Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:57:02.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in Pesticide Usage in the United Kingdom: Policies, Results, and Long-term Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Harry M. Lawson
Harry M. Lawson*
Affiliation:
Scott. Crop Res. Inst., Dundee DD2 5DA, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current United Kingdom (UK) government policy on pesticides is aimed at minimizing rather than arbitrarily reducing usage. It is to be achieved through a rigorous Approvals process, the setting of statutory maximum residue limits, regular monitoring, legislation on the safe use of pesticides on farms, and a core-funded research program on topics such as improved forecasting of pest infestations, more effective application techniques, alternative control strategies, integrated pest management and sustainable farming systems. Over the longer term these measures are expected to bring about substantial real decreases in pesticide usage, without the need to impose arbitrary reduction targets, such as have been implemented by several other European countries. Reductions in the usage of particular chemicals will also occur as a result of the implementation of European Community (EC) environmental legislation on pesticide levels in ground and drinking water and pesticide discharges into the North Sea. With herbicides, the tonnage of active ingredient applied in the UK declined substantially during the 1980s, due mainly to the increased use of products which were more biologically active at lower dosage rates than those they replaced. The actual percentage of crops sprayed remained at 95 to 100. Further reductions are likely in the 1990s, enhanced by factors such as dose-cutting by farmers in response to economic rather than environmental pressures and an increase in set-aside. Weed scientists are currently studying the long-term effects on weed population dynamics of reduced herbicide inputs in cereals, set-aside management, and more environmentally friendly, lower input rotations, as part of a wider program of research designed to provide government with scientifically based information upon which to decide future policies.

Keywords

Herbicide reductionseedbanksreduced inputspopulation dynamicsenvironment
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 360 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1990. This Common Inheritance: Britain's Environmental Strategy. Govt. White Paper CM 1200, HMSO, London, England. 60 p.Google Scholar
2. Bellinder, R. R., Gummesson, G., and Karlsson, C. 1994. Percentage-driven government mandates for pesticide reduction: The Swedish model. Weed Technol. 8:350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bowen, H. M. and Dickson, J. M. 1991. Pesticide Usage in Scotland. Survey Report No. 88. Soft Fruit 1990. Scott. Office Agric. and Fish. Dep. Edinburgh, Scotland. 34 p.Google Scholar
4. Buckwell, A. E. 1992. Should we set aside Set-aside? Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Counc. Symp. Monogr. No. 50: Set-aside. Cambridge, England. p. 275–283.Google Scholar
5. Courtney, A. D. 1991. The role of competition in developing an appropriate rate strategy for weed control in spring barley. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. Brighton, England. 3:1217–1224.Google Scholar
6. Davies, D.H.K., Fisher, N. M., and Atkinson, D. A. 1992. Weed control implications of the return of set-aside land to arable production. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Counc. Symp. Monog. No. 50: Set-aside. Cambridge, England. p. 129–134.Google Scholar
7. Davis, R. P., Garthwaite, D. G., and Thomas, M. R. 1991. Pesticide Usage Survey Report No. 85. Arable Farm Crops in England and Wales 1990, Min. Agric., Fish, and Food. London, England. 76 p.Google Scholar
8. Davis, R. P., Garthwaite, D. G., and Thomas, M. R. 1992. Pesticide Usage Survey Report No. 86. Soft Fruit 1990. Min. Agric., Fish, and Food. London, England. 56 p.Google Scholar
9. Finney, J. 1993. Risks and rewards for lower chemical inputs into agriculture. Proc. Cereals R and D Conf. Home-Grown Cereals Authority, London, England. p. 144–158.Google Scholar
10. Griffiths, W. 1994. Evolution of herbicide programs for sugar beet. Weed Technol. 8:338–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Ivens, G. W., Ed. 1992. The UK Pesticide Guide 1992. CAB International, Oxford, England. 581 p.Google Scholar
12. Lawson, H. M., Wright, G. McN., Davies, D. H. K., and Fisher, N. M., 1992. Short-term effects of set-aside management on the soil seedbank of an arable field in south-east Scotland. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Counc. Symp Monogr. No. 50: Set-aside. Cambridge, England. p. 85–90.Google Scholar
13. Lawson, H. M. 1993. Approaches to avoid adverse long-term consequences of reduced herbicide inputs. Proc. Cereals R and D Conf. Home Grown Cereals Authority. London, England. p. 111–112.Google Scholar
14. Miller, P.C.H. and Stafford, J. V. 1991. Herbicide application to targeted patches. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. Brighton, England. 3:1249–1256.Google Scholar
15. Ogilvy, S. 1993. TALISMAN: Assessing the consequences of reduced inputs. Proc. Cereals R and D Conf. Home-Grown Cereals Authority. London, England. p. 230–241.Google Scholar
16. Prew, R. 1993. Development of integrated arable farming systems for the UK. Proc. Cereals R and D Conf. Home-Grown Cereals Authority. London, England. p. 242–254.Google Scholar
17. Price, D.R.H. 1991. Pesticide residues in water supplies. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. Brighton, England. 3:1249–1256.Google Scholar
18. Proven, M. J., Courtney, A., Picton, J., Davies, D. H. K., and Whiting, A. J. 1991. Cost-effectiveness of weed control in cereals: Systems based on thresholds and reduced rates. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. Brighton, England. 3:1201–1208.Google Scholar
19. Snowden, J. P. and Bowen, H. M. 1991. Pesticide Usage in Scotland. Survey Report No. 87. Arable Crops 1990. Scott. Office Agric. and Fish. Dep. Edinburgh, Scotland. 84 p.Google Scholar
20. Whiting, A. J., Davies, D.H.K., Brown, H., and Whytock, G. P. 1991. The use of reduced doses of broad-leaved weed herbicides in cereals. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. Brighton, England. 3:1209–1216.Google Scholar
21. Wilson, B. J. and Lawson, H. M. 1992. Seedbank persistence and seedling emergence of seven weed species in autumn-sown crops following a single year's seeding. Ann. Appl. Biol. 120:105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar