On Tuesday, the NFU released a report produced by farm business consultants Andersons, looking at the value of plant protection products to UK agriculture.

image expired

The report was commissioned by farm union in conjunction with the Agricultural Industries confederation (AIC) and the Crop Protection Association (CPA), which represents pesticide manufacturers. The study found that the production of apples, fresh carrots and frozen peas in the UK could be threatened by the loss or restricted use of certain active ingredients; a number of active ingredients are under threat due to mounting evidence of their effects on the environment.

The NFU's report also estimated that the value of the agriculture and horticulture industries would suffer to the tune of £1.6 billion a year, and cost the food and farming industries up to 40 active substances and 44,000 jobs.

NFU vice president, Guy Smith welcomed the findings, saying, "We have been warning that in the lifetime of the current European Parliament, we would face significant threats to PPPs. This important and timely report has confirmed and added clarity to the negative impacts that losses and restrictions on PPPs would have on UK food production, on farm and throughout the supply chain.

"We need government at both UK and EU level to put British food production at the heart of policy-making across all government departments."

AIC spokesperson David Hutchinson claimed that, "A big concern is that the current EU policy making and regulatory systems are heavily influenced by political considerations and sound science often comes second in assessing agricultural technologies – old and new. In the meantime farming and the wider economy of our food industry will continue to suffer and be placed at an ever increasing competitive disadvantage to those countries outside the EU."

Whose science is 'Sound science'?

However, ahead of the EU's introduction of a partial ban on certain neonicotinoid ingredients, it was the UK government (which supports the crop protection industry) and not regulators who were accused of failing to deliver 'sound science'. The government-commissioned field-based research into the impacts of neonicotinoids on bees was not peer reviewed, but instead released directly onto the internet ahead of important debates on the future of three neonicotinoid ingredients.

EU health watchdog EFSA reviewed the study and discredited it, judging that the work was not of a high enough standard to contribute to the debate. Amongst the major concerns listed by EFSA was the discovery that FERA's 'control' bees were found to have been exposed to thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid that was not being tested in the experiment.

Nick Mole, from the Pesticide Action Network said that the findings of the Andersons report are "The same story" told by an earlier report produced by the Humboldt Forum in January 2013, and commissioned by neonicotinoid manufacturers.

The Humboldt study suggested neonicotinoids are worth £630million to UK agriculture. The study was heavily criticised by groups calling for a neonicotinoid ban, who added that the findings of the "alarmist" report still seemed to support their position; Soil Association Policy Director Peter Melchett pointed out that the economic value of insect pollinators alone has been estimated to be three times higher than the industry report's valuation of neonicotinoids. Melchett concluded, "On balance, economic evidence still supports a ban on the pesticides."

On Tuesday, PAN UK's Nick Mole was damning in his criticism of the NFU's Health Harvest report, which he dismissed as "Highly unscientific, highly speculative… scaremongering."

He said that, like the Humboldt report last year, Healthy Harvests "Compares using pesticides with not using anything," adding that "Since new [EU] regulation has come through, there will be some actives lost, but if the NFU was interested in supporting farmers, not acting as lap dog for the agricultural chemical companies, they would have worked with farmers to find alternatives, and helped them adopt different practices."

The PAN UK spokesperson said the NFU's claims that regulatory decisions are being based on political – and not scientific – doctrine are "Frankly offensive." "This legislation is being put in place for a good reason," he concluded; "To protect the environment and human health. It is nonsense that restrictions will stifle innovation."

Author denies producing 'disaster scenario'

Speaking on Radio 4's farming today programme on Tuesday morning, Richard King, the report's author said the Anderson report's findings were "realistic" and denied outlining a disaster scenario. King said that the EU's regulatory environment meant that agricultural R&D is no longer focused on Europe, but instead is beginning to look towards "less risky policy markets."

Kieth Tyrell, director of the Pesticide Action Network, who also appeared on the programme responded, "This legislation has been on the books or in the pipeline since 2006 [and] this [regulatory reform] isn't going on in isolation. This is an EU-wide legislation. No other European country has come out with anything as catastrophic… in fact, what you’re seeing in many other EU countries is governments stepping in to help their farmers."

Instead of looking for alternatives or supporting farmers to change the way they grow and adapt gradually, companies are trying to block [the reform]."

Conservation charity Friends of the Earth also rejected the findings on Tuesday. Nature campaigner Paul de Zylva said, "This dangerously misleading report lacks any credible, independent and peer reviewed science.

"Instead of attacking regulations in place to protect our health and wildlife, we should all focus on finding alternatives to chemicals. The evidence is overwhelming that intensive use of chemicals is harming bees and other wildlife and the quality of our water and soils. That's the real threat to our food security."

De Zylva pointed to findings from the largest and longest global study into the effects and risks of systemic pesticides (including neonicotinoids), which was published in June. The IUCN-convened task force behind the report found that the chemicals "Are causing significant damage to a wide range of beneficial invertebrate species and are a key factor in the decline of bees." The scientists behind the review suggested there is evidence that systemic insecticides are bad for life at every level of an ecosystem.