Through this report, the opponents of pesticides intend above all to brandish a new weighty argument: pesticides are expensive for the citizen. This postulate they assure is based not on an ideological position but on proven facts, providing supporting figures.

To reach their conclusion, the three associations knowingly omitted a key factor, namely the benefits that phytosanitary products bring directly to farmers and then, indirectly, to consumers. Only the profits of the phytosanitary products of companies in the sector were taken into account in their calculations.

As a result, the authors of the report have “considered that the net benefits to consumers associated with the use of synthetic pesticides are almost impossible to estimate given the antagonistic effects of pesticide use, in particular the “rebound effect” of cheap foods in terms of overconsumption of food products and the hidden health costs due to diet-related illnesses.” In other words, synthetic pesticides contribute to better yields… which, according to them, would be problematic!

…

This is based on a logic as absurd as evaluating the benefits of a vaccine by limiting oneself solely to the profits of the pharmaceutical companies that produce it.

[Editor’s note: This article was originally published in French and has been translated and edited for clarity.] 

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.