Following the MEP vote in Brussels last week to reduce substantially the number of pesticides in use, I confess I am still trying to come to terms with the reality of the situation.

With my basic understanding of biology and even less of the chemical industry, could it really be that several horticultural crops will, in just a few years, face a wipe-out simply because there are no alternative “safe” products available?

The classic case in point at the moment is the concern over the control of mildew. Surely the manufacturers, who must be fully ahead of the debate, are poised to launch a range of new products which, if not exactly similar, will conform to the directive and still have most of the desired effects? After all, apart from any wider issues, that is business.

In the past, there were similar noises when DDT was all but banned, and yet agriculture and horticulture came through the experience and the nation’s larder remained full.

Times may have changed, however. One thing I have gleaned over the years at several producer conferences sponsored by chemical companies is that the cost to the manufacturer of achieving commercial certification is so high, that it is hardly seen as worth the effort when compared with the big earners, such as cereals.

Meanwhile, the impact does not seem to have registered in the public mind. Consumers probably view the debate as a contest brought about by the peculiar and often incomprehensible and unnecessary workings of the European community. And the response, just feather-bedded farmers crying wolf.

At least the UK is fighting its corner. The various trade and producer organisations, led by our Crop Protection Association, have been commendably outspoken over the potential danger, and can even claim to have had some success by reducing the number of pesticides originally envisaged in the initial EU text.

But what I have not come across - because it has been less widely publicised - is quantifying data, rather than hearsay, to provide evidence that our horticultural industry is facing a situation that, it is claimed, will be of seismic proportions.

It is all very well believing that fields of carrots, onions, brassicas or lettuce will be impossible to grow unless everyone returns to a near organic state, with crop control only possible by the use of Victorian cultural methods. But will the government really let this happen when, in parallel, there are policies to reduce carbon footprints and food miles?

Or could we be moving into an age where there are not only state-controlled banks but God knows what else, including similarly structured farms, because our growers have gone out of business?

It is one reason why I am looking forward to attending the Adas vegetable conference in Peterborough next week, where the significance of the EU decision should be reflected on both the agenda and in debate.

Topics