Share

Decision to authorise banned neonicotinoid is bigger than success of one year's harvest

On Tuesday 1 March, Government announced that a banned neonicotinoid will now be applied to sugar beet crops in England, going against explicit advice from their own experts - bad news for bees and the wider environment. Harry Barton, CEO of Devon Wildlife Trust, reflects on what this means for the sugar beet industry and farming, and what choices need to be made in the face of the climate and ecological emergency.

Well, it’s happened.  The government has given the green light for the use of Thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid pesticide that is a well known bee killer, to be used on sugar beet this spring.  A European ban, the advice of its own scientists and a widespread public outcry for the second year running have not been enough to dissuade it.

What does this mean?  Up to 100,000 ha of our countryside, mainly in eastern England, could be subject to application of the pesticide.  The intention is to control the aphids that spread beet yellows virus, but Thiamethoxam is indiscriminate and poses a threat to any of the 27,000 species of insect native to the UK.  Aphid numbers are expected to be higher after a mild winter such as the one just coming to an end, hence the argument for the pesticide’s authorisation.  With the IPCC’s long term predictions of progressively warmer winters in the UK, we can expect calls for these “emergency” authorisations to be repeated with increasing regularity.

Sugar beet

Neonicotinoids (neonics) and their use to control beet yellows virus is highly controversial, but it is just one element of a complex relationship between sugar, modern farming and the environment.  The soils in eastern England are well suited to sugar beet, and the crop has been grown successfully in the UK for over a century.  And while increasing intensity of farming methods has left less and less room for hedges, margins and other natural space, there have been some wildlife benefits, not least the fact that the “waste” left in the fields after harvesting is a valuable food source for the 100,000 or more pink footed geese that flock to eastern England from Greenland and Iceland every year.

Recent years have seen ever more pressure on beet growing in England.  Heavy rain and unseasonable weather have led to some disastrous harvests. Our tastes have changed too, and we are eating less sugar.  No bad thing, when you consider the alarming list of diseases from tooth decay to dementia that are linked to high sugar intake.   Cheaper imports are having an impact too, as cane sugar from abroad is predicted to eat away at the market share for British grown beet post Brexit.  And despite some recent movement by British Sugar, the price per tonne that goes to the farmer is still lower than what it was five years ago before EU production quotas were abolished[1].

Flock of pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus) feeding on sugar beet tops

Chris Gomersall/2020VISION

All this has turned the screw on the profitability of sugar beet.  Some of the country’s 3,000 beet growers are moving to new crops.  Of those that remain, many are using new harvest methods that leave far less waste in the field for species like the pink footed goose to feed on.  It’s hard to know what the long term consequences of this shift will be, but some geese have taken to feeding on plants before harvest, putting further pressure on the crop and threatening a new line of confrontation with the embattled farmers.

In short, sugar beet is in trouble.  Perhaps it’s understandable that there have been calls for emergency action to help the ailing industry.  But even if we were to ignore the environmental hazards, throwing more chemicals at the problem will only address one of the symptoms, not the underlying causes.

Sugar beet has been grown because it is a crop that is well suited to the local conditions and because it has, at least until recently. been profitable; not because it is an essential crop for food security or a healthy diet.  In our increasingly pressured landscape, surely we need to be prioritising those crops and land uses that serve a real societal need? As Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy starkly points out, we are using our finite land resource very inefficiently, and we’re going to have to take tough decisions if we are to grow the food and timber we need, allow nature to recover, address climate change and leave space for our growing towns and cities.

The government’s efforts should focus on helping farmers adapt, or to support those farmers using or searching for more environmentally benign ways of growing sugar beet.

There are plenty of alternative crops for farmers to use, and many are already moving to these. If our concern is financially sustainable farming, surely the government’s efforts should focus on helping farmers adapt, or to support those farmers using or searching for more environmentally benign ways of growing sugar beet.  Awarding farmers a better share of the profits would reduce the pressure to resort to the sort of harvesting techniques that ultimately threaten over-wintering species such as the pink footed goose.  And what about organically grown sugar beet? The market share of organic beet in the EU grew by 73% between 2018-19[2]. There are nine sugar beet processing factories in the EU which accept organic sugar beet, but none of the four in the UK currently do, and this is one of the main reasons why organic sugar beet isn’t grown here.  If it was, we wouldn’t just reap the environmental benefits, but farmers could sell their product with an organic premium.

For those who want to continue growing beet, there are other means of dealing with disease.  One possibility is to cover the young crop in biodegradable film. Other areas worthy of further research include multi-cropping or smaller scale production.  Last year Defra had plenty to say about investing in alternatives to neonics, but a year later there is little substantive evidence that either it, or the sugar beet industry, have done so. 

Some might argue that it’s crass to be worrying about the use of one chemical while we watch with horror as a nightmare unfolds in Eastern Europe.  But the government’s decision to allow the use of neonics touches on something far bigger than just the success of one year’s harvest, and ultimately this isn’t about food security, science or even sustaining farm incomes.  It’s about a choice between two future visions for farming in this country.  One involves growing a small number of crops on an ever-larger scale, using an arsenal of chemicals to control disease and ever more sophisticated and expensive machinery.  Along with all the dire implications for wildlife, it keeps farmers locked in an accelerating treadmill of rising competition, spiralling costs and tighter profit margins.  The other vision is about regenerative farming, using a wider variety of crops, ditching the agrochemicals and using less intensive techniques.  Such an approach may not always offer the same level of output from a single crop, but there is growing evidence that it has much better consequences for farm profitability as well as the many well-known benefits for nature, soils, water and carbon emissions[3].

It’s 2022, we’re in a climate and ecological emergency, and we need to make a choice.  Do we keep propping up an outdate, fossil fuel dependent system that has been shown not to work and waging war on the natural world at the same time? Or do we choose a new path that reduces carbon emissions, helps nature and is far more in tune with the public’s changing sense of priorities.  Surely the answer is obvious.

Editor's notes

  1. EU Sugar Beet Production - What Does the Future Hold? - Ragus
  2. Organic sugar in the EU - September 2020 report
  3. Northern AONB’s Test and Trials Project - Nethergill Associates

Related blog posts