 

Emergency permits 

Emergency permits are temporary approvals used to legalise the use of an agvet chemical product, or active constituent, to address an emergency situation. The APVMA states that the final decision on whether a use qualifies as an emergency use rests with the APVMA, and they often will not approve multiple permits for the same active ingredient, or where alternatives exist. 

Anyone can apply for an emergency permit, but applications are usually led by a state jurisdiction or sometimes industry bodies. In the varroa response, many treatment permits have been held by NSW DPIRD because of its role as the lead agency. AHBIC also holds permits where appropriate, such as for copper naphthenate but does not hold any varroa treatment permits. 

Emergency permits are assessed against APVMA criteria and are generally conservative. The APVMA must be satisfied there is adequate information to manage risks to users, bees, the environment and trade. Where there is inadequate scientific data provided the permit will reflect limitations on use. 

AHBIC has strongly advocated for access to emergency treatment options, but AHBIC does not determine or has input into permit labels, withholding periods, treatment limits or other conditions. Those decisions sit with the APVMA. 

Full product registration 

Full registration is a separate and more detailed process. Before an agvet chemical product can be legally supplied, sold or used in Australia, it must be registered by the APVMA. 

For a product registration, the manufacturer or its Australian representative submits the application with a proposed label and supporting scientific data. The APVMA must be satisfied that the product meets safety, efficacy, trade and labelling criteria. 

This means label claims must be backed by evidence. For example, if a manufacturer wants a label to allow multiple treatments in a season, the data must support safety, efficacy, residues and resistance management. If the evidence is limited, the label will be conservative. 

AHBIC has no role in assessing or providing input into full registrations. That process is confidential and between the applicant and the APVMA. Once a product is registered, any label change or variations must also be submitted by the manufacturer (not AHBIC) with supporting data. Lobbying AHBIC or the APVMA will not, by itself, change a registered label. It is the manufacturer that must be convinced to propose changes. 

The issue of influence and industry capture 

The APVMA has also been the subject of significant scrutiny. A key review published in July 2023 by Clayton Utz commissioned by the government addressed serious allegations raised through Senate Estimates about industry influence. Whilst the report found there had been no evidence of inappropriately registered products it did identify a perception risk. It noted the regulator's strong focus on approval timeframes and its level of engagement with industry stakeholders. 

Importantly the report highlighted the structural reality of the system, in that, while industry, including AHBIC, can advocate for access to tools and highlight operational impacts, it cannot influence regulatory outcomes, data assessments or label settings. Product registrations, label claims and use patterns are determined solely through APVMA's statutory, evidence-based assessment process, and any changes require formal applications supported by data from the product registrant. 

In practical terms, this means AHBIC cannot "get a label changed" or alter use conditions through advocacy - its role is limited to facilitating industry need, encouraging investment, and supporting the generation of the evidence required for regulatory consideration. 

What AHBIC Does 

AHBIC's role is advocacy, coordination and intelligence gathering. This includes: 

• Encouraging manufacturers to register products in Australia. Over the last 4 years AHBIC has met with every manufacturer that has registered varroa treatments globally.  

• Advocating for emergency access where identified gaps exist, including to NSW DPIRD and the APVMA to allow for multiple emergency permits for Australian Beekeepers 

• Working with R&D providers such as AgriFutures to identify emerging control options and what needs to be done to bring them to market in Australia. Now, fungal control, RNAi control and screening of other agricultural miticides to find new effective varroa control are being developed.  

• Monitoring global miticide developments and resistance issues and communicating practical information to beekeepers.  

• Working with suppliers to assist with bottle necks or regulatory barriers to supply. 

This aligns with AHBIC's strategic role as the national voice for the honey bee and pollination industries, particularly in biosecurity, market integrity and industry resilience. 

Final message 

The miticide registration system is evidence-based, confidential and regulator-led. AHBIC can advocate for access and help build the case for industry need, but it cannot write labels, approve products or override APVMA decisions. That independence matters. The industry needs timely access to effective varroa treatments, but it also needs confidence that products are safe for bees, beekeepers, consumers, trade and the environment.