Split horticulture in Norway – The nation
This is a debate post. The text is at the writer’s expense. If you want to participate in the debate, you can send your post to Nationen her
October and November was this year occasionally characterized by a heated exchange of words between representatives of conventional agriculture in Norway and representatives of organic agriculture.
The exchange of words marked Allegations of “intimidation propaganda” and “provocation” concern whether the chemical pesticides used in Norwegian horticulture and agriculture are harmful to the health of consumers (and the environment).
This theme can traced historically and perhaps just some historical insights can contribute to an importance and more nuanced conversation.
In October this year Organic Norway launched a campaign entitled Dirty Nineteen in the magazine Ren Mat. The campaign is inspired by the American organization Environmental Working Group’s shopping guide “Dirty Dozen”.
I supervise they have listed which fruits and vegetables consumers should avoid from pesticides.
I answer The Dirty Nitten campaign commented on Secretary General of the Norwegian Horticultural Association, Kathrine Røed Meberg at the campaign is powerful with “scary words and signs such as poison, dirty, and skull” used as tools.
The problem is this Meberg sees it is that the Dirty Nitten campaign is “very unvarnished, frightening,” and has a misleading way of interpreting results from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.
Unyanced productions we are not served by. In connection with the debate about plant protection, we may still have to endure some words and symbols such as gifts and skulls. Until the 1990s, the term poison was often used synonymously with pesticides, especially insecticides, defined as pests.
Another fact is that many pesticides are preparations designed and modified in the laboratory to be able to effectively live off unwanted organisms in the wrong place.
The many common The pesticides in circulation in the decades after World War II, both organic and synthetic such as nicotine sulfate and Bladan can be described as a gift that not only killed insects and other small insects, but also unfortunately humans in close connection with horticulture and agriculture.
Today the plant protection situation in norwegian agriculture is not the same as it was in «ancient times», but does it also show great caution with funds in agriculture?
The skulls it may no longer be on the bottles, but the warnings are well pasted on? Funds have often been taken away because new funds have become available, and sometimes the demand for certain products has not been great enough.
Men, we know too that many pesticides used in Norway and in their time marketed and considered harmless have later been confirmed as harmful to the environment and health through thorough documentation. Based on such a history, it is perhaps not inconceivable that many are skeptical of the use of chemical pesticides.
“The debate in Norwegian agriculture is characterized by this ‘us’ and ‘them’ often defined on the basis of whether the production is organic or so-called conventional.”
“Us” and “them”
The last couple For decades, a precautionary principle has to a greater extent taken over in the assessment of which funds should be legally available. Meberg may be right that it is no longer appropriate to have too many skulls in an exchange of words about today’s pesticides.
But also today’s research in the field is uncertain and divergent in its results. The language that surrounds chemical plant protection can be a challenge in itself because it is accessible to most people, including those who use it in their daily work.
The description of molecules and structures were in their time developed for the chemical industry itself. Concepts and assessment criteria such as limit values, residues and more have also been developed in specific disciplines and may have helped to provide a picture of these chemical substances as something that can be controlled and limited to a specific use within a specific area.
What we know today is that these substances live their own lives and they are limitless as they move with soil, water, plants, animals and humans. We find examples of ingredients from pesticides in Austfonna on Svalbard and in our own human bodies. At the same time, there is a lot of uncertainty in research about what this actually applies to people and the environment.
This uncertainty around chemical-synthetic plant protection has created a suspicion between different parties. Chemical synthetic pesticides have been considered part of a technological and scientific development, and often described as a tool, but they also have a cultural history.
Technology in itself even can be identity-creating, because technology is not just tools and gadgets, but also ways to do something. Different tools and methods can help to define a professional group: “This is how we do it with us!”.
Chemical-synthetic Pesticides can be described as an identity-creating technology because it is defined for a group. The debate in Norwegian agriculture is characterized by this “us” and “them” often defined on the basis of whether the production is organic or so-called conventional.
We need one more nuanced conversation about chemical synthetic plant protection in Norwegian horticulture. Important questions about the best management of Norwegian agriculture in a holistic perspective must be discussed.
Men, as it is now the various parties are heard when they apparently shout out accusations from their echo chambers with walls of respective magazines, Facebook groups and organizations. As it is now, it will be difficult for outsiders to know which parts of fact and research presentation they should listen to.
Maybe representative for conventional plant production, as general secretary of the Norwegian Horticultural Association Meberg, can show a greater degree of understanding that many are skeptical of plant protection use rooted in known and close history?
And maybe can Do representatives in Organic Norway to a greater extent recognize the work that is actually being done in conventional production in Norway to reduce the use of chemical plant protection to better safeguard the environment and health?