1.4 Stakeholders

The cocoa industry promotes the use of IPM and cultural methods (removal of diseased plant parts, etc.) are the most proven and cost effective first line of defence against diseases and insects although implementation by farmers of all control methods can often be poor.

Pesticides are used on cocoa in certain circumstances (most often category 1 in the table above). The edible part of the bean “nibs” is encased within a shell that covers the bean, which in turn is protected by the pod husk until harvest, making contamination by pesticides less likely unless systemic pesticides are used or beans are contaminated during harvest or drying.

To state the obvious, the two major stakeholders are cocoa producers and the increasing number of consumers. Adapting an observation in Hamilton & Crossly’s useful book [1], there are a number of other participants in the debate on pesticides, each with their own agenda:

Participants

The Agrochemical (now often called Life Sciences~) industry: principally the half dozen multinational research-based companies which have invested hugely in new technologies (and wish to protect their investments with patents and confidentiality). They provide Governments with regulatory data to show that their products are safe and effective.
Companies producing ‘generic’ products benefit farmers by pushing down the prices of agrochemical products when patents expire (‘off-patent’ compounds). In some countries, they are owned / supported by Governments. It is not always appreciated by the general public that their interests (and those of their respective salespeople) may be different to those of research-based companies.
Consumer groups and activists: who voice concerns, which are often shared by the general public, but which may be taken out of context. Their work was pioneered by Rachael Carson, whose book Silent Spring (1962) highlighted the hazards, many now undisputed, of the unrestricted use of the older pesticides. It has been argued that they need “regular exposés of unsafe residues in food to maintain their profiles”.
The Media are interested in selling newspapers or television time, with priority given to colourful and sensational stories. It is debatable whether it is in their interests to provide a completely objective balance to such stories, but presenters often guide the debate.
National Governments (and increasingly, international bodies such as the European Union) have to balance the various interests and provide an appropriate legislative framework for the various players involved. For example, the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE, formerly Pesticides Safety Directorate - PSD) disclose documents (on the Web pages and elsewhere) emphasising that this framework must be “evidence based”. Governments are also a major source of support to researchers.
Research Scientists: who “seek research grants [and] may try to influence research funding bodies by carefully timed and purpose-designed press releases or may overemphasise a safety concern in order to secure funding”.

The cocoa supply and chocolate industries therefore can expect to receive diverse advice on the subject! Nevertheless, decisions must now be made, with minds concentrated by recent regulatory developments, but with incomplete knowledge about the pesticides in question.