Consumer sensitivities over farm chemical use will drive lower use. But if spoilage rises and costs escalate, those sensitivities may change if they affect first-world consumers

Glyphosate seems to be getting into the news again lately.  Like a lot of things that involve agriculture chemicals, they are another where farming must feel they are swimming against the tide, and while this is yet another example of where society and farming have parted ways, at least for the time being glyphosate can still be used in New Zealand.

Increasingly though local bodies throughout the world are no longer using Round-Up and while I could find no evidence that New Zealand councils have stopped using it there are certainly discussions around limiting its use.

In regard to the dangers it may cause there are reports which come from different reputable sources ranging from no evidence of any carcinogen effects to just the opposite.

Similar flip flopping has been observed lately in regard to the impact of nitrates in drinking water and its potential to cause bowel cancer. First a Danish study showed a link exists between nitrates in water and bowel cancer. This caused a lot of angst among farmers and those relying on well water as their major water source.

However, not long after this, there was research finding by an Otago University study which said it was “highly unlikely” that nitrates in drinking water or food increased the bowel cancer risk.

Then this week, the same researchers now looking at a more refined population (those accessing water from wells) found 800,000 potentially are at a higher risk of bowel cancer.

Back to glyphosate, NZIER did a report (funded by AGCARM) and have just put out a press release which shows that herbicides are worth $8.6 billion to the nation when valuing its economic and environmental benefits. They highlight the fact that alternatives are either far more labour intensive or would require greater use of potentially more toxic herbicides.

The writing is on the wall, in my view, regardless of what the science says as at the end of the day the public or the consumer has the ultimate say. And whether or not glyphosate is dangerous and whether or not the public is at risk of nitrates in water are moot points. Public perceptions and pressures will determine the final outcome.

While it would be easy to call for a total ban of all chemicals and fertilisers on farms, the consequences of doing so before there are viable (in all senses) alternatives could be catastrophic particularly overseas where the impacts of insects and disease are greater than in New Zealand. Globally:

• Wheat between 10%- 28% is lost due to pests and disease.
• Rice between 25% - 41% is lost
• Maize 20% – 41% is lost
• Potato 8% - 21% is lost
• Soybean 11- 32% is lost

The above figures could be taken two ways, either chemicals are not doing their job, or the food numbers could be far worse without them.

With increasing populations and more demand for food, the drive to use more chemicals internationally is likely to be growing, especially as farms have a trend of moving from smaller family units to larger corporate style farms where efficiencies will be pushed far harder, and hence more chemicals.

Within New Zealand it is difficult to get an accurate measure of chemical usage and even when numbers are bandied around, they often include forestry as well as food production systems. I think on a per hectare basis horticulture and viticulture would be able to show declines with their integrated management systems and the use of companion plantings to encourage ‘helper insects’ among other benefits. The arable sector while a big user of agrichemicals in the FAR booklet “FAR Environmental and Social Best Practice Strategy 2020-2025”, the only overt mention of agrichemicals was as one of a number of important resources. Given community, climate change, tillage among others were all specifically covered this seemed to be a ‘loud’ oversight.

 The lack of any meaningful information that is available for scrutiny maybe the reason that the EPA has put a call out for information from importers, manufacturers, professional users, retailers, organisations, community groups and the public on:

• information that is relevant to the current use, practices, and benefits of glyphosate products
• evidence of the effects of glyphosate products: positive or adverse impacts; toxicology; ecotoxicology; environmental fate studies; or monitoring results
• how glyphosate products are used and applied in different areas, for example, agricultural, domestic, in public areas, for conservation, or as an aquatic herbicide
• your views on the positive or negative impacts you think glyphosate products have on our environmental, economic, social and cultural wellbeing.

With the EU reviewing whether glyphosate will be allowed to be used after mid-2022, the EPA appears to be trying to get a clear picture of its use and benefits within New Zealand. No doubt this has also been the drive for AGCARM to commission their study.

Currently the greatest disincentive to farmers for the use of agrichemicals is cost. None are cheap is just a matter of how expensive they all are.

There is an increasing move to “regenerative “farming and organics and while they may not be the panacea to all things it does show how there is a mind shift away from chemicals and more invasive techniques of farming.

These debates are almost the reverse of what is happening with arguments around Covid-19 vaccines except, fortunately, the majority of folk and the government and science are all of the same opinion believing in the positive effects of vaccination and the small noisy minority will not get their way.

It is unfair to lump those against chemicals in the same category as those against vaccines as no sane person willingly want to expose themselves to any more chemicals than is absolutely necessary. Perhaps the agricultural sector can (if they choose) feel some empathy to those protesting against the Covid vaccine as to the anti-vaxers it must feel like they are swimming against the tide.