One response from the agricultural and horticultural industry to this challenge is the growing emergence of integrated crop management (ICM) systems-and a very laudable response it is. Any initiative which has the potential to reduce pesticides, and other agrochemical inputs, must be welcome and worthy of support. But this is not to say that we should not cast a critical eye over the efficacy of ICM itself, or the manner and grounds upon which it is promoted.
ICM defined
ICM systems have obviously been pursued for many
years, and with great success, by the horticultural industry-notably as
integrated pest management (IPM) in protected cropping and fruit production.
What is now interesting is the application of ICM beyond the glasshouse and the
orchard to field-scale crop production, both horticultural and arable. A
development which appears, in theory at least, to combine:
the integration of chemical, cultural and biological means of crop protection;
the careful use of weed, disease and pest damage thresholds leading to the application of optimal agrochemical inputs, and;
the modification of crop and non-crop habitats to diversify their ecology and improve crop protection by natural enemies.
These are worthy statements of intent, but
what do they actually mean in a field of potatoes or winter wheat?
Unfortunately, the application of ICM 'principles' to
field-scale crops does not yet involve many tried and tested commercial
production systems, although there are a great number of acronym-laden research
and promotional projects, including LIFE (Less Intensive Farming and the
Environment), the LINK-IFS (Integrated Farming Systems) programme, LEAF (Linking
Environment And Farming), and the prosaic FOFP (Focus on Farming Practice).
Does it matter that ICM still eludes meaningful and
demonstrable definition? Arguably not, because again any development which
rationalises and ultimately reduces agro-chemical usage must be welcomed, and
good luck to it.
The problem that I have with ICM is the emergence and
promotion of a market-linkage-in other words the use of ICM as a selling point
to the public.
ICM and the market place
Inevitably, developments in ICM 'technology' are
being employed by some sectors of the food industry to add value to, or improve
consumer confidence in, certain products (notably fresh produce). But, the use
of ICM in this way immediately gives rise to a number of serious questions, the
most pressing of which is-just what benefits does ICM guarantee to deliver,
notably in the reduction of pesticide use?
The leading scheme in the UK involves the so-called NFU/Retailer
ICM Protocols, developed by the National Farmers Union in partnership with
leading supermarkets, such as Marks & Spencer, Safeway and J. Sainsbury. As
of October 1995, Protocols were available for 16 protected and field crops,
covering a broad range from swedes and turnips, to protected salad crops, to
fresh mushrooms.
Examination of the Protocols, however, reveals a number of
worrying indications:
the Protocols are poorly defined and do not include a set of universal production standards;
permitted and practicable practices inevitably vary considerably between the glasshouse and field crops;
the Protocols currently contain no detailed prescriptions for reducing pesticide use;
the use of a large number of environmentally disruptive and potentially toxic pesticide compounds are permitted under the Protocols, and in the absence of detailed prescriptions their use remains largely at the discretion of individual growers.
As far as I can see, the Protocols represent few improvements in pesticide use other than reinforcing the importance of compliance with legal requirements for the safe and responsible handling of pesticides under COSHH, FEPA and industry codes of good practice. Furthermore, their promotion as an assurance of safe and environmentally-friendly fresh produce risks seriously misleading consumers because:
it is questionable how many practices permitted under the Protocol represent significant additional improvements in environmental protection and consumer safety;
the use of an ICM Protocol 'label' upon produce does not clearly and consistently distinguish the nature of production because of the significant variations in production practice which are permitted.
What are the alternatives?
Currently, the only real alternative production system
with an established group of practitioners is organic farming-a system which
is highly defined, demonstrably viable (both technically and financially), and
environmentally-friendly.
Just like the proponents of ICM, organic farmers aim to
provide consumers with safe food of good quality produced in a sustainable and
environmentally-sensitive way. However, they do so within a highly developed
framework founded upon the principles of setting standards, verification of
compliance with standards, and consequent approval and certification of
production. Furthermore, since 1993 these principles have been enshrined within
European law and it is now illegal to market a wide range of foods using the
term 'organic' unless they fulfil the requirements of EC Regulation No.
2092/91.
Organic produce is therefore the one foodstuff that offers
consumers the true assurance of significantly reduced pesticide residues,
combined with the adoption of environmentally-friendly production methods. This
is not to say that there is any room for complacency over organic husbandry
practices-the efficacy and environmental impact of weed, disease and pest
control techniques on organic farms and holdings must continue to be critically
appraised and where appropriate modified.
A number of naturally-derived and traditional synthetic
pesticides are allowed for restricted use in organic systems. These include, for
example, the copper-based fungicide Bordeaux mixture and there is some concern
that this might lead to increased soil copper levels and a decline in soil
organisms under some circumstances. Although the risk of this problem is likely
to be restricted to perennial crops (e.g. grape vines) which receive regular
applications.
It is also possible that some natural pesticides (e.g.
rotenone and unsynergised pyrethrum), and their solvent carriers, may cause
unwelcome ecological disruption. Although again it is important to note that the
use of such pesticides is limited to high value horticultural crops, with little
use being made in arable or field scale vegetable crops where control of pests,
diseases and weeds is through rotational and other husbandry methods.
In conclusion
I accept the fact that all food production causes some
disruption of the natural environment. I accept the fact that, with levels of
background environmental contamination, there is no such thing as 'pesticide
free' food. I look forward to the day when principles such as ICM are fully
integrated into UK agriculture. But in the meantime I want assurance that the
food I and my family eat minimises our exposure to pesticides. Only organic food
and farming currently offers me that assurance.
Dr Mark Redman is a Research Fellow
with the Centre for Land Based Studies, Bournemouth University.
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 30,
December 1995, page 13]