Pessimism about pesticides regulation not justified

With the European Parliament scheduled to vote on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation in November, this open access article by JRC scientists sets out why fears of negative impacts on production are overblown: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00834-6

Recent studies have estimated the potential yield impacts of pesticide reductions in the European Union. While these estimates guide policy design, they are often based on worst-case assumptions and rarely account for positive ecological feedbacks that would contribute to sustainable crop yields in the long term.

'Protecting crop yields is critical to safeguarding food and feed security. Studies on the potential yield impacts of a reduction in pesticide use and risk in the EU estimated adverse effects. As shown here, the literature suggests that these estimates are upper bounds for several reasons that must be acknowledged in research on the impacts of a pesticide reduction: the full 50% reduction does not fall onto feed and food crops; the heterogeneity in pesticide use across farms, areas and crops can be exploited in reduction plans; risk-based indices allow for progress by substituting active substances; the expansion of the area under organic farming may deliver progress; the SUR facilitates agronomic and technological alternatives to pesticides; and ecosystem services supporting sustainable crop yields will benefit from lower pesticide use. Finally, the SUR improves the availability of data on pesticide use and, in doing so, addresses a bottleneck in research and policy-making concerning more sustainable food systems.'

EU in retreat over animal welfare?

The EU is considering scrapping plans to impose regulations designed to improve animal welfare in the farming industry over concerns about the impact it could have on food inflation, according to senior officials.

The European Commission had promised to act after public pressure to stop practices such as the use of cages for livestock, the killing of day-old chicks, and the sale and production of fur. But concerns that the proposed changes could add to food costs, which rose sharply after Russia invaded Ukraine last year, have led Brussels to reconsider the plans.

Three EU officials with knowledge of the matter told the Financial Times that the Commission had dropped the proposals completely — along with a sustainable food law designed to boost green food production across the bloc. But another official said it was reviewing the animal welfare plan and would propose a scaled-back version.   This sounds like a trial balloon to judge reactions.

“Some in the commission are worried about the cost,” said Joe Moran, director of European policy for Four Paws, an animal welfare campaign group. The legislation is among the few remaining parts of the EU’s Green Deal climate package, laid out in 2019 to pivot the bloc to a more sustainable economy. But ahead of EU-wide elections in 2024, conservative politicians have pushed back against the environmental regulations.

Typically, the reaction of farm organizations is to call for more subsidies.  Pekka Pesonen, secretary-general of Copa-Cogeca, the EU farmer’s group, told the FT it could support many of the changes as long as they received financial aid to implement them, and if imported meat was subject to the same standards. That would in effect ban many imports from trading partners such as Brazil, Ukraine and Thailand. Such a measure would also be opposed by trade commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.

The UK was one of the strongest advocates of animal welfare measures and its voice is no longer heard in the EU.