Synthetic Pesticide Use in Africa

Toxicological and ecotoxicological pressure due to pesticide use in Sancti Spíritus, Cuba

Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research ◽

10.5424/sjar/2020184-15450 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 18 (4) ◽

pp. e0305

Author(s):

Edelbis López-Dávila ◽

Michael Houbraken ◽

Jasmine De Rop ◽

Gijs Du Laing ◽

Osvaldo Romero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Management Practices ◽

Inorganic Compounds ◽

Aquatic Organisms ◽

Risk Indicator ◽

Pesticide Use ◽

Personal Protection Equipment ◽

Frequency Of Use ◽

Synthetic Pesticide ◽

Potential Risks ◽

Risk Of Exposure

Aim of study: To quantify the toxicity and ecotoxicological pressure of pesticides in Sancti Spíritus province, Cuba, between 2011 and 2014.Material and methods: A longitudinal descriptive study was designed for the study period, to identify potential risks to the environment and human health associated with the use of pesticides. In order to determine the toxicity and ecotoxicity of pesticide use, ƩSeq (Spread equivalents), POCER (Pesticide Occupational and Environmental Risk) indicator, and the Toxic Load (TL) methodology of the Plant Health Cuban Institute were used.Main results: Corresponding to 62 chemical families, 124 active ingredients were applied in the province during the study period. Organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, inorganic compounds (such as copper), dithiocarbamates, aryloxyphenoxypropionates, neonicotinoids, sulfonylurea, triazoles, and organochlorines predominated due to their frequency of use. Use of toxic-pesticides, lack of personal protection equipment amount others made workers, residents and applicators the toxicological modules with the highest risk of exposure. From the POCER results we found that aquatic organisms, persistence, and groundwater are the modules with the highest ecotoxicological pressure.Research highlights: With the use of the POCER indicator as well as ƩSeq, a more accurate assessment of toxicity and ecotoxicity from certain pesticide can be done instead of the TL equation currently used in Cuba. In addition substitution of the most toxic pesticides by less toxic ones could help to reduce synthetic pesticide pressure on humans and the environment. This study can help to develop policies and management practices to reduce the hazards of synthetic pesticide use in Cuba.

Download Full-text

The Montreal Protocol and the Methyl Bromide Phaseout in the Soil Sector: Key Success Factors and Lessons Learned to Eliminate Synthetic Pesticide Use in Africa

Synthetic Pesticide Use in Africa ◽

10.1201/9781003007036-12 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 187-198

Author(s):

Mohamed Besri

Keyword(s):

Methyl Bromide ◽

Success Factors ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Montreal Protocol ◽

Pesticide Use ◽

Key Success Factors ◽

Synthetic Pesticide

Download Full-text

Lack of evidence for a decrease in synthetic pesticide use on the main arable crops in France

The Science of The Total Environment ◽

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.008 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 575 ◽

pp. 152-161 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Laure Hossard ◽

Laurence Guichard ◽

Céline Pelosi ◽

David Makowski

Keyword(s):

Pesticide Use ◽

Arable Crops ◽

Synthetic Pesticide

Download Full-text

Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review

Agronomy for Sustainable Development ◽

10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 41 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Jean-Philippe Deguine ◽

Jean-Noël Aubertot ◽

Rica Joy Flor ◽

Françoise Lescourret ◽

Kris A.G. Wyckhuys ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Integrated Pest Management ◽

Pest Management ◽

Agricultural Landscape ◽

Technology Development ◽

Crop Protection ◽

Pesticide Use ◽

Human Right ◽

Synthetic Pesticide ◽

The 1960S ◽

Farmer Livelihoods

AbstractIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) provides an illustration of how crop protection has (or has not) evolved over the past six decades. Throughout this period, IPM has endeavored to promote sustainable forms of agriculture, pursued sharp reductions in synthetic pesticide use, and thereby resolved myriad socio-economic, environmental, and human health challenges. Global pesticide use has, however, largely continued unabated, with negative implications for farmer livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and the human right to food. In this review, we examine how IPM has developed over time and assess whether this concept remains suited to present-day challenges. We believe that despite many good intentions, hard realities need to be faced. 1) We identify the following major weaknesses: i) a multitude of IPM definitions that generate unnecessary confusion; ii) inconsistencies between IPM concepts, practice, and policies; iii) insufficient engagement of farmers in IPM technology development and frequent lack of basic understanding of its underlying ecological concepts. 2) By diverting from the fundamental IPM principles, integration of practices has proceeded along serendipitous routes, proven ineffective, and yielded unacceptable outcomes. 3) We show that in the majority of cases, chemical control still remains the basis of plant health programs. 4) Furthermore, IPM research is often lagging, tends to be misguided, and pays insufficient attention to ecology and to the ecological functioning of agroecosystems. 5) Since the 1960s, IPM rules have been twisted, its foundational concepts have degraded and its serious (farm-level) implementation has not advanced. To remedy this, we are proposing Agroecological Crop Protection as a concept that captures how agroecology can be optimally put to the service of crop protection. Agroecological Crop Protection constitutes an interdisciplinary scientific field that comprises an orderly strategy (and clear prioritization) of practices at the field, farm, and agricultural landscape level and a dimension of social and organizational ecology.

Download Full-text