Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Soil Pollution, Animal Contamination and Safe Food Production: The Case of the French West Indies

  • Research
  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 24 February 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

This article presents a new model to manage the provision of healthy food despite incomplete information about exposure of natural resources to a persistent pollutant (chlordecone). This toxic molecule has contaminated both terrestrial and aquatic resources for several decades in the French West Indies. As a consequence, the threat of exposing humans to contaminated food jeopardises local agricultural and livestock activities. We address the problem that breeders face: producing healthy food with incomplete information on the animals’ contamination. We examine the compatibility of respecting health-production constraints with the timing of animal management. We consider the dual set of constraints that breeders face: (i) they must achieve a target contamination rate that complies with the regulation on the maximum residue limits (MRL), and (ii) they must comply with a production calendar that tells them at what age the animals are to be sold. We also discuss the economic and biotechnical consequences that changes in the MRL impose on meat production. We compute the time required to decontaminate the animals and analyse the cost for farmers to adapt to (i) the regulation in place and to (ii) the more stringent health-related targets that are expected in the future. Our results are sensitive to the choice of species (cattle, goats, sheep and pigs), the rearing practices, the information setting and the initial contamination rate. This paper opens strategic windows for breeders to guarantee their economic sustainability and their ability to produce healthy meat despite the incomplete information on pollution at their disposal.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available on request by contacting the corresponding author.

Change history

References

  1. UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/291/89/PDF/N1529189.pdf?OpenElement

  2. Harrison, S., Kivuti-Bitok, L., Macmillan, A., & Priest, P. (2019). EcoHealth and One Health: A theory-focused review in response to calls for convergence. Environment International, 132, 105058.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morand, S., Guégan, J. F. & Laurans Y. (2020). De One Health à Ecohealth, cartographie du chantier inachevé de l’intégration des santés humaine, animale et environnementale. Iddri, Décryptage N04/20.

  4. Roger, F., Caron, A., Morand, S., Pedrono, M., de Garine-Wichatitsky, M., Chevalier, V., Tran, A., Gaidet, N., Figuié, M., de Visscher, M. N., & Binot, A. (2016). One Health and EcoHealth: The same wine in different bottles? Infection Ecology & Epidemiology, 6(1), 30978.

  5. Espinosa, R., Tago, D., & Treich, N. (2020). Infectious diseases and meat production. Environmental & Resource Economics, 76(4), 1019–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bertrand, J., Guyader, O. & Reynal, L. (2013). Caractérisation de la contamination de la faune halieutique par la chlordécone autour de la Guadeloupe. Résultats des campagnes de 2008 à 2011 (projet CarGual). DAAF Guadeloupe, Ref. Référence Ifremer n 13/5210052/F, 47p. https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00136/24762/

  7. Crabit, A., Cattan, P., Colin, F., & Voltz, M. (2016). Soil and river contamination patterns of chlordecone in a tropical volcanic catchment in the French West Indies (Guadeloupe). Environmental Pollution, 212, 615–626.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dromard, C. R., Guéné, M., Bouchon-Navaro, Y., Lemoine, S., Cordonnier, S. & Bouchon, C. (2018). Contamination of marine fauna by chlordecone in Guadeloupe: Evidence of a seaward decreasing gradient. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 25, 14294–14301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Clostre, F., Letourmy, P., & Lesueur Jannoyer, M. (2017). Soil thresholds and decision tool to manage food safety of crops grown in chlordecone polluted soil. Environmental Pollution, 223, 357–366.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lesueur Jannoyer, M., Cattan, P., Woignier, T. & Clostre F. (2016). Crisis management of chronic pollution: Contaminated soil and human health (K26557) CRCPress. 290p.

  11. Maudouit, M., & Rochoy, M. (2019). Revue systématique de l’impact du chlordécone sur la santé humaine aux Antilles françaises. Therapies, 74(6), 611–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. DAAF DIECTE (2019). Résultats des plans de surveillance et de contrôle de la chlordécone dans les denrées alimentaires en 2018, janvier 2019, version 3.

  13. Lesage, C., Angeon, V. & Bates, S. (2019b). Historique du chlordécone aux Antilles françaises (March 20, 2019). SSRN Working paper 3700826.

  14. Traoré, O. Z., & Tamini, L. D. (2022). African trade of mangoes to OECD countries: Disentangling the effects of compliance with maximum residue limits on production, export supply and import demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 49(2), 383–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boudia, S., & Jas, N. (2019). Gouverner par l’adaptation. In Gouverner un monde toxique. Quae eds. 124p.

  16. Ferdinand, M. (2015). De l’usage du chlordécone en Martinique et en Guadeloupe : légalité en question. Revue française des affaires sociales, 1–2, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fintz, M. (2010). L’autorisation du chlordécone en France, 1968-1981: Eléments historiques sur l’arrivée du chlordécone en France. (hal-00584031).

  18. Joly, P.-B. (2010). La saga du chlordécone aux Antilles françaises : reconstruction chronologique 1968-2008. Document réalisé dans le cadre de laction 39 du plan chlordécone. Convention de collaboration AFSSET - INRA.

  19. Lastel, M. L. (2015). Chlordécone et filières animales antillaises : de la distribution tissulaire aux stratégies de décontamination chez les ruminants. Sciences agricoles: Université de Lorraine.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fourcot, A. (2020). Distribution et élimination de la chlordécone chez les animaux d’élevage–modélisation des processus, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences agronomiques, biotechnologies agro-alimentaires, Université de Lorraine.

  21. Lesage, C., Angeon, V., Bates, S. & Andrés-Domenech, P. (2019a). Référencements technico-économiques des systèmes d’élevage aux Antilles françaises (January 29, 2019). SSRN Working paper 3700866.

  22. Mahieu, M., Fournier, A., Lastel, M. L., Feidt, C., Rychen, G., et al. (2014). Chlordécone et élevage, variabilité individuelle des capacités d’excrétion des ruminants et conséquences sur leur contamination. 44è Congrès du groupe français des pesticides : “Protection des cultures et santé environnementale : héritages et conceptions nouvelles”, Groupe Français des Pesticides (GFP). FRA., May 2014, Schoelcher, Martinique, France.

  23. Agastin, A., Naves, M., Farant, A., Godard, X., Bocage, B., Alexandre, G., & Boval, M. (2013). Effects of feeding system and slaughter age on the growth and carcass characteristics of tropical-breed steers. Journal of Animal Science, 91, 3997–4006.

  24. Agastin, A., Sauvant, D., Naves, M., & Boval, M. (2014). Influence of trough versus pasture feeding on average daily gain and carcass characteristics in ruminants: A meta-analysis. Journal of Animal Science, American Society of Animal Science, 92, 1173–1183.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Galan, F., Julien, L., & Duflot, B. (2008). Panorama des filières animales et typologie des systèmes d’exploitation avec élevage de Guadeloupe. In Programme “Réseaux de références” POSEI France (p. 63). Institut de l'élevage, IFIP, ITAVI, Chambre d'agriculture de Guadeloupe, IGUAVIE.

  26. Réseaux de références en élevage (2017). POSEI France – Antilles – Guyane.

  27. Clostre, F., Cattan, P., Gaude, J. M., Carles, C., Letourmy, P., & Lesueur Jannoyer, M. (2015). Comparative fate of an organochlorine, chlordecone, and a related compound, chlordecone-5b-hydro, in soils and plants. Science of the Total Environment, 532, 292–300.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Clostre, F., Letourmy, P., & Lesueur Jannoyer, M. (2015). Organochlorine (chlordecone) uptake by root vegetables. Chemosphere, 118, 96–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cabidoche, Y. M., & Lesueur Jannoyer, M. (2012). Contamination of harvested organs in root crops grown on chlordecone polluted soils 2012. Pedosphere, 22(4), 562–571.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Feidt, C., Fournier, A., Beugnet, C., Fourcot, A., Jock, S., Le Roux, Y., Pelonde, P., Pezeron, M., Saint-Hilaire, M., Samut, T., Seguin, L., Tarche, A., & Rychen, G. (2022). Validation in situ d’un outil d’aide à la décision pour la maîtrise de la teneur en chlordécone des carcasses bovines issues de zones contaminées. Rencontres Chlordécone, connaître pour agir, December 12-14, Le Gosier (Guadeloupe), France.

  31. Epstein, S. (1978). Kepone - Hazard evaluation. The Science of the Total Environment, 9, 1–62.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. PNUE/UNEP. (2006). Rapport du comité d’étude des polluants organiques persistants sur les travaux de sa deuxième réunion. Genève: Comité d’étude des polluants organiques persistants Deuxième réunion.

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR) project ‘INnovative Strategies to establish Safe livestock rearing systems In Contaminated Areas Chlordecone’ (Grant No. 16-CE21-0008)..

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

P. Andrés-Domenech, V. Angeon and S. Bates wrote the main manuscript text and prepared all the figures and tables. P. Andrés-Domenech designed the model’s IT architecture and ensured its application. V. Angeon and S. Bates designed the theoretical model. V. Angeon supervised the surveys carried out by C. Lesage. S. Bates verified the consistency of results between the theoretical model and the data application. C. Lesage collected the empirical data. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Bates.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Rearing Costs and Benefits

Appendix. Rearing Costs and Benefits

Few data exist on breeding practices in Guadeloupe. [26] usually produces monographs on the functioning of livestock systems based on a small number of cases. Since the data produced by [26], the work of [21] is the most comprehensive work with a qualitative survey based on 37 livestock farmers. In this appendix, we provide further details on rearing costs and benefits that are integrated in the economic calculation (see Table 4).

1.1 Cattle

Rearing practices implies both fixed costs and variable costs. In this section, we list all the costs that intervene in the rearing of an animal (a male cow).

The fixed rearing costs for cattle include the purchase price, various fees (subscriptions) and animal’s identification tags.

  • Purchase price: The cost of buying a male cow at 8 months of age is expressed in EUR/animal. The price depends on its weight. The average weight of a male cow after weaning (at 8 months of age) is 175 kg [23]. The average price per cow equals 910 EUR/animal.

  • EDE contribution (in French, subscription to the Établissement de l’Élevage): The EDE is a development institute in charge of the identification and the traceability of animals. The subscription cost equals 8 EUR per animal to be paid once a year (on the month in which the animal is bought and every 12 months thereafter).

  • GDS contribution (subscription to the Groupement de Défense Sanitaire - GDS): The GDS is a development institute that advises breeders on the animal’s health status. The subscription cost equals 3 EUR to be paid once a year (1 month after the animal is bought and then every 12 months).

  • Animal’s identification tags: The cost of these tags amounts to 9 EUR and is paid once, 2 months after the animal is bought.

All the fixed costs noted above apply to all animals, regardless of whether they graze or they are kept in stalls. These costs amount to 930 EUR within the first year and 11 EUR for each subsequent year.

1.1.1 Fixed Decontamination Costs

  • Animals’ enclosure: The breeder bears specific costs such as electric fences. They are equal to 608.21 EUR. One such structure lasts at least 10 years, which means that several cows may benefit from the same structure, although not at the same time. For each animal, the stabling cost is at most equal to 60.82 EUR. We attribute one tenth of the total cost to each animal.

If an animal is decontaminated in a stall, additional costs are paid. In practice, since the production units are small, farmers design rudimentary stalls with recovery material whose costs are not evaluated.

Two types of costs are distinguished: the monthly rearing cost and the additional monthly decontamination costs.

1.1.2 Variable Costs (per Month)

These cover all the basics (i.e. fodder, feed concentrate, veterinary costs). It amounts to 14.58 EUR per month. When the animal is undergoing the decontamination phase in a stall, food must be bought. Two supplementary costs are considered in this case: the cost of fodder and the cost of feed concentrate.

  • Cost of fodder: An animal placed in a stall eats 2 kg of fodder per day. A 240 kg fodder bale costs 80 EUR (i.e. 0.33 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1). For an average month (30.5 days), this represents 20.3 EUR per animal and month.

  • Cost of feed concentrate: The average animal needs 0.6 kg of concentrate per day (i.e. 18.3 kg per month). A bag of animal concentrate (25 kg) costs 13.2 EUR. The cost of feed concentrate amounts to 9.7 EUR per month.

The variable rearing costs are thus 14.58 EUR per month when the animal is not undergoing decontamination and 44.58 EUR per month (14.58+20.3+9.7) when the animal is undergoing decontamination.

1.1.3 Financial Inputs

The technical-economic schedule also includes financial inputs for the breeder. These are the turnover, the slaughter premium, a marketing premium, a transport premium and European financial help (Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity - POSEI).

  • The turnover is computed as the product between the weight (measured in kg of carcass) and the price (measured in EUR/kg). The average carcass weight of a male cow after 22 months of fattening is 500 kg. The average sale price of male cows is estimated at 5.2 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 of carcass.

  • Slaughter premium: 210 EUR/animal.

  • Marketing premium: 300 EUR/animal.

  • Transport premium: 40 EUR/animal.

  • POSEI: 0.55 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 of carcass.

Following the same structure of decomposition of cost and benefits, the subsequent appendixes inform about the other animal species.

1.2 Sheep

  • Purchase price: The cost of buying a male sheep at 2.5 months of age is expressed in EUR/animal. The price depends on the weight of the animal. The average weight of a male sheep after weaning (at 2.5 months of age) is 13.7 kg [26]. The average price per sheep equals 4.8 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 that corresponds to 66 EUR/animal.

  • EDE contribution: The subscription equals 8 EUR per animal and year. This cost is paid once a year, on the month in which the animal is bought and every 12 months thereafter.

  • GDS contribution: This subscription amounts to 3 EUR/year. To be paid once a year, 1 month after the animal is bought and once every 12 months.

  • Animal’s identification tags: This cost equals 9 EUR to be paid once, 2 months after the animal is bought.

All the fixed costs above apply to all animals. They amount to 123.76 EUR within the first year and 11 EUR for each subsequent year.

1.2.1 Fixed Decontamination Costs

  • Animals’ enclosure: The breeder supports specific costs (e.g. stall). They are equal to 50 EUR/animal. One such structure lasts at least 5 years, which means that several animals may profit from the same structure.

If an animal is decontaminated in a stall, additional costs are paid. We distinguish two types of costs: the monthly rearing cost and the monthly decontamination costs.

1.2.2 Variable Costs (per Month)

These cover all the basics (i.e. fodder, feed concentrate, veterinary costs). It amounts to 15.74 EUR per month.

When the animal is undergoing the decontamination phase in a stall, its food is bought. This adds cost of fodder and cost of feed concentrate.

  • Cost of fodder: An animal placed in a stall eats 2.5 kg of fodder per day. A 240-kg fodder bale costs 80 EUR (i.e. 0.33 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1). For an average month (30.5 days), this represents 10.17 EUR per animal.

  • Cost of feed concentrate: After weaning, the average animal needs 0.1 kg of concentrate per day during 3 months. After this period, the animal is fattened during 3.5 months and eats concentrate and fodder at the rate of 0.3 kg of concentrate per day and 2.5 kg of fodder per day.

The variable rearing costs are thus 9.09 EUR/month when the animal is not undergoing decontamination and 15.74 EUR/month when the animal is undergoing decontamination.

1.2.3 Financial Inputs

  • The turnover is computed as the product between the weight (measured in kg of carcass) and the price (measured in EUR/kg). The average weight gain for animals kept in stalls is estimated at a level of 188 g/day. The average weight at the end of fattening is 33 kg. The average carcass weighs 14.6 kg. Fattening sheep are sold at the age of 9 months.

The average sale price is estimated at 9.6 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 of carcass according to the data provided by the Réseau de références.

Contrary to breeders that rear cows, there is no other premium except:

  • POSEI at a rate of 9 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 of carcass.

1.3 Goats

  • Purchase price: The cost of buying a male goat at 2.5 to 3 months of age is expressed in EUR/animal. The price depends on the weight of the animal. The average weight of a male goat after weaning, at 2.5 months of age, is 7.87 kg [26]. The average price per goat equals 4.8 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 that corresponds to 55.09 EUR/animal.

The following costs are strictly identical for goats and sheep (refer to Appendix on sheep for detailed figures): EDE contribution, GDS contribution, animal’s identification tags and animals’ enclosure.

All the fixed costs above apply to every animal. They amount to 113.09 EUR within the first year and 11 EUR for each subsequent year.

If an animal is decontaminated in a stall, additional costs are to be paid. We distinguish two types of costs: the monthly rearing cost and the monthly decontamination costs.

1.3.1 Variable Costs (per Month)

These cover all the basics (i.e. fodder, feed concentrate, veterinary costs). They amount to 2.64 EUR per month.

When the animal is undergoing the decontamination phase in a stall, fodder and feed concentrate must be bought.

  • Cost of fodder: An animal placed in a stall eats 2.5 kg of fodder per day. A 240-kg fodder bale costs 80 EUR (i.e. 0.33 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1). For an average month (30.5 days), this represents 10.17 EUR per animal.

  • Cost of feed concentrate: After weaning, the average animal needs 0.1 kg of concentrate per day during 3 months. After this period, the animal is being fattened for 3 months and eats concentrate and fodder at the rate of 0.2 kg of concentrate/day and 2.5 kg of fodder/day.

Once they are 6 months old, goats are supplemented with concentrate and fodder at a rate of 0.3 kg of concentrate/day and 2.5 kg of fodder/day.

The variable rearing costs are thus 5 EUR/month when the animal is not undergoing decontamination and 7.51 EUR/month when the animal is undergoing decontamination.

1.3.2 Financial Inputs

  • The turnover is computed as the product between the weight (measured in kg of carcass) and the price (measured in EUR/kg). The average weight gain for animals kept in stalls is estimated at 84 g/day. The average weight at the end of fattening is 23 kg, for an average carcass weight estimated at 10.5 kg. Fattening goats are sold at the age of 12 months.

The average selling price is estimated at 12.1 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 of carcass.

The other financial inputs are strictly identical for goats and sheep: POSEI at a rate of 9 EUR \(\cdot\) kg-1 of carcass.

1.4 Pigs

Considering that pigs are not viable from a health-related viewpoint, economic computation is not worthwhile. That is the reason why no further details are provided for this species.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrés-Domenech, P., Angeon, V., Bates, S. et al. Soil Pollution, Animal Contamination and Safe Food Production: The Case of the French West Indies. Environ Model Assess 28, 1037–1054 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-023-09921-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-023-09921-1

Keywords

Navigation