There are few subjects that polarise opinion as much as pesticides. In depth documents are produced by both the for and against camps, arguing equally fervently the benefits or dangers of growing with chemical products.

One thing most people in the middle agree on is that for at least the foreseeable future pesticides will have a fundamental role to play in the safe production of the vast number of food crops in this country. And with dramatic increases in Statutory Off-Label Approvals (SOLAs), European legislation apparently making it more complex to get approvals through the system and a sometimes unbalanced playing field in terms of what growers can use in this country compared to in others, there is much for the industry to chew over.

Peter Sanguinetti, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association (CPA), says that the organisation’s focus at present is as much about making sure that the correct decisions are made in Europe as about worrying about the public’s perceptions at home. “Speaking broadly, there is a lot of effort being put in at an EU level to make the regulations tighter and tighter,” he points out. This could make it much more difficult for approvals to get through the system.

Sanguinetti says that the CPA has produced a leaflet aimed at lobbying MPs and MEPs to get some amendments to EU directive 91414, which covers which chemicals are permitted for use within the European Union. Above all, Sanguinetti stresses that decisions must be based on ‘sound science’, with the needs of sustainable farming central to any decisions made. There is also a concern that other member states, that might not be as far advanced in terms of their pesticide approval structure, could end up holding up the industry in the UK.

A further fear regards a proposed shortening of patent periods for successful pesticide applications. Understandably, Sanguinetti points out, if a manufacturer spends £140 million over nine years gaining an approval, they need a reasonable amount of time in which to gain their money back.

He believes that demonstrating that conventional growers use pesticides in a correct and proper way, and training farm staff in responsible use, is the best way to keep pressure groups off growers’ backs.

Sanguinetti is also keen to cite Defra statistics which show that pesticide use in conventional farms is down three percent in the past 10 years despite the production of food crops going up.

The NFU’s plant health adviser, Paul Chambers, said that the union is concerned by the effects that an increase in SOLA costs could have on the industry.

In February it was announced that there would be a significant hike in the cost of off-label approvals for horticultural products of £1,230 over the course of the next six years. There are somewhere between 100 and 120 SOLA registration applications submitted each year. The picture has been clouded further by the fact that chemicals for ornamental crops will also now be coming under the same banner as edible crops, potentially adding thousands to the industry’s bill each year.

Chambers explained: “Now a greater proportion of the HDC’s budget will be spent on obtaining SOLAs, which will reduce the amount of money available for other research including IPM and alternatives to pesticides.”

Chambers says that the union is in favour of the development and use of biopesticides, provided that they are effective, practical and cost effective to growers and that they undergo a registration process through the PSD.

There is particular concern in the industry about both the loss of existing active ingredients under the Annex 1 re-registration programme, such as trifluaralin, and the general lack of new active ingredients coming on to the market for minor crops.

Perhaps one of the toughest battles for conventional growers though has been winning the public relations battle, a factor Chambers laments as he points out:“The public perception of pesticides is largely poor as most of the publicity from the non-technical media tends to concentrate on scare stories, often based on failure to understand the facts, such as detection of pesticide residues well below Maximum Residue Limits, or reports of health concerns about pesticides which have either never been used in the UK or have not been used for many years.”

But what can the industry do to alter these perceptions? Chambers says that there is always grounds for a public relations campaign, but finding a method of doing this at a viable cost is very difficult when the media is more interested in scare stories.

The HDC’s crop protection manager, Vivian Powell, adds her voice to the chorus of those worrying that the changing SOLA charging structure will divert funds away from key research programmes. “HDC is extremely disappointed at these increases and consider it is a great pity that the UK government does not support this initiative directly as other member states in Europe or the USA do. What is also regrettable is that this occurs at a time when Defra funding in agricultural and horticultural research is in the process of being reduced by 25 percent over a two year period,” she explains.

Powell also worries that the increase in SOLA costs are coming on the back of various pesticide reviews that have already had a dramatic effect on the number of pesticides available to growers. While some new actives are being developed, several are being taken away, but she stresses the need to ensure that a range of chemistry is still available to ensure that a resistance strategy can still effectively be carried out.

The dwindling number of products for minor crops is an increasing concern for the sector, and though the EU Commission has paid lip service to this problem, funds to research alternatives have not so far been forthcoming.

For the future Powell anticipates plant breeders playing an ever more important role in the development of new pest and/or disease resistant varieties. She feels that changes in the global climate may also bring a change in the spectrum of economically important pests, diseases and weeds affecting UK crops. “Though these future impacts may be currently unknown it will be vital for HDC to maintain the pesticide gap analysis to ensure that we continue to focus on those priority issues facing UK crop production,” she concludes.

From a manufacturer’s point of view, many of these concerns are also a problem. Bayer CropScience’s Steve Humphries concedes that there are issues surrounding SOLA applications and the implementation of updated European legislation, but reckons that one possible solution could come in the shape of granting approval to products in one member state that have already been passed fit for use in another.

He adds that the scenario outlined by Sanguinetti is a real worry, especially if the patent period is shortened at the end in addition to the longer time it is taking to get approvals in the first place due to the greater number of compounds that are now having to be screened during the research phase.

Offering up another view is Dr Paul Sopp of West Sussex-based firm Fargro. Sopp says that pesticides are a vital component in crop management to produce high yielding, good quality crops at an economic cost.

“The appropriate use of pesticides, carefully chosen for their efficacy and environmental profile help growers to produce crops to the required standard. Biological pest control is the first line of pest control for many crops, but there will always be occasions when a pesticide is required to maintain the level of pest control required,” he says.

Sopp adds that modern pesticides are extensively researched and many can be integrated with the use of beneficial insects and mites, targeting only the harmful pest or disease on the crop, allowing the beneficial insects to survive.

On the other side of the debate, the Soil Association is putting its focus squarely on eliminating the use of pesticides within horticulture as far as is possible. A spokesperson for the organisation explained: “The Soil Association is continually involved in developing our standards. This is a vital activity, enabling them to maintain their pioneering nature and to reach ever closer to the aspirational organic principles. As a result the list of pesticides which can be used under these standards is continually under review with a view to further restricting and eventually eliminating the need for these wherever possible.

“For example, the Horticulture Standards Committee has agreed that the use of sulphur and soft soap should also be ‘restricted’, so growers will have to justify the need for use prior to using them in the future. The Soil Association is also investigating ways of phasing out copper, including resistant varieties and more benign alternatives.”

The association explains that it permits the use of pesticides in ‘exceptional’ cases, particularly those where pests and diseases can ‘override’ an organic system and cause damage. It allows the use of copper compounds, rotenone, sulphur and soft soap.

In July last year conventional growers received a boost with Defra’s announcement that there was insufficient evidence to support the Royal Commission’s recommendations for additional regulation related to bystander exposure. Defra argued that the regulatory system in the UK was already among the most robust in the world and said that further regulation was therefore not needed at that time.

This came as a blow to the likes of anti-pesticide campaigner Georgina Downs, who has fought long and hard via her UK Pesticides Campaign to raise awareness of the ‘risks’ of bystander exposure by living close to sprayed fields.

Downs’ most recent tactic was to announce that she would be launching legal action over the government’s ‘complacent’ and ‘irresponsible’ attitude towards investigating the threat to human health of pesticide spraying, particularly in relation to young or frail individuals. Her voice is not one that the industry is likely to stop hearing any time soon.

However the NFU, along with many growers, believes that UK food production could not realistically be met without recourse to pesticides. Paul Chambers said that he union supports all production systems for growers, including organic production. But he adds: “Lots of trials have shown that organic production systems have lower yields and hence require a product premium. The NFU feels that purely organic production could in no way meet the needs of UK food production at the moment.”

HDC’s Vivian Powell concurs with that view. “It is important to recognise that all pesticides are very heavily regulated,in terms ofconsumer safety and environmental safety - on this basis there is no need to consider the option of production without them,” she stresses.

“There are various estimates which suggest that to produce all crops without access to pesticides would significantly increase the amount of land required forhorticultural and agricultural purposes.”