ECR0007

Written evidence submitted by RH & RW Clutton LLP

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

RH & RW Clutton is the oldest firm of Land Agents in the UK, established in 1743.

 

We manage and consult on rural land and farming over many thousands of acres in the South East of England and more widely.

 

Our clients’ businesses are dependent on access to safe reliable and affordable agricultural chemicals for plant protection and pest control.

 

The introduction of REACH in 2006 has, in our opinion, been an unmitigated disaster for our clients as more and more chemicals lose authorisation and are effectively banned from use.

 

These chemicals were approved for use in the UK by our own Pesticides Safety Directorate, which did a fine job of protecting the public while affording land managers access to useful products.

 

REACH requires the re-authorisation of active chemicals every ten years. The fact that after the end of any patent protection period no one body has an incentive to go through the hugely expensive REACH authorisation process means that the availability of “off label” products has dropped every year since 2006, and is set to fall further to the huge disadvantage of UK plc.

 

Moreover, the undemocratic influence of the (well-meaning but often misguided) EU green lobby threatens the core products that remain, notably Round-Up (glyphosate).

 

We urge the EAC to recognise the failures of REACH in the farming and land management sector and to recommend the reinstatement of the rights and duties of the UK Pesticide Safety Directorate to the status it had before 2006.

 


EVIDENCE BASE

 

The EU Commission

 

What substances are banned and authorised in the EU market ?

welcome > About Pesticides > Substances banned and authorised

WHAT SUBSTANCES ARE BANNED AND AUTHORISED IN THE EU MARKET?

In an ambitious work programme launched in 1992, the European Commission started a review process for all active ingredients used in plant protection products (pesticides) within the European Union. In a review process based on scientific assessments, each applicant had to prove that a substance could be used safely regarding a set of criteria comprehending human health, environment, ecotoxicity and residues in the food chain. If a pesticide is approved under 91/414/EEC it is placed on Annex 1 of the Directive, and may be used throughout Member States. If it is not approved it might, nevertheless, be granted "essential use" derrogations for some crops and Member States. In other cases, the substance is banned or severely restricted without any space for "essential use" derrogations.

Table 1 presents a summary of the situation. The total number of pesticides is as of October 2006, the date of the last update made by DG Health and Consumer Protection. The number of substances banned and authorised has been updated by PAN Europe on the basis of decisions taken by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. In October 2006 there were 1,141 substances in total (966 existing substances in 1991 plus 43 other substances considered in the revision and 132 new substances).

 

Table 1 - Summary of the situation

Status

Number of substances

Banned

84

Banned with "essential use" derogations

70

Registration withdrawn

362

Authorised

147

Pending

478

Total

1.141

Source: DG Health and Consumer Protection

 

Our primary concern is the process used in the EU, under which applicants have to prove a chemical product is “safe”.

 

This is fundamentally different to the approach taken by generations of UK scientists working in this area, who required applicants to prove that a chemical product causes no demonstrable harm when used in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines.

 

Using the EU approach which underpins REACH, many ordinary household products and foodstuffs would be banned for use in agriculture owing to their natural toxity.

 

Our second, equally important concern is that the 10 year re-testing regime automatically removes products that remain safe (in either EU or UK terms) if no one will pay to have them re-tested.

 

We reply on the expert research undertaken by Andersons Farm Business Consultants for the prepared for the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC), the Crop Protection Association (CPA) and the National Farmers Union (NFU) which was published in the report “The Effect of the Loss of Plant Protection Products on UK Agriculture and Horticulture and the Wider Economy”.

 

This report deals solely with plant protection products, and also includes the impact of both the proposed restrictions on neonicotinoid seed treatments and a UK wide implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

 

We agree with the findings of this report and commend it to the EAC. It is available at https://www.nfuonline.com/assets/37178 .

 

We would argue in addition that the pernicious influence of REACH has also affected the availability of tools to deal with major problems facing rural land management.

 

For example, amongst chemicals that have been effectively ‘banned’ to the extent they are no longer available under REACH we point to:

 

Warfarin is no longer available for grey squirrel control (Grey squirrels – an invasive species - have been responsible for displacing the indigenous Red Squirrel and cause many thousands of pounds worth of damage to young woodlands under our management). Warfarin is the most effective (and cost effective) method available for safely controlling squirrel numbers.

 

The Forestry Commission in its Research Information Note 180 recommended the use of Warfarin as follows:

 

Asulox is no longer available for Bracken control. Bracken is a carcinogen, and an invasive species that is very hard to control. Bracken harbour ticks and other unwanted species and has little environmental value. It is very hard to kill, and Asulox was the only effective control.

 

Asulox, over many years, has established itself as the UK’s market leading product for bracken control. The active ingredient asulam targets bracken infestations and is translocated throughout the plant to provide effective control. Herbicidal symptoms following application of Asulox are virtually absent in the year of spraying but in the following season there is little or no bracken re-growth. Completing a programme of follow up sprays with Asulox can greatly extend the bracken free period for land that has been treated.

 

Asulox, along with all pesticides within Europe, has been subject to the EU Plant Protection Products Directive 91 / 414 which meant that all pesticide products in Europe had to undergo a rigorous reexamination of all the supporting data.

 

Asulox failed to gain approval (after appeal) by 20th September 2011.

 

We trust this evidence will be helpful to the EAC

 

January 2017