Rothamsted raises crop fears over proposed pesticides ban

The effect of neonicotinoid pesticides on pollinators has become a political issue in the run up to the General Election, with the Labour Party committed to an outright ban if elected; the NFU says there is a lack of compelling evidence to support a ban. Picture by Owen Humphreys/PA Wire

Leading agricultural study centre, Rothamsted Research, declared its concerns in a position statement this week, as the Labour Party’s leaked draft General Election manifesto included a commitment to impose a ban on all neonicotinoid pesticides, if it is elected to lead the country on June 8.

Three neonicotinoids - or neonics - have been the subject of a temporary EU-wide ban on crops that flower since December 2013, restrictions that have cost the European oilseed rape industry €900m a year, claims the European Crop Protection Association, which represents chemicals companies. In the UK, the “restricted use” ban has mainly affected oilseed rape crops.

The impact of the pesticides on bees is highly disputed but, nonetheless, the European Commission is proposing to introduce a widespread ban on the use of neonics across Europe.

Rothamsted Research is concerned that a wider ban of neonicotinoids could make the cultivation of many other crops, such as wheat, much more difficult to maintain. Picture by David Giles/PA Wire

Labour’s position echoes that proposed by the EU, with the Party saying it would ban the use of all neonics, for both flowering and non-flowering crops which would extend to the likes of wheat and sugar beet.

Farming groups and environmental campaigners remain split on the impact of neonics on bees, with Rothamsted lamenting the lack of evidence for current pesticide restrictions - drawing attention to the number of reports by vested interests from both sides of the debate.

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) says there is a lack of “compelling” science to support any restrictions, while The Wildlife Trusts wants an outright ban over “growing concern” that even low levels of the chemicals could be harmful to insect pollinators.

In a statement published this week, Rothamsted scientists spelt out their fears for food production if a wider ban on the pesticides was introduced.

“It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain production of many crops if neonicotinoids are more widely restricted or banned completely,” the statement from Rothamsted read.

“For example, in sugar beet, the control of aphids and the virus diseases they spread, is totally reliant on neonicotinoid seed treatments because the aphids are resistant to other control chemistries.”

It adds: “Furthermore, if groups of chemistries are limited by legislation, the remaining groups will be more widely used, resulting in an increased risk of pests developing resistance to them.”

In its ten-year National Pollinator Strategy announced in 2014, the Government stated that among the evidence gaps on the impacts of pesticides on pollinators in field conditions was a full understanding of the effects of neonics on populations of wild and managed pollinators.

In its statement, Rothamsted re-iterated its call for “a proper science-led risk assessment to understand the effects of pesticides... This will help us balance the risks and benefits for crop protection, crop pollination, ecosystem function and our health appropriately.”

It concluded: “It is vital that research is done to study crop protection in its broadest sense, combining conventional chemical control with better surveillance of pests, weeds and diseases, understanding and mitigating for pesticide resistance and developing next generation crop protection.”

Rothamsted also drew attention to an analysis by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, an independent levy board funded by farmers, growers and industry, that considers how EU pesticide regulations could change in a post-Brexit UK.

“Change is possible”, says the AHDB. “And the industry needs to think ahead regarding what it wants and needs to compete effectively in a changing global trading environment, as well as satisfying consumer preferences in a domestic market.”

Chris Hartfield, the NFU’s senior regulatory affairs adviser, said: “The NFU welcomes the statement from Rothamsted and its continued evidence-led approach to regulation. Much like their position, the NFU remains concerns about farmers’ ability to produce many crops in the UK and their ability to manage pests if neonicotinoids are the subject of a blanket ban.

“The NFU remains convinced that there is no compelling evidence that neonicotinoids are causing widespread declines in bee populations.”

The union urged its members to speak to their prospective parliamentary candidates and MEPs to ensure they understand the consequences for farm businesses of any widespread neonics ban.