Click here to return to the Johnstone's View Index

Farmers View 1st October 2009

Late last month, Ministers from EU member State Governments voted to enforce severe new restrictions on the chemicals which will be available to farmers. The Pesticide Authorisation Regulation will remove as many as 20% of crop protection products from the market. Farmer’s leaders across the continent are warning that these limits on the use of pesticides will harm Europe’s ability to increase agricultural production at a time when it is needed the most. As if to prove the point, this decision was finally made on the same day that the United Nations was calling for a 70 per cent increase in agricultural productivity by 2050.

This change has been driven by a Europe wide attack on farmers and farming practices, spearheaded by a range of assorted ‘green’, ‘environmental’ and ‘ecological’ groups, most of whom are content to rely on anecdotal evidence and the strength of their own convictions to demonstrate that the use of any chemical tools in the production of food should be banned with immediate effect. These people are distinguished by the fact that they have probably never had to go hungry, and that they are unlikely to let that facts get in the way of a good story!

By capitulating to the demands of this vocal minority, the European Union has chosen to open up a ‘Pandora’s Box’ of inconsistency and hypocrisy. First of all, this is certainly not the time to be taking any kind of action which could see yields reduced. In addition to that, we could see some land, particularly in the more marginal areas, coming out of arable production altogether, with a disproportionate hit being taken right here in Scotland. This will have an impact on farmers but the real hit will be taken by consumers who will see prices go up.

Anyone who has ever grown vegetables in their garden should know that all crops need protection from disease and pests. If you remove the tools farmers use to protect their crops, yields will go down - and prices will go up. Even the most conservative estimates of the production loss we might expect suggest that we could see price increases of at least 20 per cent for staples such as wheat and potatoes. Estimates by some analysts indicate that, in the worst case scenario, prices for cereals and vegetables could rise by 73 and 104 per cent respectively.

Another impact of implementing this legislation will be a shift of agricultural production out of Europe altogether, to countries where similar restrictions do not exist. This will jeopardize the position of the European Union as a net exporter of key crops, and instead make it a net importer of crops instead. For example, wheat production would likely shift from Europe to the United States, Mexico, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, as well as South Africa, China or Australia.

European Union policymakers have failed to consider the full impact of this legislation on the cost of our food. At a time of record food prices and heightened concern about economic stability, and with food riots in some parts of the world, not examining the consequences of this action has resulted in a policy which is disconnected from reality.  Banning these tools without proper scientific consideration is just not in the best interests of consumers.

These rules do not only run contrary to the urgent demands placed on modern, productive agriculture, but they also call into question the entire EU policy-making process. With no demonstrable benefit to human health or the environment, it is scandalous that this legislation has been passed at a time of mounting concern over food security. But this will not be the last time an agricultural technology faces new legislative proposals, and there are clear lessons to be learned for the future.

Few people have a better understanding than farmers of the importance of our membership of the European Union. The co-ordination of policy and the appropriate stimulation of markets to ensure that food production meets demand, ensures that we will never again be subject to shortages and price instability. Sometimes however, the EU can do something which is so monumentally stupid that it should set us all wandering what we have let ourselves in for. This is one of these times.

While the UK government was opposed to this measure, its actions in our defence were weak and ineffective. Britain once had a reputation for the single minded pursuit of its own domestic interest in Europe. I would argue that in those times, not only were we better represented, but that the European Union was also much the better for the British governments refreshing honesty. Thankfully, a much needed return to those days may not be far away.