The agrochemical industry: its contribution to crop protection and environmental policy

Abstract

The role of the agrochemical industry in modern agriculture today is constantly evolving and its contribution to crop protection and environmental policy is ever more significant. Linking science and policy is a cornerstone of the industry's work and it is in this context that we need to examine its development. Environmental policy and consumer policy are now very much in the foreground, increasingly impacting on the way the industry does its business. Modern chemical crop protection has a fairly short history, with most developments after the middle of the 20th Century. Its pioneering phase was characterized by the discovery and production of synthetic herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Fast adoption of these technologies contributed significantly to the development of agriculture. The management of crop protection remained for many years in the hands of scientists, technologists, regulators and farmers − a transparent, clear and comfortable situation. Doubts about chemical crop protection only began about two decades ago and since then much has changed. Fifteen years ago, some predicted that the industry was reaching maturity and that innovation would inevitably slow down. But that has not proved to be the case at all. New chemistry has continued to be brought to the market, even in areas such as insecticides, which were previously regarded as very difficult. In fungicides, the market introduction of plant resistance inducers may produce a completely new control concept, and the signs are excellent that innovation will continue in all areas. Investment in research and development (R&D) is high and there are exciting developments in research methods. For example, in the discovery process, novel chemical and screening approaches allow the testing of 100 000 new molecules or more per year, compared with 15 000 under the previous methods. There are also the developments in biotechnology and transgenic insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops. These are truly exciting − what started 15 years ago in the laboratory is now in practice in the field. Contrary to the predictions, the industry still has the ability and the willingness to be innovative. More recently, however, the really big changes have been driven by social, political and ecological factors. The public now demands more information and, since the mid-1980s, pressure groups and stakeholders that previously had no interest in crop protection have become highly active. Today, we must take consumers' concerns about food safety into consideration. The food industry now has a say in crop protection practices, as retailers increasingly establish contractual relationships with growers and suppliers in order to respond to consumer needs. Many people are concerned about the effects of crop protection products (both agrochemicals and genetically modified crops) on the environment. Following the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis, people in Europe no longer feel that they can trust science, scientists and the various regulatory bodies. As stakeholders and green interest groups have become active, they have expressed their needs, wishes, concerns and ideas about crop protection. Over the past 10 years the industry has been continually consolidating and restructuring, a process that is ongoing. Strategic alliances, mainly in the biotechnology area, are reinforcing access to basic technology. Some of the biggest players in the industry have recently been life sciences companies, a distinctive sign of the times. At the same time, the cost of doing business continues to rise, partly as a result of regulatory demands for additional safety data. The regulatory arena is characterized by two noticeable trends: a demand for ever more safety data, coupled with increased international harmonization efforts. The big challenge in the regulatory environment is the costly re-registration programme, designed to ensure that older generation, but still widely used, products meet today's high environmental and safety standards. More positively, the industry recognizes the efforts made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and fully supports its harmonization and risk-reduction projects. However, the trend towards regulation based on nonscientific criteria such as the precautionary principle remains a great concern for the industry. The supporters of the precautionary principle believe that society should not accept any risks, but they forget that zero risk does not exist. Significant changes have also occurred in public policy. European Union (EU) policy now considers the environment in all policy areas, and two key terms −sustainability and greening − have become fundamental to agricultural and crop protection policy. Food safety has become a major topic with DG XXIV becoming the EU food safety champion. (DG XXIV is the European Commission's Directorate General on consumer policy and consumer health protection). This trend is not confined to Europe. In the USA, the Food Quality Protection Act has similar aims. Globalization of the food market is also starting to affect crop protection regulation. The social, political and regulatory environments that have an impact on the crop protection industry have become much more complex in the last decade and business has to adapt. The crop protection industry continues to be responsive and has clearly shown a willingness and capacity to introduce and manage change. Key to the industry's successful adaptation has been the realization that it cannot do business successfully by going against the needs and interests of society, and that commercial and ecological goals are entirely compatible. As a result of this process, the industry has become more open and transparent in its operations and in the integration of social and ecological goals. These rank with high priority alongside economic and technical objectives. New products are important for the long-term future of companies. As well as biological properties and profitability, the selection criteria include ever better ecological and safety profiles. The optimization and safety improvement of the supply chain is another major ongoing area of investment. The supply chain comprises all operations from design, production, formulation, packaging, transport, warehousing, use and waste management. Safety, emissions reduction, energy reduction and waste reduction are the objectives. Today's supply chains of agrochemicals are of the highest standard in any industry. Industry has also shown its commitment to new objectives such as risk reduction as a continuing process, to food safety and to sustainable development. All three can be reached through the widespread adoption and promotion of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Crop Management (ICM). The new thinking has enabled us to co-operate better with official services and institutions, the food chain industries, academia, farmers and, hopefully soon, green nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Initiatives that show our willingness to take responsibility beyond product sales and to continue further to reduce risk include not only ICM but also resistance management strategies and product stewardship programmes. A concerted effort has been made, as an industry, to improve communications. Companies have set up public relations and communications departments and have begun the task of communicating the benefits of crop protection products to a wider audience. The industry has shown itself to be more accessible and less defensive. It is prepared to answer its critics openly and honestly and to listen to others' views on how it could do its job more effectively. Corrective measures have been taken where there was room for improvement, for example with the reduction in ground water contamination. This change is now providing the basis for an effective dialogue. The industry has also become much more attentive to policy concerns. It is more aware of the objectives of public policies on the environment, consumer affairs and agriculture. It sees these not as a threat but as part of society's development, and takes them into account in its strategic development and product marketing. Looking to the future, where will the crop protection industry be in the year 2010? Globally, the demand for food is growing. By the turn of the century there will be around 6 billion people in the world and that number will rise to 8 billion by 2020–25. Furthermore, sustained population growth, urbanization and changing diets, brought about by higher standards of living, will mean that food consumption should gather pace during the next few years in many developing countries in Latin America and Asia. Forecasts from the International Food Policy Research Institute suggest that meat demand in China will rise by 85% over the next 20 years and cereal demand by 30%. But all this food must not only be safe to eat, it must also be produced in a sustainable way without consuming more wild-land and forests, and therefore it must be grown from the same amount of cultivated land. People living in the industrialized world play a dual role. As well as being consumers, they are also citizens. As consumers they are concerned about the safety, price, availability, variety, presentation and quality of their food. All these factors affect the demand for food to a greater or lesser extent, depending on individual culture and social standing. As citizens, however, people have demands that impinge on the way their food is produced. Europe's citizens are vociferous in their requests for sustainable production and they want tax-payers' money to be used for environmental projects rather than for simple farm subsidies. These conflicting demands must be reconciled by farmers, regulators, policy makers, the food industry, advisers, retailers and the farm input industry, including the crop protection sector. There will, therefore, in future be more specialization in the way crop protection products are used. Specific label recommendations will be linked to detailed quality and retailer requirements. There will be more voluntary agreements and specific delivery contracts that specify the inputs to be used. Quality, in all its dimensions, not just appearance but also intrinsic qualities such as storability, will be key. And in the quest for food safety and sustainable production, traceability from plough to plate will become commonplace. The evolution of crop protection technology over the next decade will most likely see chemical control remaining the backbone of crop protection ( Table 1). New chemistry will see the emergence of chemical resistance inducers that will stimulate plants to express systemically acquired resistance to pathogens. There will be an increasing role for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) although the substitution for chemicals will not be dramatic and perhaps only substituting for 10–15% of the European products market. In disease control, substitution will be less than in insect control because of the present lack of genes. Biological controls will remain a very small part of the market, chiefly constrained by their low efficacy levels and poor reliability. Companies will prefer to invest resources in chemistry or biotechnology rather than in biological control. All available technologies, however, must be utilized in an integrated way using both good chemistry and new biotechnology, including resistance management and IPM/ICM, to meet the challenges of sustainability. Developments in the regulatory arena will continue to be essential. The industry accepts regulation as the ultimate proof of safety and as a sign of shared responsibility with officials. The safety standards reached today are already high in many countries. However, as a result of the globalization of the food market and the currently insufficient use of available data, the following changes must materialize: 1 harmonization and standardization of the data requirements and submissions, primarily through OECD; 2 additional legislation on the basis of voluntary agreements rather than through the old-fashioned command and control style; 3 fair re-registration programmes where product safety data are revisited from time to time to check them against modern standards; 4 continued scientific risk-assessment as the basis for registration (with only exceptional application of the precautionary principle); 5 continued risk-reduction and minimization programmes. By 2010, crop protection products will be safer than ever. Why? They will be safer not only because technological developments will result in intrinsically safer products, but also because the formulations and packaging of the products will continue to improve. At the same time, the products will be used at lower doses without being more toxic to nontarget species. Looking ahead, it is also clear that the area where the biggest impact can be made to improve safety and reduce risk is through better risk management during the actual in-field use of the products ( Figure 1). This involves better application techniques, better cleaning procedures, and better waste management. Farmers will also need to seek more professional advice, take on precision farming, apply good agricultural practice, and do more on-farm auditing and monitoring. Widespread education and training will further enhance the farmer's ability to deliver the high professional standards that are expected of him. Safe usage will also be reinforced by additional legislation on the certification of operators and distributors and the inspection of spray equipment. ICM is the key, with its systematic three-step approach, focusing on pest-prevention strategies, observation and forecasting before making spraying decisions, and actual intervention (i.e. spraying). The key to safe crop protection: usage practices. With sustainable agriculture as a long-term objective, crop protection will clearly remain an area of innovation and change for the foreseeable future. This will no doubt intensify as we accept the need to integrate conventional chemistry and gene technology. The industry has, however, already accepted that it operates in a political environment requiring specific, proactive measures. One of the many responses that the industry has developed to the challenges posed by the political environment in which it now operates is ICM − an environmentally responsible and economically viable system that responds to the needs of consumers and citizens. As a next step, however, we will need to gain broader consumer acceptance of the role that crop protection plays in modern agriculture. Here, too, plant pathologists can make a contribution, namely by pursuing progress in disease control and communicating with consumers and the NGOs that represent them. Again, the answer lies in continued teamwork and collaboration as we work to build a wider consensus. The author of this paper considered that the general and political nature of the content precluded the use of references to other published work on the topic of crop protection.