There have been complaints from the agro-industry sector that the decision, while good for the environment, is not so good for science because it was allegedly not made on ‘scientific evidence’. The argument is that the decision to ban chemicals used in pest control should be made not on how hazardous the pesticide is in a lab experiment, but in the field. The main issue, says the agro-industry lobby, should be how the chemical is used and how diluted it would be when applied in real life. There are many hazardous chemicals in our every day food but their being there isn’t the issue, rather it is how much of these chemicals are present in our food, say agro-industry proponents.

It is initially thought that 85% of chemicals that will be looked into will be banned. The Swedish government has estimated that 23 chemicals will no longer be able to be used. Some fear that this will cause the food supply to decrease due to the increase of food-borne pests. One unnamed British environmental consulting firm is quoted to have estimated that the total food production drop could be as high as 25% drop in the EU.

However, other sources with much stronger environmental credentials than the agro-industry nay-sayers, point out that proper biological and more eco-friendly bio-degradable pest control measures should quickly overcome any initial production losses by virtue of healthier plants, better nutritional value in the crops and generally much better food quality for end-users. There may initially be some slight upward pressure on costs, but with the new measures forcing producers across the EU to adopt more eco-friendly practices, the demand for these methods of pest control will be more than sufficient to drive a new agro-related industry providing eco-friendly crop controls, so the increased initial costs should quickly be off-set. Thereafter, savings are more likely for producers, especially if they don’t have to buy expensive new-generation chemicals on an annual basis.

Agro-industry sources say the bigger issue for the developing world would be malaria, transmitted by mosquitoes, which causes over a million deaths a year. Some of the chemicals listed to be banned are actually very important in aiding the fight against this illness. There is some validity to this point and a reversion to the use of DDT has been contemplated or actually activated in some parts of Africa where a virulent, frequently fatal cerebral malaria strain has been on the rapid rise, driven in part by higher rainfall and warmer weather caused by global warming.

But a reliance on DDT and other harsh chemical agents that are indiscriminate in their effects on a wide variety of species, not just insect pests, is not the long-term solution to malaria, in particular. Again, biological measures are far better and more likely to succeed. One such, currently under development is the introduction of genetically altered, sexually neutered mosquitoes into established populations. With sufficient numbers, the rate of successful breeding should drop dramatically, if initial indications are borne out. Repeat releases of mosquitoes incapable of producing subsequent generations may lead to eradication or near eradication of these malaria-carrying pests in target areas. This is just one of a number of approaches to the problem, another being the breeding of mosquitoes whose immune systems will attack the parasite that causes malaria, thereby eliminating its vector of transmission. The advantage of this approach is that it may well be applied to other mosquito-borne diseases currently spreading around the world – also in part due to global warming – like West Nile virus and dengue fever.