Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T22:31:07.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Percentage-Driven Government Mandates for Pesticide Reduction: The Swedish Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robin R. Bellinder ,
Gunnar Gummesson  and
Christer Karlsson
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Dep. Fruit Veg. Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853
Gunnar Gummesson
Affiliation:
Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (Ultuna), Uppsala, 750 O7, Sweden
Christer Karlsson
Affiliation:
Svea Lantmän, Enköping, 74584, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1985, the Swedish government mandated a 50% reduction in agricultural pesticide use by 1990. The reference point was based on the average of total pesticide sales (kg ai) between 1981 and 1985. The goal was to halve the risks to users and to the environment. A two-pronged approach dealing with risk and with the actual reduction in agricultural pesticide use was developed. By 1991, 215 ‘unsafe’ or less effective pesticide products were withdrawn by producers or cancelled by the National Chemical Inspectorate, leaving only 322 registered. Additionally, the government was able to report a 47% reduction in agricultural pesticide use where 64, 54, and 2% reductions occurred in insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, respectively. However, the treated area did not decrease. Pesticide reduction was achieved largely in cereal grain production by switching from high-dose to low-dose herbicides, reducing rates of herbicides, removal of inactive isomers from racemic mixtures, cancellation of TCA for quackgrass control, increased set-aside, and improved sprayer precision. During the same 5-yr period, Scotland achieved an equivalent reduction without government intervention, indicating that the reductions were largely due to changing herbicide technology. Determining the need for similar programs must take into account: 1. initial use rates (in 1987, average total pesticide use rates in the U.S. and in Sweden were 1.8 and 1.5 kg ai/ha, respectively, and following the mandate period, Swedish use has decreased to 0.8 kg ai/ha); 2. measurement criteria; and 3. the long-term effect of reducing herbicide rates on replenishing the soil weed seed bank reserves.

Keywords

TCA, trichloroacetic acidRegulationherbicide reductionlow-dose herbicide technology
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 350 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anon. 1990. Agriculture and farmers' cooperatives in Sweden (order no. 209). Federation of Swedish Farmers. S-10533 Stockholm, Sweden. 33 p.Google Scholar
2. Anon. 1990. Försålda kvantiteter av bekämpningsmedel 1990. (Sales of pesticides, 1990). Kemikalieinspektionen 171 27 Solna, Sweden, 35 p.Google Scholar
3. Anon. 1991. Bekämpningsmedel i jordbruket 1991. Beräknat antal doser. (Pesticides in agriculture 1991. Calculated number of doses.) Statistiska meddelanden (order no. Na 19 SM 9201). Statistiska Centralbyrån, S-115-81 Stockholm, Sweden, 12 p.Google Scholar
4. Anon. 1991. Multi-year crop protection plan (essentials). Royal Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management, and Fisheries. Amsterdam, Holland, 14 p.Google Scholar
5. Anon. 1991. Pesticide usage in Scotland. (Survey report nos. 77 and 87), Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Edinburgh, Scotland, 83 and 84 p., respectively.Google Scholar
6. Anon. 1992. Statistisk Årsbok 1992. (Year book of Agricultural Statistics 1992). Statistiska Centralbyrån, S-115-81 Stockholm, Sweden, 267 p.Google Scholar
7. Bengtsson, A., Fogelfors, H.H., Gummesson, G., Mattson, R., and Mörner, J. 1988. Minskad användning av bekämpningsmedel (Reduced use of pesticides). Continuation report to Department of Agriculture. Jordbruksverket, Jönköping, Sweden, 95 p.Google Scholar
8. Bernson, V. 1988. Regulation of pesticides in Sweden. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. (Pests and Diseases) 3:1059–1064.Google Scholar
9. Bernson, V. and Ekström, G. 1991. Swedish policy to reduce pesticide use. Pestic. Regul. 2:1–4.Google Scholar
10. Ebbersten, S., Håkansson, I., Håkansson, S., Johansson, V., Olofsson, B., and Petterson, J. 1977. Minimerad användning av kemiska bekämpningsmedel i jordbrukets växtproduktion (Minimized use of chemical pesticides in agriculture's plant production). Report from Planning Commission No. 66. Dept. of Crop Science, Swedish Agriculture University. S 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden, 33 p.Google Scholar
11. Gummesson, G. 1987. Kan kemisk bekämpning mot ogräs halveras med bibehållen lönsamhet? (Can chemical weed control be cut in half and maintain profits?) Swedish Weed and Plant Protection Conferences 1987. Plant Protection report: Agriculture 42:19–30. Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
12. Gummesson, G. 1988. Mängden ogräsmedel kan minskas genom en bättre anpassning av dosen. (Quantities of herbicides can be reduced through better adjustment of doses.) Växtskydds Rapporter. Jordbruk (Plant Protection Reports. Agriculture) 49:13–20.Google Scholar
13. Gummesson, G. and Fogelfors, H. 1990. Möjligheter till minskad kemisk bekämpning av ogräs i stråsäd (Possibilities for reduced chemical weed control in cereal grains) Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden, 31st Swedish Plant Prot. Conf. p. 60–68.Google Scholar
14. Gummesson, G. 1992. Ogräsbekämpning i olika odlingssystem (Weed control in different production systems). Aktuellt från lantbruksuniversitetet (Current news from the agricultural university) 404. 22 p.Google Scholar
15. Gustavson, T. 1990. Swedish Agriculture. Lantbruks Styrelsen. S-10533 Stockholm, Sweden, 24 p.Google Scholar
16. Håkansson, S. 1988. Behovet av ogräsbekämpning: Bedömningsgrunder och prognosmöjligheter (Need for weed control: decision making bases and predictive possibilities) Plant Protection Reports: Agriculture 49:21-31. Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
17. Jensen, P. K. 1991. Behov og ⊘konomi ved ukrudtsbekæmplse i landbrugsafg⊘rder. Bilag til m⊘der om planteværn. (Need and economics of weed control in agricultural crops. Supplement to methods in plant protection). Landskontoret for Planteavl, Skejby: 14–16.Google Scholar
18. Johansson, A., Paulsson, V., and Nibleaus, K. 1986. Förslag till handlingsprogram för att minska hälso- och miljöriskerna vid andvändning av bekämpningsmedel. (Suggested program for reducing health and environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides) Lantbruksstyrelsen, Statens Naturvårdsverk, och Kemikalieinspektionen, Jordbruksverket, Jönköping, Sweden, 37 p.Google Scholar
19. Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin, Geneva, NY, 8 p.Google Scholar
20. Liden, C. J. and Jonsson, E. 1990. Minskad och säkrare kemisk bekämpningpågående arbete och utredning om framtida möjligheter. (Reduced and safer chemical control—ongoing work and evaluation of future possibilities) 31st Swed. Crop Prot. Conf. (Pests and Diseases). 31:3–18. Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
21. Osterman, S. 1982. 100 År av Samverkan: Minnesbok om Lantmännen—Vår Äldsta Fria Lantbrukskooperation. (100 Years of Cooperation: Memory book of ‘Lantmännen’—Our oldest free agriculture cooperative.) Esselte Rotogravyr AB, Solna, Sweden, 465 p.Google Scholar
22. Rasmussen, J. 1993. Ukrudtsbiologi. (Weed Biology) P. 13–40 in Udkrudtsbekaæmpelse i landbruget (Weed Control in Agriculture), ed. Thonke, K. E. State Plant Breeding Research, Plant Prot. Cen., Dep. Weed Control, Weed Res. Inst., Slagelse, Denmark, 368 p. Google Scholar
23. Thonke, K. E. 1991. Political and practical approaches in Scandinavia to reduce herbicide inputs. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. (Weeds). 3:1183–1190.Google Scholar
24. Wallin, A., Frisen, R., and Bucht, B. 1991. Resultat av handlingsprogrammet för att minska hälso- och miljöriskerna vid användning av bekämpningsmedel. (Results of the program to reduce health and environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides). Lantbruksstyrelsens Rapport 1991:8. Jordbruksverket, Jönköping, Sweden, 30 p. Google Scholar
25. Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28:347–352.Google Scholar