De Pesticidyndustry Finansieret it Measte Ûndersyk nei Pesticiden
June 24, 2026 · Frisian News
A review of pesticide safety studies shows the chemical industry paid for or directly conducted the vast majority of the research used to approve the chemicals we spray on food. Independent researchers rarely have the resources to compete.
FryskTusken 80 en 90 prosint fan de feiligensstudzjes dy't regeljouwers brûke om pesticiden goed te karjen, komme fan ûndersyk dat troch de pesticidenfabrikanten sels finansierd of útfierd is. In analyze út 2023 oer glyfosfaat-studzjes toande oan dat ûndersyk finansierd troch de yndustry hast fiif kear faker konkludearre dat de gemyske stof feilich wie dan studzjes mei ûnôfhinklike finansiering. De Europeeske Autoriteit foar Fiedselfeiligens, dy't goedkarnormen foar de EU fêststelt, is sterk ôfhinklik fan dizze gegevens dy't troch de yndustry generearre binne.
Dit is gjin komplot. Dit is hoe it systeem wurket. Pesticidebedriuwen besteegje miljarden oan lânbougemikalia. Ûnôfhinklik langduorjend ûndersyk kostet miljoenen en duorret jierren. Universiteiten en oerheidslaboratoria kinne dit nivo fan útjeften net byhâlde. Dus de yndustry stapt yn, finansieret it ûndersyk en leveret de gegevens. Regeljouwers brûke dy gegevens dêrnei om feiligensgrinzen fêst te stellen. De bedriuwen hawwe it ramt sels boud dat bepaalt oft har produkten feilich binne.
De foarkar komt ta utering yn wat wittenskippers bestudearje. Ûndersyk troch de yndustry rjochtet him smel op akute toksisiteit (deadzjet it dy hjoed) ynstee fan kronyske effekten (beskeadiget it dy oer tsien jier). Studzjes sjogge selden hoe't ferskate gemikalia yn it lichem of op gewaaksen gearwurkje. Se folgje gjin langduorjende bleatstellingspatroanen of kombinaasjes dy't boeren wurklik ûndergean. Ûnôfhinklike ûndersikers dy't dizze fragen stelle, hawwe muoite finansiering te finen en wurde ûnder druk set troch lânboubelangen.
As regeljouwers ûnôfhinklik ûndersyk fine dat yn tsjinspraak is mei de yndustrylijn, wurdt dat faak ôfwurdearre of ôfwiisd. De studzjes oer Integrated Pest Management dy't risiko's fan kombinearre bleatstelling toane, wurde arsjivearre. De ûndersiken nei fauna dy't oantoane dat bestuivers ôfnimme, wurde behannele as 'net direkt relevant' foar de goedkarring fan minsklike feiligens. Ûnderwilens bepale de yndustrygegevens, produsearre ûnder de protokollen fan it bedriuw sels, elke beslissing oer wat ferbean wurdt en wat legaal bliuwt.
Dit is gjin probleem dat bettere etikettering of foarsichtiger boeren oplossje sille. Dit is in struktureel probleem. Salang regeljouwers net har eigen ûnôfhinklik ûndersyk finansierje en dat as primêre basis foar goedkarring brûke ynstee fan de yndustrygegevens, feroaret der neat. De pesticidebedriuwen sille de ienigen bliuwe mei sawol it jild as de oansporn om har eigen produkten te bestudearjen. Boeren, konsuminten en regeljouwers sille trochgean mei it bepalen fan feiligens op basis fan testen dy't de gemikaliabedriuwen sels skreaun hawwe.
Between 80 and 90 percent of the safety studies used by regulators to approve pesticides come from research funded or conducted by the pesticide manufacturers themselves. A 2023 analysis of glyphosate studies found that industry-funded research was nearly five times more likely to conclude the chemical was safe than studies with independent funding. The European Food Safety Authority, which sets approval standards for the EU, relies heavily on these industry-generated datasets.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is how the system works. Pesticide companies spend billions on agricultural chemicals. Running independent long-term studies costs millions and takes years. Universities and government labs cannot match this spending. So the industry steps in, funds the research, and provides the data. Regulators then use that data to set safety limits. The companies have built the very framework that determines whether their products are safe.
The bias shows up in what scientists choose to study. Industry research focuses narrowly on acute toxicity (does it kill you today) rather than chronic effects (does it damage you over ten years). Studies rarely look at how multiple chemicals interact in the body or on crops. They do not track long-term exposure patterns or combinations that farmers actually face. Independent researchers who ask these questions struggle to find funding and face pressure from agricultural interests.
When regulators do find independent research that contradicts the industry line, they often downgrade or dismiss it. The Integrated Pest Management studies that show combination exposure risks get filed away. The wildlife studies that document pollinator decline get treated as "not directly relevant" to human safety approval. Meanwhile the industry data, produced under the company's own protocols, shapes every decision about what is banned and what stays legal.
This is not a problem that better labeling or more cautious farmers will solve. It is a structural problem. Until regulators fund their own independent research and use that as the primary basis for approval, not the industry data, nothing changes. The pesticide makers will continue to be the only ones with both the money and the motive to study their own products. Farmers, consumers, and regulators will continue to decide safety based on tests that the chemical companies wrote.
Published June 24, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân