Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Crop Protection Between Sciences, Ethics and Societies: From Quick-Fix Ideal to Multiple Partial Solutions

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Crop protection has a very long history during which new methods have been developed whilst, at the same time, the older ones have retained their usefulness in certain conditions. The diversity of agricultural land and production has meant that it was futile to search for a unique and definitive approach or technical solution and, instead, the central concept has always been one of integration, during all the period of pre-Green Revolution and again today within what we call a sustainable agriculture. On a global level, it would seem that the current situation does not fundamentally contradict this idea. Nevertheless, in recent years (since the Second World War), two important advances, presented as the definitive solutions to problems and potentially exceeding previously less effective ones, have led to this integrative approach being questioned. These are agrochemistry and agro-genetics. We will detail, here, the agro-environmental limits of these two “miracle solutions,” followed by a review from an ethical and an epistemological point of view. This enables us to demonstrate the relevance of integrated approaches in agriculture and leads to a definition of crop protection that forms part of a strong approach in sustainable development. By changing the semantics, the epistemic position and our vision of production, we arrive at the proposal of sustainable agriculture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here, only the GM crops involved, in a large scale, in crop protection are taken into consideration.

  2. For a good summary of the multiple challenges (ethical, economic, political, epistemological, …) of this issue, see: Lacey (2005).

References

  • AFSSET, & INSERM. (2008). Expertise collective «Cancers et environnement». Paris: Afsset et Inserm.

  • Altieri, M. A. (2005). The myth of coexistence: Why transgenic crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems of production. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 25, 361–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AO, F. (2002). World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellon, S. 2008. Agriculture durable, penser les activités agricoles à partir des enjeux du développement durable. Texte INRA. http://www.inra.fr/la_science_et_vous/apprendre_experimenter/questions_d_actu/2008/agriculture_durable. Accessed February 22, 2011.

  • Berque, A. (1996). Être humains sur la Terre. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1990). Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology, 55, 590–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binimelis, R. (2008). Coexistence of plants, coexistence of farmers. Is an individual choice possible? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin, P. (2009). De la protection de la nature au pilotage de la biodiversité. Versailles: Edition Quae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, C. A. N. D., & Thomas, F. (2010). Gènes, pouvoirs et profits. Versailles: Edition Quae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonny, S. (1994). Les possibilités d’un modèle de développement durable en agriculture, le cas de la France. Le courrier de l’environnement, 23, 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouleau, N. 2008. Du pluralisme dans les sciences. Online: http://halshs.archive-ouvertes.fr:halshs-00374576. Accessed February 22, 2011.

  • Bourg, D., & Besnier, J. M. (2000). Peut-on encore croire au progrès?. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L., & Lacy, W. B. (1983). Science, agriculture and the politics of research. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity. 2008. Biodiversity and agriculture. Safeguarding biodiversity and securing food for the world. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  • Ceballos, L. (2008). Plantes insecticides: évaluation de l’impact sur les insectes auxiliaires. Lyon: Edition Rés’OGM Info.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutellec, L. 2011. Comment la recherche-action déplace les frontières? Une perspective épistémologique et éthique. In Academos, L’épistémologie des frontières. Paris: Pétra.

  • Coutellec, L., & Doussan, I. (2010). Attempt to typologize relations between different worlds (human, animal, living) based on legal and ethical questions surrounding the status of GM fish. In C. M. Romeo Casabona, L. Escajedo San Epifanio, & A. Emaldi Cirión (Eds.), Global food security: Ethical and legal challenges (pp. 412–417). Wageningen: Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., & Porter, J. R. (2003). Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100, 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deguine, J. P., & Ferron, P. (2006). Protection des cultures, préservation de la biodiversité, respect de l’environnement. Cahiers Agricultures, 15, 307–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deguine, J. P., Ferron, P., & Russell, R. (2008). Protection des cultures: de l’agrochimie à l’agroécologie. Versailles: Editions Quae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67, 559–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufumier, M., Gouyon, P. -H., & Le Maho, Y. (2008). Les OGM, une solution à la famine? Le Monde, 12 février.

  • Ehler, L. E., & Bottrell, D. G. 2000. The illusion of integrated pest management. Issues in Science and Technology. http://www.issues.org/16.3/ehler.htm. Accessed February 22, 2011.

  • FAO. 1968. Report of the first session of the FAO panel of experts on integrated pest control. Report no PL/1967/M/7, FAO, Rome.

  • Ferret, S. (2000). Durable, raisonnée, intégrée, paysanne… le jeu des sept familles. Transrural Initiatives, 161, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferron, P. (1999). Protection intégrée des cultures: évolution du concept et de son application. Les Dossiers de l’Environnement, 19, 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, B. L., & Rausser, G. C. (eds.) 2001. Handbook of agricultural economics. Volume 1A: agricultural production. The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

  • Garrau, M., & Le Goff, A. (2010). Care, justice, dépendance. Introduction aux théories du Care. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godart, O., & Hubert, B. 2002. Le développement durable et la recherche scientifique à l’INRA. Rapport à Madame la directrice générale de l’INRA, p. 58.

  • Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, J. S., & LeBaron, H. M. (1990). Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technology, 4, 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • IGAS. (2003). Rapport annuel 2003. Santé, pour une politique de prévention durable (p. 399). Paris: La documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • INRA. (2005). Pesticides, agriculture et environnement, réduire l’utilisation des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnementaux. Paris: Editions INRA et CEMAGREF.

    Google Scholar 

  • INRA. (2010). Synthèse du rapport de l’étude Ecophyto RandD. Quelles voies pour réduire l’usage des pesticides?. Paris: INRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, B. (1988). Foundations of international agricultural research. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. 2001. The ways in which the sciences are and are not value free. Presented at the conference, “value free science: Illusion or ideal?” Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, February 23–25, 2001.

  • Lacey, H. (2005). Values and objectivity in science: The current controversy about transgenic crops. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landais, E. (1998). Agriculture durable: les fondements d’un nouveau contrat social. Dossier de l’environnement de l’INRA, 27, 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrère, C. 2007. Protections de la nature et éthiques environnementales. Revue Mouvements. http://www.mouvements.info/Protection-de-la-nature-et.html. Accessed February 22, 2011.

  • Larrère, R., Lizet, B., & Berlan-Darque, M. (2009). Histoire des parcs nationaux, comment prendre soin de la nature?. Versailles: Editions Quae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laugier, S., & Paperman, P. (2006). Le souci des autres–éthique et politique du care. Paris: Ed. de l’EHESS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, R. J., & Despres, C. (2004). Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36, 397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévèque, C. (2009). Recherche et Développement Durable: l’utopie d’une approche systémique? In B. Villalba (Ed.), Appropriations du développement durable. Paris: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. (2002). Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 193–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. (2004). Civic agriculture. Reconnecting farm, food and community. Hanover: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazoyer, M. A. N. D., & Roudart, L. (1997). Histoire des agricultures du monde. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolino, F., & Veillerette, F. (2007). Pesticides. Révélations sur un scandale français. Paris: Editions Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • OILB/SROP. 1977. Vers la production agricole intégrée, par la lutte intégrée. Bulletin de OILB/SROP 4.

  • Ost, F. (2003). La nature hors la loi, l’écologie à l’épreuve du droit. Paris: La découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellizoni, L. (2003). Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Value, 12, 195–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pervanchon, F., & Blouet, A. (2002). “Agriculture raisonnée” and “integrated farming”: How are they linked? Cahiers de l’agriculture, 11, 151–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintureau, B. (2009). La lutte biologique et les trichogrammes. Application au contrôle de la pyrale du maïs. Paris: Le Manuscrit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintureau, B., Grenier, S., Mouret, H., Sauge, M. H., Sauphanor, B., Sforza, R., et al. (2009). La lutte biologique. Application aux arthropodes ravageurs et aux adventices. Paris: Ed. Ellipses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RA, I. N. (2009). Agriculture et biodiversité, valoriser les synergies. Versailles: Editions Quae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J. S., & Ghersa, C. M. (2007). Ecology of weeds and invasive plants: Relationship to agriculture and natural resource management (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F., & Legay, J.-M. (2004). Philosophie de l’interdisciplinarité. Paris: Pétra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfez, L. (1995). La santé parfaite. Critique d’une nouvelle utopie. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suffert, F. (2005). Cadre théorique de la notion de complémentation caractérisant des stratégies de protection des cultures. Phytoprotection, 86, 89–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toler, D. 2000. Biotechnology Not the Solution. The Toronto Star, 25 July.

  • Tronto, J. (2009). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Helden, J. 2003. OGM: les dangers d’une approche réductionniste des systèmes complexes. SPS. http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article44. Accessed February 22, 2011.

  • van Wijk, J. (2000). Biotechnology and hunger: Challenges for the biotech industry. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 41, 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vélot, C. (2009). OGM, tout s’explique. Athée: Ed. Goutte de sable.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viveret, P. (2004). L’humanisation de l’humain. Cahier Millénaire, 3, 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Way, M. J., & Emden, H. F. (2000). Integrated pest management in practice—Pathways towards successful application. Crop Protection, 19, 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worster, D. (1998). Les pionniers de l’écologie. Paris: Editions du Sang de la Terre.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this paper for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INSA de Lyon, UMR 5600 EVS-ITUS, Bâtiment des Humanités, 69621, Villeurbanne Cedex, France

    Coutellec Léo & Bernard Pintureau

Authors
  1. Coutellec Léo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernard Pintureau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Coutellec Léo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Léo, C., Pintureau, B. Crop Protection Between Sciences, Ethics and Societies: From Quick-Fix Ideal to Multiple Partial Solutions. J Agric Environ Ethics 26, 207–230 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9363-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9363-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation