From vineyards in France to cornfields in the U.S. (Iowa), contrasting landscapes reflect different approaches to integrated pest management (IPM) across the Atlantic. (Photos via Pexels)

By David Lane, Ph.D.

David E. Lane, Ph.D

As global agriculture faces mounting pressure to reduce pesticide risks while maintaining productivity, integrated pest management (IPM) remains a cornerstone of sustainable farming. Yet, how IPM is implemented, evaluated, and enforced varies widely across regions. In my article published in June in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management, I explore the contrasting approaches to IPM in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.)—two agricultural powerhouses with distinct regulatory philosophies.

Two Systems, One Goal

The EU has historically taken a top-down, regulatory approach to IPM. Until recently, its Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD) and the now-withdrawn Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation (SUR) mandated national action plans and set ambitious pesticide reduction targets. These efforts were part of the broader European Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy, aiming to cut pesticide use and risk by 50% by 2030.

In contrast, the U.S. approach is decentralized and voluntary. IPM adoption is encouraged through research, education, and incentive programs like the U.S. Department of Agriculture – National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s Crop Protection and Pest Management program. While the U.S. lacks binding pesticide reduction targets, it supports IPM through data collection (e.g., the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s Chemical Use Surveys) and tools like the Pesticide Risk Tool (PRT).

A Shifting Landscape

Recent policy shifts in both regions make this comparison especially timely. In 2024, the EU withdrew the SUR following widespread farmer protests, replacing it with a Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture. This move signals a pivot toward more flexible, stakeholder-driven approaches.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is developing a new strategic plan for IPM focused on publicly funded programs at Land-Grant Universities. However, without a national mandate or standardized risk indicators, IPM adoption remains uneven across states and crops.

Metrics Matter

One of the most striking differences lies in how each region measures progress. The EU uses harmonized risk indicators based on pesticide sales, though critics argue these oversimplify real-world risks. Alternatives like total applied toxicity and eco-efficiency metrics are gaining traction as more nuanced tools.

The U.S., on the other hand, lacks a unified national risk indicator. While tools like the PRT offer promise, their voluntary nature limits their impact. A more coordinated national strategy could enhance the effectiveness of these tools.

Toward a Hybrid Model?

Both systems have strengths—and blind spots. The EU’s regulatory rigor ensures accountability but can be rigid. The U.S. model fosters innovation and flexibility but struggles with consistency and national coordination.

A hybrid approach may offer the best path forward. The U.S. could benefit from adopting standardized risk indicators and clearer national goals. The EU, in turn, might explore more flexible, farmer-centered strategies that maintain sustainability without sacrificing practicality.

Final Thoughts

As both regions reassess their IPM strategies, there’s an opportunity to learn from each other. By blending regulatory oversight with flexible incentives and improved risk assessment tools, we can build more resilient, sustainable pest management systems—on both sides of the Atlantic.

David E. Lane, Ph.D., is an evaluation specialist for the Northeastern IPM Center, hosted at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. His work focuses on assessing the impact and effectiveness of integrated pest management programs across the United States. Email: [email protected].