Call for a counterproposal to the pesticide initiatives

The two popular initiatives on drinking water and a ban on pesticides are justified, but inflexible. Bernhard Wehrli calls for a counterproposal to tackle the issue.

Bernhard Wehrli

Here in Switzerland, over 300 different pesticides are applied to protect cereals, fruit and vegetables from weeds, insects and fungal attack. This prevents crop failures, and stops worm-eaten fruit and rotten vegetables finding their way to the market. Ideally, such pesticides are effective for only a short time and are then broken down by bacteria. Two pending popular initiatives are seeking to cut or even ban the use of artificial pesticides in Swiss farming. But if we’re to feed a growing worldwide population safely under rapidly changing environmental conditions, I believe it’s unrealistic to entirely forgo agrochemicals in the food we grow and import, as the pesticide initiative demands1.

Pestizid
Where less would be more: Pesticides are contaminating our groundwater, and something must be done. (Image: DieterMeyrl / iStock)

Agriculture pollutes our drinking water

There’s no doubt that those driving the initiatives are tackling a very real and serious problem – recent studies confirm widespread contamination of our groundwater by pesticides, particularly in agricultural areas in on the Swiss Plateau2. In fact, pesticide use in Swiss agriculture is even considerable by international standards, with more than 2,000 tons of pesticides being sprayed onto crops every year. Rain washes some of these chemicals into the groundwater, along with their transformation products, known as metabolites. In cool aquifers, degradation takes place slowly and so these chemicals accumulate. Certain pesticides, such as the herbicide atrazine, are detectable for decades, even if the substance has long been banned. Which is why the drinking water initiative3 is demanding that subsidies should only be paid out to farms that do not use synthetic pesticides.

The problem of metabolites

While not all pesticide metabolites are hazardous, research keeps identifying new risks. Some metabolites are more soluble in water and have a much longer life than the original substance. A good example here is chlorothalonil, a fungicide currently approved in this country for combatting fungal infections in vegetable and cereal cultivation. Yet as it may cause cancer, the European Food Safety Authority has recently stepped up its risk profile4. As a result, the EU Commission has not renewed authorisation, so the fungicide is to be banned in Switzerland too.

All this doesn’t solve the problem – for Swiss groundwater is already too heavily contaminated with metabolites of chlorothalonil. Karin Kiefer, a doctoral student at ETH Zurich, examined 31 groundwater samples at Eawag and detected a new transformation product of chlorothalonil in 20 cases5. On average, it was more than five times the threshold value, with the highest concentration some 27 times higher. The affected water catchments should now be treated within a month – but given the extent of pollution in arable farming areas and the dearth of purification techniques, this will hardly be possible.

A comprimise is urgently needed

Clean drinking water is a priceless commodity. If we want to keep drinking water safe in Switzerland in the long term, we must cut the use of hazardous pesticides in agricultural areas as quickly as possible. In 2017, the Federal Council accordingly adopted an action plan for reducing pesticides6 based on a comprehensive risk analysis. To date, however, the plan is no more binding than the Federal Council’s recently published intention to “examine” possible legal bases for protection from pesticide pollution in the context of agricultural policy from 2022 on.

"What we need are powerful measures that will reduce the risks of pesticide use as rapidly as possible, without unduly restricting agricultural production."Bernhard Wehrli

Rather than mere declarations of intent, effective action is what’s needed – and as soon as possible.  In this respect, the drinking water initiative sets out a concrete financial incentive in the form of direct payments for cultivating “pesticide-free”. Sadly, the proposal is inflexible and uncompromising: it treats all synthetic pesticides equally, irrespective of their risk potential, and disregards any gradual reduction of their use.    

I believe that what we need in Switzerland are powerful measures that will reduce the risks of pesticide use as rapidly as possible, without unduly restricting agricultural production. The Council of States is to discuss the drinking water and pesticides initiative. That the Economic Commission of the Council of States now intends to draw up a binding proposal for reducing pesticide application with a parliamentary initiative7 is most encouraging.  A logical approach might be to rapidly bring parts of the action plan on pesticides into law in the form of a counterproposal. A binding and hard-hitting pesticide reduction plan would be a compromise that would serve farmers, the population and the environment well.

Further reading

1 Pesticide initiative: federal popular initiative external pageFür eine Schweiz ohne synthetische Pestizide

2 BAFU (2019): external pageZustand und Entwicklung Grundwasser Schweiz.

3 Drinking water initiative: federal popular initiative external pageFür sauberes Trinkwasser und gesunde Nahrung – Keine Subventionen für den Pestizid- und den prophylaktischen Antibiotika-Einsatz

4 EFSA (2018): external pagePeer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance chlorothalonil. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.5126

5 K. Kiefer et al. (2019) New relevant pesticide transformation products in groundwater detected using target und suspect screening for agricultural and urban micropollutants with LC-HRMS. Water Research (see external pageEawag news article).

6 external pagePflanzenschutzmittel action plan

7 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 30 August 2019: external pageStänderäte durchkreuzen Kalkül des Bauernverbands 

JavaScript has been disabled in your browser