EU wants fewer pesticides for more biodiversity: what does that mean?

50 percent less use of pesticides by 2030 – that is what the member states of the European Union should achieve. There is already a guideline for this, but the federal states are not implementing it sufficiently. That is why the EU Commission now wants to enshrine the reduction in a regulation – and thus make it binding, without the requirement having to be adopted into national law.

The Commission has announced that it will present a draft of this regulation for Wednesday. However, the submitted draft still has to go through the European Parliament and the European Council; It will therefore take at least another year and a half before the rule can come into force.

In addition to herbicides (against weeds), fungicides (against fungi) and insecticides, the term “pesticides” also includes numerous other chemical agents used to control undesirable organisms.

What’s the point?

It is not about possible health hazards, but is primarily intended to help biodiversity. After all, pesticides not only kill the weeds or fungi they are designed for, they also damage many other organisms and thus entire ecosystems.

Britta Tietjen, Professor of Theoretical Ecology at the Freie Universität Berlin, explains it like this: “Herbicides are also effective against wild weeds, the number and diversity of which subsequently decline. There is therefore a lack of plant biomass or flowers, which form the basis of food for insects. This leads to a decline in biodiversity and the biomass of insects – and consequently of all other animals in the food web, such as birds.” In addition, pesticides also have negative effects on soil, water and the organisms living in them that are not visible above ground.

studiesResults of the Julius Kühn Institute from 2021 make the problem clear. The researchers studied the biodiversity of wild plants; the criteria were species diversity, proportion of a species in the coverage of a certain area, flowering species and flowering intensity. On areas that had never been treated with chemical pesticides, the index for biodiversity was 100, on organically farmed fields it was 53. On fields with conventional cultivation, the value was 3.

Aren’t there more effective measures for more biodiversity?

Fewer pesticides alone do not automatically mean more biodiversity, nor are pesticides the only reason for biodiversity loss. Thomas Fartmann, Professor of Biodiversity and Landscape Ecology at the University of Osnabrück, complains, for example, that grassland is mowed every three or four weeks – no bird species can breed successfully on such an area, and most insects don’t survive either. “A 50 percent reduction in pesticides will not result in a significant trend reversal,” he says. “A lot more has to happen.”

As necessary steps – which would be more effective than reducing pesticides – he names: In agricultural landscapes, open fields, i.e. fields where the distance between the seed rows is greater than usual, as well as fallow fields and classic field margins (not “flowering strips”) should be promoted on a large scale. as well as extensive grassland, especially pastures. In order to alleviate the lack of sparse forests as well as those rich in old and dead wood, the historical forms of use of forest pasture, coppice and coppice forest should be promoted, as should total reserves. In settlements, for example, cemeteries and green spaces should be cultivated extensively. Watercourses should be renatured, taking into account the entire floodplain.

Are Pesticides Toxic?

Many experts consider it unlikely that food that has been properly treated with a pesticide could directly harm health. The limits for approval are too strict for this.

In addition, according to Thomas Hartung, Professor of Evidence-Based Toxicology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, pesticides are subjected to about 30 animal tests before they are approved – that is a lot more animal tests than for drugs, for example (however, some of the tests do not refer to human health, but on the effect on wildlife). In addition, the products today would have to be used at a certain distance from the harvest. However, absolute security cannot be achieved.

Because substances are only tested for known effects before they are approved. However, certain connections are only found in hindsight, for example Effects on the endocrine system or that Pesticides can promote obesity and may trigger asthma in children.

A verifiable danger exists for those who apply the pesticides to the fields. Acute damage such as poisoning is most common, but not limited to, in poorer countries, when unprotected workers have to spray poison or farmers can’t read chemical package inserts. It’s worldwide every year an estimated 385 million cases, of which 11,000 are fatal. In addition, people who come into contact with pesticides repeatedly throughout their lives – farmers, for example – have a higher risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), such as a study with almost 100,000 participants.

What exactly should be reduced by 50 percent – the volume or the number of uses?

The aim is to reduce the amount of active substances contained in the pesticides sold. The average for the years 2015 to 2017 serves as a basis for comparison. This makes more sense than measuring the pure amount consumed, because the approved preparations differ greatly in how much of a specific active ingredient they contain. The number of uses would also not be a clear key figure: different preparations have to be used with different frequency in order to be effective. However, this does not say anything about the amount of toxins that get into the environment.

The dangerous properties of these substances should also be reduced by 50 percent. Although these are after a specified scheme studied, but how exactly a halving of these properties should look like remains somewhat vague.

What amount of pesticides is currently used in the EU?

Nobody really knows the extent of pesticide use. Since 2009, farms in the EU have had to keep records of which product they used when, where, in what quantity and in what combination. But they don’t have to pass this data on, there are only random checks. In Germany, the amount of preparations given to farmers is statistically recorded, in 2020 it was 100,251 tons. This included 48,030 tons of active ingredients.

More than half of these are herbicides, about a third are fungicides. Insecticides are hardly used in Central Europe (4 percent), they are used much more in the tropics and subtropics. That’s good news. Because of all the undesirable organisms in the field, weeds are the easiest to control without chemical agents.

What about glyphosate?

Glyphosate, a herbicide, is the most widely used agent worldwide, including in Switzerland. According to the Federal Environment Agency, glyphosate is used on almost 40 percent of fields in Germany. How dangerous and especially whether it is carcinogenic to humans has been a matter of debate for years. That Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office considers glyphosate harmless. In the EU, the approval expires at the end of 2022, until then the EU has to decide whether to extend it again.

What are the alternatives to pesticides?

Unwanted plants on the field, i.e. weeds, can be uprooted or chopped up. That’s more work, but technical, digital innovations can help. There are robots that use artificial intelligence to identify and remove weeds.

Britta Tietjen explains that the best way to combat pests is to improve the conditions for so-called beneficial insects: These include soil organisms, ladybirds and lacewings, which consume large quantities of aphids, but also birds. More diverse landscapes with flower strips, hedges, cairns or ponds as well as diversity in the terrain and in nesting sites are needed. Less dense planting can help to prevent fungal infestation.

According to experts, the key is to increase the diversity of crops, both within a growing season and from year to year. In short, it boils down to this: Less dominance of individual crops means less dominance of individual pests.

One should not hope for genetically modified organisms that are resistant to certain pests or diseases. Bärbel Gerowitt, Professor of Phytomedicine at the University of Rostock, says: “In the end, more and more pesticides, especially herbicides, were used on the genetically modified crops that are grown in other countries.”

What about food security?

In Sri Lanka, after a brief ban on all use of pesticides and resulting crop losses in rice and other staple foods, the entire population of 22 million people is now at risk of starvation. However, this hardly serves as a cautionary tale. Because the government there imposed the total ban almost overnight, without any warning and without having trained the farmers in pesticide-free cultivation.

There can be no talk of this in the planned EU regulation. “The challenge is great, but the sector had 30 years to get used to the idea,” says Bärbel Gerowitt. In addition, it is only about a reduction, not a total ban, and numerous exceptions are planned. However, Gerowitt also believes that agriculture without any pesticides is possible. “The question is: do we want that?”

Many scientists believe that wanting, that is, bringing society along with them, is at the heart of the problem: consumers must learn to accept that not everything is always available in sufficient quantities – and that they have to spend more money on groceries. The experts also see the danger that production could shift to regions with less strict rules.

One thing is clear: some crops are much easier to manage without pesticides than others. Pesticides are most commonly used on apples, but other fruit, wine and potatoes are also very sensitive to pests.

However, a study of almost 1000 French farms has shown that three quarters of these farms use fewer pesticides could without having to accept losses in earnings and income. A total of 42 percent fewer pesticides would be used – it would then not be far to the EU target.