Strawberries, Pesticides, and the Question We’re Not Asking
I thought I was researching strawberries.
That’s it.
Just strawberries.
And somehow I ended up reading pesticide regulations from three different continents. This is apparently who I am now. But somewhere in that rabbit hole, I realized something important: We’re often asking the wrong question.
The question everyone asks
When people talk about pesticides, the conversation usually starts—and ends—with one question:
“Is this pesticide toxic?”
It’s a fair question. It makes sense. If something is on our food, we want to know if it’s safe. But the more I looked into this, the more I realized something: That’s only part of the story.
Because toxicity alone doesn’t explain how two highly developed places—like the United States and the European Union—can look at the same pesticide and come to different conclusions.
So I started asking a different question.
The question we’re not asking enough
The question isn’t simply:
“Is this pesticide toxic?”
The question is:
“What happens when millions of pounds of it are used year after year across an entire landscape?”
Now we’re not just talking about what’s on a strawberry. We’re talking about:
Soil
Water systems
Rivers and streams
Groundwater
Ecosystems that don’t show up on a nutrition label
And once I started thinking in those terms, the conversation completely changed for me. Because now it’s not just about what’s on your food. It’s about what happens everywhere else too.
A real example: atrazine
Let’s talk about atrazine. Before I dug into this, I had barely heard of it. Now I can’t unsee it.
Atrazine is a widely used herbicide in American agriculture, especially in corn production. The European Union does not allow it anymore. The United States still does. At first glance, that sounds like a simple headline: “Europe banned it. America didn’t.” And that’s likely the headline you see all over your social media feed. But that’s not the real story.
Same chemical, different questions
When I looked closer, I realized something important: The U.S. and Europe weren’t always asking the same question.
One of the biggest concerns in Europe was groundwater contamination. Atrazine was repeatedly showing up in groundwater above their regulatory limits. Over time, regulators concluded something important: This level of contamination couldn’t be reliably prevented. So they removed approval.
In the United States, regulators looked at much of the same science and came to a different conclusion: The risks could be managed through regulation and controlled use.
Same chemical. Different frameworks. Different thresholds for what “acceptable” looks like.
This is where it gets uncomfortable
This is no longer just a science conversation. It becomes a philosophy conversation.
Do we try to prevent problems before they happen? Or do we allow for the risk of problems and manage them once they show up?
Neither answer is simple. They’re just different approaches to risk. And most people don’t realize they’re even having that debate when they read headlines about pesticides.
What this has to do with strawberries
Strawberries get a lot of attention in these conversations, and for good reason. They can require multiple pesticide applications throughout a growing season.
Now, to be clear, pesticide residues on food are regulated and monitored. There are legal limits in place designed to keep exposure within safety thresholds.
But again… that’s only one layer of the conversation. Even if residues are within limits, there are still other questions worth asking:
What does this mean for farmworkers?
What does it mean for nearby ecosystems?
What does it mean for pollinators?
What does it mean for water systems over time?
This is where the conversation gets bigger than just the fruit on your plate.
The bigger pattern I can’t ignore
The more I learn about food systems, the more I notice a pattern:
The U.S. is very good at managing problems after they appear. They are innovative. They are resourceful. They figure things out.
But I can’t help but wonder…
Are we also asking enough questions before we get there? Prevention and management are not the same thing. Choosing one over the other shapes everything that comes after.
My personal opinion
I’ll be honest with you.
I lean toward prevention.
If something keeps showing up where it shouldn’t—soil, water, ecosystems—my instinct is to ask whether we should be relying on it at that scale in the first place.
I would rather prevent a problem than spend decades managing it after the fact.
That’s not a headline.
That’s just how I think about it.
The question I keep coming back to
This is the part I can’t stop thinking about:
At what point does “we can manage the risk” become a reason not to look for a better solution?
Because those are not the same thing.
So I’ll leave you with this
I didn’t end up with a simple answer about strawberries. I ended up down a much bigger rabbit hole than I expected. And I think I came out with something more useful than certainty. I came out with better questions.
So I’m curious where you land on this. When it comes to pesticides and food systems, do you prefer a model that focuses on preventing problems before they happen? Or, one that focuses on managing risk once it shows up?
And maybe more importantly…
When does “we can manage it” stop being good enough?