Pesticide lobby pushing to keep EU-banned pesticides in use on British farms

The CropLife UK report also complains that, for pesticides that are still approved in both the EU and the UK, the EU has prohibited a number of uses that continue to be permitted in the UK. 

For example, it notes that the EU has banned the use of the controversial weedkiller glyphosate as a “pre-harvest dessicant” which means spraying it on edible crops to dry them out and speed up harvest. In the UK this practice is still allowed.

Similarly, it notes that the EU will only allow the insecticide etoxazole to be used on ornamental plants, which are not grown to be eaten, whereas in the UK it can still be used on tomatoes and aubergines. 

Unearthed found that in the EU this chemical is classified as bioaccumulative (meaning it can build up in living organisms) and toxic, and its use on food crops was prohibited because there were outstanding questions about consumer safety and the “uncertainties are too high”. 

A ‘huge blow’

CropLife UK is calling on the government to deliver “a managed approach to alignment, and reject any scenario that does not respect legitimately made GB decisions”. 

According to the report, “managed alignment” means there would be “little or no change” to British pesticide rules in the “early years of the SPS agreement”. Pesticides that are not approved in the EU would remain approved in the UK until they could be assessed “under EU processes, at which point a common decision would apply”.

However, experts and campaigners told Unearthed that they did not think CropLife UK’s proposal was in line with the “common understanding” that was agreed at a UK/EU summit last May – and that the UK attempting to negotiate this position could imperil the SPS deal.

According to the common understanding, the SPS deal needs to deliver “timely dynamic alignment” of Britain’s farming rules with “all the relevant European Union rules”. Exceptions can only be agreed if they do not “lead to lower standards as compared to European Union rules”. 

Ben Reynolds, of the Institute of European Environmental Policy UK, said the government’s priority was for a “deal with the EU that would ease trade barriers for agri-food products, and benefit the majority of UK farmers and consumers.”

The government’s stated intention had been to align with EU pesticide standards, but to seek a “carve-out” in the deal for “precision breeding,” a gene editing technology where Britain’s agricultural rules have diverged from the EU. 

“Any suggestion that the UK would row back on its main commitment for alignment (on pesticides) would mark a huge blow to the likelihood of striking this deal, let alone getting exemptions on other elements of it,” Reynolds added.

Unearthed understands that, by contrast, CropLife UK believes the “managed alignment” approach set out in its report is the only one that is compatible with the terms of the common understanding.

This is because the common understanding states that the UK should “be involved at an early stage” and be able to contribute to the “decision-shaping process” when the EU enacts new rules that the UK would have to adopt under the SPS deal. 

CropLife UK believes that if the UK has to replace thousands of British regulatory decisions with EU decisions that have already been made, this would not meet the requirement for UK involvement in decision-making. That is because those decisions have already been made by the EU, without consideration of the way the pesticides at issue are used in Britain.