And has already come under criticism from the European Court of Auditors:
criticised the deceptive nature of HRI-1. According to the auditors, the HRI-1 shows “a risk reduction that is mainly due to lower sales of the substances in the category ‘not approved’” and should be replaced by “better risk indicators”.
From the blog post you’ve linked:
“If an organic farmer treats aphids with a plant protection product based solely on rapeseed oil, the HRI-1 calculates a risk over 1,000 times higher than if a conventional farmer treats the same area with a synthetic neurotoxin that is highly toxic for bees. This not only presents dangerous substances as harmless – and vice versa, but it is also a form of misinformation about organic farming”
So, for or against reviewing the data on pesticides (natural Vs synthetic for example)?
The wheels are turning, and progress is being made in the EU. How are the sunny uplands treating you?
I’m suggesting that claiming you are reducing pesticides when all that’s happened is the toxicity has increased is the worst kind of greenwashing
https://www.organicseurope.bio/news/ifoam-organics-europe-and-european-citizens-initiative-condemn-fake-pesticide-reduction/
Looks like the Harmonised Risk Indicator is relatively new https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/sustainable-use-pesticides/harmonised-risk-indicators_en?hl=en-GB
And has already come under criticism from the European Court of Auditors:
From the blog post you’ve linked:
So, for or against reviewing the data on pesticides (natural Vs synthetic for example)?
The wheels are turning, and progress is being made in the EU. How are the sunny uplands treating you?
The wheels are turning? Lol. Only if they get greased.
The UK is reforming it’s entire agriculture policy, not tinkering around with bullshit metrics