Chemicals are inherently perceived as bad, while substances of natural origin are seen as positive. Laypeople generally disregard the dose of a toxic substance altogether and classify even the smallest amounts of pesticides as dangerous – for example, chemical residues in their food – without any justification.

An ORF report addresses the complex challenges associated with the various residues on our plates. In addition to synthetic pesticides, the report also identifies mycotoxins in grain and natural toxins as serious threats to nutritional health. It shows once again that natural substances can be highly toxic, while synthetically produced substances are often harmless.

And crop protection products are often essential. In the ORF report, Austrian farmer Lorenz Mayr gets to the heart of the matter: ‘Without crop protection products, the field would become barren in no time. If the fungal infection is severe, it will penetrate the tubers and cause them to rot.’ A total crop failure would be the direct result. Mayr explains that the use of pesticides is essential. He has to adhere to strict guidelines: ‘There are strict rules about when pesticides can be used. The main thing is that we can protect our plants from disease so that we can produce food for Austrian production.’

Many necessary active ingredients are missing

The current situation in Austria is precarious. Many essential active ingredients are missing, which means that farmers are increasingly dependent on imports. ‘We ban certain products in our country and then import food from other countries where these products are used,’ explains Mayr in the article. The farmer is therefore convinced that the controlled use of these products ultimately causes less climate damage than not using them, which would lead to a higher demand for imports.

Agricultural engineer and non-fiction author Timo Küntzle takes a slightly different view. Since pesticides always represent an intervention in nature, their use should be reduced as much as possible. Nevertheless, it is utopian to believe that food production is possible without chemicals: ‘Everything around us is chemistry and consists of chemistry. There is no such thing as chemical-free food – there never has been and never will be,’ Küntzle is quoted in the article.

ORF highlights a wide range of residues and writes on its website: ‘Sources of danger for our nutritional health include so-called mycotoxins in cereals, naturally occurring poisons that the plant itself produces to defend itself against pests, or residues from industrial production such as arsenic. Microplastics, which inevitably result from the high density of packaging, can also affect our food supply.’ In the ORF report, Rudolf Krska, a bioanalyst at BOKU in Tulln, says of arsenic: ‘Arsenic is clearly a carcinogenic substance.’ Arsenic also occurs naturally. This is probably why, until 2015, a very high maximum level of 50 micrograms/litre (µg/l) applied to drinking water in Switzerland; it was only in 2016 that it was reduced to 10 µg/l, with transitional tolerances until 2018.

Organic farming as a climate killer

According to Küntzle, organic farming offers an interesting perspective, as it does not use any pesticides at all for some cereals. However, this is reflected in the significantly lower yields – in some cases up to 50 per cent lower. ‘Conversely, this means that twice as much land is needed for one tonne of grain. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified this land use as the most harmful factor influencing the climate.’ A conversion of the entire current agriculture to organic farming would increase greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 per cent. In addition, food would have to be imported from abroad. Lorenz Mayr cites the example of potatoes imported from Egypt and says: ‘When you consider that a potato consists of 80 per cent water, importing it from a country with little water is all the more absurd.’

One thing is clear: even in the future, we will not be able to eat without any residues. To prevent crop failure and eliminate other potentially life-threatening toxins, pesticides are still essential. Careful evaluation and proper application are crucial. And so are controls by the food authorities. After all, the same applies to residues from all sources: the dose makes the poison.

And when you consider that 55 per cent of pesticides are less toxic than vitamin C, 89 per cent are less toxic than ibuprofen and 98 per cent of them are less toxic than caffeine and aspirin, as the Consumer Choice Center has found, there is even less reason to be afraid of pesticides alone. According to his estimates, without pesticides, crop losses would be between 50 per cent and 80 per cent. Similar figures have already been published by the European Parliamentary Research Service; depending on the crop, crop failure is between 48 per cent and 62 per cent. And these figures are likely to increase with the challenges of climate change.