Defending ICM – NFU response

In the last issue of Pesticides News (p.13) Mark Redman gave an organic farming view of integrated crop management (ICM). While he welcomed the potential of ICM to reduce pesticide use, he was critical of the manner of its promotion. Christopher Wise of the National Farmers Union (NFU) and one of the main architects of ICM in the UK, replies.

Many of Mark Redman’s comments are well considered, but  he has been hasty on some of his judgements and possibly in his enthusiasm he wants Rome built in a day! None of the supermarkets participating in the Partnership (CWS Ltd, Somerfield, J Sainsbury, Safeway, Marks and Spencer and Waitrose) are seeking to score points off each other but they generally aim to lift confidence in the UK’s production methods for fresh produce. There is no intention by the Partnership  at present to 'kite mark' produce as ICM. Regretfully the Partnership does not have total support because Tesco is following a path of its own with Nature’s Choice.
    Mark Redman believes the ICM protocols are poorly defined and do not include a set of universal production standards. I believed the level of uniformity and certainly the universality of approach was reasonably well defined. He also says there is no set of universal production standards, I would challenge him to produce such a set that holds up to scrutiny and that can be implemented in the field for 26 crops. He states practices vary between glasshouse and field crops. Why shouldn’t they?
    He also states that the protocols contain no detailed information for reducing pesticide use. The introduction to the protocols points out that we are not able at his moment to justify prescription of a specific pesticide, but in an attempt to minimise pesticides use the protocols seek to encourage the use of thresholds, with high levels of crop monitoring, the use of modern diagnostic equipment, rotations and other techniques.
    In a further point, he feels a large number of environmentally disruptive and potentially toxic pesticides are permitted. As the protocol preface states, the Partnership defers to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which advises government ministers on such matters‑ for we are not toxicologists or privy to all the data. Although it remains on our agenda to provide more guidance on which products are more compatible with ICM, we have decided to complete our programme on verification of compliance first.
    The Partnership would also like to see far more development work and technology transfer. Techniques being researched at centres like the Horticultural Research Institute will lead to reductions in pesticide use, but with government cutbacks, this work has gone into a serious decline. This was one of the major thrusts of the NFU in the recent Pesticide Minimisation Policy Conference (see PN30 p.14).
    Mark Redman also says that the protocols represent no improvement in pesticide use other than reinforcing the compliance with current statutory legislation. He does not applaud the fact that we have started to get the ICM ball rolling and now that we have standards we can lift them. As soon as we have verification of compliance systems in place, we should be able confidently to show that fresh produce, produced to ICM standards, can be purveyed to the supermarket shelves. This is our end objective.

Christoper Wise is Crop Science Adviser at the NFU, 164 Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HL.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 31,March 1996, page 16]