New Parliamentary factsheet on crop protection – CPA response
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) recently issued a new factsheet (postnote 336) dealing with the issue of crop protection and the potentially damaging impact for UK agriculture and horticulture of the new EU Regulation on pesticide authorisations.
The Crop Protection Association has welcomed the new POST document, both in providing a broad overview of the regulatory context and in maintaining the profile of this critical issue among UK politicians. But CPA is concerned that it over-emphasises the role of other pest control strategies in compensating for the loss of vital crop protection products.
"Crop rotation, cultivation, biological control and selection of resistant varieties are already widely used alongside crop protection products as part of an integrated approach to crop production," said CPA chief executive Dominic Dyer. "We simply cannot maintain an adequate supply of high quality, affordable food without the judicious use of pesticides."
CPA also views the POST document as a missed opportunity to highlight various negative impacts of the new Regulation.
"Switching to a hazard-based system offers no extra protection to consumers, and will simply result in many safe and widely used products being withdrawn from the market," said Mr Dyer.
"The stark facts missing from the POST report are that EU plans to slash the number of pesticides available to Europe’s farmers will not only reduce crop yields and quality, but will also lead to higher food prices, increased food safety risks, a higher carbon footprint and job losses in UK food production.
"Tackling food security in the face of global population growth, climate change and declining natural resources is a challenge which cannot be met without access to the most advanced developments in agricultural technology, including pesticides.
"Europe’s ability to tackle this issue will be seriously constrained unless politicians across the EU are prepared to confront the anti-science culture which currently dominates the European decision-making process.
"The EU must submit its decisions to greater independent scientific challenge and scrutiny. Time and again, sound science has been over-ridden by short-term political expediency in EU-decision-making – resulting in bad policies which block innovation, deter research investment and ultimately stifle progress. The agreement to set new-cut-off criteria for pesticide approvals without any scientific justification or impact assessment, and a near total block on GMO approvals, are clear examples of this issue.
"The EU must act to strengthen the independent scientific advice it receives, and to re-position modern, science-based agriculture where it belongs - as a central part of the economy, at the heart of our future economic, social and environmental development," concluded Mr Dyer.
