A farmer’s view of safer alternatives

Being acutely conscious of consumer concerns is part of the producer’s job, says David Gardner of Co-op’s Farmcare. An ambitious approach in tackling pesticide hazards is needed.

As a farmer I have never been more aware of consumer demands than I am today. My industry has been hit by a series of food scares that have left consumers suspicious of the whole food chain.
    Of these bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has been the most notable but salmonella, E coli, E numbers, bovine tuberculosis, foot and mouth, and pesticides are all problems that have alarmed consumers in recent years – even though most consumers don’t really understand the issues associated with them. Any business that ignores the concerns of its customers is unsustainable and today’s farmer has to recognise that our customers do have quite valid concerns about many of our activities. 
    Pesticides are unique in that they are designed to kill things. They are by definition toxic. Public suspicion of pesticides goes back many years – to DDT, a decline in birds of prey and Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring. Pesticides have never recovered from the image that they had in their early days – even though their modern counterparts are significantly safer. In the consumers mind they are ‘bad’.

Aiming for zero residues
If the use of pesticides is unavoidable we have to ensure that we use them as responsibly as possible. We must minimise the impact that they have on the consumer, the environment and on our farm operatives. Our goals must be: 

• zero residues for the consumer
• an end to diffuse pollution of the environment 
• complete safety for operatives

Pesticides are so complex that they can invariably deliver on two of these points whilst failing on the third. Today’s technology does not allow us to deliver consistently on all these points and a framework that allows us to assess the conflicting merits of different chemicals has to be welcomed. As such I support the concept of comparative risk assessment. It has to be ‘right’ but balancing up the different weaknesses of different pesticides isn’t always easy – how do you compare a residue in the produce with contamination of a watercourse? However in many circumstances reasonable comparisons can be made that will move us closer to our goals.
    I have doubts about legislation introducing comparative risk assessment. The registration of pesticides is so complex that I think it would be difficult to enforce such new requirements and farmers are seriously weary of the bureaucracy that surrounds their businesses – additional paperwork would be most unwelcome particularly in the current financial environment. However the concept of designating some chemicals as ‘amber’ and ‘red’ to flag up that they are undesirable has significant merit in my view. It is easy and simple. 
    We have to find a way of educating farmers as to why these chemicals are a concern to consumers and environmentalists – I am sure that we would see an immediate reduction in use.
    Why do farmers use pesticides? Certainly to increase yield but also to improve quality. A significant amount of pesticide use takes place to ‘guarantee’ the cosmetic appearance of fresh produce. Fruit and vegetable production is high cost: high value farming. Farmers cannot afford product rejection and are obliged to undertake insurance spraying to ensure that their produce hits the specification. The consumer is the most discerning grader of them all and we all have a major education task if we are ever to overcome this issue. 
    Organic produce does offer the consumer an alternative. At Farmcare we have considerable experience of organic production with cereals, milk and potatoes all being produced at present. Organic farming works, and it is an alternative production process. It has its challenges – they are just different challenges to those we encounter in conventional production. But I don’t see organic agriculture having the potential to feed the world. It will remain a niche market in my view. However I do think that organic agriculture has a huge role to play in demonstrating to conventional farmers what can be achieved without using pesticides. Resistant varieties, rotations and biological control all have a huge role to play and lessons learnt in the organic sector can be incorporated into conventional agriculture as ‘integrated crop management’ – capturing the best of both systems.

Edited presentation to the Pesticide Challenge conference, November 2003, David Gardner, Farmcare, david.gardner@letsco-operate.com

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 58, December 2002, page 7]