A farewell to pesticide dependence?
An international team of researchers asked 517 experts: What happens if we drastically cut pesticide use? The answer points to major gains for the environment and health, but also tough choices for farmers and policymakers
image: Fewer pesticides means big wins for nature and health, but tough choices for farmers.
Credit: Camilla Brodam Galacho
The sun has barely risen over the flat agricultural landscape. Dew glistens like tiny pearls on the leaves of the grain, and a tractor stands ready with its sprayer. For decades, this ritual has been part of everyday life for farmers: spraying against pests. Without it, weeds, diseases, and insects would quickly destroy the harvest.
But now, change is in the air. From Brussels to Brazil, everyone is talking about one thing: We need to use fewer pesticides. Far fewer. The UN and EU have set ambitious goals to halve the risks caused by pesticide use by 2030. The question is: What happens if we do?
A global puzzle
That’s exactly the question an international research team has tried to answer. In a new article in Nature Communications, 14 researchers from across the globe, including Danish scientist Per Kudsk from the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University, have gathered insights from 517 plant protection experts.
“We wanted to understand what a global transformation means, not just for the environment but also for food security, the economy, and health,” he explains.
The researchers developed a brand-new framework with 24 indicators, ranging from human health to agricultural economics. They asked the experts: What do you expect will happen if we drastically reduce pesticide use and switch to more sustainable plant protection methods?
Big gains and big differences
The answer is both encouraging and complex:
- Environment and health benefit the most. Fewer pesticides mean less contamination in nature and in our bodies. This could mean cleaner waterways, more bees, and fewer risks for farm workers.
- Economy and food security may also improve but not everywhere. In some regions, lower pesticide use combined with new methods could lead to more stable yields. In others, maintaining production may be difficult.
- Social equity is a wildcard. Low-income countries with low pesticide use could gain the most, while high-intensity systems in Europe and North America face costly transitions.
“It does not come for free,” stresses Per Kudsk. “We need new solutions, local adaptation, and political support. Otherwise, we risk creating new problems while solving the old ones.”
Why does it matter?
Pesticides have been a cornerstone of modern agriculture since the 1950s. They have ensured high yields and cheap food but at a cost. Pesticides affect biodiversity, pollute rivers and groundwater, and can harm human health.
Today, we are in the middle of a global debate: How do we feed 10 billion people without destroying the planet? The researchers behind the study point out that sustainable plant protection methods could be a nexus for solving multiple crises at once: climate, biodiversity, health, food security, and social justice.
From lab to field
But what does a world with fewer pesticides look like? It’s not just about removing pesticides. It’s about finding alternatives: biological control, precision agriculture, genetically robust crops. And that requires investment in research and advisory services.
“If we do it right, we can create agriculture that is both productive and sustainable,” says Per Kudsk. “But we need to act now.”
Fact Box: What is sustainable plant protection?
- Biological control: Using natural enemies such as predatory insects.
- Precision spraying: Technology that targets only affected plants.
- Resistant varieties: Crops that can withstand diseases and pests without pesticides.
More information
Partners: Aarhus University (Department of Agroecology), University of Bonn, World Vegetable Center Benin, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, INRAE, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Queensland, Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, King’s College London, Aarau, World Vegetable Center Bangkok, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Wageningen University and Research, ETH Zurich.
Funding: Open Access funding enabled and organised by Projekt DEAL
Conflicts of Interest: None
Read more: The publication “Expected effects of a global transformation of agricultural pest management” is published in Nature Communications. Authors: Niklas Möhring, Malick N. Ba, Anna Rafaela Cavalcante Braga, Sabrina Gaba, Vesna Gagic, Per Kudsk, Ashley Larsen, Robin Mesnage, Urs Niggli, Matin Qaim, Pepijn Schreinemachers, Christian Stamm, Wim de Vries & Robert Finger.
Contact: Professor Emeritus Per Kudsk, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University. Tel: +45 22283382 or email per.kudsk@agro.au.dk