Potato Review

S INCE Brexit occurred on January 31st 2020, the UK has, to date, entered into trade deals/agreements with 70 countries (including the EU). The majority are described as ‘rollover’ deals that essentially copy the terms that the UK already had when it was an EU member. Within every trade deal there are industries that can be considered winners or losers. UK agriculture often perceives these deals as lowering standards of food production and disadvantaging UK farmers through cheap imports. So, will international trade deals put British arable farmers at a disadvantage? To answer that question, we need to evaluate the ‘Light touch biostimulant regulation key to UK’s competitive advantage’ Simon Fox , Managing Director of Emerald Research Limited (ERL) evaluates opportunities he feels can be gained through progressive legislation on biotechnology. opportunities for competitive advantages that can be gained through progressive legislation based on 21st century biotechnology. Legislation The EU has recently implemented EU Fertiliser Regulation, (EC) 219/1009, which requires suppliers of naturally- derived biostimulants to produce safety and toxicity dossiers and generate data from laboratory and field trials over several years to the same levels as required for chemical pesticides. I don’t believe these new EU regulations are fit for purpose. They will restrict growers’ access to useful and inexpensive crop treatments that will facilitate reduced pesticide use, and safety is not an issue. The post-Brexit landscape offers UK regulators (DEFRA) the opportunity to impose fewer regulations and less legislation (in the right areas) and it is here the UK would benefit greatly. Along with the adoption of regenerative farming and biotechnology techniques, it is possible for the industry to produce more food, with increased quality using less fertiliser and greatly-reduced pesticide inputs. Biostimulant and biopesticide regulations should be as lightweight and light-touch as possible to enable the uptake and growth of environmentally-sustainable, low-impact food production methods. To enable biostimulant and biopesticide regulation to be fit for purpose, and to meet the ever-advancing bioengineering of the 21st Century, the completely artificial distinction between abiotic and biotic effects – the differentiator between biostimulant and biopesticide – must be eliminated. Redressing the balance Today’s legislation was created in a much simpler era in the 20th Century. The world of agricultural inputs was simply divided into fertilisers and pesticides. Each product category had clearly defined attributes which didn’t cross over between categories. Nevertheless, the results of this have been the severe degradation of our soils, decimation of all types of environmental biota crop production ceilings as well as the over-use of fertilisers and the associated pollution. So, it is clear it’s not regulation that protects, rather it is the adoption of a Simon Fox Emerald Research 18 POTATO REVIEW JULY/AUGUST 2022 BIOSTIMULANT LEGISLATION