ABSTRACT
In light of the damage that can be done to the environment and human health by the misuse of chemical pesticides, many people have called for a more limited use of these substances in general, going beyond the sort of trade restrictions considered earlier. A body of opinion has steadily emerged which would like to see all uses of manufactured pesticides ended, in favour of alternative practices of pest control. Even more conservative voices within pesticides politics have come to aspire towards a situation in which reliance on chemicals is replaced by a multifaceted approach to the problem of crop protection in agriculture. Some governments have implemented legislation reducing pesticide use. The governments of Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden in the late 1980s launched schemes to cut pesticide use by 50 per cent before the end of the century.1 The inclusion in the FAO’s Code of Conduct of Article 3.8 stating that ‘governments and the pesticide industry should develop and promote integrated pest management’,2 seems to signify that the principle that pesticide usage be kept to a minimum has developed the status of an international norm. 'The agrochemicals industry has noted this, and made efforts not to appear out of line with such opinion. A Shell report on their agrochemical business acknowledges that:
Environmental and economic arguments as well as sound biologicalprinciples support a trend to integrated pest management (I PM), by which is meant the coordination of agricultural practices and biological and chemical control of pests?
