Sugar beet farmers have been conditionally granted an emergency authorisation to use a controversial, banned pesticide - sparking outrage from environmental campaigners.

For the fourth year running, the government has approved the controlled, temporary use of a neonicotinoid seed treatment on sugar beet crops - most of which are grown in East Anglia.

The chemicals were banned by the EU in 2019 due to their potential impact on the health of bees, other pollinators and the wider environment.

But the continuing threat from the devastating beet disease virus yellows - carried by infected aphids and capable of halving sugar beet yields - has prompted the move to protect an industry which supplies more than half of the UK's sugar and sustains almost 10,000 jobs

Defra says a product named Cruiser SB will be permitted for use in 2024, but only if an independent model predicts a virus incidence of 65pc or more in March - the highest threshold set so far.

Eastern Daily Press:  Daniel Green, agriculture director for British Sugar Daniel Green, agriculture director for British Sugar (Image: British Sugar)

Dan Green, agriculture director for British Sugar, which made the joint application with the National Farmers' Union (NFU), said it was "an important decision which, if it is needed, will enable the UK's sugar beet growers to protect their 2024 crops from virus yellows disease, while work continues on finding a long-term solution to the problem."

He said those solutions include working with plant breeders to improve natural disease resistance, "innovation in on-farm techniques and grower practices", and research to explore how scientific breakthroughs and gene editing can be used to target virus yellows.

He added: "Any use of the seed treatment is subject to strict controls, including: a bare minimum amount is to be used, there is a restriction on flowering crops being planted in the same field following seed-treated sugar beet, and growers must take part in knowledge exchange programmes. Growers must also follow a strict stewardship programme to ensure best practice and that the conditions of the emergency authorisation are met on farm."

The decision provoked anger from environmental campaigners, who say the chemicals are "lethal" to bees and harmful to British ecosystems.

Barnaby Coupe, land use policy manager at the Wildlife Trusts, said: "The farming minister’s decision to authorise the use of a banned neonicotinoid pesticide on sugar beet for the fourth year in a row is a deathblow for wildlife, a backwards step in evidence-based decision making, and a betrayal of farmers who are producing food sustainably."

Gareth Dalglish, Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nature recovery director, added: "This is a crucial issue for Norfolk. We recognise the impact that virus yellows disease can have on such an important crop for many arable farms across the county and know that many of Norfolk’s farmers are passionate about producing crops in a wildlife-friendly way. 

“It's vital that beet farmers are supported to deliver a truly sustainable food source in a way that protects the future of our pollinators and reduces pollution in our rivers. 

“We will continue to campaign for more support for the Norfolk farmers we know are already choosing not to use neonicotinoids and the great many more who would move to alternatives if it was made a more compelling business decision."

Defra says emergency pesticide authorisations are only granted for a limited time in circumstances "where there is a danger that cannot be contained by any other reasonable means". Sugar beet plants are harvested before they flower so it says there is "little risk arising from bees foraging on pollen and nectar of the sugar beet crop". 

Farming minister Mark Spencer said:   "We recognise the damaging impact that an outbreak of beet yellow virus could have on farmer livelihoods. We therefore regard issuing an emergency authorisation as a necessary and proportionate measure.   

"The product can only be used if a threshold is met, and its use will be strictly controlled. This decision is based on robust scientific assessment and the risks have been evaluated very carefully."