Pesticides in agriculture: why?
Séverin HATT
In 2018, controversies about pesticides hit the headlines. In the United States, the pesticide firm
Monsanto was found guilty of causing cancer in a school groundskeeper that used its glyphosatebased herbicide for many years, and was ordered to pay him $289 million. In the European Union (EU),debates arose concerning the ban of glyphosate herbicides as well as neonicotinoid insecticides.
Why? Pesticides have been generally used in the agriculture of “developed” countries following WorldWar II. They have been a symbol of agriculture modernization, along with improved seeds, fertilizers,and machines. Their adoption has not been without opposition; however, governments’ pro-pesticide
campaigns finally convinced people to employ them.
But why do we use pesticides? Further, why do we have to stop using them? Moreover, why is it sodifficult to stop using them and ban selling them? Solutions to farming without pesticides exist. Yet,abandoning them means changing the way we produce, buy and consume food - a good opportunity
to question our way of living and build a new relationship with our environment.

Pesticide spraying on cereals in Belgium (2017)

Why do we use pesticides?
Pesticides are used in agricultural fields to control pests. Pests are those organisms that are harmful
for plants. Certain insects are considered pests because they consume plants - they are insect
herbivores. Others transmit viruses when stinging plants, like aphids (aphids sting plants in order tofeed on plant liquids, like mosquitoes on animals). Hence, insecticides are used to suppress them.
Fungi are considered pests because they parasitize plants. Parasitized plants become weaker andproduce less grains, vegetables or fruits than expected. Therefore, fungicides are applied to protect
them. Finally, other plants growing besides those that are cultivated are also seen as pests. They are
weeds, and are often unwanted because they are seen as competitors for resources, such as nutrients,water, sun, and space. Weeds are eliminated with herbicides.
Pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides) are used in high quantity on cultivated plants. Japan
has been ranked the third highest consumer of pesticides among the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries with 12.75 kg/ha (average calculated between 2004and 2013), well ahead the United-States (ranked 18th with 2.43 kg/ha) (1). Pesticides are used in sucha high quantity because they are formidably efficient. Spraying them allows for controlling damaging
insects, diseases or competitive plants without much in the way of physical effort and a relatively low
price. Unfortunately, they are also poisonous for us and our environment.
Why do we have to stop using pesticides?
Already in the 1960s, Rachel Carson wrote in the book, Silent Spring, which became famousworldwide, that “synthetic pesticides have been so thoroughly distributed throughout the animate andinanimate world that they occur virtually everywhere” and, as a result, “every human is now subjected
to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death” (2). The
environmental threat of pesticide use was symbolized by springs becoming silent because singing
birds, which eat insects, are disappearing with the elimination of their food sources. More recently,1insecticide use, and, more generally, conventional agricultural practice, is considered to be
responsible for the disappearance of pollinators, especially bees.
In parallel to species extinction, targeted pests adapt to pesticides as evolutionary processes tend toselect resistant organisms, and these resistant pests become even more problematic for farmers. In
the United States, certain farm lands cannot be cultivated any longer because they are invaded byherbicide-resistant “super weeds”, like the pigweed Palmer amaranth which is so deeply rooted thateven uprooting it mechanically is difficult.
The generalization of pesticide use in agriculture has contaminated our entire environment: air, soil,water, food… hence, also our own bodies. Research has evaluated risks for human health. Amongother scientific works, a general synthesis carried out by the French Institut National de la Santé Et dela Recherche Médicale (INSERM; institute for health and medical research) notably concluded that therise of significant risks for various pathologies have been linked to exposure to pesticides (3).
Regarding the specific case of glyphosate-based herbicides (the most widely used type of herbicideworldwide), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a World Health Organization
agency, classified them as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (4).

Demonstration against pesticides in Brussels, Belgium (2015)

Why is it so difficult to stop using pesticides?
There is clear scientific evidence that pesticides are poisonous for our health and environment. Policy
makers in certain countries have acknowledged these risks and began to push towards a reduction inuse. In France, the “Ecophyto 2018” plan was launched in 2008 with the objective of reducing
pesticide use by 50% in 10 years (calculated by a complex indicator referred to as NODU – number ofunit doses – that takes into account the quantity but also the intensity of the products) (5). After eight
years, the government acknowledged that pesticide use has not decreased and planned “Ecophyto 2”.
The efforts of the French government to diminish pesticide use are promising, but its difficulty tosignificantly decrease dependency on pesticides is worrying. Several factors can explain why is it sodifficult to stop using them.
Pesticides are easy-to-use solutions that are colorless and often odorless. Despite knowing that they
are dangerous, the temptation to use them is high when crops are infested by insects or when weeds
are out of control. Invisible and diluted into water, it is easy to deny their harmful effects on our healthand the environment. Furthermore, a problem often calls for quick solutions, and using pesticides isamong the fastest way to solve a pest infestation. Pesticides are even being deployed in a preventiveway, in an absence of pests, to be certain to avoid any problems.
Fears of damages, or the simple presence of insects on fresh products, are high among farmers.
State-regulated quality standards, which include products’ physical appearance, demand an absenceof damages caused by insects or diseases on fruits and vegetables when they arrive on market stalls.
Consequently, they compel farmers to spray pesticides. For instance, apples are sprayed about 35
times per season in France (about two-thirds of treatments against fungus and bacteria, one-third
against insects, and a very small amount being against weeds and regulate growth). Another example2

is lettuce, upon which no aphids must be found when they are sold, inducing farmers to spray extra
insecticides to guarantee their “cleanliness”.
Beside damages, farmers fear losses of production, and a high yield is often an objective. Yield(quantity produced per surface unit) is the main indicator of performance for agriculture. Thisquantitative indicator reflects the priority of the market to produce large amounts of food, with relatively
less interest in nutritional quality or the potential side effects to the environment. Efforts are through adiversity of economic agents (input sellers, commodity buyers) to convince farmers to always produce
more based on the argument that they will earn more. However, high-yielding agriculture necessitates
important economic investments in machineries and inputs, moving towards specialization of farms
within a limited range of production. The optimization of production systems reduces a farm’s ability tochange. Economic profitability of specialized farms depends on high yield, partially achievable thanks
to the use of pesticides. The long-term debt incurred to buy machines prevents farmers taking on therisk of changing their manner of farming and losing money. In the end, farmers are locked into a wholetechnical and economic system, impelling them to continue using pesticides.
However, unfortunately for farmers, high yield does not always guarantee sufficient incomes and theirmajor level of debts easily leads them to bankruptcy when commodity prices crash. As a result, thenumber of farmers inexorably decreases and farmers’ suicide rate increases, which is already muchhigher than other socio-professional groups in most countries. For example, roughly one-third ofFrench farmers earn less than 350 € (45 000 ¥) a month, France lost 20% of its farmers between 2000
and 2010 and farmers’ suicide rate is 20-30% higher than the population average. In the United States,
the suicide rate is up to five times more than the average population.
Another argument for higher yield farming is that farmers must feed the world and its increasing
population estimated to reach 9 billion in 2050. Such an objective likely gives meaning to farmers withrespect to growing plants and animals. However, it should not be forgotten that agriculture represents
major economic interests. Increasing production with pesticides would benefit companies sellingmachines and products, while major-producing countries will benefit from higher exports that, however,rarely (if not never) benefit farmers.

Latest generation harvester (left);
Syngenta (pesticide company) advertisement in Brussels, Belgium (2015) (right)

Why is it so difficult to ban selling pesticides?
Major economic interests put pressure on policy makers when debating banning pesticides. Recently,
the EU discussed two specific cases: the ban of glyphosate-based herbicides and the ban ofneonicotinoid-based insecticides. As already mentioned, glyphosate has been labeled “probablycarcinogenic to humans” and neonicotinoids are accused of killing bees.
EU member states voted at the end of 2017 to renew the authorization of selling glyphosate herbicides
for five more years. It would not have been possible without a last-minute decisive swing of Germany’s
Minister of Agriculture, Christian Schmidt, in favor of the renewal despite his own government’s
position requesting he abstains. Since then, the German chemical company, Bayer, acquired3

Monsanto, and with it, its “Round Up” herbicide. This rose concerns surrounding Mr. Schmidt’s
potential conflict of interests when voting for the re-authorization of glyphosate herbicides. Moreover,pesticide companies refused to adhere to the conclusions of the IARC on the carcinogenic risk ofglyphosate. Instead, they relied on another official report ordered by the EU and published by theGerman Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR; institute for risk evaluation), that did not conclude
glyphosate causes cancer. The conclusion of this last report was the main argument for countries
supporting the re-authorization of this herbicide. However, it was revealed that large parts of this reportwere copy-pasted or plagiarized from chemical companies’ own studies, casting doubts on its
neutrality and overall conclusions (6).
Similarly, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) concluded in a report thatglyphosate poses no significant cancer risks. However, it was recently shown (7) that approximately
half of the studies used in the US EPA report were those administered by chemical companies when
applying for commercial authorization, and these studies almost never concluded that glyphosate iscarcinogenic. Conversely, the IARC report excluded most of the company-produced studies andconsidered mainly investigations published in independent scientific journals, and most of thesestudies indicated carcinogenic risk of glyphosate.
These disputes highlight how those selling pesticides interfere with science and influence theregulatory processes with which their authorization or banning depends. It was also uncovered by the“Monsanto papers” (the publications of Monsanto’s internal documents and emails) how the company
convinced renowned scientists by paying them to publish studies that were in line the company’s own
conclusions.

“March Against Monsanto” in Brussels, Belgium (2015)

Conversely to glyphosate, EU member states have voted to ban neonicotinoid-based insecticides infields (but they are still authorized in greenhouses). This was a victory for environmentalists who
supported their ban for many years. It shows that policy makers can vote against company interests.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that bees are saved from insecticides and that insecticide use willcrease. Indeed, the ban of specific pesticide molecules has always led to the development and thepromotion of new ones by firms that will not stop selling chemicals for agriculture. Already, sulfoxaflorbased insecticides are being promoted as alternatives to neonicotinoids. The EU authorized these
insecticides in 2015 for 10 years. However, one study has already demonstrated their harmful effects
on pollinator reproduction (8).
How to exist without pesticides?
Despite the difficulties in abandoning pesticides, solutions exist. At the technical level, an array offarming practices can help limit pests. They concern plants themselves and the way they are cultivated,
as well as the manner by which the farm environment is managed. Regarding plants, the date ofsowing can be crucial: delaying sowing by a number of weeks can help plants avoid the occurrence ofcertain pests. Also, local varieties should be used because they have likely developed resistances tolocal pests over time. Plant species that are sensitive to different insects and diseases can be mixed, apractice known as intercropping, to prevent the spread of pests from plant to plant. Finally organic, and4

not mineral, fertilization by, for instance, using compost improves plant health and limits its sensitivity
to pests.
With respect to farm management, laying straw or sowing particular grasses that cover the soil (forexample, clover before sowing cereals) prevents weed growth. Weeds can also be mechanicallyremoved instead of with chemicals. Managing natural habitats near fields, such as planting hedgerows
or sowing flowers, can favor populations of predators and parasites of insects (for example,ladybeetles that are well-known predators) (see next issue). Finally, limiting soil ploughing also saves
ground-dwelling predators, such as carabids and parasitizing insects that spend the winter in the soil.

Straw laying and vegetable intercropping, France (left); Flower strip in a field of cereals, Belgium (right)

It is generally acknowledged that small cultivated parcels, harboring a diversity of plants, are lesssensitive to pests than large and very homogeneous fields. This is because more diversifiedecosystems favor the development of multiple organisms that interact with one another, and, finally,regulate each other. This holistic approach of farming highlights that there is not only one practicalsolution to control pests, but instead, an array of practices that should be used together and adaptedto specific environmental conditions of each farm. It demands radical change in farming compared tothe use of pesticides that is a simple solution applicable everywhere in the same fashion. Abandoning
pesticides also means spending time in fields observing plants growing: Are they growing properly? If
not, what is the reason they are not growing properly? Are the insects walking or flying around? Do
insects represent risks for plants? Hence, farming without pesticides is knowledge-intensive. As such,it represents progress.

Community Supported Agriculture with consumers helping at farming in Belgium (left);
Farmers’ market in France (right)

Abandoning pesticides also calls for changing the economic dimensions of agriculture. The mainmarketing system, where the final step is deployment in the supermarket, dictates strict quality
standards (example: no damage) and very low prices to farmers. Despite the rise of certified organic
products in supermarkets, developing alternatives to this retail system is needed to shift to ecologicalfarming. The Japanese system of teikei (提携), developed in the late 1960s, is a good example of5such alternatives. In teikei groups, farmers directly provide organic products to consumers.
Consumers in return are engaged in buying the products over the long term, guaranteeing an outlet
and stable income for famers, even in the case of disasters. Consumers are also engaged in regularly
helping farming and organizational aspects, such as product delivery, which bonds farmers andconsumers and allows consumers to understand the issues related to organic farming. Hence, in sucha system, risks of unstable production or damages because of pests are understood and accepted byconsumers who support pesticide-free agriculture. The Japanese system of teikei has inspired similar
initiatives in other countries, like Community Supportive Agriculture in the United States and theAssociation pour le Maintien d’une Agriculture Paysanne (AMAP; organization to maintain peasantfarming) in France. In Japan, certain co-ops have also built close bonds with farmers and support theirmove to organic farming. Farmers’ markets or farmer-led retail shops are other means for farmers toexplain to consumers how they produce food while improving their incomes by retaining the entire
margin (instead of sharing it with various intermediaries, like wholesalers and supermarkets).
There are many reasons to explain why pesticides are so heavily used in agriculture worldwide, andwhy it is so difficult to stop utilizing them and ban their use. It appears that on the one hand, farmers
are locked in a socio-economic and technical system from which it is difficult to escape. On the otherhand, any step towards banning them completely faces obstacles that aim at protecting the hugeeconomic interests that represent pesticides. Nevertheless, people have never stopped criticizing theirwidespread use. Despite they often represent the minority in society, people have kept and developed
farming practices allowing the production of pesticide-free food, inventing alternative ways to connect
farmers and consumers. These innovative ideas are still niche, but could rise in popularity withincreasing awareness that humanity will only survive in a safe environment.
(1) Original source: FAO. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/environmental-rankingfor-canada-and-the-OECD.pdf(2) Rachel Carson (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, USA.
(3) Inserm (dir.). Pesticides : Effets sur la santé. Rapport. Paris: Inserm, 2013, XII-1001 p.
(4) International Agency for Research on Cancer (2015). IARC Monographs Volume 112:
evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. https://www.iarc.fr/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf(5) Baschet, J-F., Pingault, N. (2009). Reducing pesticide uses: The Ecophyto 2018 plan - Therole of usage indicators in evaluating the achievement of targets. Centre d’Etudes et deProspectives, 4, 1-4. http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf_analyse40902anglais.pdf(6) Weber, S., Burtscher-Schaden, H. (2019). Detailed Expert Report on Plagiarism andSuperordinated Copy Paste in the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) on Glyphosate.
https://bartstaes.be/nl-BE/artikel/dossier/glyphosate-files-the-copy-paste-study/27200(7) Benbrook, C. M. (2019). How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposedconclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides? Environmental Sciences
Europe, 31, 2. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7(8) Siviter, H., Brown, M. J., Leadbeater, E. (2018). Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee
reproductive success. Nature, 561(7721), 109. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-0180430-6.pdf

6