{"id":29349,"date":"2021-06-11T00:01:36","date_gmt":"2021-06-11T04:01:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=29349"},"modified":"2021-06-11T09:25:52","modified_gmt":"2021-06-11T13:25:52","slug":"switzerland-to-hold-landmark-vote-on-nationwide-ban-of-all-synthetic-pesticides-june-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2021\/06\/switzerland-to-hold-landmark-vote-on-nationwide-ban-of-all-synthetic-pesticides-june-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Switzerland to Hold Landmark Vote on Nationwide Ban of All Synthetic Pesticides June 13"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, June 11, 2021) On Sunday, June 13, Switzerland will hold a national vote<\/a> on two landmark initiatives related to pesticide use (as well as several referenda). The vote on one initiative, dubbed by advocates \u201cFor a Switzerland Free of Synthetic Pesticides\u201d (FSFSP), will determine whether or not the country will ban synthetic pesticides. If it does, it will become the first European nation to do so. The other initiative, which aims to eliminate direct subsidies of farmers who use synthetic\u00a0pesticides or antibiotics for livestock, is focused on improving the quality of Switzerland’s drinking water and food supply. Beyond Pesticides covered<\/a> the grassroots origin of the Swiss \u201cno synthetic pesticides\u201d initiative in 2018 and sees potential passage of both it and the water quality initiative as a watershed moment in the protection of health and the environment. These measures would go a long way to protecting and improving the health of humans and ecosystems, and the food supply, as well as protecting biodiversity in Switzerland. It could also \u2014 as advocates hope \u2014 encourage other European countries to follow suit.<\/p>\r\n

This vote has been scheduled, in part, as an outcome of a 2018 petition by the advocacy group<\/a>, Future3<\/a>, which collected more than 100,000 signatures for the FSFSP initiative. That qualified it to be considered by the Swiss federal cabinet (the Federal Council), which then gave its recommendation to Parliament to schedule the upcoming vote. The measure would ban all uses of synthetic pesticides by\u00a0farmers and industry, as well as ban imported foodstuffs produced with synthetic pesticides (so as not to disadvantage Swiss farmers). The initiative provides a 10-year period during which farmers could make the transition off of synthetic pesticides.<\/p>\r\n

The clean water initiative, in addition to proscribing the use of pesticides, and of antibiotics for livestock, would prevent farmers from using imported animal feed (which could easily contain pesticide residues). In addition, it would limit the numbers of cows, pigs, and chickens being raised in the country in order to reduce all the problems associated with their manure<\/a>, including contaminated drinking water. Pascal Scheiwiller, an endorser of the clean water initiative \u2014 which estimates that a million Swiss residents drink contaminated water \u2014 commented<\/a>, \u201cPeople have been sold a romantic image of farming in Switzerland, which is far removed from reality.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Some opponents of the initiatives appear to have a different take on the \u201creality of farming\u201d in the country, calling the initiatives \u201cextreme<\/a>,\u201d and claiming that they are based on a misunderstanding of the realities of Swiss agriculture, and would cause enormous damage to farmers. The Swiss Farmers Union opposes the measures, saying that many members feel that their way of life is \u201cunder siege.\u201d Such identification of pesticide use with a valued \u201cway of life\u201d may reveal, at least in part, a different misunderstanding \u2014 of both the toll of pesticide use on health and the environment, and of the potential and benefits of non-chemical agriculture.<\/p>\r\n

Switzerland is home to Syngenta, the largest pesticide manufacturer in the world. The company has opposed and derided these measures since they were brought forward three years ago, warning that passage would reduce agricultural yields by up to 40%. This scare mongering flies in the face of evidence that non-chemical-intensive, organic practices can generate yields<\/a> on par with, and sometimes greater than, chemical production, and can improve profit margins. A well-kept \u201csecret\u201d about pesticides is that they do not actually work<\/a> as well as most farmers believe they do. Should the FSFSP initiative pass, the government would likely need to create technical and economic support programs<\/a> for farmers navigating the transition from intensive pesticide use to effective and practicable non-chemical and organic approaches.<\/p>\r\n

Swiss organic farmer and winemaker Roland Lenz \u2014 whose vineyards are surrounded by farmers who oppose these agricultural initiatives \u2014 favors them, saying that to continue pesticide use would be \u201csheer lunacy,\u201d particularly given that there are ready methods of growing successfully without them. He commented<\/a>, \u201cWith a \u2018Yes\u2019 vote on both initiatives, we will finally move from the chemical age back to the organic age,\u201d and added that passage of these measures \u201cwould allow Switzerland to become a pioneer in organic food as well as an example to the rest of the world.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Early on in the campaign for the FSFSP initiative, Professor Edward Mitchell of the University of Neuch\u00e2tel said<\/a>, \u201cI am convinced that other countries may follow suit. Switzerland with its direct democracy system is somewhat different from other countries, making such a change perhaps more likely in the short term. This puts us in a privileged position to act proactively rather than in response to government actions, and with this goes a responsibility to do so.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Reuters<\/em> reports<\/a> that the Swiss vote on these agriculture-related measures is expected to be close, following what the outlet calls \u201can unusually bitter debate over the initiatives. . . . A recent Tamedia [Zurich-based media company] poll showed 48% of voters favoured the drinking water initiative and 49% supported the pesticide ban.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The use of synthetic pesticides has been a contested issue across many European countries, and the European Union (EU), in recent years. Recent developments have included a 2018 EU ban<\/a> on outdoor uses of a number of commonly applied neonicotinoid pesticides; the European Parliament\u2019s special PEST Committee\u2019s 2019 recommendation of greatly strengthened pesticide regulation<\/a>; and the EU 2020 adoption of a new strategy to evaluate synergistic impacts<\/a> of multiple pesticide exposures. To date, only Bhutan has banned synthetic pesticides<\/a> altogether and adopted organic farming practices.<\/p>\r\n

Beyond Pesticides has spent decades laying out the risks and impacts of synthetic pesticide use \u2014 for human and ecosystem health, for organism health and biodiversity, for climate, for water and air and soil quality, for food system integrity \u2014 and the multiple solutions that lie in a wholesale transition to organic agriculture<\/a> and land management<\/a>. Many of these topics can be explored on the website through the \u201cPrograms\u201d drop-down menu<\/a>. A consistent focus in Beyond Pesticides coverage of pesticide issues has been impacts on human health; that universe of information can be navigated through the Daily News Blog<\/a> and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

An on-the-ground chronicle of the kinds of health impacts that pesticide use can have arrived to us recently from someone who lives in Switzerland. Karen Cortesi contacted Beyond Pesticides earlier this year in search of help for a very challenging experience she and her family are having as a result of a neighbor\u2019s use of pesticides that drift onto her family\u2019s property. Ms. Cortesi provided a detailed accounting of the health impacts experienced by her, her partner Simone Roncoroni, their son, and their rabbit and chickens over the course of the past four years. (Beyond Pesticides is unable to fact check all aspects of Ms. Cortesi\u2019s account, which were communicated to us via email; nevertheless, we present highlights of it because it offers a \u201creal life\u201d look at what havoc pesticide use and misuse can wreak.)<\/p>\r\n

The family lives in Novaggio, near the border with Italy, in an area that is designated as both an agricultural zone and a water protection zone. The parents are both homeopaths, and the family grows and sells, at a small scale, organic eggs, fruits, and vegetables. As Ms. Cortesi recounts, pesticide use in her area is permitted for \u201cprofessional\u201d use (which we interpret to mean for commercial use by trained applicators). The family\u2019s neighbor has been applying to his property, since April of 2020, pesticides that she says are illegal for private use, and in concentrations from three to 20 times what is legally allowed.<\/p>\r\n

Initially, they did not know what pesticide products he was using; Ms. Cortesi reports that they did once spot an applicator tank hand labeled with \u201cKarate 0.08%.\u201d The active ingredient in this product \u2014 Karate with Zeon Technology (\u201cZeon Technology\u201d meaning that it uses nanoparticles) \u2014 made by Syngenta, is lambda-cyhalothrin<\/a>, which Beyond Pesticides\u2019 database notes is a synthetic pyrethroid that is an endocrine disruptor, a skin and mucosal irritant, and a neurotoxicant; it is also toxic to at least bees and aquatic organisms. For humans exposed, it can have acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity (at high exposure levels, potentially resulting in coma or death from respiratory depression). The label on this product indicates that no one should enter a treated area for 24\u201348 hours after application.<\/p>\r\n

Once authorities finally visited the neighbor\u2019s property, the products (some names of which are in Italian) discovered included: Karate, Switch (fludioxonil<\/a>, ciprodinil); Pergado (mandipropamid<\/a>); Radico (1-naftil-acetico, which we believe is 1-naphthaleneacetic acid<\/a>); Rame 30 (ossicloruro di rame); Flint (trifloxystrobin<\/a>, tebuconazole<\/a>); Tega (trifloxystrobin); Ridomil vino (metalaxyl<\/a>); Topas vino (penconazole<\/a>); and Rondo (dithianon<\/a>, difenoconazole<\/a>). (Most of these are fungicide compounds.) Ms. Cortesi also reported that the neighbor regularly washed pesticide application equipment in an outdoor sink that discharges directly into a river that contributes to the water supply for the village of Pura.<\/p>\r\n

Ms. Cortesi recounted what family members, and their animals, have experienced since the pesticide use started in 2017:<\/p>\r\n