by Nick Mole, Policy Manager, PAN UK
Earlier this year, CropLife, the trade body that represents the UK pesticide industry, published a report that exposed their goals to protect profits and resist regulations that might impact their sales. As proposed under the new UK-EU SPS agreement, the UK’s farmers, food businesses, citizens, and our environment all stand to benefit when we once again align with Europe’s higher pesticide standards. However, in their recent report CropLife claim that crop yields will suffer and farmers will be put at a disadvantage should this deal go ahead. But the report isn’t really about that at all.
In fact, this is a very typical pesticide industry response to potential restrictions on the sale and use of active substances. Part of their lobbying playbook is to delay decisions that might adversely impact their income. It has nothing to do with supporting farmers– it is purely about protecting profits.
We’ve seen this before…
In 2009, there were negotiations for stronger pesticide active substance approval conditions in the EU. During these negotiations the UK government’s Chemicals Regulation Division, supported by CropLife (CPA), claimed that this new Regulation, if adopted, could cause a 100% drop in yield of carrots, effectively wiping out the carrot crop in the UK and increasing prices dramatically. Thankfully, their stark warning was ignored and the new Regulation was adopted and, to date, carrots remain one of the only crops that the UK is virtually self-sufficient in. And prices did not increase.
In 2013, during discussions around a potential ban on neonicotinoids in the EU, an industry financed report claimed that a ban could lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs in agriculture. It claimed that it could cost the EU economy £17 billion over five years and that production would drop. Once again, the ban was authorised and production continued, jobs were not lost and there was no significant cost to the economy.
The latest claims…
The 2026 report claims that realignment with EU pesticide standards as proposed under the UK / EU reset deal (SPS agreement) could result in:
“…an estimated loss of 3-6% in Gross Value Added of UK crop production in the first year, meaning that the Total Income from Farming (i.e. industry profit) would fall by between £500m and £810m. This loss of income to farmers would come from the loss of key crop protection tools, including four new actives, resulting in a decrease of overall production (wheat volumes could fall by 9-16%, potatoes by 4- 6% and apples by 3-7%), shifts in cropping patterns and increased costs associated with growing certain crops”.
The report identifies four active substances approved for use in Great Britain since 2022. That means that at most they have been in use for three and a half years, not long enough to make such dramatic statements about impact on yield. Also, the active substances that were previously being used are still available.
(It is worth pointing out that the EU might at some point in the near future actually approve these active substances if they pass the risk assessment process. Licenses for all four are currently pending in the EU so are going through the approval process.)
New GB actives not approved in the EU
The report also claims that: “It is very difficult to collect direct evidence for this – for example, no studies have been undertaken growing crops in the UK with only the Actives allowed in the EU.”
CropLife appears to have forgotten the fact that the UK followed EU regulations for years prior to Brexit so there are decades of studies showing evidence of growing crops in the UK with only the actives allowed in the EU. There is, of course, also the current agricultural activity in the EU which can be referenced as case studies. They might argue that conditions are completely different in the EU – but they aren’t. It’s worth pointing out that the pesticide industry was more than happy to assume that UK and EU conditions are the same during the zonal authorisation system whereby a product approved for use in Hungary could also be used in the UK for example.
The report also states: “Therefore, expert opinion has been used to gauge the likely effects. This has involved speaking to those closely involved in GB crop protection, notably agronomists, and using their insights. Whilst these are only opinions rather than results of trials, they are seen as the best available evidence.” These “opinions”, therefore, appear to have only been made by people with a vested interest in non-alignment in order to recoup the research and development costs of the four new actives that have been approved in GB but not the EU.
Actives approved in Great Britain but banned in the EU
The report has also identified 14 actives withdrawn from use in the EU but still approved for use in Great Britain.
The reason some of these actives have not been banned in Great Britain to date is due to the lack of capacity of GB regulators to undertake any kind of approval reassessment. Instead, they have been arbitrarily granted automatic extensions to their approval for use.
Many of these actives have had their approval withdrawn in the EU because of the risk they present to human health or the environment. Examples include:
- Dimethomorph – withdrawn due to being a reproductive toxin and endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC), harmful to both terrestrial mammals and aquatic ecosystems.
- Metribuzin – withdrawn because of its health impacts as an EDC and toxicity to bees, as well as presenting unacceptable risks to bystanders.
- Spirotetramat – its reapproval was not supported by the manufacturer due to extra data requirements needed regarding bee toxicity, impact on aquatic ecosystems and human health issues.
It’s not such a stretch to imagine that the pesticide industry is trying to ensure that the UK continues using these pesticides that pose a threat to human health and / or the environment for as long as possible. Again, this is not about helping farmers it is about protecting profits. The EU is made up of 27 countries with similar growing conditions and access to hundreds of pesticide actives which can still be used to help farmers figure out a new way forward.
A view of agricultural fields from the air. Credit TJGOR/Shutterstock.org
Glyphosate
The report makes a huge fuss about the possibility of a ban on the use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccation. This is an agricultural practice where a chemical, such as glyphosate, is applied to a crop shortly before harvest to kill the plants and speed up the drying process. The report states: “It has been assumed that the yield effects on crops from the loss of this use would be relatively small. Instead, it is the operation of the farm that is affected.” It’s good to see that a ban on the use of glyphosate as a desiccant would have limited impact on yield. In terms of an impact on farm operations, there are plenty of farmers in the UK that support a ban on pre-harvest desiccation.
Conclusions
While this report is lacking in any robust analysis and is populated with opinion and misinformation, it does seem to have struck a chord with some of the key political decision makers in the UK. In fact, it appears that the House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
It is to be expected that further pseudo-factual reports of this nature will be pushed out in the lead up to the UK-EU reset summit in May in order to derail the SPS agreement. Hopefully, negotiators on both sides will be able to see through this charade and continue to fast-track dynamic alignment on pesticide standards.
If the pesticide industry is really interested in the wellbeing of farmers or cared about the ability of the UK to trade with its largest agricultural exports market, it too would be supporting dynamic alignment rather than trying to protect its profit margins with this dodgy dossier.
