You are viewing 1 of your 2 free articles

You’ll need to join us by becoming a member to gain more access.
Already a Member?

Login Join us now

NFU challenges neonicotinoids ban in EU court


The NFU has been challenging the EU’s neonicotinoids ban in court today, telling judges the restrictions were not science-based and have had a real impact on farmers’ livelihoods.

Twitter Facebook
Share This

NFU challenges neonics ban in EU court

The union was giving evidence to the EU General Court as part of two legal challenges mounted by Syngenta and Bayer in 2013 against the European Commission’s decision to put restrictions on imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam.


Both companies have called for the ban to be lifted.


Nina Winter, the NFU’s chief legal adviser, said: “The NFU originally intervened in these cases for two key reasons – firstly, because decision-makers need to have a sound basis in science for the decisions they take, and no such a basis exists for the neonicotinoid restrictions; and secondly, because the impact of losing these critical products on British farmers’ ability to grow crops was not properly assessed, and it should have been.


“The NFU felt that it was important that, in considering whether the restrictions are lawful, the EU General Court heard the voice of farmers whose livelihoods have suffered because they can no longer access the tools they need to farm. This is not just about the NFU fighting for oilseed rape producers; there is a wider issue at stake here about British farmers losing access to the products they need to maintain crop production over time.”


The union argued the restrictions were brought in on the basis of studies which used artificial dosing to prove harm, but environmental group ClientEarth has criticised the Commission for allowing emergency authorisations in spite of the ban.


The group has released research which showed 44 per cent of requests for derogations were submitted by pesticides manufacturers, trade associations or seed producers, and only 14 per cent were submitted without any industry backing.


Dominique Doyle, a co-author of ClientEarth’s report, said: “Our interpretation is that the derogations requested solely by industry are not in line with the aims of the directive and are illegal – all 44 per cent of them. They should have been refused by the commission.”

Twitter Facebook
Rating (0 vote/s)
Post a Comment
To see comments and join in the conversation please log in.

More News

EU Referendum, one year on: An in-depth look at the sugar sector

Michael Sly, NFU sugar board chairman, continues FG’s week-long mini-series exploring what has changed for farming in the twelve months since the EU referendum.

Great Repeal Bill risks loss of 97 per cent of herbicides used by farmers

Fears are growing that plans to ‘lift and shift’ EU regulations into UK law through the Great Repeal Bill could see farmers lose up to 97 per cent of the herbicides they currently use.

Drop tariffs on food produced outside the UK for low prices, says Gove

Defra Secretary Michael Gove has hinted the Government could drop tariffs on food which is not produced in the UK to reduce prices for shoppers after Brexit.

Farmers’ vets deserve more certainty on EU citizen status, says BVA

The British Veterinary Association has said Theresa May’s offer of ‘settled status’ to EU nationals who have lived in the UK for five years does not provide enough certainty for vets.

EU Referendum, one year on: An in-depth look at the arable sector

Mike Hambly, NFU crops board chairman, continues FG’s week-long mini-series exploring what has changed for farming in the twelve months since the EU referendum.
FG Insight and FGInsight.com are trademarks of Briefing Media Ltd.
Farmers Guardian and FarmersGuardian.com are trademarks of Farmers Guardian Ltd, a subsidiary of Briefing Media Ltd.
All material published on FGInsight.com and FarmersGuardian.com is copyrighted © 2016 by Briefing Media Limited. All rights reserved.
RSS news feeds