I’m fed up with talking about the weather, but I can console myself with the fact we have grabbed every opportunity so far and progress is not too bad.EU ministers adopt ‘scandalous’ pesticide rules
NEW rules to limit the use of pesticides will harm Europe’s ability to increase agricultural production at a time when it is needed the most, farmers have warned.
On the same day that the UN called for a 70 per cent increase in agricultural productivity by 2050, EU ministers agreed to the Pesticide Authorisation Regulation which could remove 15-20 per cent of currently approved crop protection products from the market.
Without appropriate tools to protect their crops from pests and disease farmers say yields will fall significantly and food prices will rise.
Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, said the vote which took place in Brussels yesterday (Thursday, September 25), was ‘scandalous’.
“These rules are so at odds with the urgent demands placed on modern, productive agriculture that they call into question the entire EU policy-making process.
“With no demonstrable benefit to human health or the environment, it is scandalous that this legislation has been passed at a time of mounting concern over food security.
“But this will not be the last time an agricultural technology faces new legislative proposals, and there are clear lessons to be learned for the future,” said Mr Dyer.
The UK Government voted against the regulation after the EU repeatedly refused to carry out an impact assessment into the new rules.
Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, expressed his concern that the rules could dramatically reduce yields of wheat, maize, potatoes and carrots ‘without meaningful benefits for health or the environment’.
“It is of course disappointing that others are prepared to proceed when they may have no very certain idea of how the regulation will affect them but they are free to make that choice,” he said in a letter to industry leaders earlier this year.
Dominic Dyer pointed out that the regulation could have been a lot worse, however, had it not been for a concerted lobbying effort throughout the UK food chain.
A year ago Farmers Guardian began its own campaign to challenge the regulation which had originally threatened to remove 85 per cent of currently approved pesticide products from the market.
While the final regulation is still far from ideal, FG readers can claim a small slice of the credit for softening the blow.
“Together we secured the support of the UK Government, and a strong coalition of MEPs, in opposing the new rules. Our efforts were not in vain and the positive momentum must not be lost,” said Mr Dyer.
“We must continue to highlight the vital role of modern, science-based agriculture in responding to the urgent challenges of food security, climate change and declining natural resources,” he added.
Share
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 25 September 2009 3:04 pm
This is all part of the integrated EU backdoor plan to justify the intro of GM crops. Demonstrate that the existing varieties cant cope without the sprays / (falsly portrayed as helping the consumer) couple it with reduced yields and hey presto, guess what, the GM companies come galloping and by combining their PR with EU speak they will be portrayed as the white nights, the saviours. Their seeds dont need any protection and the yields are better - what is there not to like! The GM companies will be delighted at today's news - they just have to hang on a litlte longer and then.........
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex Morrell | 25 September 2009 4:57 pm
Does it really matter? With a ban the outcome for farmers would be the same - lower yields at higher prices - same revenue.
For consumers - we get what we deserve - the cost of cheaper food inevitably has its consequences. We do and will suffer them. If we choose another way human society might have to have less but that means something will get more. Everything is beautifully balanced - more often than not it is our state of mind that gets things out of balance without changing anything.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 September 2009 5:19 pm
Disgraceful, they want more food produced on less land and with less chemicals. Let their clever advisors do the maths.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Blanche | 26 September 2009 12:59 pm
Time to GET US OUT OF EU NOW -WE ARE SICK OF THEIR RULES. WE HAVE OUR OWN GOVERNMENT - OR HAVE WE???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Leveller | 26 September 2009 1:19 pm
Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the CPA:
“With no demonstrable benefit to human health or the environment, it is scandalous that this legislation has been passed at a time of mounting concern over food security.”
Hilary Benn:
“..could dramatically reduce yields of wheat, maize, potatoes and carrots ‘without meaningful benefits for health or the environment’
Have things got so bad that DEFRA and Agribusiness supply industry aren’t even bothering to put out seperate press statements anymore?
Is this such bad news (no doubt a reflection that FG & FWI’s advertising revenue & ghost writing heading further down the pan), those that can actually farm might just get the opportunity to show that their skills are not as obsolete as successive Governments seem to think – for others, there’s always the miracle of GM (that nitrogen fixing wheat is just around the corner) the tooth fairy and the easter bunny.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hildegard Hill | 26 September 2009 8:16 pm
If the EU does away with silly standards (ie. all apples have to be square and bananas straight) we can probably benefit from a reduction in the most useless agrichemicals. Supermarkets and consumers must accept imperfections regarding size , blemishes, colour etc. Let's not forget that about a third of the food produced is wasted.
Hildegard
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment