EUROPEAN-SEED.COM I EUROPEAN SEED I 25 however is that it is very easy for other groups to turn round and point the finger of blame at our industry because it suits their pre-existing bias, and also because it means many other groups can simply get away with not assuming their respon- sibility for the damage they might be causing. For years this has been acknowl- edged as a multi-factorial issue, we are ready to take our responsibility, but we can only truly address the issue if others are too. We will do our part to make sure pollinators are protected.   ES: MANY EUROPEAN CONSUMERS DO NOT KNOW THAT ORGANIC FARMERS CAN USE CERTAIN PESTICIDES, SOME OF THEM QUITE TOXIC. IS THERE A NEED TO RAISE MORE AWARENESS IN THIS SPECIFIC FIELD? GT: This is one of the biggest miscon- ceptions out there that exist – the idea that pesticides are not used in organic food production. Many of my member companies are also producers of organic pesticides. I met an MEP this week who was passionately arguing for only organic production, but it was news to him that pesticides are also used to produce organic food. It is often characterised as a debate of organic v conventional or “industrial” production. I don’t think we, or society, benefit from pitting one system against the other. Each have their pros and their cons. It may surprise people to hear me say that pesticides are not a panacea, but it’s simply reflective of the fact that there are many different possi- ble models for European agriculture. One model is not necessarily better than the ES: I AM AWARE THAT THE REGISTRATION OF NEW CROP PROTECTION IS BECOMING EVER MORE CUMBERSOME FOR THE DEVELOPERS. IN YOUR VIEW, WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE? GT: One of the most challenging parts of working in this sector is that regulatory compliance does not necessarily equal societal acceptance. We have to respond the concerns of consumers, and we rec- ognise that the regulatory framework also has to. It now takes 11 years, and costs on average 250 million euros to success- fully bring a product to market. The time and cost increases year on year, and is in large part due to the increased demands of regulatory approval at the end of the pro- cess. As the recent debate on glyphosate has demonstrated, it is no longer enough to demonstrate that a substance is able to tick all of the scientific boxes in order to be approved. This makes it very difficult for companies to make important decisions about investment for the future. We recog- nise we cannot function in isolation from politics – but we need politicians to trust science, and to base their decisions on fact not emotion. ES: IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING IN EUROPEAN DECISION MAKERS, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? GT: We are living longer, healthier lives than ever before, but if you listen to the debate around pesticides you would be forgiven for thinking the opposite is the case. Decision makers should proudly shout about the fact that Europe has the safest food in the world. IMPACT OF THE NEONICOTINOID RESTRICTIONS other, but what we do need is to have an honest discussion as society, particularly with consumers, about what the impact or consequences of choosing one type of production over the other is. If consum- ers really do want a world without pesti- cides what would that mean? Potentially it could mean you end up spending 70% of your salary on food. We need to have an open and honest discussion based on reality, not idealism. ES: A RECENT STUDY HAS INDICATED THAT THE NEONIC BAN IS COSTING THE EU OILSEED RAPE FARMING INDUSTRY 900 MILLION € PER YEAR. WHAT IS THE ECPA VIEW ON THE NEONIC BAN? GT: Our industry is obviously opposed to both the current partial restrictions in place, and the placing of any additional restrictions. We live in a world where we need to be able to do more with less. Where we need to be able to produce sufficient, safe and affordable food for a growing population. Just like asking a mechanic to use a hammer to do a job that requires a screwdriver would have fairly disastrous consequences for your car. If you remove valuable tools from farmers, for whatever reason, that will have a consequence for yield, the econ- omy, health and the environment. You need only look at the impact on sugar beet alone: not being able to use neon- icotinoids will mean an 85% drop in yield. This can’t be replaced by imports because sugar beet is so perishable, which will have huge consequences for the EU sugar industry.