PerspectiveBridge - Medicines and Pesticides

Toward pesticidovigilance

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  22 Sep 2017:
Vol. 357, Issue 6357, pp. 1232-1234
DOI: 10.1126/science.aan2683

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • Broadening pesticidovigilance with alternatives to food production without pesticides
    • Georgina Catacora-Vargas, Agricultural Engineer / Agroecologist, University Centre AGRUCO, Faculty of Agricultural, Livestock and Forestry Sciences, University Mayor de San Simón
    • Other Contributors:
      • Johanna Jacobi, Geographer, Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland

    Under the denomination of ‘pesticidovigilance’, Milner and Boyd (1) present an innovative analysis that suggests the need for post-marketing approval and long-term monitoring of agricultural pesticides, similar to the surveillance of pharmaceuticals.

    While we agree with the authors’ analysis and their suggestions for more responsible monitoring of pesticides, we disagree with the idea that pesticides are necessary to produce food. The authors imply this in statements like ‘When used at industrial scales, pesticides can harm the environment, but there is a trade-off between this effect and the need to produce food,’ and ‘Society depends on pesticides in a similar way to how it relies on antibiotics’ (p. 1232).

    We contend this idea for two reasons. First, pesticides are toxic inherently, and not only when used at industrial scales: studies have found evidence of ecological and human health effects at sublethal doses (e.g. 2, 3). Second, a myriad of experiences from all over the world show that replacing pesticides with agroecological designs enhances ecosystem functions, including pest regulation, and thereby eliminates the need for agrochemicals (e.g. 4, 5, 6). Peasant communities, especially from the global South but also from the global North, are the backbone of food security (7). Many of them rely fully on agroecological practices, whether traditional, newly developed, or a combination of both, and do not apply pesticides. Moreover, meta-analyses of yield...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science