Viewpoint: Global policy analyst on why Europe’s goal to reduce pesticide use by 50% is dangerously misguided
Viewpoint: Global policy analyst on why Europe’s goal to reduce pesticide use by 50% is dangerously misguided


Alexander Bernhuber, environmental spokesman for the ÖVP in the European Parliament, is to represent the interests of EU agriculture in the negotiations to revise the EU Pesticides Regulation. From autumn, the European Parliament will be intensively negotiated about the future handling of plant protection products.
Bernhuber already criticizes the EU Commission’s proposal, which includes a blanket reduction target of 50% for plant protection products by 2030 and an almost total ban on plant protection products in sensitive areas such as Natura2000.
“I will clearly oppose blanket reductions in pesticides,” Bernhuber said combatively even before the negotiations started. “I expect a factual, and not an emotional discussion. Pesticides are still an essential element for the necessary protection against pests and diseases. A targeted use of pesticides is essential to secure the food supply.”
“If the plants are not sufficiently fertilized and treated and the weather conditions become more and more extreme, drastic yield losses can be expected in the coming years. With the effects of the war, blanket reductions are unthinkable. EU agriculture needs a full toolbox for security of supply. Europe needs more food production, not less,” [Bernhuber explained]
[Editor’s note: This article has been translated from German 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