Opportunities for farmers to use fewer pesticides

Pesticide Action Network UK is setting up a Safe Alternatives Innovation Forum (SAIF) to find alternatives to chemical farming. A preliminary meeting was held at Holme Lacy agricultural college, Herefordshire, in March. Over the next four pages, John Harvey examines the issues raised at the meeting.

More than 50 people met at this meeting to discuss practical ways in which farmers can cut pesticide use.
    ‘There may be wide political differences between stakeholders – but there is more scope for discussion when examining practical realities,’ said David Buffin, coordinator of PAN UK’s agricultural policy programme.
    Participants included farmers using organic and integrated farming methods as well as scientists, advisers, food retailers and their suppliers, environmental and consumer NGOs and regulators. Farmers were asked to provide examples of practical ways in which they had reduced pesticide use in four different crops: wheat, potatoes, apples and lettuce. The main conclusion from the meeting was to hold regular SAIF meetings in which stakeholders who have significant ways of reducing pesticide use can help farmers adopt these practices. 

Big reductions in use possible
An important concern raised was the lack of resources devoted to helping farmers reduce pesticide use. But in spite of this significant reductions have been made in some areas. For example, Farmcare, the farming arm of the Co-op, has reduced its use on wheat by 50% since 1994. An apple farmer in Kent has reduced his use by 75% over the last 20 years, between 1990 and 2003 a lettuce producer has also reduced his use by 75% from 21kg per ha to 5kg per ha. In the future PAN UK will examine to what extent, these volume reductions will reduce the actual health and environmental risks posed by pesticides.
    Talking at the meeting, David Buffin explained PAN UK’s key recommendations:

• SAIF would promote the least toxic and biological approaches to pest management
• the UK Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) should be reformed as a Pest Management Directorate with a broad remit on pest management in the field rather than a narrow focus on pesticides as inputs to agriculture
• the new directorate would reduce the use of pesticides for cosmetic and other reasons
• the Advisory Committee on Pesticides which advises Ministers should be expanded to have pest management as its focus rather than just pesticides
• a new form of assessing risks to recommend least hazardous products, known as comparative assessment (CA) must be included in the forthcoming revision of the European Union’s pesticide Authorisations Directive 91/414. CA has to be central to the government’s national pesticides strategy and the principle must be enshrined in other regulatory measures.

David Buffin called for the government’s national pesticides strategy – still to be published as a consultation document – to: 

• minimise the hazards and risks to health and the environment from pesticides
• improve controls on pesticide use and distribution
• reduce the levels of harmful pesticides by substituting alternatives
• encourage low-input or pesticide-free crop production
• establish a transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress
• adopt mandatory use reporting coordinated in a central database.

Blocks to pesticide reduction
One of the most important concerns from the participants was the different positions of government agencies. The Food Standards Agency’s policy emphasises pesticide minimisation while the PSD approves chemicals on the basis of safety, quality and efficacy. 
    Many larger farms are already part of assurance schemes run by supermarkets, and – as the meeting showed – they are leading the way in terms of advice about reducing pesticides. But smaller farms may not have the financial strength to take risks with pesticides, and there was a call for them to have special EU grants to help with use reduction.
    Participants raised concerns about barriers that prevent the development of alternatives to synthetic pesticides. The current regulatory systems appears to favour the approval of chemical products, and there is insufficient funding for research into alternative methods, particularly for fruit and vegetables.
    The messages coming out of this meeting were reinforced by the diverse nature of the stakeholders present.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 64, June 2004, page 3]