
UN report authors denounce claims that pesticides are necessary (2017) - YeGoblynQueenne
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/un-experts-denounce-myth-pesticides-are-necessary-to-feed-the-world
======
ensignavenger
The title cites this as "UN experts", but based on what I can see, it is the
work of a single "special rapporteur". I can't find anything that states who
the author (special rapporteur) is, and what their qualifications are.
Skimming the report and looking at the citations, it seems that the author
used cherry-picked newspaper articles to support some of their scientific
claims, which increases my skepticism significantly.

~~~
scq
The special rapporteur is Hilal Elver, a law professor at UCLA.

~~~
ensignavenger
Thanks, I found her biography on the UN page here-
[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/HilalElver.aspx](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/HilalElver.aspx)

She seems like a smart person, however, I'm not seeing anything that would
indicate she has any expertise in agriculture...

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
The report is on the "right to food"\- that's a legal matter. Hence, the
rapporteur is a legal expert. The profile you link to makes it clear she has
some experience with environmental issues, including food security.

------
akvadrako
The Guardian is really going mad. The article claims this is a myth, but give
no arguments of why they think it's untrue. The only thing relevant to crop
yields is:

 _> The UN FAO is clear on this – without crop protection tools, farmers could
lose as much as 80% of their harvests to damaging insects, weeds and plant
disease._

There is not even a section in the UN report about the benefits of pesticides.

~~~
oldcynic
"said a spokesman for the Crop Protection Association, which represents
pesticide manufacturers"

~~~
akvadrako
Are you saying the UN FAO's position is otherwise?

~~~
oldcynic
I am saying I would expect the trade body to carefully and selectively phrase
their responses for the sole benefit of the trade. "could lose as much as 80%"
(but will usually be far less).

A study that came shortly after this one points to clear over-use and that
reducing use would actually increase yields:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-
co...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-could-slash-
pesticide-use-without-losses-research-reveals)

------
oldcynic
What a surprise to find the pesticides manufacturer's association disputes
this. I'm shocked!

There's been a few studies since this one. No one seems to have actually
required a reduction yet though. I think France has a target. The UK plan
consists of nothing but empty words and no plan. Then was criticised by the UK
Chief Scientist.

------
Const-me
Of course they are not necessary anymore, we already have GMO crops.

In some cases, GMOs eliminate the need for pesticides even for neighboring
non-GMO crops: [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/planting-gmos-
kills-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/planting-gmos-kills-so-
many-bugs-that-it-helps-non-gmo-crops/)

------
YeGoblynQueenne
Why change the title, here? The word "myth" was used by the author of the
reporte quoted in the article. The use of the word by the author may be
controversial but the article title is using it quite accurately.

Also- why change the focus from "pesticides are necessary to feed the world"
to "pesticides are necessary", as in, in general?

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Could I get a clarification from a moderator, please? The subject discussed in
the article and the report is the necessity of pesticides in sustaining
population growth (in other words, "feeding the world"). The report itself is
titled "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food". The change of
the title dilutes this meaning to the point of irrelevance.

Edit: I'm not even sure the new title is less controversial. What, pesticides
are not necessary _at all_?

What's the purpose of the change?

