It is a case of semantics - how the new legislation will be put into action will depend on interpretation, and that is where the fun will start!
Brussels SPOUTS!
The Oxford dictionary defines semantics as “The study of word meanings and the relationship between them”. In the world of the European Union one man’s way of interpreting something can have quite a different meaning to the chap from another country sat next to him. The meaning and interpretation of wordings and legislation can be taken and implemented in more than one way. The outcome of the EU vote to adopt new methods to assess and approve pesticide products, and a strategy policy on the sustainable use of pesticides in the future, has been set out for approval. It seems now the real work -
implementation at a country level will start. How the new legislation will be put into action will depend on interpretation, and that is where the fun will start! As I’m sure you are all aware, the EU parliament has just voted through a raft of changes to the way that current and developmental pesticides are to be assessed for their safety and suitability to be used. This applies to turf, urban and horticultural sectors and, of course, arable agriculture. There have been many articles written in the run up to this vote - a few by me - that have been warning of the possible fall out and the far reaching consequences of the ill informed dogma of the darker green variety that the EU commission, and now the EU
parliament, wish to impose on us all. The main issues fall into two categories. The first is the difference between hazard and risk, and the second where urban and amenity spraying can and cannot be performed. At present, the system for approving pesticides in the UK has been based on a scientific assessment of their potential risk to users and the environment. The government’s executive agency that performs this work - The Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD) has led the world in this field for some time and are renowned for developing sophisticated methods for assessing the intrinsic properties of candidate products. Approvals are granted with well thought through limitations to use that effectively manage the possible risks that people and the environment face when the products are put to use. What the EU have voted through is a change to this method. They have decided that a hazard based system should be adopted to protect human health and the environment. This is the part that makes the difference. The understanding of hazard and risk. Lions and tigers are potentially rather
hazardous. If we manage them well (like they do in zoos) then the risk of the lion or tiger being hazardous, or causing the harm they have potential for is managed. This is the part of what will be a new
EU directive that will cause all the furore. If the hospitals of the EU were crowded out with people suffering from chronic illness based on exposure to crop protection products, then there would be a sound case for looking at this as a measure to protect us all. In truth - this simply isn't the case. Why? Because the sound science that currently supports approvals and product development works. To their credit PSD have lobbied hard on this issue, and I feel won the argument on principle, that changing the current system “will hit UK crop yields for no recognisable benefit to human health”. Following meetings with industry leaders, DEFRA Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, confirmed that the UK would not vote to ratify the new EU legislation when it comes before the agriculture council to be finally agreed. This clear stance in support of a reasoned argument supported by science is good news.
The lack of an impact assessment by the EU on the affects the new legislation will have on the quality of the environment we manage, and agricultural productivity, sums up their approach - they have put this legislation proposal through with no consideration of the consequences. Following an assessment by PSD there
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124