Since the Pesticide-Free Towns campaign launched in 2015, PAN UK has helped more than one hundred UK local authorities reduce or end their use of pesticides with relatively little fanfare. In fact, in most places in the UK, how councils choose to manage weeds has generally been considered a rather technical issue. Not so in Brighton & Hove! Since 2021, plant growth in this seaside town has repeatedly made national headlines, culminating in a decision by a newly elected Brighton & Hove Council in January 2024 to return to glyphosate.
With Brighton generally considered to be leading the way on environmental sustainability in the UK, local residents and others around the country are confused by this major step backwards. More concerningly, other UK councils are using the decision by Brighton & Hove to argue against their own moves towards going pesticide-free.
PAN UK has been involved in Brighton & Hove’s efforts to go pesticide-free since the very beginning so, with misinformation aplenty, we decided to put the record straight on what really happened.
Myth 1: Brighton & Hove Council have decided to revert to using pesticides across the whole city
Reality: The Council has confirmed that parks, gardens and green spaces across the city will remain pesticide-free, as will all tree bases, grass verges, non-hard surfaced central reservations and community gardens and orchards. The treatment will be applied to visible vegetation growing on hard surfaces, and not the hard surface generally. Small wildflowers – located away from the footway and presenting no hazard – will not be sprayed.
Brighton & Hove Council have confirmed that glyphosate will not be applied to any tree pits in city. Credit PAN UK
While the Council hasn’t yet launched an official opt-out scheme, their website does promise that “Any streets that residents or community groups already maintain will require little or no treatment.” They have also said, informally, that areas in the city centre that experience high-levels of footfall (thereby preventing weeds from establishing) will not be treated.
Looking forward, the Council has said that “2024 will be a reset year to get the city’s weed problem back under control. Once we’ve done that, we’ll reduce the use of glyphosate to the lowest level possible to maintain safe and accessible streets.”
There appears to be no appetite among councillors or residents to return to using pesticides at the levels they were previously used before the 2019 ban came into place.
Myth 2: Weeds took over the entire city of Brighton & Hove
Reality: While weeds were allowed to grow unchecked in certain areas in Brighton & Hove, in the majority of the city there were no issues. Certain suburbs of the city were particularly affected and this is where the media went to take photos of overgrown weeds, regardless of whether they were impacting people’s ability to use the pavements. However, in the town centre and most areas surrounding it, the pesticide ban had no negative impacts. In fact, it can be argued that many of these areas looked much more beautiful with wildflowers and other plants peeping out from the edges of pavements, while posing no threat to accessibility or infrastructure.
Myth 3: Going pesticide-free was part of a Green Party initiative to ‘rewild’ Brighton & Hove
Reality: The Labour Party controlled Brighton & Hove Council when the decision was made to go pesticide-free in 2019. It was, in fact, the Labour Chair of the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee that drove the initiative. It wasn’t until July 2020, when two Labour councillors resigned over an unrelated issue, that the Greens became the largest party and took control of Brighton & Hove Council. They therefore adopted the pesticide-free approach from Labour and, while the Greens do generally support measures that increase biodiversity, the Party has never had any plans to ‘rewild’ Brighton (or any other town or city for that matter!).
At an environmental hustings in 2019, council election candidates unanimously supported the phase out of pesticides in Brighton and Hove. Credit PAN UK.
In fact, the use of pesticides in urban spaces has never been a party political issue in the UK. However, in Brighton & Hove, it became deeply embroiled in party politics with opposition parties and the media using the issue to target the Administration.
Myth 4: If it wasn’t for weeds, the streets and pavements in Brighton & Hove would be fully accessible
Reality: Brighton & Hove suffers from a wide range of issues which affect people’s ability to enjoy the city. Wheelchair users, the elderly and others that struggle with their mobility (in addition to parents that rely on prams or buggies) face a plethora of challenges getting around the city. These include cars parking on pavements, tree roots damaging streets, and bins and other obstacles such as bus stops blocking their path.
In many areas of Brighton & Hove pavement plants are not causing accessibility issues, but other factors such as parked cars and wheelie bins are the real problem. Credit Steve Geliot.
From speaking with disability campaigners, it is clear that weeds in some parts of the city did negatively impact the ability of some people to get around which is absolutely unacceptable. However, digging deeper revealed a more nuanced picture involving a general neglect of pavements and broader failures by the Council to prioritise accessibility. The reality is that weeds in certain parts of the city exacerbated a range of existing accessibility issues, such as cracked pavements and poor lighting.
As many towns and cities (and whole countries like France and Luxembourg) have proven, it is perfectly possible to go pesticide-free without negatively impacting upon accessibility for local residents. A more holistic approach which prioritises accessibility while also protecting human health and the environment is desperately needed.
Sadly, in Brighton & Hove the pesticide ban was used to fuel the culture wars. Disability advocates and environmental groups were pitted against each other in the media and some councillors chose to publish inflammatory comments. For example, a now ex-Councillor told the media in 2021 “It’s all very well for a trendy city-dweller to say, ‘let’s rewild our pavements’ after hearing about the cause for the first time. They probably haven’t got any friends who are elderly or disabled, who are most likely to be seriously injured under the current unsatisfactory situation.”
This is a bizarre claim that went nationwide. It highlights how some key actors prioritised scoring political points over finding a workable solution.
Myth 5: The weeds in Brighton & Hove harmed the health of significant numbers of people
Reality: The numbers of people that experienced harm due to weeds appears to be extremely low. In fact, the January 2024 paper that underpinned Brighton & Hove Council’s decision to return to glyphosate revealed that, in the five years since pesticides stopped being used in 2019, the Council had received just two insurance claims relating to slips, trips or falls due to weeds. “Of these two claims, one was settled, and the claimant was awarded £210. For the other, council liability was denied.”
While these harms are deeply regrettable, they are the result of a failure to keep on top of weeds and therefore entirely avoidable. They are not an inevitable outcome of going pesticide-free (as proven by every town and city in France for example). It should also be noted that, even in areas where weeds did become overgrown, only a handful of people experienced negative impacts on their health.
Campaigners rallying against the use of glyphosate in France, which banned the use of pesticides in urban areas in 2017. Credit Gerard Bottino / Shutterstock.com
In contrast, glyphosate – the main active substance used by councils, including Brighton & Hove – was declared a ‘probable human carcinogen’ by the World Health Organization in 2015. Since then, there have been a spate of cases in the US where the manufacturer of Roundup (which contains glyphosate) has been forced to pay out billions of dollars in compensation to people who claim they have contracted cancer after using the chemical. Glyphosate has also recently been recognised by the French government as having direct links to Parkinson’s, the world’s fastest growing neurological disease.
Given the ever-growing body of evidence linking glyphosate to a range of serious, chronic diseases, the logic of reverting to using the chemical in order to protect human health is deeply flawed.
Myth 6: The weeds in Brighton & Hove were dangerous to dogs
Reality: In 2022, the media reported that dogs in Brighton were getting wall barley seeds stuck in their paws or ears, which can lead to serious health problems if not resolved. They put the blame firmly on the council’s pesticide ban, ignoring the possibility that these dogs could easily have picked up these seeds elsewhere (for example, in private gardens or in the nearby South Downs National Park).
Opponents of the pesticide-free approach argued that a return to using glyphosate would resolve the problem for dog owners. However, while wall barley is an invasive plant that needs to be managed, glyphosate is entirely unsuitable for the task. This is because the chemical is only applied once a plant is fairly well-developed, by which time its seeds already pose a risk to dogs.
This reveals a major problem with glyphosate use – it treats all plants as the same but is actually unsuitable for tackling some plant growth. In addition, there are rising concerns within the agricultural industry that the overuse of glyphosate in the amenity sector “…presents a particular risk for the development of herbicide resistance”. In fact, advice for dealing with wall barley recommends that it should be cut down early in the growing season and that it can be eradicated within two years following this non-chemical approach.
Like problems associated with humans tripping on weeds, the issue with wall barley seeds impacting dogs is the result of a failure to manage plant growth properly, rather than an inevitable outcome of going pesticide-free.
In fact, pesticides in general – and glyphosate in particular – has been shown to be harmful to dogs. Monitoring is limited but there are numerous cases of dogs suffering acute poisoning symptoms after being exposed to glyphosate, ranging from vomiting and lethargy to neurological symptoms such as seizures and death. There is almost no research on the long-term, chronic effects on dogs’ health of regular, ongoing direct exposure to pesticides like glyphosate that have been linked to diseases in humans such as cancer and Parkinson’s. However, it is likely that these chemicals also present a similar risk to animal health, particularly in the case of mammals such as dogs.
Myth 7: Brighton & Hove’s decision to go pesticide-free was unpopular with residents
Reality: Over the years, thousands of Brighton & Hove residents have come out in support of the city being pesticide-free. Their calls have been echoed by an array of local businesses and Brighton-based civil society organisations focussed on human health, the environment and workers’ rights.
In fact, knowing that it was a vote winner, both the Greens and the Labour included a commitment to keep the city pesticide-free in their manifestos ahead of the 2023 council elections. The Labour manifesto promised local residents, ““We won’t return to the use of harmful glyphosates, but we will work with our communities on targeted environmental and sustainable solutions, protecting human health, enabling nature to flourish and ensuring streets are managed to a high standard and are accessible to all.”
A January 2024 Brighton & Hove Council paper states that, in the five years since pesticides stopped being used in 2019, the Council received just 56 official complaints about “the state of pavements / highways and overgrown weeds”. Only five of this total specifically mentioned the decision not to use pesticides. Meanwhile, during the same time period, the Council received seven compliments in support of the pesticide-free policy. It should be noted that these figures only relate to official complaints. Rather than going through the formal council process, the majority of local residents will just contact their councillors directly so the figures for both complaints and compliments are likely to be much higher.
Residents protesting Brighton & Hove Council’s decision to return to using pesticides on the city’s streets. Credit PAN UK
Since the Council’s announcement that they will be returning to using pesticides on streets, there has been huge opposition from residents across the city. This has included a protest outside the Town Hall and dozens of community meetings and events about the issue. A petition started by a local resident calling for the Council to “urgently cancel your plan to reintroduce toxic, carcinogenic weedkillers in Brighton and Hove” had more than 7,300 signatures at time of writing. Health, environmental and workers’ rights groups across the city are coming together to call for the Council to return to being pesticide-free.
Myth 8: Brighton & Hove Council did everything possible to make a success of going pesticide-free
Reality: PAN UK has a decade of learnings from working with councils across the UK and therefore has a wealth of experience and knowledge to offer in terms of what works. However, Brighton & Hove Council continuously failed to follow our advice which has certainly contributed towards the situation it finds itself in today. Most notably:
- Instead of following our three-year phase out plan, which has been proven to work in many other towns and cities, the Council essentially went pesticide-free overnight.
- The Council failed to create a pesticide policy to guide their actions and explain to others, including residents, what they are doing and why. Every council should be aiming to develop and implement a clear and comprehensive pesticide policy which provides an overall roadmap for how the council plans to reduce pesticide use and ultimately go pesticide-free.
- Instead of adopting a suite of non-chemical alternatives designed to manage different areas, the Council trialled one alternative at a time, declaring each one unsuitable for managing the whole city. They ended up relying almost entirely on manual weeding, complemented by the use of a handful of mechanical brushes. While these approaches have worked well in other towns and cities, they were insufficiently effective in Brighton largely due to a lack of operatives. This failure to adopt a workable suite of approaches can be traced back to the lack of a pesticide policy. Trials of alternatives need to be methodically implemented and monitored as part of a comprehensive pesticide policy and phase-out plan.
- The council repeatedly ignored our advice on communicating with residents on the benefits of going pesticide-free, choosing instead to focus on the negative attributes of weeds. Experience has proven that communicating with residents, to bring them with you on the journey to ending pesticide use, is often as important as technical discussions around non-chemical alternatives. PAN UK has a range of communications tips for councils which are available here but were sadly not adopted in Brighton. As just one example, we advised Brighton & Hove Council to follow the London Borough of Lambeth by launching a community weeding scheme which encouraged residents to take responsibility for managing their own streets. Instead of calling it something positive – such as ‘Biodiversity Champions’ – Brighton Council chose to call the scheme ‘Weed Warriors’, eliciting a major backlash from some local residents and the media who criticised them for asking people to do a job that was supposed to be carried out by the Council itself. Despite the logistical challenges that can come with establishing volunteering groups, the success of these schemes in other areas provided Brighton Council with a roadmap to follow which was unfortunately ignored.
The good news is that it is very easy to spot the key areas where Brighton & Hove went wrong and therefore simple for other councils to avoid these mistakes.
Myth 9: Brighton & Hove’s decision to use the ‘controlled droplet’ application of glyphosate removes all risk
Reality: Brighton & Hove Council have opted for a controlled droplet application of glyphosate. This costs considerably more than usual spraying but, according to a Council document, is supposed to “…reduce drift and the likelihood of the chemical adhering to non-target items”. It also allegedly does not produce breathable droplets.
While this approach may be ‘better’ than traditional spraying it still comes with considerable risks. In fact, the Council’s own document states that it will have negative impacts related to “biodiversity and nature conservation” and “…does not support the council’s objectives relating to the climate and biodiversity emergency” (point 11.4).
The city’s wildlife relies on pavement plants, including sparrows which are now on the UK’s Red List for birds due to their drastic decline in numbers. Credit Steve Geliot.
On human health, very little research has been conducted on whether there are health benefits of using controlled droplet application. If the claims that it does not produce breathable droplets are true then this is an improvement on traditional spraying but certainly doesn’t remove the risk entirely associated with glyphosate exposure. This is particularly concerning in the case of Brighton which sits atop an aquifer relied upon by 400,000 people for drinking water. One of the biggest problems with using pesticides on hard surfaces (such as pavements) is that they tend to run-off into waterways, contaminating them for both humans and aquatic species alike. Controlled droplet application may reduce some of this run-off but is highly unlikely to eliminate it all together. Even with the controlled droplet approach, glyphosate is still being applied to a large quantity of the city’s vegetation meaning that children, pets and wildlife are still highly likely to come into contact with the chemical.
Myth 10: Brighton & Hove did not struggle with weeds before it went pesticide-free
Reality: Councils across the UK have received complaints about weeds for decades, long before the Pesticide-Free Towns movement started. In fact, today, the majority of UK councils continue to use pesticides and, despite this, still receive complaints from residents about weeds.
In Brighton & Hove, the issue has been presented as if it’s ‘using glyphosate and having no weeds’ vs ‘going pesticide-free and having weeds run all over the city’. However, this is a false choice. Many councils – such as London’s Hammersmith & Fulham – have gone pesticide-free without allowing an increase in plant growth on pavements. Meanwhile, other councils that use pesticides struggle with weeds. This proves that it is about political will and ambition. Councils that are committed to reducing exposure to chemicals will make a pesticide-free approach work, while those that lack long-term vision and are therefore unwilling to weather any initial opposition are far less likely to.
It should also be noted that glyphosate is not as effective as it’s made out to be. While it does kill existing plant growth, if dead plants are just left to rot in place then more soil is created in which future weeds can then establish. It is an effective but extremely short-term solution, with treated areas often requiring multiple additional sprays over a growth season. Brighton & Hove Council have said that they are expecting to have to apply the chemical three times in May, July and September 2024 (each taking six to eight weeks). This highlights the short-term nature of glyphosate as a solution, a problem that is only increasing as the overuse of herbicides is causing plants to develop resistance to these chemicals. Due to climate change, the growing season is also becoming longer with some councils reporting that they now have to spray chemicals from February until November to stay on top of plant growth. In contrast, pesticide-free cities tend to find that, after a sometimes-difficult start, the number of weeds reduces each growth season.
Myth 11: The return to pesticides is cost-effective for Brighton & Hove residents
Reality: Like many councils across the UK, Brighton & Hove is struggling to make ends meet. However, it is possible to reduce, or even end, pesticide use without costs going up. In fact, some councils, such as the London Borough of Kingston, have managed to save money while cutting pesticide use. Kingston saved £44,000 in their street cleaning service budget while reducing their pesticide usage by 76%.
PAN UK advises councils to adopt a range of cost saving approaches, including preventative measures such as removing detritus where weeds can establish and changing mowing and planting regimes. For more information, please see our guide.
Community weeding groups are a great support for councils looking to end their use of pesticides. Credit PAN UK.
The Council states that the controlled droplet application will cost them an additional £300,000 in 2024. While this approach may reduce the impacts on human health and the environment it does not eliminate all risk. This money could arguably have been better spent on adopting safer and more sustainable non-chemical alternatives which would have removed all risk to human health and the environment.
Myth 12: Brighton & Hove’s problems with going pesticide-free could happen anywhere
Reality: From 2019 to 2022, Brighton & Hove city faced a range of unique obstacles in its journey towards going pesticide-free which are best highlighted through a brief timeline:
- November 2019 – Unanimous council decision to go pesticide-free overnight ignores the three-year phase out plan adopted by most councils.
- Spring/summer 2020 – first growth season without pesticides:
- Council’s workforce reduced by a third due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Vulnerable council staff, plus those who live with anyone vulnerable, have to isolate.
- UK population not allowed to go abroad so the number of tourists visiting Brighton soars. As a result, the Council is forced to dedicate its limited resources and workforce to maintaining the town centre and the beach (for example, removing glass and needles from the beach had to take priority over weed control).
- Spring/summer 2021 – second growth season without pesticides:
- Council invests in mechanical hand weeders.
- Council attempts to recruit seasonal staff to conduct manual weed removal but fails, mirroring a struggle faced by councils across the UK to recruit workers.
- A particularly wet spring and summer leads to unusually high levels of plant growth.
- Opposition councillors approach local and national media. Articles in The Guardian, Sunday Times and Daily Mail accuse the Green Administration of attempting to ‘rewild’ the city. The issue becomes a ‘political football’.
- Spring/summer 2022 – third growth season without pesticides:
- Council runs recruitment open days looking for 12 staff to conduct hand weeding. They succeed in recruiting a handful of new staff operatives but remain understaffed as the UK-wide issue with recruiting workers continues.
- Council orders strimmers but, due to supply chain issues caused by Covid-19 and Brexit, the machinery doesn’t arrive until the end of August.
- The politicisation of weeds continues with councillors securing more negative coverage in local and national media.
Due to this series of events, by 2022, weeds were overgrown in certain areas of the city. In addition, the issue had become so politicised, and ultimately polarised, that it had become part of the culture wars which left no room for nuance or compromise. For these reasons, which are both technical and political in nature, it is vital that other towns and cities do not let the unique case of Brighton & Hove scare them off from going pesticide-free.
PAN UK continues to be in contact with Brighton & Hove Council and are attempting to help get them back on the right path. What happened in this city is entirely avoidable and we are here to make sure that other councils do not make the same mistakes.
The vast majority of councils that have gone pesticide-free in the UK, and beyond, have done so without issue, securing a major win for the health of local residents, wildlife and nature more broadly.
