Action plan for UK pesticides policy

The Labour government came into power on 1 May. We gauge the opinions of Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) on pesticide issues and sustainable agriculture to assess the potential for change.

The new Agriculture Minister Jack Cunningham has outlined his priorities for agriculture-including CAP reform and the establishment of the Food Standards Agency (see PN36 p14). In the light of Labour's expressed wish, while in opposition, to declare a moratorium on the use of organophosphate (OP) pesticides, and to substantially reduce the phase out time for the fumigant methyl bromide as part of the international Montreal Protocol process, the government may be rethinking the role of the Pesticides Forum and its view of pesticide minimisation.
In July, Dr Cunningham announced that additional research funding for doctors investigating the effects of OPs on livestock farmers; and on the same day the Ministry of Defence announced that an extra £2.5 million would be made available for further research on Gulf War syndrome, linked with OP exposure1. Dr Cunningham met the anti-OP campaigner Elizabeth Sigmund, which sent out the signal that MAFF may change its tack on OPs. In addition, the UK will shortly take the presidency of the EU. Food Safety is both a UK and a European concern. Water policy has to be agreed, and CAP reform is again on the agenda.

The Action Plan
The Plan represents an amalgam of the views of the Pesticides Forum. It accepts pesticides pose risks and suggests improved practice in four key areas:

Collaboration is needed between farmers, growers, advisors, manufacturers and distributors, consumer and environmental groups. The Forum will advise on objectives for responsible pesticide use; on the suitability of crop protocols; and on the role of accreditation schemes.
Techniques and technology can reduce the impact of pesticides. The Forum will identify practices that reduce the impacts of pesticides; and examine the methods of spreading those techniques to users.
Promotion of new and effective methods of pest control is vital. The Forum will consider the best ways of helping farmers, growers and advisors adopt techniques to reduce pesticide impacts; how to provide users with better information about the environmental impact of pesticides; and how to improve training.
Monitoring will review progress of the Action Plan. The Forum will develop indicators of environmental risk.

Action Plan launched
With government backing, the Pesticides Forum has published its Action Plan2 to promote the responsible use of pesticides (see box). The Forum provides an exchange of views among farmer organisations, industry, government and research. The Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] is the only NGO public interest group member.
    Jeff Rooker, the new Deputy Agriculture Minister, with responsibility for pesticides, welcomed the Plan in an interview with Pesticides News.
    Mr Rooker ruled out the UK adopting a Danish-style pesticide reduction policy, which aims for a 50% reduction of pesticide use by volume over a set period of time. Instead, "The Action Plan will help farmers and growers make informed decisions on the use of pesticides without resorting to arbitrary reduction targets, we think the 'minimisation policy' is the best route to follow," he said.
    In backing this opinion, he added: "Total quantity used is not necessarily a good environmental indicator. We could in fact reduce our pesticide usage by 30% by stopping using sulphuric acid as a desiccant on potatoes, swapping its use with a lighter, but not necessarily more environmentally benign product. If you measure usage by weight applied per unit area, we are about average in the European Union" (see figure ).
    Whilst ruling out pesticide reduction targets, the Minister is enthusiastic about setting 'performance targets' in which people are awarded for their achievements in developing integrated pest management.
    In recognising the difficulty in defining 'minimisation of pesticide use' Mr Rooker said that we need to find better ways of interpreting the risks associated with pesticide use. "MAFF has a huge research budget of £120 million per year. We will be reviewing how this money is spent, which will include looking at the total cost of pesticides."
    Mr Rooker agreed that the Pesticides Forum should include pesticide users and more public interest representation. "We are very keen for greater lay representation on the Forum and other committees-including the Advisory Committee on Pesticides" (which advises ministers on overall aspects of pesticide safety).

Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] comment
Pesticide use is not sustainable because of adverse health effects, and environmental and resistance problems.
    Reduction means more than reducing weight-it also means reducing risk and dependence on pesticides. The Netherlands, for example has a radical reduction plan by weight, but its usage is very intensive (see figure).
    The Action Plan should promote minimisation and set targets to achieve it. More emphasis must be placed on organic and low input agriculture.
    The Deputy Agriculture Minister says no new money will be available. Research for lower-input agriculture and for a number of aspects of pest control will require funding. Information, training and extension all need support. Testing spray equipment and improving training will also require investment. The Forum should consider a tax on pesticide use to pay for increased research for extra initiatives. (DB) (PB)

1. Action Plan for the responsible use of pesticides, June 1997. Contact: Dr Andy Croxford, Senior Scientific Officer, Chemicals and Biotechnology Division at the DoE, Room A337, Romney House, 43 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3PY.
2. Doctors get funds for OP research, Farmers Weekly, 18 July 1997.
3. Possibilities for Future EU Environmental Policy on Plant Protection Products, Oppenheimer, Wolf and Donnely, 1997.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 37, September 1997, page 15]