Head over to www.hungry4change.eu for your chance to join the debate on the future of sustainable agricultural productivity in Europe. This November the crop protection (pesticide) industry will webcast the ‘Hungry for Change’ conference. You can have your say via Facebook and Twitter; this is a unique opportunity to share your thoughts and ideas with industry, experts and stakeholders.

The ‘super’ house-mouse and the malaria carrying mosquito have made the news recently. They are just two of a growing number of pest species that are becoming less and less effected by the chemicals we use to control them. In Europe, this is quite literally a growing problem; agricultural yields are threatened by pest resistance, and regulations lack short-term solutions. The ‘super mouse’ is not a super hero, but its story may save us with the warning it carries.

One instinctive goal

We share the planet Earth with an estimated 8.7 million other species - that’s an incalculable number of individual organisms with one instinctive goal – survival.

Living organisms are not created equally; some are better equipped for survival than others. Darwin popularised the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’; a metaphor for his theory of ‘natural selection’, the more favourable chance of survival of organisms better adapted for their immediate, local environment.

Natural selection drives change in species; the genetic variations within a group of organisms may see some individuals survive in a particular environment, whilst others die out. If the advantageous genetic characteristics of the surviving organisms are passed to the next generation, then the new generation is better equipped for survival. This process can repeat until species populations have adapted themselves for particular ecological niches.

A challenge

Species adaptation represents opportunity and threat to agricultural production. Natural selection complicates the process of crop protection; pests and diseases adapt and avoid the intended effects of pesticides.

The pesticide used to treat a particular crop may not be effective on all of the target species within a target area. When this occurs, future generations of the pest are likely to share more of the genetic characteristics that protect them against the pesticide. This is known as pesticide resistance.

Pesticide resistance is not unlike the growing problem of the resistance of certain pathogens to human antibiotics. Eighty percent of the often deadly E.coli bacteria is resistant to at least one of the drugs formulated to treat it. Other non-agriculture examples that have made headlines in recent weeks, are new levels of malaria mosquito resistance to insecticides, and house-mouse resistance to rodenticides – the rise of the so called ‘super mouse’.

The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) defines pesticide resistance as ‘… a heritable change in the sensitivity of a pest population that is reflected in the repeated failure of a product to achieve the expected level of control …’.

Agricultural pesticide resistance has serious implications; most notably crop losses that exceed economically viable limits and, the danger of incorrect pesticide use as larger than prescribed doses may be applied in attempt to counter a lack of efficacy. Both of these scenarios pose a particular threat to the environment; in the form of over application of pesticide, or the expansion of farmland in order to compensate for crop losses.

Solutions

There are a number of measures and techniques aimed at avoiding pesticide resistance (or delaying its onset), including:

• Avoiding unnecessary pesticide applications; limiting an organism’s exposure to active ingredients delays the onset of resistance.
• Providing refuge areas for target species; ensuring the survival of genetic susceptibility to the plant protection product.
• Alternating between pesticide classes; rotating the use of products which have different effects on organisms lessens the probability of target species developing resistance.
• Combining (‘tankmixing’) pesticide products in one application is another method of complicating the onset of resistance.

Avoiding the unnecessary use of pesticides and the provision of refuge areas for pest (and other) organisms, are considered good practice and relatively easy measures to implement. However, it is the efficacy and the variety of active substances available for crop protection that have the greatest bearing on resistance.

Reversing negative trends

The strength of continued product efficacy lies not only in the characteristics of an individual product, but also in the range of products formulated to treat a common threat; therefore the pesticide market should continue to offer:

• A high standard of efficacy in all products, and
• A suitable diversity of pesticide classes per target pest species.

Renewed European regulations continue to ensure that all crop protection products that reach the market are of high standard and are suitably effective; however, the short term effect of the 2011 implemented Directive 1107/2009 is to reduce the diversity of products on the market, this leaves European agriculture increasingly vulnerable to resistance.

Wheat

Looking at the importance of the azole class of fungicides, ADAS, a UK environmental consultancy has published a report projecting their impact on wheat yields.

Triazoles (of the azole fungicide class) are the most effective defence for wheat against Septoria tritici, a fungal leaf blotch disease that presents the most significant threat to wheat crops.

The ADAS study highlights the role that innovation has played in ensuring the availability of safe and efficient crop protection products in cereal production. Triazoles were in fact developed as a defence against leaf blotch because Septoria tritici (and several other plant pathogens) developed resistance to fungicides of the strobilurin class. The study shows an estimated yield loss without triazoles of 8.7%, 6.8% and 5.0% in France, UK and Denmark respectively. The overall yield impact in Europe is initially projected to be over 7% – an amount that will increase over time as Septoria tritici develops resistance to the fewer crop protection solutions available. Losses in the region of 5-9% may be considered minor and little cause for concern; however, Losses of 50% have been reported in severely affected crops.

Europe is a leading grain producer, with wheat being the crop with by far the highest production in Europe. In 2007, wheat accounted for 46 % of cereal production in the EU. It is also one of Europe’s most widely distributed crops; in fact, only five regions do not produce wheat, namely Principado de Asturias in Spain, Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste, Provincia Autonoma Bolzano/Bozen in Italy and Mellersta Norrland and Övre Norrland in Sweden. Wheat losses can impact the agricultural economy of almost the entire of Europe.

The ADAS report projects the triazole ban to cost the UK, France and Denmark approximately 500 million Euro per year in wheat crop losses. This is not an insignificant dent in the agricultural economy, and only considers the impact of losing one product class on one crop type in only three of the EU’s 27 wheat producing Member States.

Poor crops mean poor harvests; poor harvests mean high priced food. The cost of pesticide resistance will ultimately be paid by the consumer.

Challenge for industry, challenge for policy

Whilst the short to medium-term impacts of the loss of triazoles are a cause for concern, the challenge is clear for industry and for future European policy; innovate or suffer the economic, health and environmental problems associated with inadequate pest management.

The crop protection industry must work to develop new safe solutions to resistance, and ensure that a broad range of products are available for specific pest threats, whilst Europe needs to recognise the importance of research and development and back a regulatory framework that promotes innovation.

If we don’t invest in research and development and if politicians lose faith in science, we can expect more news of super mice, we can expect malaria to be with us for a long time to come, we can expect to suffer severe crop losses, and we can expect to be paying a lot more for our food.

One last thing

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a good practice approach to crop protection. IPM is an integrated strategy for crop management, designed to solve ecological problems when applied in agriculture. Performed in three main stages: prevention, observation, and intervention, IPM combines pesticide use with biological and sophisticated management techniques to manage pest populations in an ecological way. IPM can be used by both conventional and organic agriculture.

The use and rotation of a combination of biological and chemical protection methods means that IPM has potential to limit or delay the onset of resistance. Head over to ‘Organic, Pesticides and Integrated Pest Management’  – an earlier blog post dedicated to the subject of IPM.

There is a belief that in comparison to conventional agriculture organic is always better; that it’s friendlier to the environment, that the food that it produces is healthier and safer.

The problem with the argument that organic agriculture is better than conventional farming is that it very often is unsupported by sound scientific proof – it is also an unfounded generalisation. Perpetuating ‘organic myths’ with slogans and clichés designed to inspire confidence is not difficult and that’s why we need to cast a critical eye over some of these messages and enter the debate with data, sound scientific evidence and a bit of common sense.

The European Commission has joined the discussion on organic farming vs. conventional by sponsoring the “Good for nature, good for you campaign” and promoting it with several ‘key messages’. My absolute favourite -“Organic farming. Wickedly good” is too ambiguous to analyse – what does this even mean? Fortunately several of the organic campaign slogans can be understood – let’s take a look at a couple of them.

Green label – red light

The first EC slogan I would like to address is: ”organic products meet consumer demand for authentic, high quality and tasty food”.

Misleading! All food must meet the same inspection and fulfil the same food safety standards before being placed on the market, both conventionally produced as well as organically. You need to know that the organic label does not indicate whether the product is actually of a higher quality, it merely indicates the style of production. With adherence to European legislation all food that reaches supermarket shelves is safe and of high quality. Where taste is concerned, claims that organic produce tastes better are false. The benefits of organic consumption are controversial and there are simply not enough facts to confirm those claims.

In fact current scientific evidence shows that organic food isn’t any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced goods. Dr Alan Dangour in his recent study revealed that only some out of 162 studies that were included in his analysis didn’t show any distinction between organic and conventionally products. Most of those differences were marginal and as he explained it was mainly due to ripeness of harvest. This variable has little to do with the farming. These studies prove that ‘organics products being more real are not very realistic. The statement is misleading with its claims that only organic food is tastier and better, when evidence shows that conventionally produced goods are no different.

In label we trust

The second slogan is: “organic labeling offers consumers’ confidence that their goods are produced under controlled organic standards”.

Before labelling this label, let’s consider, in the first place, the main purpose of product labelling. EU legislation on food labelling has three main aims. The first is to protect the consumer from buying products which might not be good for his or health; the second is to enhance free movement of food products; the third is to inform and thereby enable well-versed choices.

Now the statement of the Commission does not in itself constitute a misleading claim. Organic labelling denotes adherence to organic standards. That is, at first glance, pretty straightforward. But to see the political baggage loaded onto that sentence one must concentrate on the key association which is being made here: that between organic labelling and consumer confidence. In essence the hidden message is that organic labelling elicits confidence. But surely all labelling – if done correctly – must elicit consumer confidence!

Generally speaking, it may have been better to say that: “labelling offers consumers confidence that their goods are produced under controlled standards.” The campaign statement emphasises the confidence generated by organic labelling, and in doing so shows us its hand.

Organic and conventional foods both have to meet the same legal food safety requirements and in both cases the label informs consumers on the product ingredients. Unfortunately the fact that the vast majority of consumers don’t understand what organic standards mean has created a loophole which can be exploited.

Studies show that when the average shopper is asked about his or her understanding of “organic” he or she immediately answers – “more expensive and chemical free“. The first part of the response is correct – organic is more expensive. But “chemical free”? Not quite. The truth is that organic food is produced with restricted use of fertilizers and pesticides. And even one of the strongest voices of the organic industry – the Soil Association – has admitted that “without pesticides” was amended to “minimal means with minimal dose”.

In conclusion, labels elicit trust. If that trust is abused what we get is manipulation; not information.

Don’t judge food by its label

On another note we trust labels and it often can mislead us. We assume that the professor with wavy grey hair is a serious scientist. We believe that the smartly dressed woman is a successful professional. We trust that the organic label is healthier than any other brand on supermarket shelves. The tendency to unconsciously link positive attributes to sexy stereotypes influences our every day choices.

It is on the basis of such human behaviour that Cornell University researcher Jenny Wan-Chen Lee tested the effects of labeling on consumer perceptions. This is the health halo effect speaking. Lee gave the experiments participants’ yoghurts, chocolate and potato chips fixing organic labels onto half of the products – the other half had regular labels. Yet what the participants were not aware of was the fact that all of the products were organic produce. At the end of the experiment participants were asked about their preferences.

The majority of participants preferred the products with the organic label. Explanations for their choices included claims that the food was lower in calories, higher in nutritional value and containing more fiber; of course this was neither true nor verifiable with only a taste-test. The experiment successfully exposed the power of ‘organic suggestion’.

Living in Europe, malaria and DDT are a distant worry. People often fail to realise how deadly the disease is and that pesticides are used as one of the most effective tools for destroying the carrier of malaria – the mosquito.

It takes one bite

Malaria was only identified as a cause of death only at the end of the 18th century. People died suddenly and very painfully not knowing what was it that was killing them. It appeared as if they were dying from fever and the only association made at the time was the connection to the “bad air” (MAL – bad, ARIA –air) as the disease hit mainly in hot and humid parts of the world.

In 1897 the link between the mosquito, the parasite that it carries, and the cycle of bite – infection was made. When a person is bitten by a mosquito he is infected with the parasite Plasmodium that finds home in the liver where it multiplies. If not treated it infects red blood cells and prohibits the transmission of blood to vital organs, causing a very painful death. All it takes is just that one bite; once infected, the parasite stays in your body forever.

No cure, only prevention

Understanding the behaviour of malaria paved the way for medical and chemical innovation and modern ways of prevention. Regrettably a cure is yet to be discovered. The most effective management of the disease is prevention; attention is focused on preventing mosquitoes the opportunity to bite humans.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two main approaches for reducing the level of malaria transmission. They are called the vector control measures.

The first is the long lasting insecticide treated bed nets (LLINs) that create a protective barrier against mosquitoes. They play an important role, particularly when you are asleep as the mosquitoes- like burglars – work best at night. How does it work? You hang the net above your bed, tuck it under the mattress so there will be no way in for the mosquito to enter and have a good night sleep. Your work is done. The net is made with holes too small for mosquitoes to pass, but the real magic is an insecticide that coats the material, keeping the mosquitoes away and ensuring the long term effectiveness of the net.

The other suggested way of reducing malaria’s spread is Indoor Residual Spraying. These three letters IRS save the lives of millions. WHO approved 12 insecticides for use in IRS including DDT. Insecticides are sprayed on house walls to prevent settling of the mosquito. The substance repels the insect from a room, irritating it enough to find an alternative location for a feed. However if both of those actions fail and the mosquito is still there flying around like a superman the long-term contact with DDT should result shortly in his death. Once sprayed, DDT remains effective up to 12 months.

Better safe than sorry

The use of DDT is a controversial topic, but what is often forgotten is the fact that IRS involves spraying with very low quantities. To give you an example it’s 2 grams* of the active substance per meter square. That’s how little you need to use to make it 100% effective. The total amount of DDT used for fighting malaria is merely a fraction of what was used once in agriculture sprays.

The indiscriminate spraying of DDT posed unnecessary risk to humans and the environment. However, this mistake of the past should not cost lives today. DDT used in negligible doses saves lives and limits the spread of disease. Continued calls to ban the use of DDT are irresponsible and threaten the health and wellbeing of millions.

DDT causes minimal or close to zero possibility of contaminating the wider environment, because the substance does not escape to the wildlife. Many “green” groups in Africa have recognised that malaria and poverty are far worse than the quantities of DDT in the environment and now they are full supporters of responsible use of the substance for IRS.

Join

There are many ways that one can contribute and help in fighting malaria. You can donate a bed net, you can organise an event, there are tweets you can follow to raise awareness. There are plenty of ways to participate in this important cause. The aim is to eradicate the disease by 2015. Ambitious but not impossible!!!

http://www.malarianomore.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pacPN6AW_Yc

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/

___

*Correction: on first publication (12:49 CET 21.04.2011) this article incorrectly stated that the active ingredient of DDT is applied at 0.02g/m²

This week in Germany, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) released the findings of a survey studying consumer knowledge about pesticides – the result – people don’t know much about pesticides. In the very same week ‘green’ activists Greenpeace Germany embarrassed themselves by publishing false claims about pesticide levels in food. A member of the public can be forgiven for missing the point about pesticides – but Greenpeace?

The BfRs representative population study included several revelations about the German public’s knowledge of pesticides and their use (a level of knowledge most likely found across Europe). One of the most significant findings – at least in terms of public perception of the safety of pesticides – is that 70 percent of those surveyed assumed that pesticide residues are not permitted in food at all. This is incorrect – pesticide residues in Europe are highly regulated and permitted at safe levels, up to Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs). The media, pro-organic and anti-pesticide pressure groups often exploit this misunderstanding, reporting on the discovery of pesticide residues in food as sensationalist and misleading ‘shock’ stories – enter Greenpeace.

In the very same week that the BfR established that consumer knowledge on pesticides residues is very limited, Greenpeace have been caught red-handed exploiting this lack of knowledge (or perhaps highlighting their own). Greenpeace issued a press release claiming illegal levels of pesticides are to be found in red-currants. The information was in fact false, and the German The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety issued a statement – indeed the fruit was perfectly safe.

Top selling German newspaper, BILD, picked-up on the story and decided to grace it’s ‘loser of the day’ column with the current Director of Greenpeace Germany, Brigitte Behrens. The BILD has a daily readership of ca. 12 million – ouch! Clipping and translation below:

The full BfR representative population study (in German) can be downloaded (pdf) directly here.

—

Update: 04.08.2010

The BfR have continued their investigation of false claims by Greenpeace, and published statistics based on true Accepted Daily Intake criteria. You can view the press release (English) via this link.

Everyone has heard of Malaria, a disease that is estimated to claim between one and three million lives every year. Young children account for 90% of the deaths, the majority of victims are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Malaria is caused by a tiny single-celled parasite called Plasmodium which is transmitted to humans through the bites of infected mosquitoes. Malaria is not necessarily deadly in every case of infection, but if not treated the disease can quickly become life threatening. There are a number of Malaria medicines available, although in some parts of the world parasites have developed resistance to them (this has been attributed to misuse of malaria drugs), and for the parts of the world most effected by malaria, drugs for treatment are not readily available, or just too expensive.
 

Prevention better than cure

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) one of the main objectives of malaria control is to significantly reduce the rate and number of cases of both parasite infection and clinical malaria. This is achieved by controlling the malaria-bearing mosquito – basically preventing contact between infected mosquitoes and human beings.

The indoor spraying of insecticide is reported by the WHO to be the most effective means of rapidly reducing mosquito density. A practice known as ‘indoor residual spraying’ can protect a living space for three to six months. The WHO claims that the highly controversial DDT offers a longer term solution, offering up to 12 months of protection – although it’s ongoing effectiveness has been called into question.

Another favoured preventative measure is the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (mosquito nets). Fine-mesh nets treated with insecticide offer personal or group protection and typically remain effective for three – five years.
 

A closer look at the pesticides

Yes, pesticides – because an insecticide is a type of pesticide. Let’s take a look at those most commonly used in mosquito prevention – permethrin and deltamethrin.

Permethrin is a synthetic chemical and commonly used as both insecticide and insect repellent. It’s effective because it functions as a neurotoxin (it does unpleasant things to insect nerve cells). Permethrin is a favourable deterrent to insects because it is not known to rapidly harm most mammals or birds, and is poorly absorbed by the skin. On the down-side, it is toxic to cats.  Permethrin is an effective agent in the battle against malaria, albeit one perhaps better suited to dog-lovers.

Deltamethrin is also a neurotoxin, and while it is used for insecticidal nets, it is also a widely used household insecticide for dealing with pests including bedbugs, cockroaches, ticks and fleas. Deltamethrin of one of the safest groups of pesticides, with mammalian exposure considered to be safe.

Pesticides save lives

Pesticides save lives, something you won’t read every day, but fact non-the-less. The Red Cross reports growing scientific evidence to demonstrate that combining mosquito net distribution with follow-on support and training at household level increases net usage rates and significantly reduces incidence of malaria.

It’s World Malaria Day on the 25th of April, which means I’m a little early with this post (hey, it’s the weekend… I’ve got plans) but in perfect time to share a few links if you feel like learning more about malaria, World Malaria Day, and how you can help efforts to eradicate a disease that takes a life every 30 seconds.

For your consideration

> World Malaria Day 2010 (coordinating body official site) follow @malariaday2010 on twitter

> World Health Organisation (WHO) hub for malaria

> International Medical Corps (NGO) fact sheet on malaria

> Malaria No More (NGO) follow @MalariaNoMore on twitter

> Office of the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy for Malaria follow @Malaria_Envoy on twitter

This list is not exhaustive, so please feel free to drop links and info in the comments section below.

In ‘Food for Thought: Organic Grub Worth Buying?’ we hear that as US organic sales increase, so do consumer questions about what ‘organic‘ actually means. Answers to this same question in the UK met with surprise early this year, as a report explained that organic does not mean ‘pesticide free’ – perhaps as shocking to some as an earlier report published by the UK Food Standards Agency, claiming that organic food ‘has no health benefits‘ over conventionally grown produce. Essentially this is good news for the consumer – you can receive the same health benefits from conventionally grown (and mostly cheaper) fruits and vegetables.

 

Organic pesticides

It is true that organic farmers, faced with the loss of their crops, often use ‘conventional’ pesticides, but there are more tools in the organic farmers toolbox, so called ‘organic’ pesticides (sometimes referred to as ‘green’ or ‘ecological’ pesticides). Organic pesticides are claimed to be naturally derived rather than synthetically produced, but this does not tell us anything about their relative safety or impact on the environment. We must also remind ourselves that the most toxic substances known are found in nature: in other words, natural does not always equal safe. Steve Savage, who keeps a blog at eatdrinkbetter.com last week posted ‘The “Pesticide From Hell” (oh, by the the way, its “Organic”)‘, an interesting article on one the oldest and still most used ‘organic’ pesticides – Sulphur (sulfur). Steve points out that sulphur compounds must be used in considerably higher quantities than effective and highly targeted ‘manufactured’ crop protection products; in addition to being one of the most common causes of pesticide user health complaints, there is also an association with bird mortality. Copper sulphate, another commonly use organic pesticide, combines copper and sulphur in a form that is permanently destructive of soil if overused. In terms of the regulation of use of crop protection measures, in the European Union organic pesticides are subject to the same strict regulations as conventional products.
 

Overlooked

The fact that organic farming often makes use of pesticides (of the organic and conventional varieties) is largely overlooked or poorly communicated – reinforcing misconceptions about crop production and crop protection. Recent media coverage of organic agriculture does suggest that the public is beginning to question their understanding of the term ‘organic’. The current economic crisis will have no doubt contributed; with less disposable income it is perhaps no surprise that consumers pass on some of the more expensive items on their shopping list. Rightly or wrongly, organic is often considered something of a ‘niche market’ – with products being more expensive than their conventionally grown alternatives they are unlikely to feature in a ‘recession diet‘.
 

Unsustainable

The reality of agriculture is that pests must be managed to avoid devastating loss to crops, something independent of the ideology of farmer or consumer. Whilst some loss is indeed expected, without crop protection measures a loss of over 40% yield is possible – this is unsustainable.
 

An ecological way

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a good practice approach to crop protection. IPM is an integrated strategy for crop management, designed to solve ecological problems when applied in agriculture. Performed in three main stages: prevention, observation, and intervention IPM combines pesticide use with biological and sophisticated management techniques to manage pest populations in an ecological way. IPM can be used by both conventional and organic agriculture.

In the video below, Professor Sir Gordon Conway of the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, explains Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and how it helps farmers. He goes on to tell us how pesticides can be used in conjunction with natural enemy controls, such as parasites and other predators, to help protect farmers’ crops from losses.

Fresh water is a renewable resource, but our supply of clean fresh water is decreasing – a problem aggravated by a steadily increasing demand for food as the worlds population grows.

The availability of fresh water

The Food and Agriculture Organisaton of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that by 2025, 1,800 million people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity. 2025 may appear a distant horizon, but trends are already worrying – you may not immediately associate Europe with water scarcity, but, in 60 percent of European cities with populations greater than 100,000 people, groundwater is already being used at a faster rate than it can be replenished.

We’ve had several big water shortage stories in Europe over the last few years. In 2008 Barcelona had to ship water into the city as regional reservoirs were down to quarter of their usual levels. There are even concerns in the UK (a location often considered to receive more than it’s fair share of rain), leading hydrologists are warning of major water shortage that could leave the country unable to produce enough food to feed a growing population.

UNESCO calculates that to ensure our basic needs, we all need 20 to 50 litres of water free from harmful contaminants each and every day. This includes not only water for drinking and bathing, but also the water used to grow our food. Per head, farmed cattle consume around 4,000 cubic meters of water during their life, with cereals requiring in the region of 1.5 cubic meters to yield 1kg of crop. Agriculture consumes a staggering 69% of global fresh water (pdf) for the irrigation of crops, and it is estimated that between 15-35% of this fresh water extraction is unsustainable.

Global Environment Outlook estimate that the developed world will see water consumption demands rise an additional 18% by the year 2050 (ca. 40% in the developing world). The contribution of irrigation to world crop production is expected to increase in coming decades – the irrigated area in developing countries is expected to increase by 40 million hectares (20%) by 2030. This is less than half of the increase over the last 35 years (99 million hectares), although the reasons for this slowdown are themselves a cause for concern, namely the increasing scarcity of areas suitable for irrigation and the rising cost of irrigation.
 

More crop per drop

The FAO notes the essential role agriculture has in resolving global water problems (a statement of the obvious when the numbers are considered), stating that agriculture must achieve more ‘crop per drop‘, through improving the efficiency of rain-fed production, and the modernisation of irrigation technology. Producing more ‘crop per drop’ is a pressing requirement, as water resources dwindle and population grows – we have also to consider the inconvenience of climate change and the impact of shifting patterns of rainfall and drought.

The sizeable impact of agriculture on fresh water usage confirms the crop protection industry as a stakeholder in the challenge presented by our requirements for fresh water. This challenge extends from the production of more ‘crop per drop’ to include the sustainable use of plant protection products – to avoid the unnecessary pollution of waterways.

The crop protection industry has of course developed crop strains that are stress-tolerant and drought-tolerant, improving yields in dry climates and reducing water use; but this blog is about pesticides, so that will remain our focus.
 

Optimising water use

CropLife International upholds the optimisation of agricultural productivity as a key contributor to improving fresh water management. Optimising the yields from existing crop production would enable farmers to grow more food with similar water volumes. CropLife describe the need for effective dissemination of agronomic knowledge, and allowing for farmer access to inputs including good quality seed and crop protection to reduce pre- and post-harvest losses to pests and disease. Simply put, irrigating crops that will be lost to pests or disease is inefficient water management.

Plant protection products (pesticides) also offer scope to increase water efficiency in agriculture. Improving crop yield (or rather reducing crop loss) is one contribution to more sustainable fresh water management, another is reducing the water required to grow a crop. CropLife International explain that herbicide use with biotech crops enables conservation tillage, this improves soil water retention, reducing water loss through evaporation, and in-turn protecting against soil erosion. These particular qualities offer valuable solutions for areas that currently experience drought conditions, or due to climate change might expect to in the coming years. The Director General of the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) has said “Climate change is predicted to make water an increasing concern across southern Europe where most of our fruits and vegetables are grown utilizing intensive irrigation.”
 

Water quality

Pesticides and other plant technologies offer solutions that support an optimised volume use of fresh water resources for agriculture – but not without potential risk. Pesticides are frequently cited as a contributor to water pollution. The responsible and sustainable use of pesticides is high on the European agenda, industry backed initiatives and a comprehensive legislative framework provide the backdrop for improving the sustainability of European agricultural practices.
 

Frameworks for sustainability

The EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides provides a framework to regulate the use-phase of pesticides at EU level, setting rules for the use of pesticides and encouraging sustainable practices in the European Community – in order to reduce risks to human health and the environment. This of course includes measures targeted at avoiding the contamination of fresh water. In addition to this, the European Water Framework Directive describes a set of objectives addressing both water quality and water scarcity issues. Europe is well covered.

The European Commission has also supported crop protection industry initiatives for preventing the pollution of water sources. One example is the TOPPS program (Train Operators to Prevent Pollution from Point Sources). This LIFE funded project focused on raising the awareness of farmers of the need to adopt sustainable practices when using crop protection products, to prevent avoidable pollution of water sources. Other industry initiatives include the ‘Safe Use Initiative’, coordinated by the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), this example of training and best practice looks towards providing for best practices for all stages of the use of pesticides, including their transportation, storage, preparation for use, application, post application, and preventative measures – essentials for worker health and safety and avoiding negative environmental impact.
 

The challenge

As population grows, so will demand for food; agriculture is already the largest consumer of fresh water and this is unlikely to change. Agriculture will need to find ways to produce more food, with less water – more ‘crop per drop’. To complicate matters, climate change will present an increase in drought conditions and a rise in extreme weather events – we need to find ways to cope with the extremes of water availability – we might expect more drought conditions and more flood events.

Advancements in agricultural technology (and better use of the technologies we already have) offer scope for sustainable solutions to fresh water use – a solution that allows us to grow the food we need, ensure the continued availability of fresh water and avoid unnecessary environmental impact.

—

This post is considerably longer than planned, if you are still with me at this point, I thank you. As always, comments are encouraged. I’ve linked quite a few resources from this post – hopefully all of them informative and useful, if you think I’ve missed something important, please let me know in the comments.

French activists MDRGF (Movement for Rights and Respect for Future Generations) are preparing for their annual ‘Week without pesticides’ (20th-30th March). Since its debut in 2006, this event has seen some growth in popularity across France and a handful of other European countries.

The ‘Week without pesticides’ aims to educate the public on health and environmental risks of pesticide use, and prove that viable alternatives to chemical treatments exist. You can follow the activities of the ‘Week without pesticides’ at their campaign website.

Providing information to the general public on the realities of modern agriculture is an important and challenging task (there are indications that the general public has limited knowledge of modern agriculture). Without all of the information, how are we expected to make informed decisions – the right decisions?

One reality is that most weeks are ‘without pesticides’. Pesticides are used only when they are needed to fight pests and diseases – they are not applied on a daily basis or without good cause. The impact of reducing pesticide use to zero would be dramatic – Europe would suffer an approximate loss of 50% of food crop from pests and diseases without the intervention of pesticides. CropLife America state that up to 40% of the world’s potential crop production is already lost annually because of the effects of weeds, pests and disease – these crop losses would be doubled if existing pesticide use was abandoned. Pesticides are even used in organic agriculture, so the bio sector would also suffer considerably.

CropLife America estimate that crop protection products preserve upwards of $45 billion of produce worldwide each year. Failure to protect our crops would have enormous implications on the global economy, and would seriously impact on food security. Earth will be home to an estimated 9 billion people (around 2 billion more than today) by the year 2050. We are already struggling to feed 7 billion – can we feed 9 billion without effective crop protection measures? The FAO estimates that, even with improved food distribution, food production will need to increase 70% by 2050 to cope with a 40% increase in world population.

European agriculture must find a sustainable way to feed a growing population, adapt to climate change, limit greenhouse gas emissions, minimise impact on the natural environment, continue to operate within strict European guidelines, and produce food which is affordable.

Faced with the challenge of improving agricultural production, modern agriculture looks to technology for sustainable solutions. One solution is maximising food production on the existing agricultural land-base – this is considered beneficial as it limits expansion of the agricultural footprint, reducing the need for deforestation and the destruction of natural habitats. It is pesticides that allow us to maximise yield and avoid the geographic expansion of agricultural land.

If we want to produce more food on the existing agricultural land-base and ensure food remains affordable, it seems pesticides will have an important role to play – if this is indeed the case, focus should continue to be on ensuring their safe and sustainable use.

Food production, food cost, food security, health and the environment (to name a few) are all influenced by crop protection – they are themes which concern all of us. The ‘Week without pesticides’ is an opportunity to join the debate on these important issues – issues plural, because it’s not just about crop protection, it’s not that easy.

MDRGF and WWF France have recruited singing garden gnomes (’Les Pestes Acides‘) as part of their ‘Week without pesticides’ information campaign. Innovation may have overtaken information in this video, but I do see good Eurovision Song Contest potential - enjoy!

Actually they don’t, and probably never did. This wonderful question is the result of a German to English Google translation of an article posted at presseportal.de. The story is of Dutch tomato growers who claim their tomatoes taste more like tomatoes when they are grown with biological methods – favouring natural predators to combat pests, over the use of pesticides. The original article can be read here, and the Google translation can be braved here.

Staying with ‘biological’ pest management, an Israeli researcher is developing what is described as an ‘ecologically sound pesticide’ by modifying the venom of scorpions. It is claimed that certain neurotoxins present in the venom have the chemical properties to manage crop damaging pests, while posing no threats to useful pests such as bees, or mammals like you and I.

Pesticides are like medicines, they are used to treat ’sick’ plants, and prevent ’sickness’ in plants. As with medicines, you should always read the label. A well timed news story ‘Pesticides cause impotency if not properly handled‘ (posted on St. Valentines Day), reports on the potential dangers of failing to follow safety instructions. It seems that some farmers in Ghana have taken to tasting pesticides before use in order to reassure themselves of its potency! Without doubt, a practice entirely incompatible with the safe and sustainable use of pesticides. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and CropLife Africa Middle East made these revelations during a recent programme of workshops to train farmers and encourage the safe use of plant protection products.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) offers a wealth of information on good agricultural practices, including information on the sustainable and safe use of pesticides. Always read the label, and if in doubt, seek expert advice.