User de pesticides pour contrôler les espèces invasives : les facettes d’un paradoxe éthique

Abstract

Use of pesticides in invasive species control : facets of an ethical paradox. The control of invasive species impacting environment or human health sometimes involves the use of lethal chemicals. Yet, while the interest of pesticides in invasive species control is undeniable, their impact should not be overlooked. From year to year the use of rodenticides with a low selectivity (e. g. brodicafoum or 1080), of persistent insecticides such as neonicotinoids and of systemic herbicides (e. g. glyphosate) actually concerns more and more large areas. The literature provides many examples of negative side effects on biodiversity or human health that should be more transparently reported. Risk assessment of pesticide use remains incomplete for invasive species, and the risk-benefit approach that would impose is still lacking. This use of pesticides involves an ethical paradox since it is part of an approach which aims to protect wildlife, and since in the context of public health policy, it sometimes puts people to new health risks. In general, the effectiveness of pesticides in the control of invasive species also remains poorly evaluated. It seems imperative to put the citizen at the heart of decision-making or at least to advocate greater transparency regarding all the expected benefits and risks. Similarly, ethics gap aroused from the use of pesticides is to evaluate. It is not justifiable that the issue of animal rights is so much departed from vertebrate control programs. Imposed suffering to these animals is a reality and it is not for scientists to decide alone what in our relations with the animal, is acceptable or not. The field of invasive species should not be an exception in global discussions conducted on pesticides. However, the representation that invasive species escape to nature as we think it should be, contributes to validate the use of resources normally prohibited in natural areas. We must continue to wonder about the basis for these breaches of environmental protection and environmental ethics. They correspond to a rejection of values that are not so shared by our communities.