“The Farmers' Association complains about a shortage of crop protection products. Environmentalists push back. Agriculture Minister Rainer causes confusion with a statement regarding pesticides.
Federal Agriculture Minister Alois Rainer (CSU) has reportedly placed the term "pesticides" on a "red list" within his ministry. According to a report by the *Bayerisches Landwirtschaftliches Wochenblatt* (Bavarian Agricultural Weekly), Rainer stated during a technical discussion that he objected to the term "pesticides"—a word he has replaced within the ministry with "crop protection." This raises questions. After all, "pesticides" is the official designation for chemical or biological substances used to protect against harmful animals, plants, fungi, and microorganisms. International organizations and the European Union use this term. Rainer’s own ministry is also required to use it in its work.
"Crop protection products" are neither inherently better nor worse than other pesticides; rather, they are a specific subset. They refer to those pesticides used in agriculture, forestry, and gardening to protect cultivated plants. Other pesticides—known as biocides—are used to control pests such as rats and mice.
When asked what Minister Rainer meant during the technical discussion, his ministry issued the following statement: The remark reflects the ministry's commitment to using the term "crop protection products" correctly and to fostering an objective, science-based discussion. Consequently, no internal directives regarding communication were deemed necessary. The ministry declined to comment specifically on the use of the term "pesticides."
This anecdote highlights just how contentious the issue of crop protection has become. The German Farmers' Association (DBV) is sounding the alarm, warning of a shortage of effective crop protection agents. Johann Meierhöfer of the DBV cites the critical situation in fruit cultivation as a prime example. As the DBV’s Head of Crop Production, he points to the damage caused by the spotted-wing drosophila—a fruit fly that infests cherries, berries, and grapes. The pests laying of eggs in ripening fruit lead to total crop losses, explains Meierhöfer. In 2020, the EU Commission declined to renew the authorization for the insecticide thiacloprid due to environmental and health concerns; consequently, for years, only seasonal emergency authorizations were granted. "Planning certainty for fruit growers was therefore virtually zero," says Maierhöfer. While a product has indeed been regularly authorized again since December 2025, it may only be applied every other year. "Since the pests appear every year, the authorization is practically worthless," Maierhöfer laments. Problems also exist in arable farming; farmers there, too, rely on emergency authorizations to apply insecticides against the reed leafhopper—a pest that transmits diseases to crops such as sugar beets and potatoes.
Environmentalists, however, counter this claim: "Never before have so many pesticide applications been permitted in Germany as they are today," writes the BUND (German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation) in a recently published "fact check" regarding the availability of plant protection products. Nearly 30,000 product applications were approved in 2025 alone. Nor is there a shortage of active ingredients; their number—currently standing at 278—has remained nearly stable over recent years. The German Crop Protection Industry Association (IVA) criticizes the environmental group's assessment as "inaccurate." "Since 2019, 84 chemically synthesized active ingredients have been withdrawn, while not a single new active ingredient in this category has been authorized within the EU," the IVA stated. Newly authorized substances—such as garlic extract—cannot compensate for these losses. For farmers, the crucial factor is simply the availability of effective solutions.
Both the agricultural and environmental lobbies agree that the authorization procedures for plant protection products require reform. The only catch is this: one side wants fewer restrictions, while the other wants more. When, in late 2025, the EU Commission proposed scrapping the existing maximum ten-year authorization period for plant protection products—and instead granting indefinite authorization to most active substances in the future—environmental organizations voiced sharp criticism. They argued that foregoing periodic re-evaluations would jeopardize both human health and the environment.
Ecologists from renowned research institutions warned that many risks associated with plant protection products—such as those affecting soil organisms—have not yet been sufficiently investigated.
The German water management sector also expressed alarm, warning that the deregulation plans posed a threat to groundwater.
The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, conversely, generally welcomed the proposal.
From the perspective of the Farmers' Association, the EU Commission's plans can represent only a small, initial step. They argue that a different approach is needed for the assessment of active substances in plant protection products: unlike in the past, the focus should no longer rest solely on whether a substance is potentially hazardous. Instead, the decisive factor should be the actual risk under practical conditions of agricultural use. "By means of protective equipment, buffer zone requirements, and restricted application periods, authorization would then be possible for substances that were previously ruled out of active ingredients subject to conditions is feasible and safe for farmers and consumers alike," argues Maierhöfer. However, it remains a matter of fierce dispute whether such a reorientation would be compatible with the EU's precautionary principle.
Both the Farmers' Association and the Agricultural Industry Association see an urgent need for reform at the second stage of the approval process—the review conducted by German authorities. The Federal Environment Agency (UBA) stands at the center of this criticism. Unlike the other agencies involved, the UBA holds veto power. This imbalance must be eliminated, the Farmers' Association demands. "Why does environmental protection carry more weight than, say, health protection? All interests should be given equal consideration within the approval process," says Meierhöfer. However, the Federal Government has no intention of curtailing the UBA's veto power, as it indicated in its response to an inquiry from the Green Party regarding plant protection.
In their coalition agreement, the CDU/CSU and SPD agreed to implement improvements to the plant protection product approval process. A project group established in the summer of 2025 has already yielded initial results, successfully addressing delays in the system. This is a welcome development, says Meierhöfer. Yet, the fundamental challenge remains unresolved: "To ensure food security, we need effective plant protection," the association representative argues. Organic farming cannot serve as the sole solution—a fact already evident from the limited consumer demand for organically produced food. This also implies that "plant protection entirely devoid of environmental impact is unrealistic." [1]
1. Vergiftete Pflanzenschutzdebatte. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Frankfurt. 16 Feb 2026: 20. Von Katja Gelinsky, Berlin
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą