Experts: Novel pest control solutions exist, but are ‘stuck in pipeline’

There are plenty of promising innovations which could help dramatically lower the use of pesticides, but these remain stuck in the pipeline, hampered by maladapted regulation and low confidence levels, scientists from leading research centre Rothamsted told EURACTIV.

The EU has outlined its ambition to slash in half the use and risk of chemical pesticides in its flagship food policy, the Farm to Fork strategy, by 2030.

The move has proven controversial, with stakeholders questioning both the direction of travel and whether farmers had the tools to get there.

But for Linda Field, a leading insect molecular biologist and professor emerita at Rothamsted, the longest-running agricultural research institute in the world, such targets can sometimes be a ‘good thing’ because “it galvanises things into action”.

Stressing that the sector has made considerable progress over the past decade, the researcher told EURACTIV that she is “quite optimistic that we will make quite big strides” over the coming years. 

According to Field – who until recently led the research centre’s Biointeractions and Crop Protection unit and has 45 years of research experience under her belt – the future of crop protection lies in a ‘whole systems approach’.

Such an approach involves a combination of selective chemistry alongside more resilient crops, healthier biodiversity and a deeper ecological understanding.

“We’re getting to the stage where we can develop chemistry that kills an aphid, but not a bee. It’s more difficult, but it is doable,” she said.

The research centre has no shortage of promising leads in the pipeline, from projects sequencing the genome of pests to identify species-specific target proteins, to LED beams which help accurately identify insect species for surveillance programmes.

“And, if these [innovations] all come through, it’s kind of the opposite of a perfect storm, where everything goes wrong – I can see that could be a perfect summer’s day,” she said.

Plenty of potential stuck in the pipeline

However, such innovations often struggle to break through from research to the field, according to Rothamsted’s Sam Cook, a behavioural ecologist who specialises in the development of ecologically-based tactics for integrated pest management (IPM).

Her research has a strong focus on using the natural enemies of crop pests that are “already out there in the environment”, something she called a “big, untapped resource”.

Despite this potential, alternative pest control methods “aren’t really coming through and they’re getting stuck in research labs”, she said.

“There’s all this pest control for free out there, and we’re not using it properly for farmers,” she said, lamenting the fact that there’s “a lot in the research pipeline, but it’s not getting out of the pipeline”.

According to the researcher, regulation is a “big part of that”.

“Companies are not willing to invest in alternatives because they know the regulatory process is so difficult and it’s so expensive that it’s probably not worth that investment,” she explained.

For instance, one promising, targeted technology cited by the researcher is the use of RNA interference (RNAi). When taken up by pests, this initiates a cellular mechanism that uses the gene’s own DNA sequence to silence certain genes.

But while the technology has demonstrable potential, it has been ‘temporarily dropped’ by many companies which “initially showed quite a lot of interest” – something Cook puts down to maladapted regulation unable to cope with new innovations.

‘Uneven’ burden of risk 

Meanwhile, both scientists noted that the burden of risk remains too firmly on the farmer’s shoulders.

“There doesn’t seem to be enough reward for those farmers that are carrying that risk and are trying to do the right thing, and that needs to change,” Cook said.

She stressed that IPM is ‘knowledge intensive’ and that, as such, farmers require support to implement strategies at the farm level effectively.

Likewise, Field noted that, as things currently stand, it “doesn’t pay” for commercial advisors to recommend farmers to use ‘riskier’ alternatives because “if they don’t work, it comes back on the advisor”.

This encourages many to recommend spraying pesticides as it’s “more certain and it’s easier to do”, she said.

“My feeling would be that, if [the EU is] really going to go for this [2030] target, we must try and build up confidence and types of alternative control,” she said, stressing the need to “get farmers groups on board”.

Likewise, the Commission acknowledged that “[a] key hurdle in the adoption of IPM [integrated pest management] and novel technologies is the uncertainty farmers face regarding their effectiveness and proper use,” in a leaked impact assessment of the EU’s plan to slash the use and risk of pesticides in half by 2030.

For this reason, the EU executive suggests the inclusion of farmers in supporting their confidence in the transition to more sustainable plant protection products.

LEAK: Commission dismissive of food security fears in new pesticide study

The EU plan to cut pesticide use and risk in half by 2030 will have its largest impact on crops having ‘little or no impact on food security’, the European Commission predicted in its additional impact assessment requested by EU ministers.

[Edited by Gerardo Fortuna/Nathalie Weatherald]

Read more with Euractiv

LEAK: Commission dismissive of food security fears in new pesticide study

The EU plan to cut pesticide use and risk in half by 2030 will have its largest impact on crops having 'little or no impact on food security', the European Commission predicted in its additional impact assessment requested by EU ministers.