Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 207–230

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

Review Paper
  • 325 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Crop protection Agricultural and environmental ethics Integrated pest management Sustainable agriculture Epistemic pluralism 

References

  1. AFSSET, & INSERM. (2008). Expertise collective «Cancers et environnement». Paris: Afsset et Inserm.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AO, F. (2002). World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  4. 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.
  5. Berque, A. (1996). Être humains sur la Terre. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  6. Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1990). Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology, 55, 590–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binimelis, R. (2008). Coexistence of plants, coexistence of farmers. Is an individual choice possible? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blandin, P. (2009). De la protection de la nature au pilotage de la biodiversité. Versailles: Edition Quae.Google Scholar
  9. Bonneuil, C. A. N. D., & Thomas, F. (2010). Gènes, pouvoirs et profits. Versailles: Edition Quae.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Bouleau, N. 2008. Du pluralisme dans les sciences. Online: http://halshs.archive-ouvertes.fr:halshs-00374576. Accessed February 22, 2011.
  12. Bourg, D., & Besnier, J. M. (2000). Peut-on encore croire au progrès?. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  13. Busch, L., & Lacy, W. B. (1983). Science, agriculture and the politics of research. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Ceballos, L. (2008). Plantes insecticides: évaluation de l’impact sur les insectes auxiliaires. Lyon: Edition Rés’OGM Info.Google Scholar
  16. Coutellec, L. 2011. Comment la recherche-action déplace les frontières? Une perspective épistémologique et éthique. In Academos, L’épistémologie des frontières. Paris: Pétra.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., & Porter, J. R. (2003). Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deguine, J. P., & Ferron, P. (2006). Protection des cultures, préservation de la biodiversité, respect de l’environnement. Cahiers Agricultures, 15, 307–311.Google Scholar
  20. Deguine, J. P., Ferron, P., & Russell, R. (2008). Protection des cultures: de l’agrochimie à l’agroécologie. Versailles: Editions Quae.Google Scholar
  21. Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67, 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dufumier, M., Gouyon, P. -H., & Le Maho, Y. (2008). Les OGM, une solution à la famine? Le Monde, 12 février.Google Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Ferret, S. (2000). Durable, raisonnée, intégrée, paysanne… le jeu des sept familles. Transrural Initiatives, 161, 4–5.Google Scholar
  26. Ferron, P. (1999). Protection intégrée des cultures: évolution du concept et de son application. Les Dossiers de l’Environnement, 19, 19–28.Google Scholar
  27. Gardner, B. L., & Rausser, G. C. (eds.) 2001. Handbook of agricultural economics. Volume 1A: agricultural production. The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  28. Garrau, M., & Le Goff, A. (2010). Care, justice, dépendance. Introduction aux théories du Care. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Holt, J. S., & LeBaron, H. M. (1990). Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technology, 4, 141–149.Google Scholar
  32. IGAS. (2003). Rapport annuel 2003. Santé, pour une politique de prévention durable (p. 399). Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  33. INRA. (2005). Pesticides, agriculture et environnement, réduire l’utilisation des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnementaux. Paris: Editions INRA et CEMAGREF.Google Scholar
  34. INRA. (2010). Synthèse du rapport de l’étude Ecophyto RandD. Quelles voies pour réduire l’usage des pesticides?. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
  35. Jennings, B. (1988). Foundations of international agricultural research. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Lacey, H. (2005). Values and objectivity in science: The current controversy about transgenic crops. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  38. Landais, E. (1998). Agriculture durable: les fondements d’un nouveau contrat social. Dossier de l’environnement de l’INRA, 27, 23–39.Google Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. Larrère, R., Lizet, B., & Berlan-Darque, M. (2009). Histoire des parcs nationaux, comment prendre soin de la nature?. Versailles: Editions Quae.Google Scholar
  41. Laugier, S., & Paperman, P. (2006). Le souci des autres–éthique et politique du care. Paris: Ed. de l’EHESS.Google Scholar
  42. Lawrence, R. J., & Despres, C. (2004). Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Lyson, T. (2002). Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lyson, T. (2004). Civic agriculture. Reconnecting farm, food and community. Hanover: Tufts University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mazoyer, M. A. N. D., & Roudart, L. (1997). Histoire des agricultures du monde. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  47. Nicolino, F., & Veillerette, F. (2007). Pesticides. Révélations sur un scandale français. Paris: Editions Fayard.Google Scholar
  48. OILB/SROP. 1977. Vers la production agricole intégrée, par la lutte intégrée. Bulletin de OILB/SROP 4.Google Scholar
  49. Ost, F. (2003). La nature hors la loi, l’écologie à l’épreuve du droit. Paris: La découverte.Google Scholar
  50. Pellizoni, L. (2003). Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Value, 12, 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pervanchon, F., & Blouet, A. (2002). “Agriculture raisonnée” and “integrated farming”: How are they linked? Cahiers de l’agriculture, 11, 151–157.Google Scholar
  52. Pintureau, B. (2009). La lutte biologique et les trichogrammes. Application au contrôle de la pyrale du maïs. Paris: Le Manuscrit.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. RA, I. N. (2009). Agriculture et biodiversité, valoriser les synergies. Versailles: Editions Quae.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmid, A.-F., & Legay, J.-M. (2004). Philosophie de l’interdisciplinarité. Paris: Pétra.Google Scholar
  58. Sfez, L. (1995). La santé parfaite. Critique d’une nouvelle utopie. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  59. Suffert, F. (2005). Cadre théorique de la notion de complémentation caractérisant des stratégies de protection des cultures. Phytoprotection, 86, 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toler, D. 2000. Biotechnology Not the Solution. The Toronto Star, 25 July.Google Scholar
  61. Tronto, J. (2009). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  62. 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.
  63. van Wijk, J. (2000). Biotechnology and hunger: Challenges for the biotech industry. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 41, 2–7.Google Scholar
  64. Vélot, C. (2009). OGM, tout s’explique. Athée: Ed. Goutte de sable.Google Scholar
  65. Viveret, P. (2004). L’humanisation de l’humain. Cahier Millénaire, 3, 63–68.Google Scholar
  66. Way, M. J., & Emden, H. F. (2000). Integrated pest management in practice—Pathways towards successful application. Crop Protection, 19, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Worster, D. (1998). Les pionniers de l’écologie. Paris: Editions du Sang de la Terre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INSA de LyonUMR 5600 EVS-ITUSVilleurbanne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations