Statement of reasons for the decision on the application for emergency authorisation of the use of Cruiser SB on sugar beet crops in England in 2025
Updated 23 January 2025
Applies to England
In 2018 the government supported new rules to prohibit the outdoor use of 3 neonicotinoids - clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. This was due to evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to species other than those they are intended to control and particularly to pollinators, including bees.
In taking that position, the government made it clear that it could consider emergency authorisations in accordance with the relevant legislation in special circumstances where authorisation for limited and controlled use appears necessary because of a danger that cannot be contained by any other reasonable means.
After careful consideration of all the issues and evidence, Emma Hardy MP, Minister for Water and Flooding and the minister responsible for pesticides, has decided not to grant an authorisation for emergency use of the product Cruiser SB, which contains the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, for the treatment of sugar beet seed in England in 2025.
This note:
- outlines the legal requirements applying to the application
- explains the process followed
- summarises the key evidence and the assessment made against each of the requirements (highlighting where the evidence or assessment is changed from 2024)
The decision
The minister has considered an application from the National Farmers Union and British Sugar for emergency authorisation to use the product Cruiser SB on sugar beet crops in England in 2025 (“the Application”). The product is a seed treatment which can protect the crop from the yellows virus complex (YV, a group of 3 damaging viruses) carried by the potato peach aphid.
The minister has considered the application in line with the relevant legal requirements for emergency authorisation of plant protection products and has decided that emergency authorisation should not be granted.
The requirements and process for emergency authorisation
Emergency authorisation is established by Article 53 of assimilated Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 (‘the Regulation’).
Article 53 allows the short-term emergency authorisation for a specific use of a plant protection product that is not otherwise permitted providing that, on the facts of the particular case, all of the following tests are met:
- there must be a danger
- there must be special circumstances which make it appropriate to derogate from the standard approach to authorisations
- the danger must not be capable of being contained by any other reasonable means
- an emergency authorisation must appear necessary because of that danger
- an emergency authorisation may allow only limited and controlled use of the plant protection product
The emergency authorisation process provides an exemption from the standard plant protection product authorisation requirements under the Regulation. The decision-taker should still, however, take account of the overall objectives of the Regulation, including securing a high level of protection for human health, animal health and the environment while improving agricultural production.
Following the standard process for emergency authorisations, the Application was considered by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which sought advice from the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) on specific scientific questions.
The minister considered the advice from the HSE, the ECP, as well as advice from the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), and Defra officials. In reaching her decision, the minister considered whether each of the above tests for granting an emergency authorisation were met.
The minister’s conclusions
First test: a danger
The minister finds that this test is met.
The Regulation does not define the term ‘danger’ but the minister considered that it had to be more than an insignificant or minor threat or inconvenience.
The minister considered the nature of the danger to be financial costs falling on growers as a consequence of damage caused by YV to the sugar beet crop. Sugar beet plants infected with YV can be significantly reduced in size and can have a lower sugar content and higher impurities. This leads to a lower overall yield of sugar beet and a reduced output of sugar resulting in financial losses to growers.
YV presents a significant threat to sugar beet production in years with high levels of virus infection. The 2020 season illustrated the magnitude of the threat from YV in seasons favourable to high virus incidence. That year, no neonicotinoid seed treatments were available and a national virus incidence of 38.1% resulted in the loss of around 25% of the national sugar beet crop. The impact of this was approximately £67 million of total economic loss across the industry, including estimated costs to growers of around £43 million.
In most years the threat from YV may not be significant. Indeed, the damage caused by YV in 2019 and 2021 (the other 2 recent years in which neonicotinoid seed treatments were not used) was far less than in 2020. Incidence in 2019 and 2021 was 1.8% and 2% and resulted in little impact on yields (around 0.5% yield loss in both years). Cruiser SB was available in 2022, 2023 and 2024, though some growers decided not to use it. Yield losses remained minimal among those who did not use Cruiser SB, ranging from 0.3%-1.7%.
The minister noted that the impact of YV on growers will be highly variable and that this has several dimensions. Some growers will face greater virus pressures due to local differences in the timing and numbers of infected aphids entering the crop. There will also be differences in the development of the crop meaning that some growers’ fields will be more able than others to resist a given level of virus infection. These factors together means that yield losses caused by YV will vary substantially around the mean, with some growers losing more than the average, and some less.
Individual growers will also be subject to a different range of other factors affecting the performance of their sugar beet crop (including weather and other pests and diseases) and so 2 growers with similar virus pressures may experience significant differences in impact on yield. Finally, different farm businesses will have different abilities to weather financial losses if their sugar beet crop under-performs. Sugar beet is normally one part of a wider farm business.
As set out above, the minister has characterised the nature of the danger as financial costs falling on growers as a consequence of damage caused by YV to the sugar beet crop. Having considered the analysis of the impacts of YV on crop yields and consequent financial impacts on growers, the minister has decided that the danger exists at or above the point at which growers start to experience negative cash flow. This is where the amount of money flowing into a business is smaller than amount of money flowing out of it.
Second test: Special circumstances
The minister finds that this test is met.
As with ‘danger’, the Regulation does not define what is meant by ‘special circumstances’. The minister considered that it means circumstances in which it would, exceptionally, be appropriate not to adopt the standard approach taken to other types of authorisations, bearing in mind the fact that to do so would potentially lose some of the safeguards to which the standard approach is subject.
The minister considers sugar beet to be an economically important domestic crop. The sugar beet industry provides just over half of the UK sugar supply. British Sugar employs over 1,000 skilled workers and claim over 7,000 jobs in the wider economy. The industry is a significant contributor to the UK food and drink industry, working with over 170 industrial partners. It is also a key part of the rural economy in East Anglia and Eastern England.
There is a longer-term trend of a small decline in UK sugar production though the 2024 sugar beet harvest returned strong yields at relatively high prices which is a positive short-term indicator for the financial sustainability of growers.
For over 25 years, YV was effectively controlled by a regime centred on neonicotinoid seed treatments. There were then 3 years in which neonicotinoids were not used, followed by 3 years in which they were used according to the terms of emergency authorisations.
Although the implication of the special circumstances test is that the need for the emergency authorisation should not be open-ended, each application for emergency authorisation does need to be assessed on the merits of the particular case and in line with the requirements of the Regulation.
In this case, the applicants and others in the sector have a plan for moving to a situation where emergency authorisations for Cruiser SB are no longer needed. The plan, known as the Virus Yellows Pathway, is taking forward the development of a range of measures to tackle virus damage. The minister notes that this is a complex process and will take time, as no single measure will replace seed treatments.
The work includes the development of resistant sugar beet varieties (which is challenging as the YV complex consists of 3 viruses, and no single trait confers resistance to the virus). There is also work to develop various integrated pest management approaches to reduce levels of aphids in the crop and there is also the prospect of further pesticide sprays. The minister urges the applicants and others in the sector to drive forward these plans, so that their outputs can be implemented in the field at pace.
Third test: the identified danger ‘cannot be contained by any other reasonable means’
The minister concludes that this test is met.
This test involves consideration of whether there is an alternative way of acceptably addressing the danger identified which would have a less adverse impact.
There are control measures (both chemical and non-chemical) that can be used instead of Cruiser SB. As described below, foliar sprays are likely to provide adequate control in most years. However, even when used in combination, they are not as effective in containing YV infection and are not considered to be reasonable alternatives where sustained and significant pressure from YV is observed.
There are no alternative seed treatments but there are insecticides that can be applied as foliar sprays. The crop is most susceptible to YV for its first 12 to 16 weeks. When conditions are favourable to a high level of danger from YV, pesticide sprays are less effective than the seed treatment, particularly in the emerging crop because the spray is applied to the leaves, and much of it will not reach the crop seedlings. Each spray has limits on how often it can be applied and so collectively they are only able to provide up to 6 weeks’ protection. The sprays do not, therefore, provide effective cover for the full 12 to 16-week period where sugar beet is most susceptible to YV. The sprays are also slower to kill aphids compared to treated seeds, giving more time for the virus to transmit to sugar beet plants.
As discussed above, outcomes depend on a range of factors, many of them local. There will be variation across farms, and it is expected that for some individual farmers YV infected aphids will enter the crop over a sufficiently prolonged period so that control using foliar sprays alone will be significantly less effective than control using Cruiser SB. The likelihood of this occurring will increase as the national incidence level rises.
Work is underway to develop YV-resistant crop varieties. There is currently one commercial variety that provides resistance to some YV. However, this carries a yield penalty; the Applicants cite an assessment by the British Beet Research Organisation that the choice of this variety only becomes economically viable if virus incidence in the field reaches 62%. This year the industry received a further £660,000 from the UK Government’s Farming Futures Research and Development Fund for a joint project to investigate the potential for precision breeding to develop YV resistance in sugar beet.
There are other techniques that can be helpful. These include early sowing of the crop and plant hygiene measures to remove potential sources of infection. These are insufficient to control YV when aphid populations are high in the young crop. Natural predators do not control aphids rapidly enough to prevent virus transmission and physical barriers are not economically or practically viable.
Fourth test: authorisation is ‘necessary’ because of the danger
The minister concludes that this test is not met.
The test involves considering whether granting the emergency authorisation constitutes a proportionate means of addressing the identified danger. In considering the necessity test, the minister weighed the possible adverse effects of the proposed use of the product (taking into account any proposed mitigations) with the potential benefits of the use of the product in addressing the danger, recognising that there is some uncertainty in both the adverse effects and the benefits of using Cruiser SB.
The minister first considered potential risks to human health and the environment from using Cruiser SB.
HSE’s risk assessments identify no concerns for human health (providing that operators use appropriate protective equipment). A new consideration has been the classification in 2023 of thiamethoxam as a suspected human reproductive toxicant under the GB Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation. As a result of this classification HSE had to conduct a specific risk assessment. This indicated that levels of one metabolite may exceed the drinking water threshold in some locations though the risk to consumers was acceptable. The minister accepts this advice.
In its environmental assessment, HSE advises that use of Cruiser SB is predicted to result in low risks to birds, mammals and terrestrial non target plans and no significant effect on soil micro-organisms. They noted a theoretical risk to birds using treated seed as grit (a material consumed by birds to aid digestion) but did not expect that birds would take pelleted treated seed as a source of grit.
HSE considered risks to aquatic life acceptable. They noted that exposure above the Predicted No-Effect Concentration (PNEC) set under the Water Framework Directive would be expected in some small, edge of field water bodies. This PNEC is set to support monitoring of levels of thiamethoxam in water and exceedance of the PNEC is therefore not in itself a cause for concern.
The CSA has advised that there is clear and abundant evidence that these neonicotinoids are harmful to species other than those they are intended to control and particularly to pollinators, including bees.
The minister accepts the expert advice from HSE that the potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators cannot be excluded if the Cruiser SB authorisation were to be granted and that limitations in the evidence mean that the risks to bees cannot be quantified with precision.
The assessment of risk to bees carried out by HSE focuses on honeybees as data on other species is not available. It considers:
- the potential for acute (single exposure) and chronic lethal effects
- effects that are sub-lethal but, by impairing the functioning of individual bees, carry a threat of harm to the hive
- risks to larvae
The assessment also considers a range of routes through which bees can be exposed to thiamethoxam, taking account of the fact that thiamethoxam can remain active in the soil for a period of time and can be taken up not only by the sugar beet crop itself, but also by subsequent crops on the same field, by other plants in the field and potentially by plants in field margins.
The risk to bees in subsequent years depends on the extent to which thiamethoxam and its active metabolites remain in soil and are available to be taken up by plants. Thiamethoxam breaks down over time and so the amounts in soil will reduce year on year. The CSA advises that the most recent soil monitoring results suggest that thiamethoxam degrades more slowly than assumed previously.
HSE considered the chronic lethal and sub-lethal risk arising from honeybees foraging on pollen and nectar from subsequent flowering crops following the treated sugar beet crop to pose a potential concern. The CSA carried out additional modelling using new soil monitoring data, and demonstrated that to meet the margin of safety which would allow HSE to conclude a lack of risk to bees, the exclusion period on planting of flowering crops would need to be extended from the proposed 32 to 35 months. The minister noted the CSA’s comments and that, as the soil monitoring data is not long-term, even with an exclusion period extension some uncertainty regarding the risks to bees would still remain.
HSE also consider guttation fluid (fluids secreted by certain plants) from succeeding crops to pose a potential concern, in terms of both chronic lethal and sub-lethal risks to adult bees and risks to larvae. They find that likely exposure is lower than the level required for either chronic toxicity or sub-lethal effects, but that the margin by which the likely exposure is lower than these levels is less than normally required for a standard authorisation. These conclusions are based on a study on maize, which shows higher concentrations of pesticide in guttation fluid than sugar beet or other crops normally planted after sugar beet (such as wheat and barley). For this reason, the CSA notes that the use of data from maize is likely to over-estimate the risk of exposure of bees to thiamethoxam.
The minister considered all the expert advice on the risks to the environment and in particular to honeybees and other pollinators. There are potential chronic and sub-lethal risks to bees and other pollinators via guttation fluid and subsequent flowering crop from using Cruiser SB and there is an element of uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of these risks. Applying the precautionary principle, the minister has concluded that it cannot be ruled out that chronic and sub-lethal impacts on bees and other pollinators may occur via these exposure routes even with mitigations in place and that this may have a detrimental impact on local pollinator populations.
There are benefits to some growers from using Cruiser SB in years which see high incidence of YV. However, in other years, where incidence of YV is lower, there is not a net benefit on average to growers from using Cruiser SB.
There is a low probability that 2020 YV incidence levels will occur in 2025. However, even in the reasonable worst-case scenario, the vast majority of growers are not expected to suffer significant financial impacts. Secondly, for those who may be affected in such a way, where they have chosen to purchase insurance cover for the 2025 season, those losses will be partially mitigated against.
Fifth test: ‘limited’ and ‘controlled’ use
The minister concludes that this test is met.
In terms of limited use, there is a degree of limitation from the fact that Cruiser SB would only be used on sugar beet, which is only grown in a region dictated by proximity to the 4 processing factories in West Norfolk, East Norfolk, West Suffolk and East Nottinghamshire. Further limitations could be applied as conditions of an emergency authorisation, if granted.
In terms of controlled use, the application proposes a stewardship scheme underpinned by industry commercial contracting arrangements. The stewardship scheme includes several measures, each of which could be set as conditions of an authorisation, if granted, to address risks to pollinating insects. Additionally, the minister could, if an authorisation were granted, remove or withdraw the emergency authorisation at any time if the conditions were not met or not followed.
Overall conclusion on the 5 tests
The minister finds that not all the 5 tests are met and has therefore decided that emergency authorisation cannot be granted. The minister strongly supports further work to develop alternative approaches at pace, such as modified variants of sugar beet so that growers can succeed in future without the use of Cruiser SB.