91% of French people would consult a label assessing the use of pesticides if it existed

On supermarket shelves, consumers can find out the nutritional composition of certain dishes and foods by looking at the Nutri Score. It’s that little logo on the packaging that ranks products from A, dark green, for the most nutritionally favorable, to E, dark orange, for the least favorable, very useful for comparing products at a glance during spending and identifying those to focus on. What if, in addition, it was possible to also have access to an environmental view? The Collectif En Vérité, which brings together 60 food brands that are demanding transparency on packaging, has decided to question the French to understand what they really want to know and see, including on packaging, regarding the environmental value of their food. The topic of this study conducted by the polling institute BVA was not chosen by chance since the “Climate and Resilience” law voted in 2021, but postponed several times, reflects part of the 146 proposals of the “Citizens’ Convention for the climate”, includes this measure.

In fact, the Ministry of Ecology specifies that as regards the part dedicated to “more informed citizens”, the ” creation of an environmental label to show the impact, in particular on the climate, of the products we consume After an experimental phase, the exposure of the impact on the environment, in particular on the climate, of products and services will be standardized and mandatory. “Yes, a new method of environmental labeling for textile products had been created by the Union of Textile Industries in collaboration with ADEME (Ecological Transition Agency), an experiment intended to “ evaluate different environmental or environmental and social labeling methodologies and methods. ” Thereby, ” this study aims to ensure that the labeling that will be chosen by the public authorities meets the expectations of the French and is an effective lever to encourage the food transition. » specifies the Collectif En Vérité. And this on the most important criteria for the French, namely the use of pesticides, the farming method and the origin.

Use of pesticides, cultivation method, origin: the most popular indicators

It thus appears that evaluating the use of pesticides constitutes the first criterion of the French questioned when faced with products which present these criteria in the context of the study: 91% of the French would consult an indicator which would allow them to evaluate the use of pesticides , if it exists. For 39% this would even be the most important criterion for assessing the environmental impact of a food product consumed. No wonder when for them the food offer is not suited to environmental (90%) and health (80%) issues. Furthermore, a quarter of the French place the cultivation method at the top of the selection criteria for a food product and 90% would refer to it if it was clearly visible. They are also and moreover very attentive to the origin of the products: 80% evaluate this criterion when it is available. Gold “ this criterion is currently absent from the environmental settings already adopted by some brands. “, remarks the collective. Indicators on the conservation of biodiversity (12%), resources (12%) and climate (13%) are considered a priority by only one in ten French people.

Also to discover: How to garden naturally, without pesticides?

Therefore, the organization points out that ” the interviewees confirm this: it is the indicators that cover a precise reality (use of pesticides, cultivation method, origin) that gather support and guide purchases, rather than indicators that cover broader concepts or notions (climate, biodiversity, resources). When asked about these figures from The ParisianSébastien Loctin, CEO of the company Biofuture, which produces organic oils and dressings and initiator of the En Vérité collective, says that ” we do not know what we eat, how what we eat is produced and what environmental impacts production choices can have. It’s even mission impossible when there’s a profusion of labels drowning in confusing marketing practices. We need transparency on packaging, correct and understandable information. According to the newspaper, the government must present, by the end of this year, a classification system which it will then submit to the opinion of consumer associations and agri-food producers. The presentation should be similar to the one adopted by the Nutri-score.

Sources of pesticide exposure: what risk related to food in France?

And then, what do the French use today to assess the environmental impact? On information that is only indirectly related to it but which is available: list of ingredients (82%), origin (80%), mentions “without” on the packaging (78%), Yuka (33%). This trend certainly explains why 86% of French people say they are interested in discriminating against environmental labelling, allowing for an informed choice within the same category of food products. Faced with this observation, the collective believes that this issue “interests households with diversified incomes while it could seem secondary in a context of inflation and tension on purchasing power. That’s why its members say ” demand the adoption of a robust and mandatory standard for all food brands. The study also demonstrates the strong attention of the French to nutritional quality (22% are guided by this criterion in food purchases) and to the origin of the product (20%). Two criteria which, beyond environmental information, “ illustrate the search for candid information on what impacts, through food, health or sustainability of French sectors. “, concludes the organization.

It should be noted that, according to the WHO, food is the main source of pesticide exposure. The population can also be exposed to pesticides due to contamination of outdoor and indoor air, or soil and dust. This environmental contamination can be due to the use of pesticides at home, in the garden or on pets, or it can be the result of agricultural uses (dissemination of pesticides). But the Ministry of Health judges on this matter that “ however, the share of these different sources in the general population’s exposure to pesticides remains difficult to determine today. Residue limits are defined in foods that must not be exceeded in order to guarantee the lowest possible level of exposure for consumers. Checks are carried out in particular by the DGCCRF* to know the levels of food contamination. Its latest data published in 2019 revealed that of all the samples analysed, 2,511 (out of nearly five thousand) had a quantifiable pesticide residue content, of which 316 had a residual rate higher than the maximum authorized limit, knowing that 181 were declared not compliant with the regulation.

Pesticides and chronic diseases: what do the experts say?

In France, the levels of pesticide impregnation of the general population are still poorly understood. For ten years, Public Health France has been conducting biomonitoring studies aimed at estimating the impregnation of the French population by environmental pollutants, including some pesticides. The Esteban study (Health study on the environment, biomonitoring, physical activity and nutrition), launched in 2014, will make it possible to provide a more complete national representation of the fertilization of the population by pesticides, including in children aged 6 to 17 years old. The first results on pesticides were published in 2021 and it appears that exposure levels vary according to the substances: adults are exposed in particular to certain organochlorines, the organophosphate metabolite (DMTP), pyrethroids and PCBs, dioxins and furans. Children are exposed to DMTP and pyrethroids. However, the levels measured in France appeared similar to those found in most foreign countries (Europe and North America).

Also to discover: Fruits and vegetables: should they be peeled or not?

As for health risks, a collective report published by Inserm in 2021 takes stock of knowledge on the subject. In total, more than 5,300 documents were analyzed by a group of multidisciplinary researchers, in order to examine the link between some twenty diseases and pesticides. In adults, the expert report confirms the strong presumption of a link between occupational exposure to pesticides and four diseases: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer and Parkinson’s disease. It also highlights a strong presumption of a link between occupational exposure to pesticides and two other diseases: cognitive impairment and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/chronic bronchitis. A presumption of a moderate link has also been demonstrated between exposure to pesticides, especially among professionals, and Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety-depressive disorders, some cancers (leukemia, central nervous system, bladder, kidney, soft tissue sarcomas ), asthma and thyroid disease.

Experts have come to the conclusion that “ confirmation and demonstration of strong presumptions of links between certain diseases and pesticide exposure should encourage better consideration of these issues by authorities. But be careful, the consumption of fruits and vegetables is essential for health, which is why it is estimated that the benefits these foods provide are much greater than the risks they could present associated with the low amounts of pesticide residues they may contain. The fears raised by the use of pesticides should therefore not lead to eating less fruit or vegetables. However, it is possible to get into the habit of washing them well before eating them, in order to reduce the amount of pesticides that can be on their surface. But also to make sure you eat a good variety of fruits and vegetables since the different pesticides possibly present in these foods are in very variable quantities. These simple precautions help reduce exposure to certain pesticides by increasing the variety of fruits and vegetables consumed.

* Directorate General for Competition, Consumers and Fraud Prevention

Source link