EU pesticides ban 'a threat to Scottish whisky', claims MEP

Controversial legislation passed in Brussels yesterday aims to reduce the amount of products deemed harmful to human health or the environment used on crops.

Supporters argue that the measures, which have been watered down in the past few months to allow the continued use of pesticides for which there is no alternative for up to ten years, do not go far enough. But critics warn that they could cause crop yields to plummet and food prices to rocket.

Some say yields of potatoes, wheat and carrots, which rely on pesticides to ward off diseases associated with the UK's damp conditions, will suffer.

Struan Stevenson, a Tory MEP for Scotland, said he was "appalled by the decision" and claimed Scotland would have to import products from warmer countries that had less of a problem with disease.

"It will make wheat, oat and barley in Scotland uneconomical," he said. "We can look forward to whisky being distilled from barley imported from France."

He added that some of the chemicals being banned were commonly used in over-the-counter medicines, such as treatments for athlete's foot.

Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, demanded a full impact assessment of the proposed changes.

He said: "These regulations could hit agricultural production in the UK for no recognisable benefit to human health."

Products for protection of plants will be judged on the basis of "perceived hazard", rather than an assessment of risk.

Dr James Gilmour, former director of the Agricultural Advisory Service for Scotland, said this was "fundamentally illogical and wrong-headed".

He said: "If you applied these criteria to coffee, it would be banned throughout the EU, as would alcohol."

And Jim McLaren, president of NFU Scotland, said it was "ridiculous" that food could be imported from outside the EU with no control over what had been used to treat it.

However, the Soil Association backed the ban, and dismissed as "nonsense" the idea that production of entire crops, such as carrots, in the UK might cease.

Peter Melchett, the policy director, said organic farmers had proven crops could be grown with minimal use of pesticides.

Manfred Krautter, of Greenpeace, said the EU should have imposed an immediate ban, rather than a ten-year phase-out of the most toxic pesticides.

And a Liberal Democrat MEP, Chris Davies, said the measure would encourage manufacturers to develop safer alternatives, adding that it was time to stop treating the world "like a giant chemistry set".

The proposed changes, which would ban most crop-spraying and bring in strict conditions on pesticides used near water supplies, were overwhelmingly backed by 577 MEPs, easily exceeding the 393 threshold required to approve the measures.

However, ministers from the 27 member states must vote on whether to approve the draft laws, opposed by the UK government.

Hugh Raven: Three cheers for the creation of a safer environment

Hugh Raven is the director of the Soil Association Scotland

CONGRATULATIONS to the European Parliament for upholding the public interest with its vote on pesticides. In the current economic climate, I sympathise with anyone worried about the viability of their business. But I find it hard to understand the recent over-reaction to these modest proposals.

The marginal reduction in the number of Europe's more dangerous pesticides is a small step in the right direction. Of that small number, most that in due course will go are known endocrine disrupters (ie they can upset human hormone systems); a smaller number are linked with cancer, cause cell mutations or are toxic to reproduction.

To its shame, the UK government is one of the few in the EU to oppose this small step. Perhaps it was taken in by suggestions that wheat yields could be cut by up to 60 per cent.

We should not be surprised at the extravagance of these claims. Steps towards safer food supplies have almost always been opposed by small but vociferous lobbies.

Over the years, many deadly poisons have been removed, accompanied by dire warnings about the consequences for food prices. Yet until recently, prices fell almost continuously for generations, and so far as I know no-one is claiming recent price increases are in any way related to limits on poisonous chemicals.

Don't expect this time to be any different. The crops in question will continue to be grown. Perhaps the production conditions will change – with more natural methods of husbandry that break the cycle of disease and pest attacks, resulting in a greater choice of more resistant varieties of crops.

Farming can thrive without these chemicals. Farmers have been producing healthy crops without them for years. Organic producers have been proving that season after season for at least the past 30 years.