A great many farmers are up in arms over legislation being prepared by the EU Commission that seeks to slash the number of pesticides used in agriculture, to reduce what it sees as potential threats to human health in particular and to the environment in general. Now Land & People is all for the expansion of organic growing and the reduction, as far as is reasonably practical, of the use of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in British agriculture.

However, although we accept that the EU Commission may be acting with good intentions, the fact is that this initiative is likely to make the situation even worse, whilst disadvantaging the British producer into the bargain. We’ll now explain why.

Firstly, a reduction in the use of sprays is almost certainly going to result in reduced crop yields per acre �“ this being particularly true as far as potato, brassica and cereal production is concerned. This, in turn, will reduce farm incomes �“ which is no light matter bearing in mind the number of smaller farms, in particular, that are barely breaking even these days. Some farms, but certainly not all, will be able to increase their acreage under cultivation to make up for some of the loss �“ even though this will, in itself, incur further costs in terms of extra fertiliser and diesel.

Secondly, with less productive harvests, the law of supply and demand is likely to kick in with a vengeance. The deficit created through reduced yields will create a vacuum in the market that will be filled with cheap imported produce �“ something further undermining the viability of our producers!

Thirdly, and here’s the rub, imported produce �“ unlike our British produce �“ will, most likely, have been grown with little or no restrictions on the use of chemical sprays. In other words, the public’s exposure to sprayed produce is likely to increase, rather than decrease. Not exactly what is intended we would suggest!

Lastly, the EU Commission’s proposals will be enforced right across the community we are told. But we all know what that means �“ we only have to look at the “enforcement” of fisheries legislation. Whereas a succession of British governments have vigorously policed the rules, the governments of other countries �“ Spain and Italy spring immediately to mind �“ cannot be said to have displayed the same enthusiasm. Now whereas we can guarantee that Brown’s Labour regime in Westminster will enforce every petty fobbing rule to the letter �“ can the same be said of the Slovak, Polish or Rumanian governments in respect of their producers? Of course not and once again the British producer will not only be shafted by unfair Third World competition but also by our supposed “partners” with the EU.

As an aside, Land & People believes the EU Commission’s approach to this issue to be fundamentally flawed. We believe they are applying the wrong yardstick in addressing this issue. Their yardstick is that of “hazard” �“ not that of “risk” - as we would advocate. To explain what we mean consider this:-

A cigarette is hazardous in that it contains a whole raft of carcinogenic and other harmful chemical compounds. However the risk is in the usage. All things being equal, the one cigarette per day man is at considerably less risk than the forty per day man! The hazard for each man is the same - but the risks are entirely different.

It is therefore our opinion that the reduction of chemical spray use in agriculture, which we believe is entirely desirable, should be undertaken in the light of studies that evaluate risk rather than hazard, and implemented in a staged way that neither disadvantages the British producer, nor denies him the time to adapt �“ whilst protecting the consumer from the “chemical-warfare” agricultural produce of less discerning lands.

Yes, let’s rid agriculture of as many chemicals as we reasonably can �“ but let’s not destroy the British producer in the process!

As matters stand, should the EU Commission implement this legislation then we are likely to see the British market flooded with cheaper Third World and Eastern European produce, over which there has been little or no control as far as the application of sprays are concerned.

Does that make any sense at all?