Pesticide proposals could cause catastrophe

Regulators must delay controversial proposals to restrict EU pesticide use to avoid sending food prices into the stratosphere, the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) has warned.

The ECPA warned that already rocketing rapeseed, wheat, cereals and potato prices could go through the roof if the revisions are approved. Its warnings were made in a document urging the European Commission to conduct a proper regulatory impact assessment (RIA) before the revisions have their second reading in the European Parliament.

ECPA director general Dr Friedhelm Schmider said the RIA conducted at the time of the original proposal did not address controversial cut-off criteria proposed later in the proceedings.

He added: “We understand that the Commission does not agree with the ECPA evaluation of the situation and that it believes that adequate solutions will be at hand. However, this is in contradiction to the evaluations that have been recently carried out by independent institutes and government authorities.

"We hope that the Commission will now carry out its own full evaluation so that we can all be certain of the impacts of the cut-off criteria and their wider consequence, such as on food security, the economy and land pressure, to name but a few.”

In the worst case scenario, over 65% of the active ingredients used in pesticides and the sale of more than 90% of insecticides used in agriculture today could be banned, claimed the ECPA: “Simply put, European crops would be at risk of disease; farming and production costs would increase; manufacturers would face the need to move sourcing away from Europe and higher prices; and consumers would face even higher food prices.”

It added: “The proposals would not leave any effective compounds, other than sulphur and copper compounds, which have limited efficacy, for any of the major diseases affecting oilseed rape. And the two main ones - stem canker and light leaf spot - can reduce yields by up to 50% in the UK.”

They could also prove catastrophic for the potato industry, it predicted. “For example, [the herbicide] Linuron is applied on 80% of the potato seed crop in Scotland, so non-approval of this active substance would be very serious." Likewise, the long-term storage of potatoes without chlorpropham could result in an unacceptable loss of quality, it predicted.

Carrots, onions, leeks, shallots and garlic could also suffer as the majority of approved herbicides to tackle weed infestations would be banned were the proposal to go through, it claimed.

As for strawberries, a major UK soft fruit crop, Parliament’s proposals would potentially leave no products available for the control of blackspot, which can cause losses of up to 80%, said the ECPA.

The marketing and use of pesticides and their residues in food is regulated by Directive 91/414/EEC. Under this legislation, only active substances that are included in a positive EU list of authorised substances can be used in pesticides.

In July 2006, the European Commission proposed a new Regulation concerning the placement of pesticides on the market. It included “cut-off” criteria that would ban the use of many active ingredients based solely on whether a substance is regarded as hazardous, not whether it poses a risk under realistic conditions of use.

The European Parliament subsequently revised the draft Regulation and presented amendments including additional cut-off criteria that would ban still more active ingredients.

But this was based on fundamentally flawed logic, claimed the ECPA: “Just because a product has hazardous properties does not mean it is dangerous. Proper risk evaluations of products are required to determine this, taking the dose and actual use into consideration. Just as coffee and alcohol are hazardous at high doses, normal use poses no risk to health.”

It would also force manufacturers to source more raw materials from outside the EU (where the rules do not apply), increasing food miles, it added. “European consumers repeatedly say that they want more affordable fresh fruit and vegetables that are produced locally. But the result of the current decision will just mean more expensive and more imported food.”