How to compare IPM strategies in the EU and us

By David Lane, Ph.D.

Since global agriculture is exposed to increasing pressure to reduce pestic risk and at the same time maintain productivity, the integrated pest control (IPM) remains a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture. As IPM implemented, evaluated and enforced, however, varies greatly in the regions. In my article, which was published in June Journal of Integrated Pest ManagementI examine the contrasting approaches for IPM in the European Union (EU) and in the United States (USA) – two agricultural power plants with different regulatory philosophies.

Two systems, one goal

The EU has followed a top-down approach for IPM in the past. Until recently, the sustainable use of the Pesticide Directive (SUD) and the now suppressed sustainable use of the pesticide regulation (SUR) prescribed national action plans and ambitious goals to reduce pesticides. These efforts were part of the broader European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy to reduce the use of pesticides and the risk by 50% by 2030.

In contrast, the US approach is decentralized and voluntary. The IPM adoption is funded by research, educational and incentive programs such as the US Ministry of Agriculture -the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's Crop Protection and Pest Management Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. While the United States does not have a binding pesticide reduction targets, IPM supports it with data acquisition (e.g. surveys of the National Agricultural Statistics Service of chemical use) and tools such as the pestic risk tool (PRT).

A changing landscape

The latest political changes in both regions make this comparison particularly in time. In 2024, the EU withdrew the Sur according to widespread protests by farmers and replaced it with a strategic dialogue about the future of the EU agriculture. This step signals a pivot point for more flexible, stakeholder -oriented approaches.

In the meantime, the United States is developing a new strategic plan for IPM that focuses on publicly financed programs at land grant universities. Without a national mandate or standardized risk indicators, the IPM acceptance remains in the states and harvesting uneven.

Metrics are important

One of the most striking differences is how the individual region develops. The EU uses harmonized risk indicators based on pesticide sales, although critics claim these non -simplified real risks. Alternatives such as the entire applied toxicity and eco -efficiency metrics gain traction as more nuanced tools.

In contrast, a uniform national risk indicator is missing in the United States. While tools such as the PRT offer promising, their voluntary nature restricts their effects. A more coordinated national strategy could improve the effectiveness of these tools.

On a hybrid model?

Both systems have strengths – and blind spots. The EU's regulatory strict guarantees accountability, but can be rigid. The US model promotes innovation and flexibility, but fights with consistency and national coordination.

A hybrid approach may offer the best way forward. The United States could benefit from introducing standardized risk indicators and clearer national goals. In turn, the EU could investigate more flexible, peasant -centered strategies, maintain sustainability without affecting practicality.

Last thoughts

Since both regions re -rate their IPM strategies, it is possible to learn from each other. Due to the mixture of regulatory supervision with flexible incentives and improved risk assessment instruments, we can build up more resistant, sustainable pest control systems – on both sides of the Atlantic.

David E. Lane, Ph.D.Is evaluation specialist of the Northeastern IPM Center, which is organized at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. His work focuses on evaluating the effects and effectiveness of integrated pest control programs in the United States. E -mail: del97@cornell.edu.

Related