Phasing Out Toxic Pesticides Cannot Be a Burden on Farmers Alone

Phasing out toxic pesticides is farmers' business, yet it is not entirely a matter for individual farmers. Besides intensifying the investigation and punishment of pesticide varieties that have been explicitly banned, the state should also vigorously develop highly efficient, low-toxicity biological pesticides. At the same time, it should establish and improve the ecological agriculture industry chain, and through special subsidies bring down the cost of transforming agricultural production methods, so that farmers can truly taste the sweetness of phasing out “toxic pesticides.”

The third draft of the revision to the Food Safety Law, submitted yesterday for deliberation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, proposed: the state encourages and supports the use of highly efficient, low-toxicity, low-residue pesticides, promotes the research, development and application of substitute products for highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides, and accelerates the phase-out of highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides. Highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides must not be used on vegetables, melons and fruits, tea leaves, and Chinese herbal medicinal materials.

In the 1960s, a book titled Silent Spring spurred the awakening of social environmental awareness. In this book, the author Rachel·Carson described a terrifying scene——a “silent” world without birds, bees, butterflies and other living creatures, and the culprit behind this situation was the highly toxic pesticide DDT. After the book was published, it caused a huge uproar, and the United States also banned the use of DDT in 1972. In recent years, our country has also seen quite a few food safety problems caused by pesticide abuse, and a number of toxic pesticides have been successively banned. This time, at the legislative level, explicitly phasing out highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides is not only a safeguard for public health, but also a major boon for solving the soil pollution problem that society is concerned about. In order to prevent “Silent Spring” from playing out in China, strengthening the management of pesticide use is indispensable.

But it must also be recognized that indiscriminately crying out to crack down on pesticides is not rational; rather, a balance must be found between ensuring agricultural production and safeguarding public food safety. Therefore, there is also a view in society that worries restricting pesticide use will cause crop reductions, raise production costs, and bring a greater burden to farmers whose incomes are already not high. Of course, this worry is not without reason. But in the author's view, accelerating the phase-out of highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides, apart from the benefits to public health, is by no means bad news for agriculture and farmers themselves. As long as there are appropriate subsidies and guidance mechanisms to absorb the transformation costs, this is instead an excellent opportunity to further enhance the industry's competitiveness and increase farmers' incomes.

First, in recent years agricultural products have repeatedly been exposed for using highly toxic pesticides, and the blow to local farmers is often devastating; behind this is a reflection of the public's sense of insecurity about pesticide abuse. For example, after the recent “problem watermelon” incident in Wanning, Hainan, some Wanning melon farmers called for a thorough investigation, insisting that all Hainan melon farmers must not be made to bear this stigma. So, if one place or one farming household uses toxic pesticides, it may bring serious effects to all local farmers. Writing the prohibition of highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides into law is a form of protection for law-abiding farmers.

Second, if Chinese people once pursued only “eating enough,” today people have begun to pursue “eating well.” The highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides used to increase yields should give way to a healthy and safe philosophy of life. Nowadays, for the same vegetable varieties, the unit price of those not using pesticides is considerably higher than that of ordinary vegetables; some farmers can fully follow market demand and shift from “increasing quantity” to “improving quality.” Perhaps yields have decreased and labor costs such as hand-catching insects are higher, but as selling prices rise, plus appropriate environmental subsidies and so on, profit margins may even rise rather than fall. The popularity of higher-priced green vegetables precisely shows that safe and healthy food is still scarce in the market. When consumers are willing to pay for quality, the upstream production link should rightly change accordingly.

Therefore, phasing out toxic pesticides is farmers' business, yet it is not entirely a matter for individual farmers. Besides intensifying the investigation and punishment of pesticide varieties that have been explicitly banned, the state should also vigorously develop highly efficient, low-toxicity biological pesticides, and find safer substitutes for agricultural production. At the same time, it should establish and improve the ecological agriculture industry chain, and through special subsidies bring down the cost of transforming agricultural production methods, so that farmers can truly taste the sweetness of phasing out “toxic pesticides.”

During the growth of crops, if pesticides are used too much, pests and diseases will develop “resistance.” The same is true of agricultural production: relying too heavily on pesticides, or even taking reckless risks by using highly toxic and highly poisonous pesticides, will bring enormous safety hazards. Only through policy guidance and support, and by absorbing the phase-out costs of “toxic pesticides” in multiple ways, can “resistance” be avoided, so that our country's agricultural development can stay far away from “Silent Spring” and step onto the environmental path of ecological agriculture as soon as possible.