29.05.2024
Operation successful, patient dying
Dear Readers
Good communication is a matter of luck. This statement is attributed to the communication scientist Paul Watzlawick. It is a matter of luck in that communication originates with the recipient. However, this does not absolve the communicator of responsibility. On the contrary: whoever communicates is still in the «driver's seat», takes centre stage, moderates the nuances and sometimes doesn't say everything. Anyone who communicates cannot make excuses. He or she is responsible for what the recipient receives. Two current examples illustrate this:
Communication 1: In its interim report on the implementation of the Plant Protection Action Plan, the Federal Council is pleased that the risks to the environment in Switzerland have been significantly reduced. The report was published on May 8, 2024 and farmers are being encouraged to abandon crop protection products with so-called production system contributions (direct payments). And as FOAG Director Christian Hofer and Deputy Director Bernard Belk explained at a media conference, participation in these programmes is «fortunately» very high.
The joy is substantiated with figures: «Farmers have cultivated 19 per cent (53,000 ha) of the total area of arable land, vineyards and orchards without the use of herbicides. In addition, farms did not use fungicides and insecticides on around a quarter of the total arable area (102,000 ha) (+10,000 ha compared to 2022).» However, as the editor-in-chief of BauernZeitung pointed out in a commentary, the FOAG does not ask why the farmers are doing this. In fact, the question arises as to whether the FOAG realises that these are not market-driven changes to production systems, but that government measures are causing them.
The Aargauer Zeitung summarises the federal government's communication as follows: «Thanks to financial incentives from the federal government: Farmers are spraying less and less crop protection products on their fields. What is good for the environment poses problems for agriculture.» The joy of participating in the reduction programmes comes at a cost and is clouded: «Although these results are pleasing, it is also clear that the withdrawal of certain crop protection products has created considerable gaps in crop protection.» And that could also be a reason for the farmers' active participation in the programme: if they are no longer allowed to use crop protection products, they at least want to be compensated.
In its interim report on the implementation of the Plant Protection Action Plan, the Federal Council also regrets that crop protection has become very challenging. «Many active substances have had their authorisation withdrawn and new invasive harmful organisms are establishing themselves in Switzerland.» In addition to the reduction of plant protection products, the protection of crops is a key objective of the action plan. However, it is precisely this protection that is no longer guaranteed. According to the federal government, agricultural production is confronted with «growing crop protection problems».
And that means that if domestic production falls, more has to be imported. This is often the case with Brussels sprouts. The production of rapeseed oil, which is praised as an alternative to palm oil, is also affected. It fails without pesticides due to the high pest pressure. No one benefits when the cultivation of chicory or pome fruit in this country is struggling. Farmers are suffering with declining yields and quality losses as a result of the lack of active ingredients. The joy over the reduction in crop protection products is clouded. According to the «Blick» and the «Beobachter», one indication of the problem with plant protection is the increasing number of emergency authorisations for crop protection products. It reached a record level in 2023. In plain language: effective crop protection products are banned or their abandonment is subsidised. But as soon as there is a threat of crop losses, crop protection products are approved as an emergency measure in the hope that companies will be able to supply them.
The downside of the reduction policy has not gone unnoticed by the Federal Council. It is therefore calling for: «New solutions are needed to protect agricultural crops and thus food production as well as the environment.» But the plea remains vague.
The principle of hope is not enough. If existing crop protection products are forced out of the market, alternatives are needed. Pests do not become more frugal on demand. Fungi do not stop growing at the push of a button. We need solutions that work. An update to the approval procedure for new, more modern plant protection products is urgently needed, for example.
State-of-the-art crop protection products are brought to market by research-intensive industrial companies through years of expensive research and development and cost-intensive authorisation processes. It is therefore striking how the interim report on the implementation of the action plan completely fails to mention these services and products and only presents state-funded research as the solution. This denial of reality is presumably due to the struggle for state funding programmes in times of dwindling public finances.
The fact is that industrial R&D is working intensively and continuously to develop innovative active ingredients. Research is conducted down to the smallest molecule. It is a race against time. Pests, pathogens and weeds are constantly evolving. Pathogens change, new ones emerge. And resistance develops to established products.
Intensive research, but also regulation that facilitates approval, is necessary. After all, farmers in Switzerland depend on the availability of new, effective crop protection products now, not at some point in the future. And for this reason, the authorisation procedure for plant protection products needs an «update». After all, the interim report concludes that the adoption of crop protection products authorised in comparable EU countries could bring some relief for farmers.
The Aargauer Zeitung adds that Parliament is putting its finger on the sore spots: «A parliamentary initiative by Philipp Bregy, a member of the National Council from the centre party of Valais, has already found a majority in both committees. A proposal to authorise low-risk active substances in a fast-track procedure also has a good chance of success.» The Confederation sees the greatest need for action in the control of pests in rapeseed, sugar beet, vegetables and fruit crops – all products that consumers want to be locally grown. In addition, according to the Confederation, there is still no real alternative in organic farming to the use of the heavy metal copper, which accumulates in the soil and is harmful to aquatic organisms.
The Plant Protection Action Plan aims to reduce the risks to the environment but ignores the risks of not using crop protection products. The consequences are now becoming apparent. Crop protection is being reduced, but the protection of cultures has failed. In other words: the operation is successful, but the patient is dying.
Banning while at the same time blocking innovation is like driving into a brick wall. The whole toolbox is needed to protect crops. This includes the swift approval of innovative, precisely formulated crop protection products in combination with precision application, a digital offensive for early detection and the approval of new breeding methods such as genome editing. It would never occur to anyone in medicine to ban medicines and at the same time block innovation.
Communication of the interim results of the Plant Protection Action Plan has come to a halt halfway through. The joy over the reduction of crop protection products is clouded. Domestic production is suffering. Obvious solutions are ignored.
Communication 2: The Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) announces: «Legal certainty regarding maximum levels for drinking water. The Federal Administrative Court rejects an appeal against the FSVO. This means that drinking water suppliers have a clear guideline that chlorothalonil degradation products in drinking water must not exceed 0.1 micrograms per litre.» However, the FSVO's statement only refers to a secondary judgement by the Federal Administrative Court. We have summarised the facts. With the title «Legal certainty regarding the maximum level for drinking water», the FSVO suggests that the court has made a substantive ruling and that Syngenta has lost the legal dispute regarding the ban on chlorothalonil. This is not the case. However, the FSVO website makes no mention whatsoever of the pending judgement in the main case. In fact, the main substantive decision regarding the chlorothalonil limits has not yet been made. There will only be legal certainty once the main judgement has been handed down.
The communication of the Federal Administrative Court's judgement is risky, not least because it has cost implications. The first municipalities are already complaining. And a key point is being concealed. As Paul Watzlawick said: «One cannot not communicate.» Concealing something says a lot.
Your swiss-food editorial team
