Go to the french site You are here homepage | News | The survey

The opinion ot the french 
on pesticide use in agriculture.

Main findings. 
 Intensive farming has been largely questioned since the mad cow disease, but also because of different kinds of pollution to which certain practices can lead. In this context, the use of products like pesticides or fertilizers is sometimes incriminated in the name of better integration of farming in its environment. UIPP has therefore sought to better understand the perception citizen-consumers have concerning the use of these products, their impact on human health and the environment, and what the credibility of a farming model which focusses on lower use of pesticides would have.

SOFRES, carried out an survey in the form of an opinion poll on 15 and 16 June 2001 among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 and over.
The opinion of the french
The french and the agricultural produce
The impact of pesticides
The perspective of integrated farming
Important doubs remain
 
The french appear to be aware of the constraints related to agricultural produce 
 wich has to be exported



Public opinion on pesticides, like in other fields related to food, is linked to the way the French perceive growing conditions within a farm system. But, as this poll shows, the attitude of the French to productivism is far more ambiguous than it seems.


They take for granted that development of farming since the last World War has led both to an increase in volumes produced (71%), but also to greater product diversity (78%). Trends appear more negative when considering food safety on the contrary, (36% of the people inly think it has improved against 53% who think it has deteriorated), quality (34% against 58%) and, more importantly, food taste (24% against 61%). No special concerns however over quality and safety because those who estimate that things have improved, or at least have remained the same, represent 45% and 41% of the people surveyed.



Furthermore, the aptitude to export recognised for French farming, and therefore its ability to produce " the necessary quantity ", is not being questioned by almost three quarters of the French population (72%), whereas 27% think that farming should just satisfy national requirements.


This French preference for farming serving the country's commercial ambitions and able to produce in sufficient quantity - without having to sacrify quality, safety or taste - implies good understanding of the need for the use of pesticides. For two-thirds of the people interviewed, it appears clear that farmers could not produce as much without using pesticides (65%) or fertilizers (70%). This does not mean that they then consider these products as harmless or to be used wittingly. 
The impact of pesticides on consumer health appears to be more
 than their effects on the environment



Pesticides are rather well-known products to the public, for 50% of people interviewed define the term " pesticides " when asked to classify the products concerned in this category (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides) and allowing only little confusion with fertilizers (8%). An amazing 35% of the peole do not know what is being talked about at all.

They are not harmless products : 75% of the people interviewed know or suppose that manufacturers need to obtain product registration (approval) for allowing products to be sold on the market. We are therefore in a field of perception which includes potentially dangerous products. The impact of the use of these products is nevertheless rather well differentiated. In summary, it is in drinking water and in soil that the French think there might be a " very important " pesticide hazard (respectively 58% and 43%), whereas the atmosphere (36%), animals (31%) and consumers (23%) seem to be clearly less exposed. In this last case, results are very low and show there is no real fear. Pesticides only worry people because of their " chemical " background which induces direct effects on the environment, which appear more spectacular than secondary effects on living organisms.

In this area of consequences for man and the environment, a small quantity of people interviewed think that pesticides are dangerous in principle, whatever the doserates used (52%), but an important part of the population (46%) thinks, on the contrary, that this hazard depends on product rates used. This is an important aspect of this survey to show that the French consider that a pesticide can be harmful, even in food, according to the way it is used on the farm. This brings us back to our subject on growing conditions.
The perspective of integrated farming appears as credible alternative to "all organic" farming



It is an acknowledged fact : for a vast majority of consumers, farmers use too many pesticides : 65% think they do, 30% think they use them as they should, 55% of the people related to the farming industry themselves recognize some excesses. Responsibilities for this phenomenon are also shared, even though supermarkets, the government and manufacturers are being mentioned most, farmers are only in the fourth position. It is therefore an overall system which drives to unreasonable use of pesticides, system in which the influence of the government is not excluded.

Under these circumstances, the organic alternative is accepted favourably, but the level obtained does not show clear approval. Between " increase the part played by organic farming in a considerable way, even if this leads to higher costs " and " continue to treat crops but with a lower quantity of pesticides ", public opinion rather chooses the first solution (52%), but also thinks that the perspective of using pesticides in a reasonable way is credible (47%). The opinion is in the end divided between two rather equivalent parties. This is probably the most unexpected result of this survey, considering the sympathy consumers usually show for organic farming. It is, however, quite revealing of the moderated opinion that people have of current agriculture, its economical constraints in particular, but also of the weak ness of the " organic " image, especially concerning its cost. 
Important doubts remain when considering supposed harmlessness 
of pesticide residues at low rates



When one considers farming downstream, the product, and not growing conditions and its effects, pesticide residues - which 9/10th of the population seems to know about - appear to be more of a concern. First, because the quantity of the residues does not seem harmless : 60% think the quantity of residues is likely to be harmful to health against 37% who estimate these quantities are too low to have any impact whatsoever. In the background, the idea emerges that by nature a residue cannot have no impact on health.

Then, also because this a priori seems to take no account of scientific explanations, even should they be independant. When asked " If independant scientists say that under a certain rate, pesticide residues in food do not have any impact on health, do you believe them or not? ", 57% answer they do not believe them (against 41% who do).

Those in favour of pesticides are not so much confronted today to public ignorance on growing conditions or competition with alternative methods of farming, but to the difficulty of accepting scientific arguments favouring harmlessness of residues in good faith.