Farmers across the United Kingdom are being urged to lobby their MEP to vote against a set of far-reaching proposals that would place severe restrictions on the future use of pesticides.

The environment committee of the European Parliament has tabled an extended set of what were already onerous proposals intended to curb pesticide use across the EU by 2020.

The parliament’s agriculture and industry committees lodged more than 70 amendments, but the environment committee rejected them outright.

The latest version, which is likely to go before parliament for a vote in September, requires:

• Member states to draft a National Action Plan that would outline how pesticide use would be cut by 25% within five years and by 50% by 2020;

• The NAP should be funded by an industry levy or tax, says the proposals;

• Compulsory 10m buffer zones alongside watercourses;

• A central system for notifying neighbours and others that have requested to be notified of instances where they could be exposed to drift;

• The legal requirement for sprayers to undergo an MOT-style inspection at least once every five years;

• A ban on spraying vertical crops (ie hops and orchards) alongside or near watercourses and;

• A 50% reduction in use of products considered of very high concern or classified as toxic or very toxic by 2013 

2.5-mile buffer zones?

Most worryingly is the requirement for “substantial” buffer zones.  While substantial is not defined, and will ultimately be at the discretion of member states anyway, there is strong support for the American requirement of buffers of 2.5miles. 

The industry levy or tax should also be used to promote low-input systems, crop specific integrated pest management (IPM) practices and organic farming systems.Who is your MEP?

You can identify and contact your MEP by visiting http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm 

Personally I think these proposals are clearly of an anti-pesticide persuasion: There is no scientific basis for such a set of draconian measures.  What are your thoughts?
Andrew
FW News reporter

How are Farmers that grow salad crops for supermarkets especially suppose to cope with those when if they find a bug on a lettuce leaf in a batch they go nuts. Meaning they have no option but to blitz the crop to make sure nothing survives. It seems nearly as stupid as the regualtions where that said vegetables and fruits had to be of a set shape or dimentions.

The VI, initially begrudged by many but increasingly accepted by all but a minority of conventional farmers and organic advocates, has done much to show that the risks from today’s agchem products used professionally and responsibly are minimal.

No system is risk-free. But the VI, with its three-pronged operator training/register, sprayer testing and crop protection management plan approach, has encouraged a professionalism that has long surpassed its initial underlying aim, namely to stave of a tax on pesticides.

So it is particularly galling to see the proposal that the National Action Plan, intended to make swingeing cuts in pesticide use, be paid for by an industry levy or tax.

I am amazed Andrew that you are suprised at the proposed new regulations emanating from the Gaulieters in Brussels. If any one thought that by playing goody two shoes with our new masters we would be rewarded with less regulation then they are living in fairyland. Those NFU members like myself who fought the introduction of the Farm Assurance scams and latterly the misnamed V.I. from their conception by the NFU heirarchy have now been proved right. The only reason that NFU HQ managed to foist these nightmarish schemes onto the Farming community was by pretending that all the bureaucratic rubbish would in some wierd way prevent further restrictions on our farming practices being introduced the control freaks who run the EU. Saddly,and as we predicted, this has turned out to be a total fallacy. Collaboration with the commies who run the EU will only result in yet more and more regulations until we are all nationalised and finally collectivised.

Time for us to leave this vale of tears and tell the EU to shove its regulations where the monkey shoves his nuts.

Dick

Chinese Whispers?

has anyone else heard brussels are debating whether to legislate to reduce artificial fertiliser use by up to 50% ?

www.fwi.co.uk/pesticidesqanda

Isabel Davies:

Now it is up to the agricultural ministers of the 27 EU members to make sure the proposal is removed or, at the very least, amended to prevent unnecessary damage being made to the profitability of European farming.

And once more UK farmers will be praying that our colleagues in countries such as France persuade their own governments in the right direction as we can rest assured ours will do nothing our favour.

I might be out of touch on this one, but can someone tell me what the 2.5 mile buffer zone is meant to around? Nuclear power stations, oil refineries, over-congested commuter routes, parliamentary buildings.... !?

Actually I'm not sure we can say our government will do nothing. From everything I hear, and having talked to some of the Pesticides Safety Directorate officials at the BCPC conference in Glasgow last week pre-vote, where there was a whole session on the new approvals legislation, it was pretty clear they do not believe in "cut-off criteria".  They would much prefer to have a risk-based system, as we have now, in place.

Hopefully that filters down, or up, to the DEFRA ministers.

Stuart

In the directive on use, there was a proposal of 10m buffer zones around water courses. This was rejected by parliament, although buffer zones will be required around water courses - how big will be determined by individual members.

However, there was a separate part which proposed a total ban on spraying in all public areas, plus substantial no spray zones near residential areas, public parks, etc. This was rejected, in favour of an amendment, that changed the wording to prohibit, or restrict spraying to the minimum necessary, in areas used by the public (e.g. parks, schools, sports grounds), as well as in substantial no-spray zones around those areas.

Now, as you might guess, anti-pesticide campaigner Georgina Downs has picked up on that, and suggested that you can't have minimum use of pesticides in a no-spray zone (no spray zone meaning just that: no spray), and she suggests substantial no spray zone should mean 2.5 miles.

The NFU says the text is ambiguous (which it is - how can you have minimum necessary and no spray zone in the same sentence!), as is what is a substantial no spray zone. It hopes the Agricultural Council will not accept such a poorly worded suggestion.

Isabel's link at the bottom of my opinion piece doesn't work (or didn't for me).

Try: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/10/23/107749/qa-what-could-the-new-eu-pesticide-legislation-mean.html

News flash!

A new report by a group know as the Gereen Angles (A spelling error in their application for charitable status, has meant the group, which was to be the Green Angels, were left with this slightly anarchic sounding title) has shown that the average London urban garden has a level of toxity to warrant the compulsory use of breathing apparatus for those who venture into it. In addition the prolific use of slug pellets has led to a dramatic decline in wildlife of all descriptions, and which the report's authors' surmise might lead to a generation of super slugs and snails impervious to the industry standard killers.

The report goes on to say, that the application of pesticides and nitrogen per square metre exceeds that applied by farmers who have to work to strict guidelines. One of the report's authors, a Miss Evangelista Calfcare says, "The problem has now become so serious that water leaching through the ground has carried the toxic mix down to the level of the Bakerloo underground line, and that drips of this maladorous liquid are causing the potted plants, placed there to cheer up travellers to wilt and turn up their leaves." It is feared that unless something is done the underground system might have to be closed whilst a team of DEFRA officials carry out wholesale slaughter of the affected plants. Our informant goes on to say that, "Gordon Brown is thought to be considering a movement ban and a restriction zone covering the whole of the underground system."

An editorial in the Guardian newspaper, well known for being close to the Minister for Public Health suggests an immediate ban on the sale of all Pesticides and Herbicides in garden centres, until such time as licences for their use can be issued and training courses for the householder arranged.