I am no fan of agricultural chemicals but without them food would cost much more
|
Version 0 of 1. There is a debate to be had about the use of chemicals on Australian farms but it needs to begin with a question: are we willing to pay more for fresh produce? For the past couple of weeks, planes have been spraying some canola crops around us with fungicide. We rely on tank water that is collected from the roofs of our house and sheds. So aerial spraying of fungicide does not spark joy. The crops are being sprayed from the air because it has been a wet year and you can’t drive on the paddocks. We are entering our third La Niña and we know extreme events will only increase with global warming. There are no easy solutions in any part of agriculture that pays the bills. Chemicals are a big part of most high-production farm budgets and chemical costs are rising faster than any other farm cost. In recent weeks, Guardian Australia has rolled out a series on the use of agricultural chemicals in Australia. It focused on the types of chemicals used compared to other countries, the trade implications these bring, the lack of data for pesticide residues and the hollowing out of regulatory agencies such as the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It is a debate we have to have. But it must be done with two realities held in our heads. First, governments have pushed farmers to design high-productivity businesses to deliver the maximum possible volume of produce at the lowest possible food price. That food has fed a lot of people. Second, eaters’ antennae are increasingly twitchy about chemical use, often without an understanding of how those chemicals are used. The range and diversity of farmer opinions on this topic underlines the fact that there is no single industry view when it comes to the use of herbicides and pesticides. Murray Scholz is a grain and beef producer near Culcairn in southern New South Wales. More than 15 years ago, he did a Nuffield scholarship on integrated weed management and the implications of glyphosate-resistant weeds. He was ahead of the curve – but remains cautious. “The real value that herbicides have given us is that we developed a farming system suited to our natural environment with very little cultivation,” Scholz said. “I’m no advocate for pesticides but if you look at the European system, it has a huge carbon footprint. It’s a complex issue to make systems fit a natural environment while still delivering lots of food at a reasonable price for the consumer.” Scholz thinks the European Union is using the heavy regulation of chemicals as an artificial trade barrier, more than anything else. “The European hazard system bans products based on a criteria of hazardous properties. If the same system was applied to food, things like alcohol and salt would not be allowed. Just because something is natural, doesn’t mean it isn’t hazardous.” Europe and the UK are not a perfect production system – no one has one – and their farmers are heavily subsidised. Also the UK manufactures chemicals like Paraquat even though their own farmers aren’t allowed to use it. But they are a rich region, and while they don’t account for a lot of our trade, they are a target market. So trade hurdles are a sign of things to come for Australian farmers. Lamb producer Vince Heffernan transitioned to biodynamics a couple of decades ago. He grew up on his farm, using arsenic to dip sheep. While his father questioned the practice, he took advice from experts. Heffernan pointed out the different withholding periods for agvet chemicals like livestock drenches, dips and lice treatments. As a result, the time in which you can eat meat after treatment is different for Australian domestic consumption compared with export. “In some cases, you can dip a sheep and it is not allowed to go for export in Europe but you are allowed to eat it in Australia. It makes you think: how does that work, what is going on there?” He no longer uses those products and has developed a healthy market direct to consumers and restaurants for his Moorlands lamb. “I’m a big believer in oils ain’t oils. Not all farmers are equal, not all farms are equal and it is not black of white. The utilisation of some chemicals can make sense but not broad use.” The other complication with a black-and-white approach to chemical usage is in the environmental space. The council’s CEO, Andrew Cox, told Guardian Australia that without weed control, native ecosystems could be replaced by exotic plant species. But herbicides and pesticides must be used according to instructions, he said. “Glyphosate is a widely used and effective herbicide for controlling environmental weeds in bushland and other native vegetation. “There are measures that can avoid glyphosate exposure to humans and the potential for harm. There are controls on its use and if used correctly, current research suggests it is unlikely to cause cancer in humans. Glyphosate readily breaks down on exposure to the soil, so it is not a persistent chemical.” Cox said the council did not support the widespread application of glyphosate on agricultural crops, “a practice which has become common”. But he pointed out that banning a more widely studied chemical, such as glyphosate, could increase usage of less studied chemicals that might be more harmful. “There would be greater environmental harm caused if these tools are not available to land managers. A ban on glyphosate would have serious environmental consequences with weed invasions increasing in areas of native vegetation, such as national parks.” This story was amended on 12 October 2022 to remove text stating that the Invasive Species Council uses glyphosate to control weeds. The Invasive Species Council does not do on-ground management in general. Its core focus as an organisation is advocacy around biosecurity and invasive species to protect the environment and prevent extinctions. |