Potato Review

holistic and environmentally friendly approach that is leading to the restoration of soils, increased biodiversity and improved crop yields, quality with lower inputs. With an increased understanding of the complex interactions and interdependence of the environment and agriculture, it becomes clear that newly engineered interventions no longer fit into the prescribed boxes that have formed the traditional regulation. Biostimulant facts in the 21st Century There are two fundamental facts about biostimulants that need to be understood and considered in future legislation: • Almost all biostimulants have both abiotic and biotic effects • Many also have nutritional properties. Take simple seaweeds as an example. Used for centuries by farmers, their benefits to crop growth, quality and stimulation are well- documented. Modern seaweed biostimulants are based on concentrated extracts, produced to high quality standards, and are the foundation of many biostimulant and bionutrient products. When used as instructed, they provide significant benefits for growth and abiotic stress control. They are non-hazardous and many are refined as food ingredients. However, seaweed extracts also have biofungicidal properties too. Under current and proposed legislation, no claims of biotic control may be made on either labels or in supporting printed materials. Safety concerns If any biotic control is claimed from a substance/product already cleared for use as a biostimulant (and proven by trials) then that product will meet the full force of pesticide legislation including Lethal Dose testing on laboratory animals – even though it is already cleared for safe use as a biostimulant. In most cases these products, such as seaweed, humic acid and the like, will have been used for decades or even centuries. There is a strong argument that there is no need to legislate these benign, non-hazardous materials at all. It is also important to remember, that many of these products can be bought in concentrated form from health food shops for direct human consumption. Issues with adopting EU regulation If this regulation is allowed to come into force as a simple adoption of the E.U. legislation, which has been greeted with dismay by farmers in Europe, it will require manufacturers and suppliers of biostimulants to complete field trials to the same level required for pesticide registration. However, even then, they still cannot make any claims for plant strengthening or reductions of biotic stress (ie no biopesticidal claims will be allowed), something which is one of the major benefits from the use of many biostimulants in the UK and overseas. The biostimulant/biopesticide industry is made up of many smaller companies who would be at a severe disadvantage compared to the multi-nationals if they have to undertake such costly and time-consuming additional trials. Basically, the barrier to entry is being raised to such a level that only the multi- national pesticide companies can get these benign, non-hazardous materials through registration if they help reduce biotic stress. As producers, we are not frightened to demonstrate efficacy, but the EU regulations are onerous in this respect, with none of the advantages of being able to promote all of our findings. If this legislation, in its current form, is converted to statutory law, it will be an unnecessarily severe blow, not only to the UK independent biostimulant industry, but also to UK farmers. The industry viewpoint ERL and other members of the British Biostimulant Efficacy and Safety Group (BBESG) believe that reducing the reliance on agrochemicals and increasing the efficiency of crops under a changing climate for a growing population is crucial. This is the position widely adopted outside the EU. Natural biostimulants play an important role in this regard, increasing sustainable production at a relatively low cost. If regulation is brought in without more serious consideration, subject to the lobbying of the petrochemical pesticide and fertiliser industries, for natural biostimulants and biopesticides it will stifle innovation in this sector and will dramatically increase development costs. The industry believes that natural products created from renewable or waste materials should be exempt from regulation and placed on an approved inputs list, where data already exists for their safe and efficacious use. Biostimulants are a case in point. Seaweed, humic acids, amino acids and many other products are potentially some of the great tools in our armoury to improve crop yields, reduce input costs and minimise the use of pesticides. They have been used safely and without incident for years. A member of the British BBESG recently made a freedom of information request for “..information about incidents involving plant biostimulants requiring the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) reporting or investigating in the last 40 years…”. From the detailed response received on the 27th July 2021, the key sentence is: “…[we] have been unable to locate any information held by HSE that relates to any incidents involving plant biostimulants, using the various terms that you have suggested in your request….” This will not come as any surprise to the industry as many of our members, some with more than 40 years’ experience, couldn’t recall any such incidents. The UK currently has the opportunity to continue with the existing “light touch” regulation. This course of action would also support the drive towards regenerative and sustainable farming. “Seaweed, humic acids, amino acids and many other products are potentially some of the great tools in our armoury to improve crop yields, reduce input costs and minimise the use of pesticides.” “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.” www.potatoreview.com POTATO REVIEW JULY/AUGUST 2022 19 BIOSTIMULANT LEGISLATION