Quite emotional.

D Zaruk starts with an historic fact “During the Great Plague of London (1665-66), the authorities were convinced that the outbreak of bubonic plague was being spread by cats. As cats had then been looked upon by religious leaders as symbols of evil and witchcraft, the crisis created the perfect opportunity for zealots to purge London of this feline scourge. The local authorities had no evidence that the cats were spreading the plague, but via the virtue of precaution, they could be seen to be acting in a time of panic. Resisting public pressure from vocal zealots was not politically expedient, and in any case, who would really care if a few thousand cats were tossed in the Thames. Well the rats thought this was just fine, and as the rat population exploded, so too, obviously, did the plague (spread via rat fleas).”

D Zaruk, even if he approves precaution, “a basic human reaction”, uses an skillfully argued analogy between this historic fact and the current utilisation of the precautionary principle by “religious eco-zealots”

“They killed the bees”: temporary ban of neonicotinoids by EU kills more bees…

“They kill the sperm” with “their alarmist superstition that any man-made chemicals are inherently evil and must be eradicated”.  In EU, “Very few crop protection products will be given clearance from being potential endocrine disruptors (at very low doses) so once these zealots will have succeeded in pushing most products off of the market, farmers will be forced to return to medieval agricultural practices. A victory the environmentalists can be proud of.
They only forget that “if there were an endocrine disruption crisis, the source of the problem would much more likely be from our high exposure to natural endocrine disrupting chemicals found in substances like soybeans and coffee than in any low-dose exposure to well-tested synthetic chemicals.”

“They killed the seeds”, with the destruction of the Golden Rice trials, fortified with Beta-Carotene which provides additional Vitamin A. Despite the fact that “Vitamin A deficiency is a serious disease that causes around 500,000 cases of blindness and 250,000 deaths per year, mostly poor children in developing countries.”

Each of these points are developed, illustrated and argued.

Zaruk concludes: “We are living in times no more enlightened than in London of the 1660s. Science has no voice, reason is optional in policy debates, and fear and panic are spread by activists with big mouths and impassioned missions. Policy-makers, then, like today, choose the path of least resistance: the use of a contrived precautionary principle where defensive action is seen as virtuous and inconsequential. Religious zealots campaign in Brussels for more cat-killing without care for any tragic results.
The leaders who killed the cats during the Great Plague were not themselves tossed into the Thames when the human death toll accelerated. But I would be perfectly happy to toss today’s erroneous zealots into the Zenne, the stinking, rat-infested medieval sewer that flows timelessly through Brussels.”

The EU has published a article summarizing these fundings and a complete report with details for each organization and each action

For example, about « pesticides », Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), receive 150K€ for a work program detailed in five strategic priorities:
– pesticide-free towns;
– reducing the use of pesticides in agriculture;
– restoration (biodiversity and water quality);
– maximum residue levels, combination toxicity and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP);
-green growth in the agricultural sector
These priorities mean these expected outcomes: “Participation in five EU public consultations”, “20 letters sent to the European Commission”, “200 testimonies from individuals concerned about victims of pesticides or from the victims themselves”, “500 local awareness rising events”, …

EU supporting citizens statements, and, why not, minority groups on general issues is understandable. But EU fund also NGOs which directly interfere with the EFSA expertise and/or the UE regulatory process.

The most caricatural example is given in the article summarizing the fundings which states: “In the past, this funding has supported successful campaigns to ban the use of the neonicotinoids, an insecticide that adversely affects bees, and lobbying efforts to end fossil fuel subsidies.”

In “EU: “Transparency – Stop the Good Lobby / Bad Lobby Nonsense”“, we had mentioned the David Zaruk, The Risk Monger, article which demonstrates the unhealthy practises of subsidizing “good” lobbyists.

So, NGOs : “independant” ????

Read the presentation  including:
– Agriculture production perspective, by Luc Peeters, Copa-Cogeca: need for a quick and concrete harmonization of the EU plant protection regulation.
– The need for processing factors (MRL for processed food), by Nathalie Lecoq, Fediol
– A trade perspective, by Katharina Keimelmayr, Coceral, and Egle Eimontaite, Freshfel. They underlined how the big confusion in the EU regulation, including for MRL, leads to a lack of confidence of supermarkets and blocking trade barriers.
– A PPP producer’s perspective, par Jean-Charles Bocquet, Ecpa. He showed how red tape and lenghty approval system are jeopardizing innovation. He called for “decisions based on risk assessment and an understanding of the impact”

The meeting had then an exchange of view with Wolfgang Reinert, DG Sante (European Commission) and a general discussion.

A call for a coherent European policy

During the meeting, AFCRT gave copies of a call which was published few months ago. Read here on ForumPhyto (in French).
Read the call in English

In this call, AFCRT  gave some recommendations to the European Commission, including to:
– Ensure that the spirit of Regulation EC/1107/2009 is maintained through the placing on the market  of  sufficient  (mechanical,  biological  and  chemical)  tools  to  protect  crops.
– Ensure with Member States that one of the main objectives of Regulation EC/1107/2009 to harmonize  usage  authorisation  is  properly  implemented  without  excessive  additional  national restrictions by individual Member States.
– Provide guidelines to foster harmonisation and mutual recognition by highlighting success stories in finding sustainable solutions.
– Provide  appropriate  criteria  and  guidelines  to  enable  “low‐risk  products”  to  be  made available for use in a harmonised and timely way without further delay.
– Provide  guidelines  to  make  sure  that  the  “comparative  assessment”  of  products  will  be done  in  a  harmonized  and   practical  way,  without  distorting  competition  and  trade.
– Urge Member States to pay particular attention to minor uses and take all the necessary steps to prevent ‘orphan crops’, where no suitable plant protection solutions are available.

Read the Press Realease of the EP Event. Nigel Thorgrimsson, AFRCT vice-chair summarized: “‘Solutions are urgently needed to ensure the competitiveness of the entire agri-food chain and the supply of high quality products for European consumers. A regulatory framework that allows for  innovation  is  key  in  ensuring  the  availability  of  suitable  plant  protection  solutions”

Our conclusion

1107/2009 EU regulation, in force since 2011, is a promise for a complete harmonization at EU level and for solutions for minor uses and speciality crops. In fact, red tape and lenghty procedures, Member States willings to deliver themselves authorisations, and anti-pesticides environmentalist pressures, are jeopardizing the process. This situation leads to regulatory dead-ends, especially for speciality crops, including fruit and vegetables, to heavy competition distorsions beween Member States, to conterproductive agronomic and environmental effects : for example about pest resistance management. It leads also to worsen the consumer health : expensive and less diversified fruit and vegs.

The Agri-Food Chain is now urging European and Member State authorities to ensure harmonisation, simplification, science based decisions for high quality agriculture products. This event is a step forward to a stronger and better dialog with the Commission and the European Parliament on this matter.

[1] Agri-Food Chain Round table

It is worth reading the full article…

In this call, the Roundtable reminds the positive aspects of the EU regulation:  launch of a coordination secretariat for minor uses, progressive implementation of the 1107/2009 regulation…

Nevertheless, at the same time, “the Roundtable considers that these efforts are significantly undermined by several other developments which offset the progress.” In particular:
* The increasingly burdensome rules in regard to the approval of active substances within the
framework of Regulation 1107/2009
* Differences in national implementation of the 1107/2009 regulation and of the Sustainable Use Directive. That leads “to more  distortion  among  EU  growers,  processors  and  traders  and  de  facto  to  a
proliferation of complexities including on minor uses.”
*  Candidates for substitution and comparative assessment: “Indeed,  in  their  respective
evaluation processes, Member States might conduct a comparative assessment per crop on the
basis of different priorities and criteria, resulting in further distortion of competition for growers
in different Member States.”

Consequently, the Roundtable publishes some recommendations to the European Commission, including to:
– Ensure that the spirit of Regulation EC/1107/2009 is maintained through the placing on the
market  of  sufficient  (mechanical,  biological  and  chemical)  tools  to  protect  crops.
– Ensure with Member States that one of the main objectives of Regulation EC/1107/2009 to
harmonize  usage  authorisation  is  properly  implemented  without  excessive  additional
national restrictions by individual Member States.
– Provide guidelines to foster harmonisation and mutual recognition by highlighting success
stories in finding sustainable solutions.
– Provide  appropriate  criteria  and  guidelines  to  enable  “low‐risk  products”  to  be  made
available for use in a harmonised and timely way without further delay.
– Provide  guidelines  to  make  sure  that  the  “comparative  assessment”  of  products  will  be done in a harmonized and practical way, without distorting competition and trade.
– Urge Member States to pay particular attention to minor uses and take all the necessary
steps to prevent ‘orphan crops’, where no suitable plant protection solutions are available.

The Roundtable has written to European Commissioners Vytenis Andriukaitis (Health and Food safety)  and Phil Hogan (Agriculture and rural development) on this basis.

Each individual organization might use this call in their own action towards European institutions. And member states growers organizations also might use it to sensitizing National Authorities and urging them to implement a full european harmonization.

Over-regulation, both at an EU and UK level, severely hampers our ability to provide the raw ingredients for the food and drink we consume. The overly precautionary EU regulation of pesticides used by farmers and growers in crop production is a very good case in point. Since 2001 UK farmers have lost more than half of the active substances formerly approved for use in the EU.

In the document, could be found : summary, graphics, key figures, and also:

– Asks of the NFU inEurope and in UK
– How the industry is playing its part: Good PLant Protection practices
– Growers testimonies

For example:
A carrot and potatoe grower explaining the importance of controlling soil nematods.
A green pea grower explaining his concerns about the lack of an efficient herbicide and the importance of having efficient fungicides and insecticides : “Shoppers do not like finding caterpillars in their bag of frozen pea”.
A apple and hops grower telling how important is it to control apple scab.

Using information technology, satellite positioning systems and remote sensing, Precision agriculture is able to manage spatial and temporal variability associated with all aspects of agricultural production – crops and animal – for the purpose of improving performance, production, and economic and environmental quality.

The report proposes some recommendations, such as awareness-raising and information campaigns among farmers, guidelines, and an EU ‘precision farming calculator’ tool which would bring decision-support value to farmers and advisers. This should be accompanied by research and development studies and fostering the roles of the Farm Advisory Services and the European Innovation Partnership in the frame of the 2nd pillar of the CAP.

To go further:
Read the news on the JRC Internet site.
Read the full report on the EP Internet Site.

QS (in collaboration with DFHV, German fruit trade association) has just published his report (pdf1.5MO) (in English) about the monitoring from 2006 to 2012.

The main points : Very few, and less and less non-conformities.

The report focuses on plums, rocket, carrots, bananas… A point has been made on microbio contamination issue.

Mutual misunderstandings are well explained : Zero risk, independance of experts,…

It’s worth it…