This thought occurred to me as I was getting a prescription refilled. Even though I had used the drug previously, the pharmacist reviewed when and how often it was to be taken, and reminded me that it should be taken with food. This information was also clearly detailed on the label and an accompanying printout.
Contrast this with the current process for buying pesticides. You may or may not deal with a trained agronomist to determine the best one to use. When you pick it up at the warehouse the only application direction is what’s included on a generic label that, while detailed, is not specific to you, your farm or possibly even to the crop you intend to use it on.
While this may not be as much of a concern for older chemistries you have used for years, the market is becoming much more complex with new chemistries, new tank-mix combinations, new prepacks of existing products and newly named generics offered as alternatives to name brands.
Read Also
Agronomists share tips for evaluating new crop products and tech: Pt. 3
With new products, new production practices and new technology converging on the agriculture industry at a frenetic pace in recent…
The complexity is illustrated by the fact that the Alberta Crop Protection Guide is now well over 600 pages. It’s probably the best source of pesticide information in Alberta, yet I wonder how many farmers have perused more than the information on the few pesticides they use. Can you really choose the best one if you don’t know all the options for controlling the pest? Relying on experience is not always the answer.
As a case in point, I used a popular name-brand grassy weed herbicide for many years because it allowed me to tank mix a specific broadleaf product. However, I was enticed by the lower price of a generic version which promised to do everything the name brand did. So I tank-mixed the generic with the name brand, only to find out the adjuvant in the generic formulation was not compatible. The result? No control of wild oats. Yes, it was my oversight, but the role of the retailer and manufacturer in telling me the generic was exactly the same as the name brand played a role in my crop loss and future weed problems.
[READ MORE] CropLife Canada on pesticide labels
As a second point, growers are acutely aware of herbicide resistance. They know repeated use of the same group will result in weed resistance, so they try to prevent it by rotating chemistries. Industry is also responding by offering products with multiple chemical groups as a resistance-management tool. But is it a synergistic effect of that prepackage, or are farmers simply getting a product which controls a broader spectrum of weeds?
If you have used a Group 2 product on a specific weed and want to rotate to a different group for control, is a product with multi-mode action with both Group 2 and 4 actives a rotational option? Or could it be that it is just the Group 2 component of the prepackage that’s still controlling that weed? Are you still risking resistance because you are never actually rotating from Group 2 control?
As another example, in 2020 our area had abnormally high rainfall which led to poor weed control and new weed problems. In an attempt to control these concerns in 2021, I sought an agronomist’s advice on the best pesticides for the expected change in the weed spectrum. He suggested products which I had never used in both my wheat and barley. One was a prepackage for both grassy and broadleaf weeds. The other could be tank mixed with a grassy weed killer. He calculated my pesticide requirements, and I purchased the products early in 2021 to ensure I would have them on hand when needed.
On delivery, I found I had forgotten which product was intended for the barley and which was for wheat, as both could be used on either crop. The boxes were identical in design and colour and the product names were of little help as I had no experience with either.
By going through my purchase notes I was able to sort out which was which. The real issue came when I plowed through the label for application instructions and found both required adjuvants. Their need had not been mentioned by the retailer, so I did not have them on hand. The label was unclear if the adjuvant with the grassy tank-mix partner was sufficient or compatible with the broadleaf partner. To clarify required contacting the chemical company rep.
After getting my questions answered, I asked if he was busy with farmers calling seeking application information. He said about half his calls every year are from farmers seeking advice at time of application. His response intrigued me enough to call a rep from a different company, who also said application time is his busiest of the year for calls because the labels can be confusing.
The biggest environmental threat from pesticides is not their intentional misuse, but rather farmers misunderstanding or making application mistakes due to a lack of or confusing information.
Pesticides under fire
The public worry about residues in food. They are concerned about harming non-target flora and fauna. They worry about the long-term effects on the environment. They question the approval process. Most troublesome is that many question a farmer’s need and use of pesticides in the first place.
As a result, farmers around the world are under increased scrutiny. In Canada we have already lost the use of several pesticides. Last May, Health Canada announced that the last date for sale of chlorpyrifos would be December 10, 2021, and the last day for use would be December 10, 2023. In the same month as that announcement, new restrictions were placed on the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam.
Glyphosate has reportedly had restrictions placed on its use in 42 countries. Restrictions range for banning it for cosmetic uses in some countries to a full ban, which Germany and Mexico are trying to implement by 2024.
Public pressures prompted a 1998 study by 10 agricultural scientists and legal experts who presented a position paper to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) looking at the feasibility of transforming pesticide use to a prescription-type system.
Their thinking is that the public is more accepting of the medical system where low-risk products can be self-prescribed, but high-risk drugs must be prescribed by licensed professionals. The study concluded that adopting a medical-type system for prescribing pesticides may ease public concern about their environmental risk and safety. It may even prevent the loss of some high-risk pesticides. However, it would require establishment of a new level of qualified personnel, which could add significant costs. The authors said these costs would need to be further evaluated before such a practice would be implemented.
Yet that may be the direction we are headed. Quebec has already introduced a pesticide-prescription program whereby farmers are unable to purchase or apply pesticides identified as high risk. Criteria for labelling as high risk include toxicity to humans, pollinators, birds and fish, as well as the persistence and mobility of the product in the environment.
Quebec farmers who want to use a pesticide identified as high risk must hold a “farmer’s certificate for pesticide application.” They must then contact an agronomist and provide detailed plans of how, when, why and where they want to use it. If the agronomist feels the request is justified, they will sign an agronomic justification for its use. This is required for purchase of the pesticide and must be kept by the farmer for five years.
But is this prescription process necessary? Farmers do not apply pesticides that are not needed, because they cost a lot of money and time to apply. For the same reasons, they don’t intentionally apply pesticides that don’t work under specific conditions. They don’t intentionally apply pesticides that put their health or the environment at risk, because their livelihood depends on both.
Instead of a prescription process, more onus should be placed on manufacturers and retailers to ensure farmers understand the pesticide and how to apply it to maximize safety and efficiency.
Farmers are likely the best judges of pest problems in each of their fields. They make multiple passes across them every year and likely have a better understanding of problems than could be achieved by a once-over scouting by a pesticide salesperson. Farmers can voluntarily share this information with agronomists and pesticide retailers who can then assist with identifying best practices and solutions.
A delivery checklist
Here is where our current system could be improved. For each pesticide sold, a checklist should be included, detailing all pertinent application information for the field and crop. For example, the checklist would include the herbicide(s) by name, field to be used in, rates of application, timing, water volume, tank-mix partner, adjuvant requirements, rainfastness, temperature considerations, following crop restrictions, grazing restrictions, days to harvest, entry restrictions, weed pressure, etc.
Just like the label on drugs at the pharmacy, a pesticide checklist would provide all the pertinent information for its safe and effective use. Not only would farmers benefit from clear and precise instructions, manufacturers would have fewer questions from frustrated farmers. Retailers would have fewer complaints about product failures.
All this information is already available. Manufacturers and retailers simply need to co-ordinate this information online so that the retailer can quickly pull the relevant information for each product and crop together, and then tailor it for the farmer and field. This tailor-made checklist would then be attached to the pesticide package so it is readily available at time of use.
A pesticide checklist is the simplest, easiest and cost-effective way to make the use of pesticides safer for farmers, the environment and consumers. All parties would be assured that the right pesticide is being applied to the right field appropriately.
Farmers do not need a pesticide prescription process with all the associated bureaucracy and cost to ensure human and environmental safety. But they do need easily accessible, detailed and concise information. Instead of ignoring the calls by the public for more regulation of pesticide use and then complaining and resisting those regulations when governments impose them, it’s time for farmers to take a proactive approach and tell the public, governments and industry that this is the information we need from retailers and manufacturers to make better and safer use of the pesticides we need to keep putting food on consumers’ plates.
