This article is transferred from [Economic Daily];

If chemical fertilizers and pesticides are banned "one size fits all" and "comprehensive replacement" is required, given the current agricultural production conditions and farmers' production capacity, it is too hasty and biased. It not only violates the wishes of farmers, but also violates agricultural common sense. Science is also suspected of formalism and "lazy governance".

Spring plows break the ground, and agricultural materials such as fertilizers and pesticides have entered the busy rhythm of "a year's plan lies in spring". However, in some places, chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been completely banned. According to reports, some places have sent inspection teams to ban chemical fertilizers and pesticides in various agricultural material sales stores, and some have proposed "no chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the whole area", and so on. The alternative proposed for this purpose is to fully replace chemical fertilizers and pesticides with organic fertilizers and biological pesticides.

It should be said that these practices are necessary and reasonable, whether from the long-term goal of promoting green agricultural development and implementing zero growth of chemical fertilizers or pesticides, or from the practical point of view of reducing agricultural non-point source pollution and developing pollution-free green agricultural products. However, if chemical fertilizers and pesticides are banned "one size fits all" and "comprehensive replacement" is required, given the current agricultural production conditions and farmers' production capacity, it is too hasty and biased. It not only violates the wishes of farmers, but also violates agricultural common sense. It is even more unscientific, and it is suspected of formalism and "lazy governance".

Fertilizers and pesticides are the fruits of human technological progress, and the greatest benefit they bring to agriculture is to control pests and diseases and increase yields. Without the emergence of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, with the current endowment of agricultural resources, it would be difficult for human beings to feed themselves. However, the excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has also caused disadvantages such as soil aging and environmental pollution. Therefore, my country has proposed measures such as "reduction and zero growth". On the one hand, it strengthens the research and development of green chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Quality and reduced application to achieve the balance between yield and environment.

Likewise, organic fertilizers and biopesticides are receiving greater attention as ideas change and technology advances. Organic fertilizers and biopesticides offset and mitigate the adverse effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to a certain extent. However, organic fertilizers and biopesticides are still difficult to compare with chemical fertilizers and pesticides in terms of comprehensive fertility performance and cost. Except for specific blocks or lots, it is impossible for organic fertilizers and biopesticides to completely replace chemical fertilizers and pesticides in a large area. It's science and it's reality. Moreover, from the perspective of technological progress, the two are not "deadly rivals", but go towards each other and belong to the "same trench", but the "weapons" used are different.

That being the case, why is it necessary to "thoroughly seize" chemical fertilizers and pesticides? This is due to the "old problems" and "long-standing habits" that exist more or less in some places. First, there is no complete, accurate, and comprehensive understanding and implementation of new development concepts, such as formulating, conceptualizing, and simplifying the concept of "green development", equating "green development" in agriculture with eliminating chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and mistakenly thinking that zero growth of chemical fertilizers and pesticides means "banning" "Do not use"; the second is driven by formalistic "political achievement view". Third, there may be interest groups coercing them, and they do not hesitate to use administrative means to promote certain interests.

This kind of problem is not only in one place, nor for a while; this kind of lesson is also not in one place, nor for a while. The question is, when will the relevant places be completely corrected and lessons learned!