Without insects, there would be no chocolate, no coffee, no almonds. And these aren’t the only foods under threat. The FAO estimates a future of empty pantries: 8 out of 10 crops in the world depend on pollinators, wildlife so cornered that a third is in danger of extinction. The international organization also identifies as one of the main causes the intensification of agriculture and its massive use of chemicals, such as pesticides and fertilizers. Which directly contradicts those who point out that without pesticides there will not be enough food. It’s quite the opposite. The loss of biodiversity directly threatens our food sovereignty.
Spain should therefore be very worried. The so-called Garden of Europe has almost half of its territory dedicated to agriculture and of this, 80% (18 million hectares) is threatened by pesticide contamination. Something that is detected even in protected areas like national parks. And we’re not just talking about food and the economy, but also about public health. Science has for decades linked these compounds to an increased risk of diabetes, reproductive and respiratory disorders, neurological dysfunctions or cancer. It therefore does not seem very healthy that the concentration of these pesticides is higher than the limits authorized for human consumption in 30% of the surface water monitoring stations in our territory (MITECO data from 2022). Much less reassuring is that the presence of banned pesticides has been detected in the urine of Spanish boys and girls.
Unfortunately, we have been like this for a long time. In 1962, we experienced a historic event when we formalized our membership of the European Common Market, taking the first steps towards becoming part of what would become the European Union. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, a book appeared in the United States that should also have changed the course of history: silent spring. Biologist Rachel Carson denounces the harmful effects of the massive use of chemicals on nature. Today, six decades later and with much more scientific evidence that reinforces Carson’s premises, Spain has the opportunity to put an end to this threat that ended with the singing of birds or the buzzing of bees and d ensure our ability to produce food.
In less than two months, the government plans to publish a new National Action Plan for the sustainable use of phytosanitary products (PAN) to “achieve the reduction of the risks and effects of their use on human health and environment,” reports the ministry. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the project we have access to will not adequately protect either people or nature. The Plan has shortcomings in its objectives, application and monitoring. Also in its degree of ambition, as well as in the indicators established to measure the risk linked to the use of pesticides. It does not guarantee an essential basic principle, which is that of precaution.
The text also does not include key aspects of the farm to fork and biodiversity strategies, proposed in 2020 by the European Union. Specifically, it does not support the goals of reducing the use and risks of chemical pesticides globally by 50%, as well as the use of the most dangerous ones by half by 2030.
To change the situation, we ask that the current draft NAP be withdrawn and redone so that it includes objectives commensurate with the problem, such as those set by Europe. It must include binding, ambitious and measurable objectives for quantitative and qualitative reduction in the use and impact of pesticides, for the period 2024-2029. Concretely, public action must achieve a 50% reduction in the actual toxic load. It must also prohibit immediately use the most dangerous pesticides, included in the list prepared by the Pesticide Action Network. And all this, ensuring that it is applied from the start in highly contaminated areas, where the environmental and human health impact is already urgent, such as the Mar Menor and Doñana.
The new PAN must veto the use of pesticides in public spaces for non-agricultural use, particularly in those where sensitive populations reside, such as parks and gardens, school environments, hospitals and retirement homes. In addition, its use for the maintenance of railway tracks, road shoulders, etc. should be avoided. In all these cases, glyphosate-based herbicides cannot be authorized.
To achieve fields free of synthetic pesticides and for the transition to take place in an equitable manner, it is also necessary to recover public systems of advice, training and support, as well as support for people who work in the agricultural sector. At the same time, it must improve the quality and transparency of available data, eliminating statistical secrecy, which undermines public control exercised by civil society. Finally, and beyond the PAN, the production and consumption of organic food must be supported.
Beyond this state plan, it is up to the European Union to get back on track with the agroecological transition and to put on the table ambitious regulations on pesticides, which will be a reference at the global level. It must also demand the same rules of the game in global markets, to take care of the health of producers and ecosystems inside and outside European borders.
From WWF Spain, SEO/BirdLife, the Spanish Society of Agroecology (SEAE) and Ecologistas en Acción, we ask the Spanish Government, although 60 years late, to assume protection against the impact pesticides. Because returning to noisy sources – with buzzing, trilling and croaking – benefits all of society, from those who produce to those who consume food. In short, to those who live and intend to do so (well) for a long time.
