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.

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.