Frequently Asked Questions
Sustainable agriculture
What is Sustainable Agriculture?
Creative and flexible solutions are required to increase agricultural productivity in ways that ensure access by all people to the food they need without damaging the environment or depleting natural resources for future generations. Sustainable agriculture is a framework of principles which can be applied to produce sufficient affordable food and fibre in a manner that is environmentally responsible, economically viable and socially acceptable.
What is Integrated Pest Management?
There are many definitions of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). CropLife International supports IPM as defined by the FAO’s International Code of Conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides (2002):
“Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agroecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.”
Pest damage must obviously be controlled if yield, quality, food safety and profit are to be maintained. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a flexible and thoughtful approach that uses the minimum intervention to achieve control. For example, crop rotation can reduce insects and disease organisms reaching a field. Beneficial insects can provide natural or "biological" control of some pests . Selective pesticides and pest-resistant plant varieties are compatible with these methods, contributing to a fully integrated crop management programme.
What is Integrated Crop Management?
Integrated Crop Management (ICM) is a whole-farm strategy that involves managing crops profitably in ways that suit local soil, climatic and environmental conditions, while minimising avoidable environmental impact.
ICM is not prescriptive because it is a dynamic concept: it must have the flexibility to be relevant to any farm, in any country, and it must always be receptive to change and technological advances. It uses the latest research, technology, experience and traditional knowledge in ways that suit local conditions in order to optimise food production, enhance energy conservation and minimise environmental impacts.
Agricultural biotechnology
What is plant biotechnology?
Biotechnology is defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use."
More broadly, biotechnology covers biological processing, and can include anything from soya sauce production to manufacture of ethanol as motor fuel. To the layman, plant biotechnology has become synonymous with genetic modification (GM), but actually covers a much wider range of techniques including, for example, marker-assisted breeding. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes, plant biotechnology now refers only to the modification of plant DNA, the genetic material of living organisms, to enhance their tolerance to pests and diseases, increase yield, and/or improve quality and nutritional value.
The process by which this is carried out is more properly called recombinant-DNA (r-DNA) technology, and the products are GM seeds or crops or, more generally, genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Modern molecular biology techniques are used to isolate, alter and transfer genes from one organism to another.
In plant biotechnology, genetic engineering allows for the movement of specific and well defined genes within or between plant species, and also to incorporate genes originally found in bacteria or animals. This extends the scope of plant breeding very significantly. Such plants are said to be transgenic.
Biotechnology increases efficiency in developing new varieties of plants, taking years away from the lengthy, trial-and-error traditional breeding process. Nevertheless, the approval process takes much longer and is far more expensive than for conventional varieties, so genetic modification is only used in cases where the same result cannot be obtained via conventional breeding.
Why do we want to make transgenic crops?
The primary benefit of plant biotechnology using genes from other organisms is to increase the amount of genetic variability available for breeders to use. Modern crop varieties generally draw from a rather narrow genetic base, having been bred over many centuries so that they bear little resemblance to their original wild ancestors.
The goal is to allow plant breeders to produce more useful and productive crop varieties by exploiting genes from a wide range of living sources, not just those that can be found within the crop species itself. Progress in traditional plant breeding is limited by the genetic diversity within each crop species, the diversity sometimes available from closely related species, or occasionally useful diversity created within the crop itself by inducing mutations. Often, genes for traits that could be of benefit are not found in a particular crop species, so the ability to make plants with new, desirable traits borrowed from other species represents a major technological advance over conventional breeding methods. Two examples are:
-
Roundup Ready® crops, which are tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto brand-name Roundup). These incorporate a gene discovered in a bacterium and not normally present in plants.
-
“Golden” rice: rice producing vitamin A in its granules, so avoiding vitamin deficiency when rice is used a staple food in developing countries. This uses one gene isolated from daffodils and another one from a bacterium.
What are novel foods?
"Novel foods are foods that have previously not been available for sale, have been substantially modified from traditional composition, or are produced by a novel food process, including genetically engineered food products." This includes, for example, fruit and vegetables imported for the first time into a region where they have never formed part of the diet.
All novel foods must be assessed for safety to humans, animals and the environment before receiving regulatory approval. As part of the scientific assessment, the principal of "substantial equivalence" is applied. This refers to comparing the novel product to its conventional counterpart. Substantial equivalence helps to determine what characteristics of a novel food must be examined in more detail.
All novel foods approved to date have conventional counterparts. Only novel products that are judged to be as safe as their conventional counterparts are approved for use.
Is the nutritional value of GMO foods different?
It depends on the reason for making the modification. Herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant crops, for example, which form the vast majority of GM crops currently grown are, to all intents and purposes, identical to their non-GM counterparts. However, biotechnology can alter the nutritional composition of foods in a dramatic and very positive way. For example there are genetically enhanced rice strains with a high Vitamin A content (“golden rice”), or tomatoes with high levels of lycopene, both still in development. Other groups are working on biotech routes to produce rice and soya with reduced potential to cause allergies.
Do GMO foods look or taste different?
With few exceptions, GMO products look and taste the same as their conventional counterparts. One example of a GMO product being researched that looks different is "golden rice." This rice has a distinctive orange colour due to the increased level of Vitamin A brought about by genetic engineering.
Many leading scientists are warning us about the dangers of GMO foods. How can they be wrong?
There are a few, very vocal scientists who oppose genetically modified foods. An overwhelming majority of scientists with expertise in the areas of molecular biology and biotechnology have no concerns about the use of genetic modification in principle. However, like any tool, biotechnology can be used well or badly. The stringent approvals procedures in place round the world, which look at each individual case, are there precisely to ensure that any potentially risky applications never become commercialised. Debate and disagreement among scientists is not new. Leading edge science tends to be controversial and can generate mixed opinions among the experts.
The technology is so new. How can we know it is safe?
Biotechnology has been used for thousands of years to produce improved food and healthcare products. Today, modern biotechnology allows us to develop products more safely and rapidly than ever before through a new process called genetic modification, which allows the selection and insertion of individual genes into plant cells. This speeds up the process of breeding desirable traits into plants.
Current science shows that foods made from biotechnology are safe to consume and safe for the environment. The scientific consensus is that the risks associated with food biotechnology products are fundamentally the same as for other foods. GM crops have now been commercially grown for ten years, and were grown on over 80 million hectares of land round the world in 2005. There were many years of research, development and evaluation before any GM seed was planted commercially, and we know far more about these crop varieties than about any others emerging from conventional breeding.
However, a technology is essentially neutral: it is how it is applied which is important. That is why every new development is assessed separately, on a case-by-case basis.
Science has failed in the past. How do we know the science is sound with biotechnology?
No system is ever perfect and life is not without risk. The challenge is to ensure that the regulatory system is rigorous enough to minimise any risk and to capitalise on benefits. For every failure you can think of, there are thousands of products approved every year that safely improve the quality of life: failures we tend to notice, successes we take for granted.
There is so much conflicting information about this issue. Where can I get unbiased information?
For unbiased information about biotechnology and genetic engineering related to food, you can take a look at the following links:
What are some of the benefits of genetically modified foods?
The benefits biotechnology can deliver are many. Most of the examples below have been shown to work but are not yet commercial.
For Consumers:
-
fruits, vegetables and cereals that are more nutritious, taste better and keep longer.
-
processed foods that are healthier. For example, lower saturated fats in soybeans and in canola oil.
-
foods that help us fight disease better .
-
more dependable crop yields, which ultimately has an effect on the price paid at the grocery store. long-term research is looking at increased tolerance for drought, flood, heat, cold, salt or metals in the soil.
-
nutraceuticals - foods that can deliver vaccines and medicines.
For Farmers:
-
crops resistant to disease.
-
crops that protect themselves from pests.
-
crops that make it easier for farmers to control weeds.
-
crops that require less preparation of the soil, meaning less erosion
-
more flexible crop management and more consistent yields.
Is it true that 70 per cent of our foods are genetically modified?
No, the fact is that 70 per cent of processed foods (in countries such as the USA where GM ingredients are widely used in the food chain) may contain ingredients from genetically modified crops such as canola, soybean or corn.
Why are genetically modified foods banned in Europe?
GM foods are not banned in Europe. A number of GM crops have been authorised for both food and animal feed use, and millions of tonnes of GM soy are imported annually as animal feed. However, most food manufacturers have formulated GM ingredients out of their products because of the negative publicity surrounding the initial import of GM soy.
The exception is for processing aids such as enzymes. EU law does not require these to be labelled, whatever their source, and GM-derived enzymes are in common use to process foods. For example, the majority of hard cheese in Europe is produced using transgenic chymosin, the milk-clotting enzyme which also occurs in rennet.
Insect resistant GM maize has also been grown in northern Spain for a number of years without any problem: on nearly 60,000 hectares in 2005. The success of this has led a number of farmers in southern France to follow suit, although official statistics do not exist for the area grown.
Although there was a de facto moratorium in place until comparatively recently, while a few regulatory issues were addressed to the satisfaction of all Member States, a number of new GM crops have recently received approval for import and use in the food chain.
Because of the experience of Mad Cow disease, the dioxin scare and other similar incidents, European consumers do not have the same faith in their regulatory systems as in other countries, and are generally more suspicious of both science and authority figures. In addition, environmental NGOs are more influential than in the USA. This overall context created a situation where major retailers as a group found it simpler to reformulate products than to risk losing competitiveness.
Which countries accept GMO exports? Which countries don't? Why?
The U.S., Japan, China and Mexico, Thailand, Argentina, and Chile are purchasing products derived from transgenic crops. India and Korea also import some canola products. Approximately 98% of genetically modified corn produced in Canada has been approved for sale in Europe. All soybean varieties, including herbicide tolerant, have been approved for export to Europe and other trading partners.
What is being done to address the long-term impacts of genetically modified foods?
Research on genetically modified foods and crops is ongoing and each year, the mountain of scientific data that illustrates the technology is sound and safe continues to grow. Research knowledge and familiarity with this technology is based on thousands of experiments and tests that extend over more than 25 years. It must also be recognised that commercial release of these varieties was preceded by many years of laboratory and field trials. Over the last 15 years, tens of thousands of field tests have been conducted on more than 30 crops around the world.
Current science shows that genetically modified foods now approved are as safe to consume as their conventional counterparts. While there is no such thing as "zero risk" for any food, consumers can be confident that foods produced using biotechnology meet the most stringent food safety standards. There is absolutely no sound reason to suppose that currently approved food crops will have any long term negative impacts, either on consumers or the environment.
How are GMO products researched and developed?
Many major plant science companies believe in the future benefits of biotechnology and invest millions of dollars in research every year. It can take 10-15 years and millions of dollars to develop a product and bring it to market.
The private sector is particularly active in this area, as the early development of r-DNA technology coincided to a large degree with the withdrawal of the public sector from plant breeding. Nevertheless, public sector breeding is still important, particularly for the developing world, and the R&D process is the same wherever the work is done.
Dedicated scientists spend years developing products. Plants are first modified in laboratories, then growth chambers or greenhouses. The next step in the development process is to test them in the field where they are isolated from other crops to minimise any possible environmental impact. While GM crops have now been on the market for ten years, it must be recognized that commercial release has also been preceded by many years of laboratory and field trials.
Who decides if a biotechnology product is safe? Who does the testing?
Genetically modified (GM) food, food additives, and processing aids are subject to comprehensive safety tests before they can enter the marketplace. The same applies to animal feeds made using genetically modified crops. Applicants for a marketing licence are obliged to show, on the basis of tests that have been conducted, that the products in question do not entail any risk for humans, animals, or the environment. Official approval is given only after an exhaustive scientific appraisal of safety-related issues has been made.
In the EU, objective scientific advice is given by independent experts. However, approval is on the basis of voting by Member States, some of whom vote on political lines rather than on the basis of scientific advice and evidence.
Is there multilateral regulation of GMO Products?
Several respected international bodies have developed standards for GM products.
Organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are helping to define a multilateral regulatory environment for the products of biotechnology.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1962 to administer the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The WTO recognises Codex Alimentarius Commission standards as the international standards of reference for food. Unfortunately, at present, there is no mutual recognition or sharing of data between different regulatory authorities.
In Montreal on January 29, 2000, 138 countries signed the new Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, ending five years of negotiations under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. This global treaty, which came into force in September 2003, refers to the shipment of genetically modified commodities across borders.
The agreement provides a framework for international science-based rules and procedures. These will be further developed as governments and companies determine how to implement the Protocol in the coming years. The Protocol builds on the base of domestic regulations that already exists in more than 60 nations.
Why aren't genetically modified foods labelled in America?
In the US, genetically modified foods are treated exactly the same as other new foods seeking entrance to the marketplace. Whenever a product raises a health or safety issue, such as allergenicity or a change in nutritional value, it must be labelled.
What is the status of labelling GMOs in other countries?
Labelling requirements vary by country. In the EU, process-based labelling is required: any ingredient or product containing more than 0.9% GM material, or being derived from a GM source, must be labelled. This means, for example, that oil from GM soya would have to be labelled as such even though it contained no detectable transgenic DNA or protein and was analytically indistinguishable from a conventional equivalent.
Japan has developed mandatory labelling. Their guidelines are based on science and a realistic approach to labelling. Korea, Thailand and Hong Kong are also considering mandatory labelling.
Why can't genetically modified crops just be segregated and labelled?
Segregation of crops is the process of completely separating GMO from non-GMO crops. Segregation is possible and tests do exist that identify whether crops and ingredients have been genetically altered. However, there are some limitations on what they can test for, commercial availability, and cost effectiveness.
Grain segregation, for instance, is possible only if the producer carefully harvests, stores and transports GMO grain separately from non-GMO grain. It may be extremely difficult for the farmer to properly clean all storage and transport units to ensure a totally pure end product. To change grain handling and food processing systems to segregate all GMOs from non-GMOs would be a cumbersome and costly process. The decision whether or not to proceed down this path therefore requires careful consideration.
It is not often recognised that all agricultural commodities are impure to some extent: several percent of various impurities are tolerated quite legally in anything from cereal grains to olive oil. However, the tolerance in the case of GMOs has been set much lower: 0.9% in the EU, for example.
Aren't we putting the environment at risk by releasing GMOs into it?
Current science shows that biotech varieties authorised for commercial planting are safe for the environment. No-one can predict anything with 100% assurance, but the regulatory system that exists provides that every possible precaution is taken in assessing the safety of foods before they are made available to the consumer.
Plants with novel traits are regulated alongside similar products developed using traditional technologies, but generally much more stringently. For example, in most countries a herbicide-tolerant variety produced using biotechnology is subject to far more intense scrutiny than a conventionally bred variety with exactly the same trait. This is despite the fact that there is no reason to suppose a priori that the environmental impact would be any different.
Every GM-produced trait in a particular crop is examined for:
-
the potential for plants to spread and transfer genetic material to other species
-
possible harm to non-target species
-
the disruption of balance in natural ecosystems through the replacement of species, and
-
the loss of biodiversity (diversity of species, variation of characteristics).
Biotechnology is a key element in sustainable agriculture that will benefit the environment in the long-term.
What about the study that showed genetically modified corn kills Monarch butterflies?
In May 1999, Nature magazine published a letter from researchers at Cornell University that reported findings suggesting further research was needed into the effect of pollen from selected strains of Bt corn on the Monarch caterpillar. Since that publication, many university researchers, including others at Cornell, have stepped forward to stress that the Monarch study did not represent natural conditions. In practice, the planting of large areas of GM corn in the American Mid-West has had no effect on the population of Monarch butterflies, which have continued to fluctuate according to variations in other factors.
Extensive environmental research has confirmed the safety of Bt corn on non-target insects, such as the ladybird beetle, honeybee and the green lacewing, in the natural environment.
Aren't genetically modified foods more dangerous than non-GMO foods?
No, in fact, in the future specific GMO foods might even be safer for people with specific allergies then their non-GMO counterparts.
Foods from crops modified using biotechnology are evaluated for safety according to processes endorsed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation. Far more is known about them in detail than any other foods we eat.
Is it safe to eat meat or poultry from animals that have been fed genetically modified grains?
Yes, research indicates animals fed GMO crops are no different than those fed conventional feeds. Proteins from GMO feeds have not been detected in milk, egg products or meat.
It is clear that allergens are transferred through genetic engineering. What about people with life-threatening food allergies?
Genetic modification is used to introduce individual genes with known properties into a plant so it is possible to precisely test the risk of allergic potential in connection with genetically modified food products.
The results of comprehensive investigations have revealed no increased allergy risk connected with genetically modified plants that have been approved so far compared with conventional plants and their products.
Neither do the genes and proteins that have been used so far (herbicide- and antibiotic-resistance genes, insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis, or viral proteins) originate from sources with an allergenic potential, nor have comparisons with known allergens demonstrated any similarities. Most of the specified proteins have already been part of the human diet.
In the approval procedure for genetically modified food, the allergenic potential of the protein introduced into the plant must be investigated. In two cases, development of GM varieties under test were stopped at a relatively early stage because tests picked up allergenicity problems. One case was of soy modified with a gene from the Brazil nut (to which a significant number of people are allergic). In the other, more recent, case, peas had been modified to be pest resistant. However, the gene used, isolated from field beans, expressed a protein which gave allergic reactions in mice.
Genetic modification can be expected to contribute towards the avoidance of food allergies as allergens can be inactivated or completely eliminated by these techniques. This is being attempted in Japan with rice, which contains proteins that trigger an allergic reaction in Japanese people in particular. Efforts to cultivate such a hypoallergenic rice variety are currently being undertaken in various laboratories; as yet, however, these efforts have yielded only partial success, since it has not been possible to fully eliminate all allergens.
Genetic modification is also very helpful in the areas of diagnosis and elucidation of the causes of allergies. A number of new anti-allergy pharmaceuticals have already been developed; these are currently undergoing clinical trials.
Haven't medical experts warned that antibiotics could become useless because of genetic engineering's use of antibiotic-resistant genes?
An increasing range of disease-causing bacteria is becoming resistant to one or more common antibiotics. This is mainly because of their ability to evolve and adapt to constant exposure to these drugs, both in humans and animals. The additional role marker genes in GM crops might play has been the subject of intense debate.
Antibiotic resistance markers (ARMs) have been important tools for the development of many genetically modified crops. They are derived from naturally occurring bacteria to which the human population have been exposed for thousands of years.
The safety of antibiotic resistance genes in genetically modified plants has been thoroughly studied for more than 10 years. Experimentation shows that their use does not add any measurable risk to the environment or to human health. Nevertheless, a highly precautionary approach has been taken in the EU and a decision taken to phase out crops containing certain ARMs. Antibiotic resistance will continue to develop, unfortunately, because of the widespread use (and misuse) of these drugs in human and veterinary medicine.
An alternative marker system uses the gene for a naturally derived enzyme , phospho-mannose isomerase. This particular enzyme enables plant cells to use a sugar called mannose as a source of energy. The cells that manage to grow in the presence of mannose have acquired the marker gene and have therefore also taken up the other genes of interest.
This system, and also other ones based on other sugars, should allay the fear that GM poses a danger to human health. These should allow a refocusing of effort to tackle the overuse of antibiotics in intensive farming and their over-prescription in medicine which pose a far greater threat to our health .
Is there any chance that genetic engineering will lead to increased hunger and starvation?
It is an unfortunate fact that, although well intentioned, many people in the development sector are ideologically opposed both to crop biotechnology and private sector involvement. Some have a vision of the developing world feeding itself by relying on traditional subsistence agriculture. In the case of cash crops, for those who have more than enough land to feed themselves, the prescription is for organic crops to be grown. In practice, farmers in developing countries have just as much need for the best available technologies as do their counterparts in the North. Genetic engineering is a tool which, used properly, could improve the food security of poor people. This is recognised by many who are trying to help with agricultural development: crop biotechnology projects are being funded by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, for example.
Criticism of GM crops for the developing world is often based on the assumption that farmers will have their livelihoods controlled by large international companies, from whom they will be forced to buy seed every year. This is an unfortunate misconception, since people will continue to be free to choose whatever seed they wish, and it is certainly not in the interests of plant science companies to disadvantage poor farmers in the pursuit of short-term profit, as some activists claim would happen.
In fact, biotechnology may help to feed the world as the population climbs to a predicted 9 billion by 2050. The amount of land currently committed to food production--36 per cent of the earth's cumulative land mass--cannot yield the amount of food needed by the increased population at current yield levels. Experts predict that we would need to double or triple the world's food production to provide enough food for everyone, particularly as meat consumption increases. Without using all the tools at our disposal, including biotechnology, we would need to increase the amount of land in production substantially, impacting wildlife and native plants and resulting in the clearing of forests.
Though the production of GM crops is growing in developing countries, they should not be regarded as magic bullets that will eliminate poverty and hunger, because these global problems have significant political and social components that influence the availability of food even where it can be grown in sufficient amounts.
Why don't farmers just go back to growing non-GM crops?
Farmers have the choice to grow either conventional or GM varieties in various crops including corn, soybeans and canola. Since GM crops were introduced in Canada in the mid-90s, for example, farmers embraced this technology. According to the Canola Council of Canada, an estimated 55 per cent of the canola planted in 1999 was genetically modified varieties.
The rapid uptake in Canada and other countries (now, increasingly, in the developing world) and continuing year-on-year growth of GM crop area shows that farmers are getting benefits by growing them. GM seeds are premium priced, but the benefits clearly outweigh the cost. Farmers have a living to make and, in many countries, the freedom to choose what seed they plant. For a variety of reasons – yield, ease of management, overall income for example – more than 8 million farmers round the world are now growing GM crops. All the indications are that the vast majority will continue to do so, and that many others will join them. If they find advantages to growing them and have a ready market for their crops, farmers have no reason to move away from using GM seed.
Isn't it true that pesticides are still used with GMO crops?
It is true that GMO crops do not eliminate the use of pesticides. Both pesticides and pest- and herbicide-resistant GM crops are important for farmers to manage weeds, disease and insects that attack their crops. Used properly, these technologies do not present an unacceptable risk to the environment, the public or the farmer. They are not competing technologies but, rather, complementary solutions to pest management.
Genetically modified crops with built in pest resistance provide one more tool for the farmer's toolbox. More tools increase the effectiveness of Integrated Pest Management (the use of a wide variety of chemical, biological and cultivation techniques to control pests) thereby further contributing to sustainable agriculture. A wide variety of options for crop protection are an important component in managing insect, weed and disease resistance problems.
Although GM crops do not eliminate pesticide use, they can make a significant contribution to reducing the environmental impact of farming. For example, the use of insect-resistant GM cotton has seen a large reduction in use of insecticides: cotton is notoriously difficult to manage, requiring multiple sprays each season to control insect pests inside the cotton bolls. GM cotton produces its own natural insecticide, so dramatically reducing the need for spraying. Another example is herbicide-resistant crops. Many are resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate, which is among the safest and most environmentally benign crop protection products on the market. So, although spraying is still necessary, its impact on anything other than weeds is minimal.
Crop protection products (pesticides)
What are crop protection products?
Crop protection products are chemical or biological substances that protect plants from diseases (e.g. fungicides), insect pests (e.g. insecticides) and weeds (herbicides), or which are used to secure yields and to facilitate harvesting (e.g. growth regulators). They help farmers maintain crop yield and quality.
Why do we need crop protection products?
Crops need protection from diseases, pests and weeds which can decimate entire crops and endanger the food supply.
The world population is still expanding and is not expected to stabilise until mid-century. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation predicts that by 2025 the population will have grown from about 6.5 billion in 2006 to approximately 8 billion people. Not only will there be more people to feed, but the diet of a large proportion will also improve significantly. In particular, meat consumption will rise. Overall, this means total food production may need to double while the population increase is less than 25%. The amount of arable land cannot increase if we are to avoid destroying more of our natural areas. We therefore need to grow more food on the same amount of land.
Agriculture is the predominant source of income for the World’s poor, without increases in agricultural productivity there will be little chance of improving the livelihoods of these people. Increased productivity, and value, of crops will mean protecting them from pests, diseases and weeds.
Crop protection products are an essential tool for farmers to use to meet these various challenges.
Why do we need pesticides?
Pesticides deliver far-reaching benefits which we often take for granted. They include:
-
protecting crops from diseases, pests and weeds that can destroy entire crops and threaten our food supplies (e.g. potato famine and plagues of locusts);
-
protecting animals and people from illness caused by disease-carrying insects and vermin (e.g. malaria and West Nile Virus);
-
protecting biodiversity and promoting sustainability by allowing less productive land to remain uncultivated;
-
minimising post-harvest losses from pests and diseases; and
-
providing adequate supplies of safe, nutritious and affordable food.
Some of these pesticides are derived from plants; others are synthetic. But without them, growing consistently yields of good quality produce would be impossible in many areas. Human and livestock health would also suffer if measures to control disease-carrying insects were not available.
Environment
Aren't pesticides harmful to the environment?
Each and every crop protection product is rigorously tested for environmental impact. By adopting a philosophy of responsibility and stewardship, CropLife International members are helping to safeguard our agricultural future and the safety of people and the environment.
Sensible precautions – avoiding spray drift and spillages, for example – help to ensure there are no localised environmental problems. By helping farmers produce high yields on existing arable land, crop protection products reduce the pressure on forests and marginal lands which would otherwise be used for agriculture. This helps reduce habitat loss and is therefore an environmental benefit.
What about pesticide residues in water?
We are committed to protecting all sources of water, especially drinking water. We train farmers on how to avoid contaminating both ground water and surface water courses when using crop protection products. Sophisticated analytical techniques allow tiny amounts of pesticides to be detected in water. Although they would cause no harm to human health at these levels, water supply companies undertake treatments which remove nearly all traces.
What are the effects on wildlife habitats?
Maintaining the balance between producing enough food and conserving wildlife habitats is a priority for the industry. We ensure that our products will not upset this balance when used appropriately.
Any form of agriculture has a major environmental impact. In practice, all aspects of farm management contribute, and factors such as the type of crop and whether it is sown in spring or autumn are particularly important. In addition, the majority of farmland wildlife is found in field margins, hedges and uncultivated areas. Against this background, use of crop protection products has a minor impact on habitat.
We are researching and promoting ways of encouraging biodiversity while allowing the farmer to grow crops economically, for example by practising minimum tillage and other components of Conservation Agriculture.
Is industry doing enough to protect the environment?
Our industry has always supported the goal of protecting human health and the environment: we would soon be out of business if we didn’t. Each and every one of our crop protection products is rigorously tested to minimise environmental impact. We also invest in long-term stewardship programmes to safeguard consumers and the environment.
The industry supports the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to minimise environmental impact. IPM is a major component of Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices. ICM is a whole-farm strategy that involves managing crops profitably, with respect for the environment in ways that suit local soil, climatic and environmental conditions.
How much and how often should products be used?
Farmers and other users should only apply pesticides when and where they are absolutely necessary. This is clearly explained on the label information on the product containers. As part of the product development and registration process, the industry undertakes extensive laboratory and field studies to determine the best effective dose. Good farmers will never want to use more crop protection products than necessary: to do otherwise would be to waste money.
Health
Do pesticides affect our health?
There is no evidence that, properly used, pesticides have any negative effect on the health of either farm workers or consumers. In fact, their use protects us from many plant- and insect-borne toxins and diseases.
The amounts of pesticides consumed as residues on food are tiny, and thousands of times less than the amount of (untested) plant chemicals we consume at the same time. At these levels, neither the natural nor synthetic compounds have any effect on health.
All member company products have to be assessed intensively by independent experts before they are approved for use.
Most Government's approval processes for crop protection products are as tough as those governing human medicines. In countries with no approval processes, the plant science industry as well as intergovernmental agencies work with those governments to develop effective regulatory frameworks.
Specialised products protect our health from disease-carrying pests.
What about children and pesticides? Aren't they at greater risk?
When pesticides are approved, an acceptable daily intake is set, based on the quantity which causes no effect in the most sensitive laboratory experiments, and includes two additional safety factors. A factor of ten is applied in case humans are more sensitive than the tests show; a further factor of ten takes account of some people – including children – possibly being more sensitive than others. In practice, maximum residue levels are well below the permissible daily intake, and more than two-thirds of produce have no traces of pesticide in any case. Evaluation of pesticides prior to approval includes consideration of all population groups, including adults, teenagers, children, infants and the unborn. We are confident that none of these groups is exposed to any increased risk from normal use of pesticides.
Do pesticides kill people?
Nothing is without risk, but equally nearly everything can be used safely. This applies even to the most toxic substances known: botulinum toxin, a bacterial poison which can kill if only a trace is present in food, is used routinely in the form of Botox injections to reduce facial wrinkles. On the other hand, vitamin D, although needed in small quantities for a healthy life, can be fatal in larger doses.
The same applies to pesticides. Most could harm people if deliberately taken in large quantities, but they can all be used safely. The major crop protection companies put a lot of effort into making sure that their products are safely delivered to the user, and that operators are properly trained. Despite this, some smaller suppliers provide products – often poorly packed and labelled – with little or no training in their use. Under these circumstances, fatalities can and do occur: something which CropLife International and all major companies finds totally unacceptable.
Do pesticides cause cancer?
Pesticides would not be approved, and therefore not sold, if there was any indication of a link to cancer in the population. This forms part of the rigorous standard testing procedures. In fact, studies show that farmers, who are the most likely people to have regular exposure to pesticides, have a lower incidence of cancer than other groups in society.
Some pesticides, when tested at high levels, can cause some cancers in animals. This is not surprising, since more than half of all chemicals tested – whether natural or synthetic – have this effect. However, there is no evidence at all that the tiny levels consumed by people can cause cancer.
What about residues in food?
Even with today's sophisticated equipment, most (about 70%) of the domestic and imported food found on grocery shelves test residue-free. Extremely small traces of pesticide residues that fall below government-set levels pose no health threat. It is interesting that a similar percentage of organic food (about 30%) has measurable traces of pesticide.
Most modern crop protection products degrade rapidly after application and have never been detected in food. The amounts of those which are detected are so incredibly small (parts per billion – equivalent to a single drop of water in a large fuel tanker) that they constitute a negligible risk. All products are tested stringently so we know exactly what happens to them.
We support and promote the correct use of products to ensure that residues to not exceed government-set limits.
How safe are the limits that have been set for pesticide residues?
Most governments set maximum residue limits (MRLs) with a built-in safety margin. For example, in Europe and the USA this is a factor of 100. That means the final safe level is a minimum of 100 times below the limit that could cause any health problems.
To put this in perspective, a 68kg (150 lb) man would have to eat 3,000 heads of lettuce a day, or an 18kg (40lb) child would have to eat 13,636 kg (30,000 pounds) of carrots a day to exceed the level of a pesticide's residue that has been proven to have no effect on laboratory animals.
All studies show that increased consumption of fruit and vegetables – with or without pesticide residues – has a beneficial effect on health.
Do fruit and vegetables need to be washed to remove pesticide residues?
Fresh fruits and vegetables are safe to eat. Historically, it was believed that washing fruit and vegetables would remove any traces of residues. This has since proved to be unnecessary. In fact, the UK Government no longer recommends rinsing of fruit and vegetables, except to remove potentially harmful bacteria.
What is being done to prevent product abuse?
We thoroughly condemn the inappropriate or illegal use of crop protection products. If the products are used according to the label instructions then no harm will come to people or the environment.
The industry is committed to helping governments around the world educate farmers and others, including extension workers, teachers and agricultural communities in general in the responsible use of products, including correct dose and application techniques. However, not all small, local companies necessarily adhere to the same standards, and product abuse which does occur is often associated with supply of poorly packaged and labelled products to farmers with no advice or training. CropLife International and major companies have no control over this, but encourage governments to enforce the same safety standards for all.
Regulation
How are pesticides regulated?
Testing for safety and efficacy is carried out by our member companies to internationally agreed standards. Independent experts then assess the data and make recommendations to government regulatory agencies. It takes about ten years to get a product from discovery to approval, and a large part of that is spent in fulfilling regulatory requirements. Once approved, products continue to be monitored, and require periodic re-approval if not already superseded by better alternatives.
However, the best regulations are to no avail if they are not adequately implemented and enforced. The industry supports governments and others in enforcement of regulations.
Different regions regulate crop protection products differently, and do not share data. Industry needs harmonised, predictable, stable, and transparent regulatory systems in order to function optimally.
Why do we need to do tests using animals?
Our first priority is that everyone should be certain of the safety of these products to ourselves and the environment. In certain cases, the independent regulators require us by law to prove the safety of all products by using specific animals. We are searching for alternative methods of proving safety without resorting to animals, but have to accept that currently this is not often possible. Where there are proven and acceptable alternatives, we use them.
Obsolete stocks
How do you assure the safety of older products?
In the EU and America, extensive review programmes are in place to re-check and re-classify every single product, ensuring its safety for humans and the environment.
Companies have used the most modern methods to check and re-check the results of original tests and have added a whole range of new tests using state-of-the-art technology. If new products are introduced which are effective and safer in use, then older products are withdrawn from the market.
How do you dispose of banned and unwanted products?
Since 1995 our industry has been working in a number of countries to facilitate the disposal of obsolete stocks of products. This has involved finding additional donor funding, organising projects, supervising operations in the field or, when appropriate, re-formulating useable stocks. Disposal is normally via incineration, leaving no potentially harmful residues in landfill or elsewhere.
More than 3000 tonnes of obsolete products from developing countries have already been disposed of through these programmes.
The industry is also actively supporting new initiatives such as the Africa Stockpiles Programme.
How easy is it to get access to information about crop protection products?
We agree the public should know more about our industry’s products and a vast amount of detailed information is freely available in published scientific literature. Information can also be readily obtained from companies, CropLife and other representative bodies and government regulatory authorities.
Why are products banned in some countries still sold in some other countries?
Each country makes its own registration decisions depending on local conditions. In particular, different climates and crop types require different protection. So, fungicides are needed in northern Europe to protect cereals in the relatively cool, moist climate, whereas insecticides are used most widely in hotter climates where there is a greater range of insect pests. Rather than thinking of products as “banned”, it is more accurate to say they are “not approved”, normally because there is simply no need for them.
When certain products of potential concern are to be exported to another country, the exporter needs to get the explicit consent of the government of the importing country before the consignment can be shipped. This process called is Prior Informed Consent, and forms part of the Rotterdam convention.
Subsidies
Why subsidise agriculture?
Different countries and regions have different requirements. Many governments support their agricultural sector through subsidies. We believe that as long as those subsidies do not affect trade flows or the world market price, or encourage behaviour inconsistent with sustainable agriculture, it is up to individual governments to decide whether they are necessary. In many cases, this is strategic: to avoid collapse of the rural economy or reduce dependence on food imports.
Unfortunately, the way that some countries support their agriculture currently does distort world trade, often to the disadvantage of developing countries. Nevertheless, the current (Doha) round of WTO international trade talks aims to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, all trade barriers. In the meantime, for example, the European Common Agricultural Policy is in transition away from direct production subsidies.
Urban use of pesticides
Are home and garden pesticides similar in nature to agricultural products?
Yes. Generally home and garden pesticides are the same compounds as those used by farmers, but are tailored to home and garden use. The range of pesticides offered for home and garden use is smaller than those of agro-chemicals, and only includes those with a lower toxicity profile. Child and pet-resistant containers are now the norm for our member companies.
What risk of exposure do my children or pets face after I apply pesticides to our lawn?
A great many useful products - including pesticides - must be used with care. When used properly, pesticides are entirely safe. Stringent regulatory systems require pest control products to undergo a rigorous testing and clearance process. These examinations include safety to the applicator and consumer, product effectiveness, environmental impact and field-testing.
There are several precautions that should be taken to reduce exposure to the level where risk is trivial: wear basic protective clothing while applying pesticides; avoid skin contact with pesticides; keep children and pets out of any area during application and until the area is dry, which may be up to 24 hours. Product labels clearly state precautions which should be taken.
How should pesticides (for home use) be stored? What is the shelf life?
Pesticides should be stored in a secure, well-ventilated area, preferably locked in a safe cupboard, garage, or garden shed. Most pest control products can be stored for extended periods at normal temperatures. Check all labels carefully for specific information.
Alternative agriculture
Does organic mean pesticide-free?
Although it is generally believed that organic crops are grown without treatment, in fact they are often treated with certain naturally-occurring compounds, such as copper salts, which can be toxic.
Organic agriculture is a management system. It specifies what inputs may be used: mainly animal manure and nitrogen-fixing crops as fertiliser, and a small number of naturally-occurring pesticides. However, with the single exception of genetic modification, it says nothing about the composition of the final produce. So, despite the difference in crop management, organic produce has about the same chance of containing measurable residues of approved synthetic pesticides as does a conventionally-managed crop: about 1 in 3.
Consumers do and should have a choice as to what produce they buy, and may well choose organic for reasons other than this. However, there is no evidence to suggest that organic produce is in any way healthier than the standard equivalent.