Condisoil. The process to date.

Summary of the Position as at 27 July 2017:
- Lynas initially submitted to SIRIM in 2015 a sample of the product now known as CondiSoil
- Before Lynas commenced pilot field trials in 2015, Lynas received SIRIM reports confirming the product was safe and Department of Environment (DOE) approval
- In 2017, SIRIM reconfirmed the safety of the CondiSoil formulation that was used in the pilot field trials and it is that CondiSoil formulation for which Lynas is now seeking DOE approval and Department of Agriculture registration
- In 2017, Lynas also submitted to SIRIM a new variation of CondiSoil that Lynas may use for future research. SIRIM's results regarding that new variation are expected in August 2017
Lynas wishes to clarify its recent public statement regarding SIRIM reports on the safety of the Lynas CondiSoil product.
Lynas is correct in stating that SIRIM has confirmed in its reports that CondiSoil is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic and compliant with all test parameters including heavy metals. Based on the SIRIM reports and on the pilot field trial results, Lynas stated that CondiSoil is safe for people, the environment, animals, crops and produce. In addition, the Minister of Science Technology and Innovation is correct in stating that a further report is still pending regarding one variation of the CondiSoil product.
The background is as follows:
Lynas has always prioritised the safety of people, the community and the environment. Therefore, in 2015, before Lynas embarked on its CondiSoil pilot field trials, Lynas sent CondiSoil samples to SIRIM to test for toxicity, carcinogenicity and key parameters including heavy metals. At that time, the product was called Phospho-Gypsum (PG) derived from Lynas residues because the name CondiSoil was not yet used and had not yet been trademarked. A SIRIM report in 2015 confirmed that the product was safe. Lynas did not commence its pilot field trials with MARDI, UPM & UKM until after Lynas had received the SIRIM results and DOE approval.
In December 2016, as the pilot field trials were approaching completion with positive results, Lynas sent to SIRIM a further CondiSoil sample with the same residue formulation and filler material that was used in the pilot field trials, to reconfirm its safety properties. That December 2016 sample had the same residue formulation as the sample that was sent to SIRIM in 2015, however a different filler material was used (i.e. palm oil mill waste rather than sand).
In March 2017, SIRIM issued reports that reconfirmed that CondiSoil is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic and compliant with all test parameters including heavy metals. These reports were referred to in Lynas' recent statement on CondiSoil. The residue formulation and filler material that was the subject of SIRIM's March 2017 reports is the same as the residue formulation and filler material that Lynas used in its pilot field trials and for which Lynas is now seeking DOE approval, followed by Department of Agriculture registration.
Lynas remains focused on R&D, and by December 2016 Lynas had identified another variation of CondiSoil containing the same residue formulation as the 2015 sample and the December 2016 sample referred to above and a different filler material (i.e. rubber bark rather than palm oil mill waste). In December 2016, Lynas sent a sample of that new variation to SIRIM, because Lynas may want to use the new variation for future research. As the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation has correctly pointed out, the SIRIM results for this new variation of CondiSoil are not expected until August 2017.
In conclusion, the SIRIM test results have confirmed the safety of the CondiSoil product for which Lynas is now seeking DOE approval and Department of Agriculture registration. That product has been extensively tested in pilot field trials in collaboration with UPM, MARDI and UKM.”

Why the designated Malaysian authority cannot just sign off on Condisoil and allow Lynas to provide further economic benefit to the Malaysian people and farmers in particular beggars belief. Surely somebody employed in an authoritative position must have some commonsense?