Neonicotinoid seed treatment on sugar beet in England: a qualitative analysis of the controversy, existing policy and viability of alternatives.

In 2021, the United Kingdom Government granted the possibility of an emergency derogation for the use of the neonicotinoid seed treatment, thiamethoxam, on sugar beet in England. This was met with heavy criticism and controversy due to the body of evidence demonstrating toxicity of the insecticide to non-target species, particularly pollinators. However, many viewed this decision to be reasonable in this system, as sugar beet is a non-flowering crop, and derogations were only implemented if a set of conditions, including viral risk, were met. This research aims to understand the policy and the perspective of stakeholders in this debate, and identify key problems associated with thiamethoxam use on sugar beet. Semi-structured interviews combined with a modified policy analysis were used, incorporating framework analysis and comparative analysis. Political polarisation, whereby respondents felt that the debate had become anti-pesticide or pro-pesticide and lacked nuance, and the monopsony of British Sugar (a UK company that buys and processes sugar beet), were found to be the most prevalent issues currently impeding political progress and the enhancement of sustainable agriculture in this system. Virus forecasting was considered a successful strategy at the time of writing, although limitations to the model are also discussed. Non-chemical alternatives were found to be limited in this system due to the specificity of the pest system and the low threshold of virus yellows, while forecasting was considered to have the lowest net-environmental impact. Additional policy strategies to work alongside forecasting, such as public education and intergroup contact are also discussed. This study reflects a more general tug-of-war that often sets up a false dichotomy between food security and environmental sustainability. It highlights the importance of addressing the complexity of sustainable food production by opening up the discussion and taking a more nuanced and adaptive approach to policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]