62% less pesticides: What could be the consequences if Italy follows Europe’s mandate to cut use of crop protection chemicals in half?
62% less pesticides: What could be the consequences if Italy follows Europe’s mandate to cut use of crop protection chemicals in half?


Encouraged by the circle-beating attitude of politics, industries and associations, the European Commission is asking Italy to reduce pesticides by 62 percent, a madness that jeopardizes food safety. This is despite the fact that the health and environmental risks induced by these products are already laughable today and their uses have almost halved in thirty years.
No logic, or rather a perverse logic, at the basis of the assignments that unfortunately penalize Italy. The Commission’s anti-pesticide furor has in fact based its guiding criteria for the allocation of reductions above all on the kilos per hectare ratio. The system rewards countries that see their agriculture gravitate heavily on the prevalence of pastures and cereals. It punishes those who are instead characterized by specialized productions, orchards, vineyards and vegetables.
On a hectare of vines, for example, the use of agropharmaceuticals is yes 25 times higher than that foreseen for wheat and therefore, according to the numbers, there could be a reduction. Exactly how they can suggest the 24 kilos per hectare of calcium polysulphide used in a single application on pre-flowering apple trees.
[Editor’s note: This article has been translated from Italian and edited for clarity]
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

![]() | Videos | More... |

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!
![]() | Bees & Pollinators | More... |

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’
![]() | Infographics | More... |

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer
![]() | GMO FAQs | More... |

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?
![]() | GLP Profiles | More... |

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’








Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health
Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains
Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics
Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?
California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining
30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus
The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs
‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta