This autumn, the European Parliament will be voting on two pieces of legislation central to the authorisation and use of pesticides in the EU. There are several critical issues at stake, but the bottom line remains a familiar story: how can growers continue to satisfy consumer demand for fresh fruit and vegetables, without exporting production outside of Europe or taking a financial hit?
The pesticide industry has long been shouting from the rooftops about the potential pitfalls of these proposed new regulations. Despite this, political pressure from Brussels means that in the future pesticides are likely to be evaluated against perceived hazards, rather than against their inherent risks. What will this mean to UK growers and their colleagues abroad? It will, of course, severely reduce the number of pesticides growers can access, and with that remove the long-term viability of European intensive horticulture.
The impact of new rules has been extensively discussed by our industry for years. Now it is time for growers to have their say. Over the next four weeks, you will read the perspectives of farmers across Europe about how these new regulations will affect their businesses and livelihoods, about their struggles to meet the ever-demanding needs of consumers and about how growers equip themselves with safe and sustainable solutions to continue to grow diverse and affordable foods.
The first in this series of farmer perspectives will present the views of Paul Dolleman, a Dutchman working in Portugal. Dolleman’s crops are particularly susceptible to fungus because of the region’s high humidity, and modern fungicides have helped him keep damage at bay.
Next week you’ll hear from Benito Orihuel, a farmer in Spain, who is worried about the impact of the proposed regulations on his citrus business.
These stories reflect the likely impact, not only on British fruit and vegetable growers, but also on those across Europe. These growers are also reeling from the loss of many substances - roughly 50 per cent - since the beginning of the EU’s current review programme. Their voices should be heard in the debate on this issue, which will certainly have a significant impact on their livelihoods. Further diminishing the already limited supply of pesticide solutions available is just not common sense.
DOLLEMAN IN THE DOLRUMS
The first in this FPJ series on new pesticide regulations and their potential effect on European farmers looks at the plight of Dutch farmer Paul Dolleman, who is worried the changes could adversely affect his salad growing business.
Paul Dolleman, a Dutch farmer working in the sunny climes of Portugal, is a worried man. He respects the environment. He is passionate about sustainable farming. He wants to leave the land he works in good order as a legacy for future generations.
But Dolleman is starting to wonder if new rules proposed by the European Commission - rules intended to improve agriculture and protect human health and the environment - are going to let growers like him continue farming.
Dolleman works for Vitacress, which grows salad crops and baby new potatoes on 900 hectares in southern Spain and Portugal. To meet customer requirements, which include demands for produce free of fungus and insect damage, Dolleman uses plant protection products. But legislators are now talking about phasing out many of the products that he needs.
“The commission sees organic methods as an alternative to conventional farming,” Dolleman says. “But in climates like ours with high rainfall and poor sandy soil, organic methods just aren’t the answer.
“In our area, high humidity breeds fungus, and nutrients in sandy soils leach away, which means that it takes a lot more manure to maintain production. We can’t raise even high-value crops that way. It’s not cost-effective.
“Under conditions like these,” Dolleman adds, “organic methods can actually harm the environment and conventional farming can help preserve it. No one solution fits every case. That is why modern, environmentally friendly plant protection products are an essential part of responsible agriculture.”
Because new EU legislation would seriously reduce the number of plant protection products on the market, growers like Dolleman fear that, with repeated use of the remaining products, pests would become resistant to them, leaving growers little choice but to spray more often and at heavier rates.
“Ironically, the commission’s approach risks undermining the very principles of sustainable agriculture that it is trying to foster,” Dolleman says. Nor are organic methods the only way to reduce pesticide residues on produce, he adds.
“Although we use conventional production methods, 95 per cent of the vegetables my company raises have no detectable pesticide residues now. The reason we can drive residues to those levels is that we have the range of products needed to support a balanced plant protection programme.
“Take away these tools without offering new ones, and you place that balance at risk,” he adds.
Especially galling to growers like Dolleman is that legislating a reduction in the number of plant protection products available will not reduce residues in the European food supply or make it safer.
“Growers compete in a global market and cannot afford to raise crops at an economic disadvantage,” Dolleman says. “Taking necessary products out of the hands of European growers will simply result in food being imported from other countries where these tools are still available.
“And these imports will be coming from countries with food safety standards that are not always as stringent as our own.”
Despite Dolleman’s criticisms, he is not adverse to change. He would welcome amendments to current legislation encouraging manufacturers to develop more effective and environmentally friendly products. He would also support product licensing based on climate conditions, a move that he believes would “create a level playing field” among growers within the same climatic zone and give consumers the economic benefits of fair competition among them.
Thus far, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee has failed to take into account the views of farmers like Dolleman.
Time still remains for the parliament to rectify this error when it votes this October on the commission’s legislative draft review. Will they see fit to consider the opinions of those who actually produce our food?
Let us hope so. The future of our food supply depends on it.
No comments yet