Impact of EU pesticide reduction strategy and implications for crop protection in the UK and the Rest of Europe

Around 75% of active ingredients (a.i.) used as plant protection products in Europe before 1993 have been withdrawn from the market since the introduction of Directive 91/414/EEC, concerning the placing on the market of plant protection products. Although a large number of pesticides have been lost, some were replaced by 'better', 'less toxic' or less persistent molecules, because industry did not want to continue to support outdated molecules and spend money on all the extra tests required. However, in reducing the number there should have been a careful assessment of whether any should be retained to allow better resistance management strategies to be maintained. The approval process for agricultural pesticides that can be used in agriculture is a continuous one and we can expect additional important a.i. to be withdrawn, as has been seen with the EC decision in April 2013, to ban three neonicotinoid insecticides (NNIs) for two years. The EU Pesticide Reduction Strategy responds to public concern and medical evidence about the harmful effects of pesticides on human health. While most people would agree that we should try to minimise the use of conventional pesticides in our environment, there is considerable controversy over where the balance should be struck, between risk and benefit. The debate is highly polarised, between those who think the risk of harm from pesticides is already being managed by strict regulation of their use and, those who think that a precautionary approach should be adopted and that potential hazard is a reasonable criterion for removal. The agricultural industry, including most farmers, argue that further pesticide removals will result in significant decreases in European food production and, therefore, higher food prices. Environmental and other campaigning organizations such as Friends of the Earth, the Soil Association and The Pesticide Action Network, believe that the rate of removal of the most 'hazardous' pesticides should be increased and that there should be much less use of 'derogations'