The trade has criticised an agreement on pesticides reached by European agriculture ministers as “irresponsible” and “very disappointing”, amid fears that large numbers of pesticides could be banned.

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and the British Crop Production Council (BCPC) have both expressed their disappointment at a compromise agreed in Luxembourg on Monday, which shifts approval of pesticides from risk-based criteria, to ones based purely on hazards, with little attention to how substances are used by operators.

The agriculture council adopted a political agreement on the revision of Directive 91/414 by a qualified majority. The UK, Ireland, Hungary and Romania abstained from voting.

A recent report by the UK Pesticides Safety Directorate concluded that between five and 15 per cent of substances were at risk of removal from the market as a result of the European Commission’s original proposals.

The NFU and the BCPC have joined the British Retail Consortium, The Food & Drink Federation and the Crop Protection Association to brief ministers on the impact of these proposals, highlighting that they will have a devastating effect on food availability and price.

NFU vice-president Paul Temple said: “Despite our best efforts, together with those of manufacturers and the British government to get a balanced deal, the outcome of the meeting is disappointing, if not surprising.

“What is most disappointing is the lack of any proper impact assessment by the European Commission of its proposals for cut-off criteria on agricultural production. At a time of rising food prices and long-term concerns over food security, this is irresponsible. This review has nothing to do with consumer and food safety. In fact, the irony of the situation is that food we import into the EU will be grown using the very same pesticides the EU is trying to ban.”

Dr Colin Ruscoe, from the BCPC, added: “Monday’s outcome reflects both bad science and dysfunctional process. Member states did not seek evidence for health benefits or on the commission’s claims of low effect on agriculture. Only the UK commissioned impact studies.

“In spite of the UK government’s best efforts, a decision based on good science was rejected.

“It is vital that we work with our food chain partners, and the Government, to help MEP’s appreciate the consequences of this proposed legislation and that this highly regulated industry does not need further draconian measures in order to safeguard consumers,” he added.

Both praised the UK government for supporting the risk-based approach.

The proposal will return to the European Parliament for its second reading later this year.

Topics