Last week, farmers in Belgium, Germany and other EU countries demonstrated against the finalization of the proposed free trade agreement between the EU and the South American Mercosur countries (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay).

The Mercosur agreement aims to create one of the world’s largest free trade areas by reducing tariffs and boosting trade, according to EU President Ursula von der Leyen. Negotiations began 25 years ago and a preliminary agreement was reached in 2019. However, opposition from EU countries such as France, the Netherlands and Poland led to years of renegotiation.

The agreement has now reached a political conclusion, but significant hurdles remain. After a formal legal review, the agreement must be translated into EU languages and approved by the European Council and Parliament. It will then need to be ratified by all EU national parliaments.

European farmers fear a surge in imports from South America, particularly beef, soya and sugar. With vast agricultural land and lower production costs, Mercosur countries could gain a competitive advantage. EU farmers, who have to meet strict environmental and social standards, may find it difficult to compete on price.

There are also environmental concerns. The EU prioritises sustainable agriculture and climate protection and imposes strict regulations on its farmers. Meanwhile, land clearing for agriculture in Mercosur countries, particularly in the Amazon, raises fears of increased deforestation.

On the other hand, the agreement could open up export opportunities for European farmers. Products such as wine, cheese and olive oil could gain easier access to Mercosur markets through tariff reductions, benefiting specialized producers of high-quality goods. However, the EU’s deforestation regulation could impose stricter requirements on Brazilian exports.

However, the EU’s deforestation regulation could impose stricter requirements on Brazilian exporters, potentially offsetting these benefits.

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection (BMWK) has emphasized strict import regulations that only allow products that meet EU standards to enter the market. Bilateral safeguard clauses could be activated to address economic disadvantages caused by sudden import surges. Specific import quotas for sensitive products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol are also part of the deal.

Environmental protection measures are included, such as commitments to international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement, prevention of deforestation, sustainable agriculture and investment in renewable energy. Transparency mechanisms and civil society participation will ensure compliance. Both sides pledge not to lower environmental standards for economic gain.

Despite these measures, critics remain sceptical, particularly about the enforcement of deforestation controls in the Amazon. The effectiveness of environmental regulations depends heavily on consistent implementation and monitoring. For EU agriculture, maintaining strict environmental and social standards will be crucial, as will potential compensation mechanisms to protect farmers from unfair competition.

Innovation and sustainability will be key for European farmers to remain competitive in the global market as the final decision on the Mercosur agreement approaches.

In potato cultivation, targeted crop protection measures play a central role in securing yield and quality. In addition to combating diseases like late blight, weed and pest control are significant challenges.

Potatoes cover the soil relatively late, allowing weeds like white goosefoot, knotweed, or cleavers to compete with the crops for a long time. An effective treatment strategy combines pre-emergence and post-emergence measures. What does the current strategy look like?

Herbicides such as Bandur (active ingredient: aclonifen) and Centium 36 CS (active ingredient: clomazone) should be applied at least a week before potato shoots emerge. These products combat a wide variety of weeds but require moist soil to be effective.

The Colorado potato beetle is a significant pest. Monitoring begins in May. If larvae are visible, targeted control measures should be implemented. Biological insecticides like spinosad or azadirachtin are more environmentally friendly, while severe infestations may require chemical agents such as lambda-cyhalothrin or thiacloprid.

The Colorado potato beetle is a significant pest. Monitoring begins in May. If larvae are visible, targeted control measures should be implemented. Biological insecticides like spinosad or azadirachtin are more environmentally friendly, while severe infestations may require chemical agents such as lambda-cyhalothrin or thiacloprid.

Combating fungal diseases is essential for maintaining healthy potato crops. In addition to late blight (Phytophthora infestans), other fungal infections such as Alternaria (early blight), Rhizoctonia solani (black scurf), and Colletotrichum coccodes (black dot) pose threats.

Fungicide treatments should be adapted to infection pressure and weather conditions. Rotating active ingredient classes early, for instance, from strobilurins to carboxamides, helps prevent resistance. Additionally, soil and plant-strengthening measures, such as adequate lime application, contribute to disease prevention.

Overusing specific active ingredients increases the risk of resistance development. Targeted active ingredient rotation and the integration of agronomic measures ensure long-term effective crop protection solutions.

Weed and pest control in potato cultivation requires precise adaptation of crop protection measures to site conditions and crop characteristics. With an integrated approach, yield and quality can be sustainably secured. Because…

The “return” to old (often outdated) solutions is often just a stopgap measure or no solution at all. This is especially true when previously very efficient methods or technologies, such as chemical crop protection, are no longer fully available. Therefore, entirely new solutions must be sought and tailored to the required applications.

With electrophysical plant control, crop.zone introduces a new mechanism for broad application. This approach can help address issues such as resistance problems or the strong weather dependency of other methods, offering a more reliable and sustainable solution.

Resistance management of weeds with chemicals alone is no longer possible. Instead of new mechanisms of action, new mechanisms of resistance to herbicides are constantly being found. Palmer amaranth not only promotes mass in terms of seeds and growth, it also simply produces so many more receptors that the plants become highly resistant to glyphosate.

The only known strategy against the spread of this crop-damaging plant seems to be integrated resistance management using mechanical and physical weed control methods. Both scientists and crop.zone are working on this from different angles.

Lynn M. Sosnoskie of Cornell University, together with other scientists, has been studying the resistance of Palmer amaranth to pesticides in the US state of New York. (Link)

Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth has been reported in more than 30 US states. It is one of the most important herbicide-resistant and crop-threatening weeds in the US and already has its own icon on the homepage of the world’s largest database of resistant weeds – where it is uprooted by hand (Link). However, the current work has revealed even more about the resistance mechanism.

While most resistance is based on mutation of a receptor for the herbicide, Palmer amaranth simply produces many more receptors. The herbicide cannot react with all the receptors. Using this relatively new mechanism, the plants became 42 to 67 times more resistant than control plants, continued to grow at a rate of 2.5 cm per day and produced millions of new seeds per female plant. It is feared that this resistance strategy could easily be transferred to other herbicides.

Further trials show that this process has already begun. Some other herbicides already work poorly. New herbicides are not on the horizon, and there is no guarantee that the mechanism will not work again. (Link)

Successful resistance management always involves a whole toolbox of measures from which the best ones must be selected. As the scientists working with Lynn M. Sosnoskie plan, an integrated weed management system needs to be developed that can (re)consider mechanical methods such as ploughing. However, tillage has significant side effects in terms of soil health, erosion and increased energy use. As there is no going back to the future, innovations such as electrophysical crop management should also be trialled and adapted to local needs. It remains to be seen whether large-scale application is a more effective solution than individual plant detection and treatment with electricity or lasers.

It is this integrated weed management that Cornell scientists are working on, as well as tools to help identify Palmer amaranth and strategies to reduce its spread by agricultural (Link). New strategies are therefore also challenging farmers, who have to deal even more intensively with individual weed species.

crop.zone makes its contribution by developing equipment that can be used over large areas for comprehensive electro-physical plant control without moving the soil.

Electric weed control is transforming the agricultural industry by providing a sustainable, non-chemical solution to weed management. This technology uses high-voltage electricity to target weeds at their roots, effectively killing them without the need for chemical herbicides. It is an ideal solution for farmers looking to adopt herbicide-free practices while maintaining effective weed control.

The benefits of electric weed control extend to both the environment and crop health. By reducing chemical inputs, farmers can improve soil quality and reduce the risk of chemical residues in food and water. Additionally, electric weed control is precise and can be used in combination with precision agriculture techniques to target specific weeds without damaging crops.

As the demand for sustainable farming solutions grows, electric weed control is emerging as a key technology in the shift toward more environmentally friendly agricultural practices.

The current Australian discussion about the toxicity of the herbicide paraquat is almost a repeat of the ban on this highly toxic substance in the EU around 15 years ago. Even then, EU courts were so critical of the link with Parkinson’s disease and the toxicity to humans and animals that the EU Commission had to withdraw the authorisation. The Australian authorities are currently severely restricting the quantities used and making paraquat worthless, for example in potato siccation, due to long waiting periods. Only the acceptance of scientific risk assessments and the early development of sustainable alternatives can maintain weed control and siccation.

There is currently an intense debate in Australia as to whether the non-selective herbicide paraquat is a cause of the increased incidence of Parkinson’s disease. Scientists assume that the causal link can be proven with certainty in animals. (Link)

In its latest report, the Australian Pesticide Management Authority (APVMA) still does not see these links as clearly. (Link)

However, it recommends stopping applications with high application rates if they pose a high risk to the environment or an acute risk of poisoning. (Link)

For those Australians who live or have lived in rural areas, and for those who currently have Parkinson’s disease, the situation remains uncertain and less than reassuring.

In a very extensive evaluation process that was reviewed by the EU courts, the EU Commission finally had to withdraw the previous authorisation of paraquat in 2010 following complaints from several countries because the data on which the authorisation was based did not correspond to the full state of scientific knowledge and its appropriate evaluation. The key points of the toxicological assessment at the time, which then led to the ban, were the sufficiently clear link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease, life-threatening risks for users and excessive effects on animal health (rabbits, birds). (Link)

Paraquat is the most commonly used pesticide for suicide. Just 20 ml can be fatal. Even the addition of emetics has not significantly reduced the risk of death. (Link)

For these reasons, paraquat is now banned in 67 countries, but is still authorised in Australia and the USA, for example. In China, the owner of the world’s largest paraquat producer, but banned its use in the whole country in 2016. (Link)

Despite this, agricultural productivity in these countries has not fallen.(Link) However, this is not due to the ban without replacement, but to work on alternatives, as weed control and siccation cannot simply be dispensed with.

European agriculture is lagging far behind Australia when it comes to no-till and drought management. In the current wet year (in Germany), risks of drought are often overlooked, but climate change is here to stay. Weed control concepts with multiple cultivations, however shallow and precise they may be, can then cost the crucial leftover water for the next sowing and wind erosion the soil itself.

But perhaps Australia can learn from Europe when it comes to PPP risk management. Glufosinate, paraquat and diquat have been banned by the EU for years and decades on the basis of scientific risk assessments (also and especially with regard to Parkinson’s disease). The early ban has also led to the development of innovative agricultural technology. 

Paraquat is currently authorised in Australia for use 3-7 days before potato uprooting. Surprisingly, according to the latest APVMA report, there is no data to support safe use during this period. Even the available residue data for a 14-day waiting period showed unacceptable levels of paraquat intake for children. The new recommendation for further use is therefore ‘4-5 weeks before uprooting’). (Link)

This stricter recommendation shows that toxicity for humans has obviously been considerably underestimated without any scientific basis. At the same time, however, the example also shows that the new recommendation makes paraquat practically worthless for many farmers who, for a variety of reasons, cannot or do not want to leave their potatoes in the ground for so long.

Cultivation time means yield and money. In many regions of the world, the aim is to allow potatoes to grow actively for a defined period of time in order to achieve high quality and a high price (size, starch content, not too long a pest load in the soil, predictable weather conditions at harvest). Once potato growth is complete, the fields must be available for rapid replanting with a catch crop or the following crop. Even the current waiting period of 14 days is often a considerable difficulty for farmers. Particularly in years with later planting dates, every day of active growth, especially for industrial potatoes, is a significant economic gain. This is why more and more farmers are turning to modern non-chemical methods.

The APVMA report contains a lengthy list of restrictions, from a ban on high application rates to longer waiting periods. For more than 10 crops and fallow land, this means that innovative solutions will have to be found if the restrictions are implemented. Resistance is strong. For example, legume growers in some regions fear very severe wind breakage if they are no longer allowed to apply paraquat early enough. (Link)

The winegrowing sector also sees paraquat as a tried-and-tested component in the herbicide toolbox. (Link)

The same applies to grain and cotton producers, who fear for their future if they can no longer control weeds and desiccate as before. (Link) (Link)

The historical development and current examples show that the general trend towards the use of chemical herbicides is the ever-increasing restriction due to scientifically recognised, unacceptable side effects. Ignoring toxicological studies is also never successful in the medium term in constitutional states. But there will be no going back to the hoe and plough.

So alternatives must be found through innovation. This takes time and must always be started proactively. Non-chemical innovations can be developed much faster than chemical active ingredients, for which the pipeline is also definitely empty. The last new mechanisms of action were discovered more than 30 years ago. Today, only the number of resistant weeds is increasing.

The crop.zone electrophysical process is one of the innovations that is driving progress and is being used in several areas. In Europe, for example, after the long-standing ban on paraquat and, for some years now, diquat, many farmers are happy that crop.zone has no waiting times. Unlike the herbicides that are still available, it does not need sunlight to develop its effect. This means that even in difficult climatic conditions, farmers can desiccate potato haulm and harvest as required for potato quality and logistics. This means that the potato harvest in Germany can continue into November and the following crop are sown immediately afterwards.

crop.zone is using its technology in a rising number of crops areas such as potatoes, cover crops, cereals and, in future, in pre-emergence treatment, legumes and more. This is because crop.zone makes the mode of action of electrophysical treatment usable for large-scale agriculture. This will help any progressive agriculture, whether organic, regenerative or ‘just’ future-orientated, forward-looking and responsible.

On June 17, 2024, the EU adopted the Nature Restoration Law, a comprehensive piece of legislation that promotes the protection and restoration of ecosystems across Europe while helping to tackle the biodiversity and climate crises. This law, the first of its kind in Europe, is a central component of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and sets binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems, particularly those that play a vital role in carbon sequestration and disaster mitigation.

Intact nature is the net that supports us all. The diversity of species and the services provided by ecosystems are essential for our livelihoods and well-being. However, the condition of Europe’s natural environment is alarming: more than 80% of habitats are in poor condition, and one-third of bee and butterfly species are at risk of extinction. Restoring wetlands, rivers, forests, grasslands, and marine ecosystems is crucial for increasing biodiversity and securing vital ecosystem services.

The law goes beyond environmental protection; it is an integral part of the EU’s climate adaptation strategy, as intact ecosystems help mitigate the impacts of climate change and enhance Europe’s resilience. They support the EU’s autonomy by preventing natural disasters and reducing risks to food security.

The law contains clear and binding targets to ensure the long-term recovery of nature in Europe. By 2030, at least 20% of the EU’s land and marine areas are to be restored, and by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration should be rehabilitated. The specific goals include:

EU member states are required to submit national restoration plans by 2026, detailing how they will achieve the law’s targets. Progress will be monitored through reports prepared by the European Environment Agency, which will be reviewed by the Commission and presented to the EU Parliament and the Council.

The Nature Restoration Law is a crucial step towards preserving intact nature in Europe, both on land and at sea. This regulation is an investment in our future, as only a healthy environment can provide the essential services that protect and sustain us—from clean water to climate adaptation. With its ambitious goals and commitment to restoring 20% of the EU’s land and marine areas by 2030, the law brings Europe closer to a green, sustainable future.

The Nature Restoration Law enhances the quality of life for citizens and strengthens resilience against future environmental crises. This legislation is a vital investment in the health of our planet and society—for the benefit of future generations.

Herbicide-free farming is becoming increasingly important as farmers seek to reduce their reliance on chemical herbicides and move toward more sustainable practices. Electric weed control, organic weed management, and mechanical weed control are just a few of the methods being used to achieve this goal.

Electric weed control is particularly promising, as it offers a precise, non-chemical solution to weed management. This technology uses high-voltage electricity to kill weeds without the need for herbicides, making it ideal for organic farming and herbicide-free agriculture.

Herbicide-free farming not only supports environmental sustainability but also contributes to healthier crops and ecosystems. By reducing the use of chemicals, farmers can improve soil health, reduce water contamination, and promote biodiversity on their farms.

crop.zone is at the forefront of sustainable farming, introducing innovative solutions that minimise environmental impact while improving agricultural efficiency. Specialising in electric weed control, crop.zone provides farmers with a powerful alternative to chemical herbicides. By using electric currents to target weeds at the cellular level, the company enables a more precise and eco-friendly method of weed management.

The benefits of crop.zone’s technology extend beyond weed control. Electric desiccation, another key offering, prepares crops for harvest without the need for chemical desiccants. This is a crucial development for farmers who are looking to adopt herbicide-free farming practices while maintaining high yields. With sustainability becoming a priority in modern agriculture, crop.zone is leading the way in offering innovative, effective, and environmentally responsible solutions.

Through its technology, crop.zone is helping to reduce the reliance on chemical herbicides like glyphosate, which are facing increasing regulatory scrutiny. The result is a cleaner, healthier approach to farming that aligns with global sustainability goals. With precision agriculture and electric desiccation, crop.zone offers a path toward more productive and sustainable farming practices.

Chemical defoliation has been a standard practice in cotton farming for decades, helping to remove leaves and expose cotton bolls for harvesting. However, as concerns about environmental and health risks grow, alternatives to chemical defoliation are becoming more popular. Organic and electric defoliation methods offer safer, more sustainable options that reduce the reliance on chemicals while maintaining high levels of efficiency.

These methods not only preserve soil health but also support cleaner, chemical-free cotton production. As the cotton industry shifts toward sustainability, chemical defoliation alternatives are playing a vital role in protecting both crop quality and the environment.

With the foreseeable discontinuation of the PFAS plant protection product flufenacet, new solutions must be developed to control weed grasses. The degradation product trifluoroacetic acid, which can be formed during the degradation of all PFAS plant protection products, has proven to be so toxic that essential authorisation criteria are no longer met.  Sustainable and forward-looking development of agricultural technology based on the precautionary principle is becoming increasingly important in order to give farmers security when combating weeds. After all, good alternatives require innovations in the field and several years of testing and optimisation.

Flufenacet is a very important component for soil herbicides, especially against weeds such as foxtail – and will soon be discontinued at least in Germany. (Link)

EFSA concluded that flufenacet no longer meets the criteria for authorisation of plant protection products set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 due to concerns about its effects on the human endocrine system and the possible contamination of water by harmful degradation products such as trifluoroacetic acid. (Link)

Like a number of other crop protection products, flufenacet belongs to the group of polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). These are substances in which three fluorine atoms are bound to at least one carbon atom of the active ingredient molecule.  Such substances are generally either hardly or not at all degradable in the environment (so-called perpetuants) or they break down into substances that are no longer degradable, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). Other important TFA-releasing pesticides include diflufenican, fluazinam, tritosulfuron, tembotrione, fluopyram, fluaziflop-P, trifloxystrobin, fluopicolide, lambda-cyhalothrin and flonicamid. (Link)

And it is precisely this non-degradable trifluoroacetic acid that is the current problem molecule with flufenacet. Trifluoroacetic acid is highly soluble in water and leaches from the soil into the groundwater. It can also be easily absorbed and accumulated by plants. As a result, it also reaches humans via the food chain or is spread back onto the fields in the nutrient cycle, e.g. with liquid manure and fermentation residues. Even the most modern sewage treatment plants cannot remove it from the water cycle. If trifluoroacetic acid gets into the air, it rains back onto the fields and into the water. TFA no longer disappears. (Link) (Link2)

With a good 400 tonnes of potential TFA generation per year in Germany, pesticides are the largest source from agriculture, pharmaceuticals, municipal sewage treatment plants and precipitation. At just under 200 tonnes, flufenacet accounts for almost half of the potential input quantities of the “forever chemical” TFA. (LInk)

Trifluoroacetic acid was long rated as a harmless degradation product.  This changed fundamentally when Bayer informed the EU Commission in 2021, based on its own very high-quality study, that severe malformations of the skeleton and intestines had occurred in tests on rabbits during pregnancy. (Link)

As a result, TFA was classified as “toxic for reproduction Cat. 1 B”, i.e. likely to cause prenatal, non-heritable health effects and foetal damage in humans.(Link)

This toxicological finding is the often mentioned exclusion criterion according to the authorisation regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 for plant protection products.

However, long before 2021, many groups and decision-makers wanted to limit the use of PFAS to absolutely necessary areas on the basis of the precautionary principle. (TRIFLUORESSIGSÄURE)

Some state offices for agriculture began developing plant protection concepts without flufenacet as early as 2016 (!). With clear results:

– the elimination of flufenacet makes autumn treatment of foxtail and ryegrass more difficult….

– Weeds … can no longer be controlled in the long term with chemicals alone…

– Various arable measures should definitely be tried out and integrated on the farm

(Link)

As is so often the case with technical developments, falling back on old, familiar techniques and processes is often not the breakthrough to efficient problem solving. The ‘return’ to old solutions (which have usually been replaced for good reasons) is often only a stopgap solution or no solution at all. This is particularly true when a previously very efficient measure or technology, such as chemical plant protection, is no longer available. Therefore, completely new solutions must be sought and integrated into the required applications in a customised manner.

With electrophysical plant control, crop.zone is presenting a new mode of action for broad application that can also help to get a better grip on resistance problems or the strong dependence of other methods on the weather, for example.

For this reason, crop.zone is also working on strategies for integrating the pre-sowing and pre-emergence treatment of foxtail and windthale into arable farming measures. This is particularly interesting where additional soil movement is undesirable or not possible.

Only together and with foresight with all partners in the value chain can we feed more and more people sufficiently and sustainably despite climate change and threatened biodiversity. Innovative agricultural technology with new active principles must be integrated even more strongly into new arable farming measures on the ground.

In the case of fluorinated PFAS plant protection products in particular, considerable further restrictions are to be expected, which are likely to affect not only, but also soil herbicides. On the other hand, agriculture has always thrived on innovations in agricultural technology.

crop.zone is working on bringing electrophysical innovations in agricultural technology to the fields.