Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 16 January 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.32
News: Briefing
Europe set to crack down on pesticides
Controversial rules that could ban many agents are a step closer to approval.
The European Union (EU) is due next month to finally approve controversial legislation to tighten up pesticide rules.
The legislation has been three years in the making, with a steady watering down of the rules in response to claims that they will lower crop yields and raise food prices.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
When will they finally ban the use of Copper Sulphate in Organic farming? The EU should have stood its ground earlier this decade and refused to back down. The same people who are campaigning, now, to have all pesticides banned because of their impact are the same people who told the EU to sod off when the EU tried to ban copper because of its impact. These people jump up and down claiming that we should put the environment before profit but then change their tune when their own livelihoods are threatened and decide to put their own profits before the environment. The european media should be doing more to expose the hypocrisy of these people and of the environmental organisations, like Greenpeace, that refuse to hold public protests about copper. How many directors of Greenpeace are involved in organic farming these days?
Not being an economist, I have always wondered at the masses of food still in shops at the end of the day, of which surely a considerable portion is thrown away. If more pesticides were banned to the detriment of yield, could this not be resolved by buying in less, and losing less money on binning produce? Thus the farmers could sell for a higher price, but at the end of the chain shops would not necessarily have to pay this added price. It would be nice to have this explained.
It's a very little step foreward. Of course the industry would always prefer scientific facts to prevention (what it calls "fear"), especially because : 1. Science is naturally hesitant and slow to assess because of its methodologies. A huge gap may appear between the reality of a not well known threat and what science can demonstrate it. We will often see for many topics science running after common sense demonstrating what has been long suggested 2. Focusing on facts the industry can spend a huge amount of money financing parallel studies counter expertising studies that do not follow their interests (agro-business lobbies do well at this game). But when health is at stake, regulations should not focus on preserve profits for industrial groups but on prevention to protect citizens and consumers. The consequences of their playing can be very bad for so long before independent science can demonstrate it. When economic interests are at stake, industries advices should never be taken for grant.