Most people in the industry accept that pesticides are mistrusted by much of the public, and that retailers are calling on growers to reduce the levels of chemicals applied during crop production as a result.
However, what the industry hasn’t bargained on is sudden and potentially crippling cuts in pesticide use that could threaten the very fabric of production itself. But last month the EU Environment Committee, in proposals widely derided by conventional growers as being without scientific foundation and logic, has suggested specific EU targets to reduce pesticide use by 25 percent over five years and 50 percent over 10 years.
Moreover, the Committee has proposed further national targets for a 50 percent reduction by 2013 of substances of very high concern or those classified as toxic or very toxic, which could potentially cause a problem for granular nematicides.
And the proposals do not stop there: a system of taxes or levies on pesticides to fund National Action Plans; European-wide taxes or levies on all pesticides with the proceeds used to promote low input and organic farming; compulsory buffer zones of at least 10m alongside watercourses with no flexibility allowed; a complete ban on spraying vertical crops such as hops alongside or near watercourses; a ban on the use of pesticides in all public areas and ‘substantial’ buffer zones alongside public areas; further restrictions on aerial spraying; mandatory sprayer testing at least one year in five; and notification of neighbours when spraying, when they have asked to be informed.
The NFU also noted ‘a refusal [by the Environment Committee] to acknowledge any benefits in the discussion on the use of pesticides’, despite the fact that the EU Parliament Agriculture Committee put forward ‘considerably more pragmatic proposals.’
The union has called on the industry to lobby their MEPs to vote against the Environment Committee’s proposals and back the more balanced approach of the Agriculture Committee, and has produced a sample letter for growers to use as a template. A number of meetings will be taking place in Europe this month during which the industry will hope to put across its view.
NFU horticulture adviser Chris Hartfield tells Commercial Grower that the industry is concerned for the fact that the proposals seem to have been drawn up ‘in ignorance of science, with no scientific basis for their decision.’ “There is a lack of realisation of what effect cuts of that magnitude would have on the industry,” he continues.
Hartfield points out that certain sectors, and especially field crops, would be catastrophically hit. “Production of potatoes would disappear in the EU under these terms. You can see it with organic potatoes having been wiped out because of blight,” he maintains.
Hartfield added that another issue is that on the back of such cuts the Environment Committee is essentially promoting a low input and organic method of farming. “You have to raise a question mark over this, particularly at a time when demand for food is rocketing. You should be promoting efficient agricultural production. It would put us in a very difficult position,” he says.
The NFU has pointed out in the last few weeks that the UK already strictly controls its pesticide use and has some of the most stringent testing on the continent. It also stressed that many of the proposed measures, including operator training, sprayer testing and residential buffer zones, have already been adopted voluntarily in this country.
Therefore instead of making ‘unjustified, radical cuts in pesticide use that may actually threaten the sustainability’, the union says that the focus should be on ensuring that the rest of the industry operates to the same high standard.
You would imagine that crop protection companies would be seriously perturbed by these developments. But if they are, not all of them are showing it. Mark Bullen, Syngenta’s speciality crops manager, says that the key thing is to find a balanced approach to pesticide use, adding that the attitude of manufacturers is to work towards pesticide reduction in any case as this is what everybody in the supply chain is demanding.
However he adds: “A prescriptive approach is unsustainable for growers, retailers and consumers. Of course no grower wants to spend more on producing their crops than they need to. We work hard to achieve more with less pesticide, and there are decision support systems like Brassica Alert in place, as well as environmental projects such as Operation Bumblebee.”
But, he adds, the level of reduction being proposed would have catastrophic effects on the industry in terms of the production of certain crops and the overall provision of food, a fact brought into all the more sharp focus in view of the increased food production required today.
“My personal view is that there is a lot of pressure group involvement and they are following a popular political line,” Bullen opines. They are not considering the impact of the provision of food. We need to maximise the crop per hectare of land, especially with biofuel crops also competing for space.”
Bullen insists that Syngenta continues to work closely with growers, retailers, packers and processors to ensure that pesticides are safe, adding that chemicals already go through a very robust regulatory system in the UK and that the industry should do more to publicise this fact.
Bullen also raises concerns over the EU’s apparent desire to employ a ‘one size fits all’ approach to a subject that quite clearly varies greatly from country to country.
That view is echoed by Dr Thomas Lyall of Dow AgroSciences, who stressed that a Europe-wide reduction on pesticide use would be harmful and unworkable. “We’ve seen lots of targets based upon the Danish model, which simply isn’t applicable right across the EU.”
Lyall says that there are a number of concerns that Dow is particularly preoccupied with. He warns that their customers - farmers - would struggle to cope with the financial implications of any tax or levy imposed upon it, quite apart from the practicalities of how this would be implemented.
“The amendment proposes a tax linked to risk. But it’s a huge challenge to identify a model to calculate this. These products have already undergone full safety tests, so it starts becoming an arbitrary process,” Lyall explains.
Despite this Lyall says there is still a long way to go before anything is decided, but initial signs are of concern. “It is still early days in the legislative process, and hopefully compromises can be struck to ensure the legislation will be workable. The proposals are bad in their current form but the current text has yet to be adopted by all of the European Parliament’s members. We’ll see what comes out of the plenary session in October.”
Lyall also points out that it is up to pro-agriculture MEPs and national authorities such as Defra to defend the needs of modern agriculture, though he adds that the NFU in the UK and European farmer representatives Copa Cogeca are already promoting the views of farmers.
“We discuss implications with such organisations, and regularly correct misconceptions about farmers’ use of our products. We are seeing less and less publicly supportive politicians, with less focus on the benefits and more on perceived risks, but farmers must have the tools to do what they do best: fill our dinner plates” he concludes.
Peter Hingley, general manager at Certis, also expressed concern that if the proposals are implemented then it will lead to severe problems with crop production.
“It’ll really hit the high value speciality crops, and resistance management will be very difficult,” he stressed.
“To introduce swingeing cuts is completely the wrong approach. The UK is not the biggest user of agro-chemicals anyway.”
Hingley says that countries like France have already introduced a tax on pesticides, but there is little evidence that this even has an effect in terms of usage reduction. Instead, he feels that the Voluntary Initiative in the UK has been more effective.
Asked whether he anticipates the proposals being watered down before being introduced, Hingley remains cautious. “Pesticides have become a whipping boy for everything bad. Legislation has been tightening up more and more over the past few years, and that keeps increasing costs to the manufacturers.”
Offering a new take on the consequences of this, Hingley mooted the possibility that such legislation could lead to much more vociferous calls for the use of disease-resistant GM crops, as this is one possible solution to the question of how to reduce pesticide use while still producing the quantities required.
The ironic effect of this could be the fact that many of the people opposing pesticides are exactly the same ones who also stand in the way of research into genetic modification.
The Crop Protection Association’s director of policy, Dr Anne Buckenham, said that the organisation’s views are very much in harmony with those expressed by the NFU, adding that the association had been fairly content with the original proposals previously put forward, provided that they were implemented with sufficient flexibility so that voluntary measures remained in place.
She also said that the CPA is involved in discussions with MEPs and government over how to proceed on the issue.
No comments yet