Abstract

In 1985, the Swedish government mandated a 50% reduction in agricultural pesticide use by 1990. The reference point was based on the average of total pesticide sales (kg ai) between 1981 and 1985. The goal was to halve the risks to users and to the environment. A two-pronged approach dealing with risk and with the actual reduction in agricultural pesticide use was developed. By 1991, 215 ‘unsafe’ or less effective pesticide products were withdrawn by producers or cancelled by the National Chemical Inspectorate, leaving only 322 registered. Additionally, the government was able to report a 47% reduction in agricultural pesticide use where 64, 54, and 2% reductions occurred in insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, respectively. However, the treated area did not decrease. Pesticide reduction was achieved largely in cereal grain production by switching from high-dose to low-dose herbicides, reducing rates of herbicides, removal of inactive isomers from racemic mixtures, cancellation of TCA for quackgrass control, increased set-aside, and improved sprayer precision. During the same 5-yr period, Scotland achieved an equivalent reduction without government intervention, indicating that the reductions were largely due to changing herbicide technology. Determining the need for similar programs must take into account: 1. initial use rates (in 1987, average total pesticide use rates in the U.S. and in Sweden were 1.8 and 1.5 kg ai/ha, respectively, and following the mandate period, Swedish use has decreased to 0.8 kg ai/ha); 2. measurement criteria; and 3. the long-term effect of reducing herbicide rates on replenishing the soil weed seed bank reserves.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.