13.12.2025
Pesticides are always good
Dear readers
Pesticides are always good. Good for any scandal. With the word component “pest,” the Grim Reaper literally strides through the mind's eye, reaping people in vast numbers. Today's scythe is the spray boom. Television and newspapers prefer to show tractors spraying pesticides indiscriminately, with as much drift as possible, so that the deadly cloud is visible. This also identifies the modern Grim Reaper: farmers who apply pesticides and the industry that manufactures them.
The association between agriculture and pesticides also has an immediate effect when disturbing findings are made, such as the fact that young men in rural areas have lower sperm quality. Some media outlets assign blame directly, while others seem somewhat disappointed when researchers clarify that the causes for the findings are unknown – apart from the fact that the cohort studied is far too small.
Clearly identified villains are also a great way to create entertaining stories: The Tatort episode “Letzte Ernte” (Last Harvest) is a wild mix from the artistic poison cabinet – broadcast during prime time on SRF as well. This broadcaster is particularly interested in pesticides, and they are an essential part as well of the radio station's 18-year history of science program: the editor asks her colleague why she chose to focus on “this toxic topic.” This question sets the stage for a discussion on harmful environmental impacts and bans. Only once is the question asked whether bans could adversely affect food production—the answer to this was: “That is probably not the right question, because the way our food is produced today would destroy our livelihoods...”
This reveals a major blind spot: pesticides are not used for the sake of it, or even for pleasure. They are simply a necessity when farmers need to protect their crops or we want to protect our beloved roses. For farmers, they are a cost factor; they carefully weigh up whether application is necessary or whether other measures are sufficient. He or she is constantly faced with decisions about whether to protect crops or risk crop failures that no one will compensate them for. A total failure shortly before harvest is particularly detrimental: the financial, personnel, and energy costs for the passages, the costs for fertilizer and plant protection—all for nothing, plus loss of income and food waste. A factor that the federal government also “forgets” in its latest status report on food waste prevention: food waste due to a lack of plant protection—just like food waste among consumers caused by poor quality and shelf life as a result of a lack of plant protection products.
Anyone who wants to recognize these conflicting goals must be aware of the benefits of pesticides and their contribution to resource-efficient agriculture. But we must also be aware that we use them diligently in everyday life beyond rose protection: we clean and disinfect. We kill germs, for example in the bathroom with bleach. In the kitchen, we sometimes use disinfectants too sparingly. And that can lead to salmonella or listeria infections.
As reported by the Tages-Anzeiger newspaper, seven people have died in Switzerland in the last three years from listeria poisoning. One source was traced to a yeast factory. With better hygiene and disinfection, the listeria victims would probably still be alive. Disinfectants are classified as biocides. Biocides, in turn, are the second subgroup of pesticides alongside plant protection products.
Pesticides are extremely useful. They combat germs and pests, protect plants, and are indispensable in the fight against invasive species. Effective insecticides are also needed to combat the Asian hornet, which is spreading in this country and threatening the native honeybee. And anyone who encounters ants or mosquitoes in their home will buy an effective insecticide from the drugstore.
The benefits of pesticides are obvious, just as the benefits of medicines are obvious. They are among the most thoroughly tested chemicals. And often the same molecules are found in a wide variety of uses. However, when they are detected in tiny amounts in water, as was recently the case in Lake Geneva, it is the pesticide manufacturers who are singled out for criticism.
Farmers need crop protection products to maintain healthy crops, protect their harvests, and thus their incomes. Let's be honest: how many of us office workers would accept wage fluctuations of several tens of percent? But that's what farmers have to deal with. And for us consumers, it's about being able to buy affordable, high-quality food. But in Europe and Switzerland, risks quickly come to the forefront, and opportunities are lost sight of. However, “A society that no longer takes risks becomes stagnant. Not everything you risk succeeds, but everything that succeeds was once risked,” as former Federal Councilor Kaspar Villiger aptly analyzes. Farmers and the research industry take risks every day. Without them, we would not be where we are today in terms of comfort.
If pesticides are subject to stricter restrictions, domestic production will decline and dependence on foreign countries will increase. This will weaken security of supply. We are avoiding undefined dangers, but in doing so we are creating new risks.
People often talk about Switzerland as a “paradise,” but at the same time, we're importing more and more. If you want stricter approval rules and bans, you need a realistic Plan B so farmers can keep making food. But there's no such plan. Instead, people are hyping up small-scale experiments that often don't work on a bigger scale. One swallow does not make a spring. And the principle of hope is simply inappropriate when it comes to something as important as our food.
Pesticides are always beneficial. They are essential for food security, wood preservation, and household hygiene, to name just a few examples. Pesticides have contributed to our ability to work in modern industrial halls or open-floor offices instead of having people pick potato beetles off plants by hand in the fields, as older generations describe.
Yes, risks must be assessed and managed – but isn't that what Homo sapiens do all the time in their everyday lives? Why aren't industry and farmers trusted to do the same? Zero tolerance or blanket bans, on the other hand, completely ignore reality and conflicting goals. As well as the long-standing, lengthy and non-transparent approval procedures for innovative plant protection products. The sharp rise in the number of emergency approvals clearly shows the inconsistency and plight of vegetable and fruit producers. It is important to use all active ingredients wisely and responsibly. This also applies to the media coverage of the topic of pesticides.
Your swiss-food editorial team
