By Sarah Collins - 5th November 2008
This legislation would not mean crop loss for farmers
German Green MEP and rapporteur on the commission's proposal on pesticides, Hiltrud Breyer
There has to be a balance and at a time of rising food prices and economic hardship we need to tread carefully. I am firmly of the view that we are going too far and making farming unworkable in large areas of the EU
Scottish Green MEP Alyn Smith
A law to change the way pesticides are used in the EU has been agreed by MEPs in the environment committee, despite stringent opposition from farmers and industry.
The main sticking point in the proposal is the cut-off point for the use of hazardous substances in pesticides: under the proposal, any substance deemed to be of significant risk to the development of the immune or nervous system will be banned.
The UK’s Crop Protection Association wrote in a letter to British premier Gordon Brown in September, “We are greatly concerned by the European commission proposals for a new pesticide authorisation regulation.
“This draft regulation includes criteria for the removal of pesticide products that have hazardous properties, regardless of the fact that they can be used safely.”
The letter also quotes a study by the Pesticides Safety Directorate and ADAS, which says that the UK could lose up to 85 per cent of currently EU-approved pesticide substances, and a recent report by business economist Séan Rickard from Cranfield University found that the result of all this “is likely to be a significant fall in the UK’s – and by implication the community’s – total crop production: the product of lower yields and limited scope to increase the arable area”.
However, the rapporteur on the commission’s proposals, German Green MEP Hiltrud Breyer, says she condemns the use of “unscientific and false figures” by industry “to create panic about the new law”.
She said after the vote, “It is highly regrettable that many representatives of farmers’ organisations uncritically accepted grossly exaggerated industry figures.
“Farmers and their families will benefit from improved EU legislation most of all, since they are at greatest risk of exposure to the harmful effects of toxic pesticides. This legislation would not mean crop loss for farmers.”
And UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas added, “Human health must be given better protection. Just a few weeks ago, the EU's latest food monitoring report revealed that a record level of pesticides is being found in food items sold in the EU, with almost half of all fruit, vegetables and cereals containing pesticide residues, and five per cent of them at concentrations above maximum legal limits.”
But Scottish Green deputy Alyn Smith said that the proposals could be going too far and stifling the EU’s agricultural productivity.
“There has to be a balance and at a time of rising food prices and economic hardship we need to tread carefully. I am firmly of the view that we are going too far and making farming unworkable in large areas of the EU, especially the more northern, wetter ones.”
Conservative MEP Robert Sturdy has called for an impact assessment to be made before making any blanket bans on so-called hazardous products. “This legislation threatens already hard-pressed consumers who are now even more likely to see their monthly food bill go up.
“With the current worries over food prices and food security it seems absurd that MEPs are voting on these proposals without the benefit of an impact assessment to make a more informed decision.”
MEPs will vote on the report in plenary in January.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.