On 22 November, the EU Parliament voted against a legislative proposal that would have halved the use of pesticides in agriculture by 2030. This came after an intense campaign by pesticide producers who gained the support of MEPs from the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP). Decision-makers were not swayed by the 6,000 scientists who campaigned for the legislation, nor by the more than one million European citizens who signed the Save Bees and Farmers initiative. Already in summer, the industrial agriculture lobbyists had tried to kill the Nature Restoration Law. Both efforts are part of the campaign against the European Green Deal.  

Zuzana Vlasatá: In November, the European Parliament rejected the EU Pesticide Reduction Law. What does this mean? 

Nina Holland: It means that the lobbying campaign led by pesticide corporations and the agroindustry has been successful. It became clear that there is close cooperation between pesticide producers, the chemical industry, the agroindustry, and EPP conservatives. The political allies of these industries acted in their interests.  

How was this evident? 

We could see the first success of the campaign a year ago, when lobbyists convinced the agriculture ministers of EU member states to demand that the EU Commission carry out an impact assessment of pesticide legislation. This has considerably slowed down the whole process and contributed to its outcome. 

However, the complete rejection of the proposal still came to many as a surprise. We expected the law to be significantly weakened but we didn’t think that it would not pass at all. The result is a perfect example of how corporate capture works – in other words, how a major political group in the EU Parliament defends the interests of corporations instead of the public. 

The call for an impact assessment of the legislation came during the Czech presidency of the EU Council. Do we know whether the Czech Republic played a role in this? 

The Czech Republic, like the current Spanish presidency, has not been very supportive of the pesticide regulation. It certainly did not move the law forward in any constructive way. Officially, it was not among the countries that required an impact assessment. Nevertheless, the Czech presidency did not play a positive role in the efforts to reduce pesticides.  

Who are the strongest voices against the Green Deal and environmental legislation? 

In 2021, six impact studies were produced, paid for by the very industries that were to be affected by the regulation. They were initiated by organisations such as CropLife Europe, which represents pesticide producers, or Copa-Cogeca, which is the lobby of industrial agriculture. Then there were large grain traders.  

In short, all those with a stake in cheap supplies of commodities from large-scale monoculture farming. They presented impact assessments and coordinated lobbying. 

Is this what lobbying in Brussels normally looks like? 

Individual pesticide producers have their own ambassadors for this work.  In addition, these companies also join lobbying associations such as CropLife Europe or Plastics Europe, which brings together plastics producers. This is how they work together to protect their interests. More lobbying takes place in member states’ capitals and their permanent representations to the European Union. 

Which countries have been particularly vocal in the fight against pesticide reduction? 

Spain, the Baltic states, and some Central and Eastern European countries. In total, fifteen countries were very critical of pesticide reduction. Regarding the impact assessment study, we have heard from various leaks, particularly from the offices of the permanent representations, that the aim was to show the Commission who was in charge. It was a message from the big companies to the European institutions that the industry was not satisfied with the proposed legislation. Many states have backed this message up with the authority of their ministers. 

Another thing is that even those states that did not directly oppose the law might have taken an active part, through their ministers, in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. The Council works closely with the lobby association Copa-Cogeca, whose representatives are routinely invited to one-on-one meetings where they can present their demands. No other association has such a privilege.  

Which member states ended up being the most supportive of pesticide reduction? 

Most notably Germany and the Netherlands. 

What was really at stake for the pesticide industry? Some estimates say that in the EU alone, the pesticide trade is around 12 billion euros a year. 

The proposal aimed to reduce the use of pesticides and the associated risks by half. And to also halve the use of the most dangerous substances. There would be binding targets for each member state, which would be a huge shift from the current legislation that tells the states to encourage farmers to apply chemical pest control as a last resort. They should give priority to crop rotation, weeding, and other practices. Of course, it doesn’t work like that. 

If we reduce the use of chemical pesticides, the development of biological solutions will be much faster. We already have many such solutions available, but more will come. But as we can see, corporations like Bayer or BASF, which depend on the sale of pesticides, want to undermine the success of biological prevention.  

So, can we say that the whole effort to reduce the use of pesticides in European agriculture is a losing battle at the moment? 

There are still some things to be gained, but also some things to lose. There will be a discussion on seed legislation. A proposal to radically deregulate the use of new technologies for genetically modified (GM) crops, such as CRISPR gene editing, will be debated. These efforts aim to ensure that GM crops cannot be labelled in any way. So, consumers and farmers would have no idea what they are working with and what is on their plate. The plan is that these genetically modified organisms would not undergo any safety tests, and would not be monitored, but could be patented. 

The same corporations that produce pesticides want to develop and sell such seeds. They have succeeded in convincing the Commission that deregulation of genetically modified organisms is essential to reducing pesticides. This is possibly the most cynical aspect of the whole situation. 

When will be the next opportunity to reduce pesticides? 

There’s still plenty to do. For example, there is room for improvement in the pesticide approval process. This will be a new challenge for the future Commission once it takes office.  

Some member states have national laws that can be used to win individual lawsuits. And then there are many things that citizens themselves can do: support organic food producers and farmers who do not use pesticides and so on. 

How are people supposed to find out what is important when there is so much conflicting information? How can they be sure that the Commission is not taking them for a ride when it says that reducing pesticides will not put food safety at risk? 

The Commission is also not united in its opinion; some voices within it have opposed the fundamental reduction of pesticides, even though the EU executive as a whole has backed the demand to reduce pesticides by half.  

Food security can only be guaranteed in the long term in a functioning ecosystem, which is at odds with the current overuse of pesticides. We must remember that nowadays, we are wasting enormous amounts of food and energy – this has nothing to do with food security. For example, potatoes grown on thousands of hectares in Holland and Belgium are fried into French fries, deep frozen, and exported to Latin America. Colombia tried to stop this but without success. 

Is it possible to describe the role played by big agricultural entrepreneurs such as former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš in the lobbying machine against pesticide reduction? 

Copa Cogeca is an association that defends the interests of entrepreneurs like Babiš. And it is in line with the pesticide producers. A Copa-Cogeca spokesman told Politico that smaller farms have no chance of surviving in the future anyway. If we go along with their policy, that is indeed what will happen. 

What role do universities and scientific institutions play in lobbying and campaigning for industrial agriculture? 

Corporate lobbying through science has been around for decades. Tobacco or chemical companies used it in the past. The aim has always been to produce scientific evidence to cast doubt on the harmfulness of a particular product. It has long been a very effective method.  

For example, in the Netherlands, the public sector, including universities, has been considerably liberalised since the 1990s, forcing public institutions to accept money from private entities. Wageningen University, for instance, now has a private and a public part. The private research institute publishes completely uncritical studies commissioned by CropLife Europe. The institute even sends its staff to present the studies at lobby meetings. 

One of the frequent arguments against pesticide reduction is that everything cannot be replaced by organic farming. Was this also the case for the Brussels debate? 

Yes, especially the most vocal proponents of pesticides like to claim that organic farming takes up too much space. But if we compare this with how much food is wasted in industrial agriculture, the pollution it produces, and the contribution it makes to climate change, and if we look at who pays these costs, we get a very different picture.  

Cleaning the water polluted by pesticides is paid for by the states with public money that could be invested elsewhere – for example, in making organic farming more productive. Moreover, for some crops, the area needed for organic farming is not much bigger. And we probably don’t need to export Dutch fries to Colombia either. Also – and I want to emphasise this – nobody is saying that we should immediately switch to 100 per cent organic farming. The goal was to reach 50 per cent by 2030.  

This whole time, we have been talking about the fact that these necessary changes go completely against the interests of the corporations that profit from the status quo. That is why they put so much effort into opposing the Pesticide Reduction Law. What else can be done to make sure that the decision doesn’t remain theirs alone? 

We need to get organised, build a progressive movement, and present a programme attractive even to people in difficult social situations. Offer affordable alternatives and support small farmers locally.  

What could member states do to play a positive role? 

They have control over where exactly agricultural subsidies are poured. We see this, for example, in France, where there is strong protection of land prices. This makes access to land much easier than in other countries. National governments can also introduce subsidies to support the transition to organic farming and the reduction of pesticides. 

We need to remember that small farmers and other citizens share the same interests. Whereas the goals of the agrochemical industry and pesticide traders are completely opposite.   

This interview was originally published in Czech by Deník Referendum. Translation by Martina Duskova.