In our current world where A.I. is taking over and data is king; it comes as a surprise that the UK does not have accurate data on the pesticides that are being pumped into our environment. Having said that, it doesn’t come as a surprise to those of us who have been trying to analyse and make sense of pesticide use in the UK for decades.
Why is data so important?
Data and statistics are a vital tool for identifying problems, shaping well-informed policy, and monitoring progress and success. For the UK government to deliver its key objectives regarding halting biodiversity loss, preventing river and drinking water pollution, developing resilient soils and protecting human health, it is imperative that there is access to accurate, granular and timely data on pesticide use in all sectors – agriculture, amenity and amateur.
There are currently two sources of official statistics on pesticides available. One covers pesticide use in agriculture and amenity settings, and another covers residues on food – an annual testing programme carried out on behalf of the government by the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) – at least it was until this year, more on that later!
Data on pesticide usage
PUSSTATS (Pesticide Usage Surveys) includes a database of pesticide use statistics across a range of agricultural crops in the UK as well as individual sector reports e.g. arable, orchards etc. Individual reports are published roughly every two years, although there is sometimes a greater time gap between publications. The data from the individual reports is used to populate the database figures.
Problem 1: Only estimates in agriculture
The information for overall usage is an estimate based on a very small sample size. As an example, the most recent report on pesticide use in the arable sector, published in 2026, surveyed only 6% of the total arable crop area in the UK.
Making estimates based on such a small sample size cannot in any sense give a proper picture of what is actually happening in-field across the arable sector as a whole.
Problem 2: Inconsistency and data gaps
The information provided by PUSSTATS has a time lag, does not cover all the areas regularly, provides no detailed information at useful geographical levels, relies on self-reporting, only identifies individual active substances and classes of pesticide, and does not provide information on product usage.
This severely limits the usefulness of PUSSTATS data for informing policy and/or land management decisions, because it is not comprehensive, granular or timely enough.
Problem 3: Underestimates in towns, cities and schools
For the amenity use of pesticides (which covers all non-agricultural public spaces), PUSSTATS relies on data collection that is via a non-obligatory user survey carried out every couple of years. The resulting data fails to produce a useful picture of pesticide use in the amenity sector. As an example, the most recent amenity survey carried out on behalf of Defra had only 18 responses from local authorities. Whereas a Freedom of Information exercise undertaken by PAN UK resulted in 368 responses from local authorities.
Problem 4: No data on private use
In terms of amateur use (home & garden) pesticides, there is no information at all as sales data is hidden behind commercial confidentiality clauses. This means that there is no information on the extent, scale and use of pesticides applied on private property.
In summary we have an estimate for agricultural use, an underestimate for amenity use and no idea whatsoever for amateur use! This is not acceptable in the current world of big data.
Data on pesticide residues in food
Pesticides do not just disappear after use, they can appear as residues in and on the food that we eat. Having accurate information about what we are likely to be ingesting as part of our daily diet should be a given, but…
PRiF (the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food) tests approximately 20-25 different food items annually, mainly fruit and vegetables. It is a semi-random monitoring scheme based on a number of factors, including dietary relevance and the likely risk of being contaminated with pesticide residues.
Key issues with PRiF’s data
Whilst the limited information PRiF provides is of some use, there are several issues with it:
- Lack of consistency in types of samples tested – it is difficult to establish a clear picture of changes when the types of produce tested varies from year to year.
- The focus on Maximum Residue Level exceedances. Whist this is important, it distracts from other important issues, such as the presence of multiple residues – the ‘cocktail’ effect – which is relevant in terms of potential human and environmental health outcomes.
- The information is presented in an opaque fashion and is not readily accessible to members of the public that might be interested or concerned about the findings.
- No references to possible impacts on human health are identified.
- The data is not demonstrably used to identify potential issues with the use of certain Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) in either UK or global supply chains.
The ‘Dirty Dozen’
Every year, PAN UK analyses the data presented by PRiF to make it more accessible for the general public. We focus on multiple residues and also report on the associated human health risks of the residues present. An example of our annual “Dirty Dozen” can be found here.
PRiF needs to extend its testing and reporting so that it better reflects what is present on the food that the UK public are consuming. The public has a right to know.
However, in a recent development, PRiF has been wound up and the responsibility for residue testing and reporting has been handed over to the HSE (Health and Safety Executive). It remains to be seen whether they will continue the current system or instigate the improvements needed to provide a clear picture of what is in and on the food that we eat.
Overall conclusion
The government cannot possibly develop effective policy that will reduce the use and impact of pesticides if there is no clear picture of how much, and exactly where, pesticides are being used. Similarly, it will be impossible for them to monitor any kind of progress in strategies that they do implement with the current paucity of data. PAN UK has several suggestions that should be taken up as a priority by the current government.
Proposed solutions
There are a number of areas that must be improved with regards to pesticide data collection:
- Greater frequency of reporting with a shorter lag between surveys and the publication of results.
- More detailed geographical information – ideally field level or at least catchment level rather than the current regional approach.
- Information provided on active / crop combinations rather than the current class / crop combinations.
- The amenity survey should be carried out more frequently and include mandatory reporting requirements for all professional pesticide users.
- Access to sales data for amateur use pesticides.
- Improved transparency and ease of access to pesticide data, ensuring raw data is made readily available and all tables and graphs can be downloaded.
- An annual report of PUSSTATS findings should be published, as is the case with PRiF reports.
All of these measures would make the information more accurate and usable and present a clearer picture of pesticide use in the UK. The current lag in reporting and the fact that not all uses are reported at the same time means that the stats are an incomplete snapshot in time. The information needs to be both more dynamic and more robust.
Transparent, up to date and accessible pesticide use data would enable:
- Policy changes & solutions based on accurate data, rather than impressions gathered, and incomplete information.
- Reporting of quantitative progress against key government initiatives and plans, including the Environmental Improvement Plan and the Farming Roadmap.
- Reporting on the success of measures within the SFI, notably the payments for stopping the use of insecticides.
- Reporting on progress in meeting the objective of a 10% decrease in pesticide use for the arable sector as outlined in the National Action Plan on Pesticides.
- Links between any improper use and pollution. In particular we would be able to correlate pesticide usage with pollution of water courses and water bodies.
- Monitoring of programmes aimed at pesticide use and impact reduction.
- Monitoring of any changes in the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides.
- Allow correlation with uptake of IPM and organic.
- Anticipate potential future problems with pesticide contamination.
- Allow identification of areas where pesticide cocktails might be having an impact on water quality, soil, environment, biodiversity etc.
- Human health –identify potential links between emerging human health issues and local spray events.
For more information, contact Nick Mole at [email protected]
Download the briefing ‘Pesticide Data: UK State of Play’ here.
