GLYPHOSATE has once again fallen foul of the European Parliament, where MEPs this week voted in favour of a resolution to have it phased out over a five-year period while the agri-chemical industry is given extra funding to work on alternative herbicides.

Some Scots MEPs insisted that this five-year 'last chance saloon' for the manufacturers of Round-up was a better outcome than the immediate ban that had been sought by some factions of the parliament, but NFU Scotland found it hard to see the outcome as anything less than a disappointment.

NFUS had been hoping that member states would agree to renew the authorisation for glyphosate for a further 10 years at least, based on the 'overwhelming scientific evidence' that is is safe, effective and environmentally friendly.

The union pointed out that the product, which it described as 'hugely important' for Scotland’s farmers, had been deemed safe by nearly every major international health and science authority, including the European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, World Health Organisation, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

NFUS president Andrew McCornick said: “The overwhelming science indicates that glyphosate is the safest, most eco-friendly herbicide available and it is a vital tool for our members in producing safe, high quality food for consumers.

“Arable and livestock farms throughout Scotland rely on glyphosate to control weeds, manage harvests, and reduce grain drying costs and have done so safely for many, many years. The cost of losing such a vital asset would be detrimental to many who rely so heavily on it. It is proven to be a climate change friendly herbicide and its use, instead of the high CO2 omitting alternatives, is an environmental positive.”

The best hope now, said Mr McCornick, was that the next key European expert committee vote on glyphosate – likely to take place in the next two weeks – would follow the scientific evidence rather than the politics.

SNP MEPs Alyn Smith and Ian Hudghton voted against the proposals to immediately ban the use of glyphosate in agriculture, but supported the 'more proportionate' five year phasing out period.

Mr Smith said: "As with all such votes, this was a matter of finding a balance. We're well aware that glyphosate is an important part of Scottish farming but it cannot be denied there is increasing concerning evidence that it has a lot of downsides too. The immediate ban called for by some was in our view disproportionate, so we could not support it, but setting a five year period – to be reviewed – to phase it out will work, and balance the needs of farmers, consumers and our environment.

"We all know full well that there are also alternatives in the works and the chemicals industry needs a prod to get on with working them up into new products, this should do just that."

Mr Hudghton added: "We have had a lot of lobbying on this complex issue, and it cannot be boiled down to black and white as some would pretend. This is a balanced vote that can be managed by the industry, and I look forward to seeing better, cheaper alternative products come forward."

Crop Protection Association chief executive Sarah Mukherjee was less enthusiastic about the result: “Independent, expert regulators around the world all agree that glyphosate is safe. These regulators are public servants who rightly take their duty to protect public health very seriously. Yet politicians are ignoring them, and are doing so for no good reason, other than a misguided, ideological opposition to modern agriculture.

“We urge Member States to grant the standard 15 year licence. Failure to do so risks significant damage to the economy, the environment and the agricultural sector.”