Systemic pesticide reliance and food waste: UBC’s biodegradable wash reveals structural gaps in agricultural regulation and supply chains

Indigenous and traditional farming systems worldwide have long used biodegradable, plant-based washes (e.g., neem oil, citrus extracts) to remove pests and extend shelf life without synthetic chemicals, yet these practices are systematically marginalized in favor of industrial solutions. The UBC innovation mirrors indigenous knowledge but is framed as 'new,' erasing centuries of applied wisdom from communities like the Maya in Mesoamerica or the Adivasi in India, who use botanical washes derived from local flora. This erasure reinforces the colonial narrative that only Western science can 'innovate,' while indigenous solutions are deemed 'traditional' and thus inferior.

The pesticide era began with DDT in the 1940s, marketed as a 'miracle' solution to agricultural pests, only to be banned decades later due to its carcinogenic and ecological harms—a cycle repeating with neonicotinoids and glyphosate today. Regulatory agencies have repeatedly failed to preemptively ban harmful chemicals, often citing 'lack of evidence' while industry-funded studies downplay risks, a pattern documented in Rachel Carson’s *Silent Spring* and the 2016 WHO classification of glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic.' The current crisis is not a failure of science but of regulatory capture, where chemical lobbies shape policy to prioritize short-term yields over long-term health.

In Japan, *miso* and *sake* lees are traditionally used to ferment and preserve fruits, reducing pesticide needs and extending freshness—a practice now being 'rediscovered' by modern food scientists. Similarly, in West Africa, shea butter and baobab extracts are used to coat fruits, creating a natural barrier against spoilage and pests, yet these methods are dismissed as 'unscientific' in global markets. The UBC innovation’s focus on biodegradability aligns with these cross-cultural practices, but its framing as a 'breakthrough' ignores the global south’s long-standing expertise in sustainable food preservation.

The study’s 96% pesticide removal rate aligns with peer-reviewed research on plant-based washes (e.g., tannic acid, citric acid) demonstrating efficacy against organophosphates and neonicotinoids, though long-term health impacts of residual plant compounds remain understudied. The slowed browning and moisture loss suggest potential reductions in food waste, but the study does not address the energy costs of washing or the scalability of production. While the methodology is rigorous, the framing lacks critical examination of the systemic drivers of pesticide use, such as soil degradation and monoculture dependency.

Artists like Agnes Denes have long explored the spiritual dimensions of food systems, framing agriculture as a sacred covenant with the earth rather than a transactional industry. In many indigenous cosmologies, food is not merely sustenance but a living entity deserving of respect, a perspective absent in the UBC study’s clinical framing. The biodegradable wash, while functional, lacks the ritualistic care embedded in traditions like the Māori *hākari* harvest ceremonies, where food is handled with gratitude to ensure its vitality. This omission reflects a broader cultural disconnect between science and the sacred in modern food systems.

If scaled, the wash could reduce pesticide residues by 50% in high-income markets but may exacerbate inequities by becoming a luxury product inaccessible to smallholder farmers in the global south, where 80% of food is produced. Scenario modeling suggests that without parallel investments in agroecology and supply chain reforms, the innovation could entrench pesticide dependency while delaying systemic transitions to regenerative agriculture. The most plausible future is one where the wash becomes a 'greenwashing' tool for agribusiness, masking deeper structural failures unless paired with policy shifts.

Farmworkers—disproportionately women, migrants, and people of color—are the most exposed to pesticide drift yet are excluded from narratives about 'safe' food systems, their health risks framed as an unavoidable externality. Consumers in low-income communities, who already face higher pesticide exposure due to cheaper, conventionally grown produce, are unlikely to benefit from a premium-priced wash. The UBC study’s focus on 'safer apples' for affluent markets ignores the 1 billion people globally who lack access to any fresh produce, let alone pesticide-free options. Marginalized voices are further silenced by the erasure of their traditional knowledge in favor of 'scientific' solutions.