Say Goodbye to Toxics!

• What are the objectives of the action?

Scientific recommendations to move to sustainable food production systems have been available for a long time but went largely unheard and/or unimplemented. The ECI Save the Bees and Farmers initiative brought this issue to the public debate and showed that farmers, citizens and scientists call for binding and result-driven measures that support farmers and restore biodiversity.With this action, we want to put pressure on  key policymakers into taking bold measures to reach the following objectives: phasing out pesticide use, restoring nature, and supporting producers in the transition to agroecology.

• What can Ministers and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) do?

When the European Commission makes proposals for new EU legislation, Member States and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have the power to reject or change it. Once everyone agrees on a final text, it is adopted and must be applied  in all countries of the European Union, where it will be incorporated into national law.

If a wide group of ministers and MEPs calls for an ambitious pesticide regulation, it is likely the legislation resulting from this political process will be closer to the demands of our ECI Save Bees and Farmers. This is why we must convince as many political leaders are possible !

Currently, the industrial agrifood system does not allow for effective and sustainable food production in the long term, while damaging biodiversity and all ecosystems it so heavily relies upon. Farmers and farm workers are pesticides’ first victims which threaten their health, cause the loss of biodiversity and landscape attractiveness on their farm, decrease soil health, poison pollinators and water quality, increase pest resistance and erosion.

Using pesticides only accelerates the multiple crises we are experiencing: climate emergency, biodiversity collapse, and social and public health crises. We need a transition away from this self-destructive agroindustrial model.

Member States should support farmers via advisory services to increase the application of non-chemical alternatives to pesticides, with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as the base of any food production system (agronomic measures, and mechanical, physical, biological control), as part of an integral strategy moving towards sustainable agroecological food production systems. The transition towards a pesticide-free agriculture implies a package of measures. In order to boost this transition, subsidies in agriculture should be linked to IPM and measurable pesticide use reduction.

Firstly, very few studies have been conducted to identify and develop testing methods for new GMOs and to look at potential risks.Without proper risk assessment new GMOs should not be introduced into agrological systems. Genetic uniformity leads to low crop diversity, which is one of the main drivers of pesticide use, especially in cloned crops, which  threatens food security. A high diversity of locally adjusted and robust varieties is needed to cope with the effects of climate change and invasive species, something that monocultures cannot offer.

Secondly, almost 80% of the EU pesticide use comprises herbicide and fungicide use, and there are currently no genetically engineered solutions available (or in development) that could substantially reduce such usage. According to Foodwatch, genetically modified crops suitable to achieve the “Farm to Fork” objectives are not available and will not be within the next 10-15 years.

Thirdly, the pesticide business rests in the hands of a concentrated industry. In 2018, only 4 multinational agro-chemical companies (Syngenta/ChemChina, Bayer, Corteva, BASF) owned 70% of the global pesticide market. They also hold 60% of the global seed market, including GMO and new GMO seeds. This strategy has enabled them to reach a high level profitability, while stripping many farmers from their food sovereignty. If new GMOs were to be widely used in agriculture, we would end up with higher crop genetic uniformity causing higher pesticide use, a business model which would play into the hands of the above mentioned companies, since they sell both seeds and pesticides.

If the use of pesticides is reduced, their negative effects will also disappear. Farmers will be able to escape from the debt spiral to which they are subjected under the current agro-industrial regime. Through agroecological systems, they will be able to reduce the consumption of inputs and thus the costs of their production, improving their economy, which will give a boost to rural areas. In addition, their health and their families’ and neighbors’ will improve by reducing contact with substances that can cause chronic diseases or neurological disorders.

Consequently, pesticide reduction will help facilitate rural resettlement. Fewer pesticides in the air, and in surrounding water sources and soil means a better quality of life for all citizens living in these areas –one of the population groups most affected through their continued exposure to pesticides are rural inhabitants–. Particularly noteworthy is also the improved attractiveness of rural areas for (future) parents that significant pesticide reductions entail.

On the other hand, monotone ‘green deserts’ of monoculture and high-input agriculture have changed European rural areas drastically, leading to (more) silent springs and the loss of biodiversity and natural heritage. Biodiversity and landscape attractiveness are important prerequisites for life quality. The positive health impact of nature is well known, as is the importance of high quality green areas nearby citizens’ homes. Without robust green infrastructure, abundant insect life, yellowhammer’s tunes and skylarks songs, rural areas lose their color, ‘soundtrack’ and attractiveness.

Through a pesticide phase out plan, nature will flourish and thrive again. Less agrochemicals on the fields means more insects and pollinators, which will help farmers’ harvests at the same time. Some of these insects are natural enemies, essential for biological pest control; for example, ladybugs are key to control aphid populations. In addition, more insects will attract more birds to farmland, reversing the worrying trend of a 50% decline in bird populations in recent years due to industrial farming.

Thus, the reduction of pesticides can lead to a resurgence of the rich biodiversity of rural areas. A good thing in itself, but one that would also benefit rural dwellers. Richer biodiversity can attract economic and labour opportunities to depopulated areas. Biodiversity tourism, like birdwatching, is a growing market that brings higher economic benefits than traditional tourism, and it attracts millions of people every year to rural areas. Also farmers report beneficial impacts and increased joy when restoring biodiversity on their farmlands, providing more attractive working and living conditions.