Government scientists welcomed a highly controversial new report on the value of crop protection products on Thursday.

Scientists at the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) said the Healthy Harvests report, produced by agricultural consultants Andersons for the NFU, Crop Protection Association (CPA) and Agricultural Innovation Confederation (AIC), "Highlights the need for robust integrated approaches to crop health and production."

The report was produced in response to new EU regulations that could result in the loss of a number of active ingredients, which EU scientists are concerned may pose a threat to the environment and public health.

FERA scientists said the report fits into the Agency's calls for a diversification in the approach to growing and protecting crops. Dr Phil Newton, Director of Science at Fera, said a switch to more integrated approaches "Isn't likely to happen overnight." Dr Newton said leaders of the research and agriculture industries need to work together, adding, "The crop health and protection opportunities offered by science and technological developments are immense, but realising their potential requires a range of industry and research organisations, working together across the sector, in a national and international policy context."

He continued, "Right now, the UK Government's Agri-tech Strategy provides just such an opportunity. In response to this, Fera, together with a consortium of industrial and research partners, is bidding to establish a Centre for Agricultural Innovation in Crop Health and Protection, to develop new deployable integrated solutions to reduce threats and safeguard yield and quality in crops."

Controversial report branded 'Scaremongering'

The NFU maintains that "Effective crop health protection is essential for achieving a sustainable intensification of agriculture." The Andersons report a loss of availability of certain agro-chemicals could lead to yield reductions of between 4 and 50 percent for major crops. Losses, the report warns could affect oilseed rape, peas, carrots, onions and apples, lead to growing resistance in crop pests due to fewer available chemicals and cuase thousands of job losses.

However, though Andersons maintains that its projections are "realistic," the report has been dismissed as "Highly unscientific, highly speculative… scaremongering" by the Pesticide Action Network and for lacking "any credible, independent and peer reviewed science," by Friends of the Earth.

Green Party MEP Molly Scott Cato reacted angrily to the report, which she said is "Riddled with inaccuracies" and "Takes the idea of getting your retaliation in first into the realms of absurdity."

She continued, "The death of the British carrot was already falsely predicted by similar lobbyists back in 2009 when new EU regulations were introduced. By making such sweeping and unjustifiable claims the agribusiness sector merely continues to undermine its credibility and to place itself clearly in opposition not only to European citizens but also to the farmers who suffer most from the diseases caused by the most toxic agricultural chemicals."

Scott-Cato, MEP for South-West England continued, "Politicians like myself should be free to make decisions in the best interests of the people who elect us and should not be subjected to this sort of hysterical lobbying by those employed to generate profits for their shareholders. The industry previously tried to block the banning of neonicotinoid pesticides which have been shown to be associated with decline in bee populations."

The current government has consistently supported the crop protection industry; following debates over the future of three neonicotnoid insecticides – which were eventually subjected to a partial ban by the EU Commission last year – the UK government reiterated that it did not accept mounting evidence that the compounds could be harming bees and insect life.

During negotiations over the neonicotinoid ban, the UK government attempted to submit as evidence a paper produced by FERA, which looked at the effects of two neonicotinoid treatments on bees in the field. The study was not peer-reviewed, but instead released directly onto the internet. EU health watchdog EFSA reviewed the study and judged it to be inadmissible as evidence in light of glaring "weaknesses," including the contamination of 'control' hives with a third pesticide.  

In the wake of the debates, the Environmental Audit Committee offered scathing criticism of the government for relying on "fundamentally flawed" studies and "Taking an extraordinarily complacent approach to protecting bees." The Committee also reacted disapprovingly when the author of the government-commissioned study left FERA to join Syngenta, a neonicotinoid manufacturer later in 2013.