Rigid cosmetic standards, crop-specific knowledge gaps and lack of policy encouragement identified as obstacles to integrated pest management
Expectations for high-quality, blemish-free fruit and vegetables can make UK growers wary of changing pest-management practices, according to a new study by Warwick University.
Researchers at the university analysing barriers to integrated pest management (IPM) in UK fresh produce interviewed 24 stakeholders from across the sector, including growers, agronomists, retailers, policymakers, researchers and crop-protection businesses.
IPM combines different ways of managing pests such as biological, cultural, physical and targeted chemical tools including pesticides where needed. Key benefits of IPM include reducing chemical reliance, preventing pesticide resistance, boosting biodiversity and soil health, and long-term cost-effectiveness.
The study found that strict quality requirements, which can often be demanded by retailers, can make routine pesticide use more preferable, with interviewees describing a perceived risk that changing pest-management practices would affect crop quality or consistency.
This was reported even in cases where growers were interested in using more IPM-based approaches.
UK farmers and growers have previously called on retailers to relax appearance standards for fresh produce, especially as consecutive summer heatwaves and drought earlier this year caused cosmetic defects and pest damage.
Participants in the study welcomed greater research in areas including crop monitoring, pest thresholds, catch crops and biopesticides.
With the closure of the ADHB Horticulture in 2022 – a sector of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board which funded independent crop trials, pest and disease management and technical research – interviewees said there is currently limited advice, training and knowledge-exchange support for the sector.
Professor Rosemary Collier OBE, lead researcher on the study, said that improving IPM uptake will require more than setting general pesticide-reduction ambitions.
“IPM has to work within the realities of each crop and production system,” she said. “Growers need reliable, practical information on what works, as well as the support to test and adopt new approaches without taking unacceptable risks to crop quality or supply.
“Our research highlights the requirement for crop-specific strategies and targets, better ways to monitor progress, stronger links between researchers and agronomists, and renewed investment in research, training and biological-product stewardship.”
Among other barriers to IPM update identified included different meanings and levels of IPM adoption across crops, making a single approach difficult.
Interviewees also cited policy uncertainty about pesticide targets and overall strategies, limited policy encouragement, and over-reliance on technology as a distraction on developing IPM’s underlying principles.
