The use of crop protection products in agriculture has been a hot topic for years and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Particularly in the municipality of Westerveld, emotions are running high between supporters and opponents. How does national politics intend to solve these problems?
Almost all parties that currently have one or more seats in the House of Representatives discuss pesticides in their election manifesto. Only PVV and DENK ignore the subject.
The subject is sensitive: residents living near fields are concerned about possible effects on their health. Farmers, in turn, feel attacked and point to the approval of the products by the Ctgb (Board for the Authorization of Plant Protection Products and Biocides).
The parties in The Hague have different ideas. Yet there are also similarities. For example, there are seven parties that argue for biological crop protection products to be admitted more quickly, so that the use of chemicals can be reduced.
VVD, BBB, CDA, SGP, CU, Volt and JA21 want this. They believe it is important that alternative resources can be added to the existing package. This must concern biological agents or agents with low risks.
This was already discussed in a committee debate in May. Minister Femke Wiersma (BBB) then said that the approval of a biological product can take eight to ten years. “This is based on very extensive research, in which the importance of the health of people, animals and the environment is extensively investigated,” she said.
As a result, startups often move abroad. Wiersma told about two young people who left for Brazil because admission there could be done much faster. Wiersma said he took that signal ‘very seriously’.
The parties mentioned (except CU, see below) say nothing about a ban on certain substances, just like Forum for Democracy. NSC also wants pesticides to be replaced by products that are friendlier to insects and pose less risk to public health.
On the other side of the political spectrum, there are fierce pleas for a ban. For example, GroenLinks/PvdA states that ‘the country’s food must be healthy’. “That is why there will be a ban on chemical pesticides that can be harmful,” the merged party said. D66 agrees, because “this is necessary to protect the quality of our drinking water”.
Working without chemicals is possible. However, according to farmers, this does have consequences. It is more labor intensive and expensive. For the traditional farmer, chemistry remains necessary to keep crops healthy and it is not possible to decide overnight to ban the chemicals.
D66 therefore wants farmers and consumers to be able to prepare for the ban. The party is calling for a ban on environmentally harmful substances within eighteen months.
The Party for the Animals advocates a ban on the substances near homes, schools, playgrounds, nature and animal enclosures. Until then, a ‘gift tax’ applies. The higher the damage, the higher the tax. The money must then go to sustainability.
Several parties mention the controversial glyphosate in their election manifesto. The weed killer will be banned if it is up to the SP, D66, GroenLinks/PvdA and CU. The Party for the Animals even wants to stop lily cultivation completely.
This party also believes that VAT on floriculture should be increased from 9 to 21 percent. D66 also hopes to implement this because of the ‘negative effects of floriculture on the climate’.