De Pestisideindustry Finansieret it Measte Ûndersyk nei Pestisiden
October 7, 2025 · Frisian News
A new analysis shows that pesticide manufacturers fund the majority of studies examining the safety of their own products, raising serious questions about research independence. Independent researchers struggle to secure funding while industry-backed studies dominate the scientific record.
FryskYn in laboratorium yn Brussel testen ûndersikers oft in folle brûkt herbisid minsklike sellen skeadet. It ûndersyk fûn gjin signifikant skealik effekt. Itselde herbisid wie in pear moannen earder al by trije universiteiten yn Jeropa ûnôfhinklik hifke en hie de testen net trochstien. It ferskil: in pestisidebedriuw betelle foar it Brusselske ûndersyk, wylst de universiteiten har eigen wurk finansierden mei krimpende iepenbiere budzjetten.
In nij ûndersyk nei pestisideûndersyk toant de omfang fan dit probleem. Yndustrjeboarnen finansierden 62 persint fan alle publisearre stúdzjes oer pestisidefeilichheid tusken 2015 en 2024. Ûnôfhinklike ûndersikers fierden mar 18 persint fan dizze stúdzjes út, de rest kaam fan oerheidsinstânsjes of mingde boarnen. It patroan bliuwt bestean foar grutte gewaaksen: glyfosaat, neonikotinoïden, fungisiden. Wêr't jild wei komt bepaalt wat wittenskippers fine.
De gemyske yndustry rjochtfeardiget dit. Sy stelle dat feiligenstesten miljoenen per produkt kostje en dat regearingen fabrikanten net ferwachtsje meie ûndersyk te subsidearjen dat se tsjinwurkje. In wurdfierder fan de Jeropeeske Gemyske Yndustrjeried fertelde ús dat ûnôfhinklik ûndersyk faak de 'krektens en standerdisaasje' fan yndustriële protokollen mist. Dit argumint klinkt ridlik oant men merkst dat yndustrjestúdzjes hast altyd konkludearje dat har produkten feilich binne, wylst ûnôfhinklike ûndersikers skealike gefolgen folle faker rapportearje.
Regelders kenne dit foaroardiel. De Jeropeeske Autoriteit foar Fiedingsfeilichheid akseptearret yndustrjegegevens as primêr bewiis yn goedkarringsbeslissingen, mar weaget stúdzjes net nei finansieringsboarne. In Frânske toksikolog mei wa't wy praten, dy't anonym bliuwe woe om har finansieringskânsen te beskermjen, sei dúdlik: 'As jo wolle dat jo stúdzje belied beynfloedet, hawwe jo yndustriële stipe nedich. As jo de wierheid wolle, fine jo ûnôfhinklik jild. Jo krije selden beide.' Universiteiten yn hiel Jeropa rapportearje dat pestisideûndersykbudzjetten de ôfrûne tsien jier mei 40 persint yn reële termen sakke binne, sels wylst gemyske bedriuwen har eigen labs útwreidzje.
Dit makket in systeem dêr't de minsken dy't it gif ferkeapje folle fan it wittenskiplik oardiel skriuwe oer oft it gif is. Guon lannen begjinne werom te triuwen. Itaalje fereasket no ûnôfhinklike ferifikaasje fan yndustrjestúdzjes foar goedkarring. Nederlân finansieret mear universitêr ûndersyk nei alternativen. Mar yn it grutste part fan Jeropa sil in boer of konsumint dy't witte wol oft in pestisid feilich is benammen stúdzjes fine dy't betelle binne troch it bedriuw dat winst makket as se it keapje.
In a laboratory in Brussels, researchers tested whether a common herbicide damages human cells. The study found no significant harm. The same herbicide had failed independent tests at three universities across Europe just months earlier. The difference: a pesticide company paid for the Brussels research, while the universities funded their own work with shrinking public budgets.
A new audit of pesticide research reveals the scale of this problem. Industry sources funded 62 percent of all published studies on pesticide safety between 2015 and 2024. Independent researchers conducted only 18 percent of these studies, with the rest coming from government agencies or mixed sources. The pattern holds across major crops: glyphosate, neonicotinoids, fungicides. Where money comes from shapes what scientists find.
The chemical industry justifies this. They argue that safety testing costs millions per product, and governments should not expect manufacturers to subsidize research they oppose. A spokesperson for the European Chemical Industry Council told us that independent research often lacks the "rigor and standardization" of industry protocols. This argument sounds reasonable until you notice that industry studies almost always conclude their products are safe, while independent researchers report harm at much higher rates.
Regulators know about this bias. The European Food Safety Authority accepts industry data as primary evidence in approval decisions, but it does not weight studies by funding source. A French toxicologist we spoke with, who requested anonymity to protect her funding prospects, said plainly: "If you want your study to influence policy, you need industry support. If you want the truth, you find independent money. You rarely get both." Universities across Europe report that pesticide research budgets have fallen 40 percent in real terms over the past decade, even as chemical companies expand their own labs.
This creates a system where the people selling the poison write much of the scientific verdict on whether it is poison. Some countries are starting to push back. Italy now requires independent verification of industry studies before approval. The Netherlands funds more university research into alternatives. But across most of Europe, a farmer or consumer who wants to know if a pesticide is safe will find mostly studies paid for by the company that profits if they buy it.
Published October 7, 2025 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân