Spraying rule change 'unnecessary'

Wendy Gray, of the Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide manufacturers, was commenting on a consultation document which includes suggestions on implementing new rules on the application of pesticides.

The proposals include having a compulsory non-sprayed "buffer zone" around water courses and domestic properties. This would cut a large percentage of the acreage of the many small fields in arable areas of Scotland.

Another proposal is that farmers would be required to notify all neighbours prior to taking the sprayer into a field.

Industry experts have calculated the implementation of the proposals – part of a new EU regulation passed last year – could cost the UK farming industry more than 150 million per annum.

Gray said: "We do not need this gold plating of legislation. Farmers have already good relations with their neighbours and the products being sprayed are already certified as safe to be used."

She added that a trial in England where information was given to neighbours on the types of sprays being applied had resulted in less than 2 per cent of neighbours taking up the option, thus proving there was no great need or demand for such moves.

Arable farmer John Picken of St Andrews, who chairs the combinable crops committee of NFU Scotland, agreed.

He said: "This proposal does nothing other than add costs to our production and it comes at a time when we are struggling to make ends meet.

"It is effectively a case of double regulation as we are already using products that have gone through a rigorous testing process."

He said the only dangers could come when the chemical was in its concentrated form, not when it was greatly diluted for spraying.

And he added that a great deal of work had been undertaken in recent years in making spraying safer, with most of this initiative being voluntary. The industry response has been positive, he said.

The consultation – which is being conducted by Defra and covers the whole of the UK – is open until 4 May and Gray urged all those who might be affected to respond to the proposals.

NFU Scotland will be making a detailed response. Their provisional view repeats the phrase "gold plating" several times in describing some of the suggestions.

They will also resist any specific reduction in pesticide usage on the basis that the volume of plant protection can vary enormously depending on the weather. One example of this would be the application of sprays against potato blight which are triggered by specific weather conditions.

The union believes that current restrictions for spraying around water courses is adequate and that specific buffer strips should only be considered in locations where the science indicated they were necessary.

The union is also concerned that any routine notification of neighbours about spraying would raise "unnecessary concerns".