Natural or synthetic? What the ban on copper says about organic farming

by Thomas Lepeltier | 5 Dec 2025 | Our experts in the media, Food, Biodiversity

Reading time is .

Key points

  • Organic farming uses pesticides: it excludes only synthetic ones.
  • The Anses decision: in July 2025, it refused to renew a large proportion of copper fungicides, which are toxic and persist in soils; use to end in early 2027.
  • The consequences: yields under threat, notably in organic viticulture.
  • The lesson: assess each product case by case, whatever its origin.

🍇 Natural or synthetic: is it the right question?

In Causeur, Thomas Lepeltier, director of APALA’s think tank, returns to a decision that went largely unnoticed: Anses has refused to renew a large proportion of copper-based fungicides, a mainstay of crop protection in organic farming.

🔎 His thesis
Organic farming does not ban pesticides, only synthetic ones. Yet the origin of a product says nothing about its toxicity: each product should be judged by its effects.

🧭 Three arguments
1. There is nothing to support the claim that a synthetic pesticide is, as such, more harmful than a mineral or plant-based product.
2. Copper accumulates in soils and presents a worrying level of toxicity: its withdrawal, in early 2027, threatens the yields of organic winegrowers.
3. For health as for the environment, assessment must be case by case.

💬 Why we are sharing it
The debate on food is often caught up in the opposition between natural and artificial. This text recalls a useful principle, without forgetting the difficulties faced by farmers.

👉 Our structured summary and the link to the original column:

Natural or synthetic: is it the right question? 🍇

In Causeur, Thomas Lepeltier, director of our think tank, draws the lesson from the withdrawal of copper fungicides used in organic farming: judge each product by its effects, not by its origin.

Our summary in three arguments, with the link to the original column 👇

Natural or synthetic: is it the right question? 🍇

Thomas Lepeltier, director of APALA’s think tank, returns in Causeur to the withdrawal of copper fungicides used in organic farming.

His three arguments:
1️⃣ The origin of a product says nothing about its toxicity
2️⃣ Organic farming also undergoes health assessment
3️⃣ Each product must be judged case by case

Full summary and link to the column: link in bio.

#APALA #thinktank #transitions #agriculture #bio #pesticides #alimentation #santé #débat #Causeur

by Thomas Lepeltier, Causeur, 5 December 2025

Organic farming does not ban pesticides, only synthetic pesticides. Anses’s refusal to renew a large proportion of copper-based fungicides shows this: each product should be judged by its effects, not by its origin.

In brief

  • Copper-based fungicides are a mainstay of crop protection in organic farming, particularly in viticulture, against downy mildew.
  • In July 2025, Anses refused to renew the authorisation of a large proportion of these products, which accumulate in soils and present a worrying level of toxicity; they will no longer be usable from early 2027.
  • The author acknowledges the economic difficulties ahead for the sector, but sees in this the end of an illusion: that of a farming that is healthy by its very nature.

The column’s three arguments

1. The principle

An arbitrary boundary

There is nothing to support the claim that a synthetic pesticide is, as such, more harmful than a product of mineral, plant or animal origin. Organic farming rests on the idea that what is natural must be safer.

2. The facts

Organic farming also undergoes health assessment

Since it uses pesticides, organic farming does not escape assessment. The assessment of copper leads to a withdrawal that threatens the yields of organic winegrowers and reveals the vulnerability of the whole sector.

3. The method

Judging case by case

For health as for the environment, we must stop opposing natural and synthetic and assess each product on its own merits, whatever its origin.

‘Each product must be assessed case by case, whichever type it is.’Thomas Lepeltier, Causeur, 5 December 2025

Why this debate interests us

The debate on food is often caught up in the opposition between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’, which we have already discussed in relation to processed plant-based products. This column recalls a useful principle: judge a product by its measured effects rather than by its origin. It also invites us to look at the practical difficulties faced by organic farmers, and not just at the label.

Questions for debate

  1. Is the natural character of a product an indication of its harmlessness?
  2. How can organic winegrowers deprived of copper be supported?
  3. Should the organic label evolve towards a product-by-product assessment?

To go further on apala.fr

Summary written by Claude (Opus 5.5 model), an artificial intelligence, for APALA, based on the article published in Causeur on 5 December 2025. The views expressed are those of the author. Spotted a mistake? Write to us.

Read the article on Causeur ↗

Guidance: what if AI governed us through good advice?

In Le Point, Thomas Lepeltier presents Antoine Buéno’s ‘Guidance’: the danger of AI would be less that it exterminates us than that it advises us too well. Our summary in three arguments.

Wildfires of summer 2026: what the global data say

In Causeur, Thomas Lepeltier compares the exceptional wildfires of summer 2026 in France with global satellite data, which describe a rather calm year. Our summary in three arguments.

Does organic farming keep its promises? Naturalness put to the test of the facts

In Atlantico, Thomas Lepeltier challenges the founding principle of organic farming, the preference for the natural over the synthetic, and judges its record to be more nuanced than its image. Our summary in three arguments.

A future without suffering? A video to open the debate

With The Flares, APALA offers a short foresight video: what if reducing avoidable suffering, among humans and other animals alike, were one of the great undertakings of the century?

Biodiversity: a public exchange with Tatiana Giraud

In Causeur, Thomas Lepeltier criticised the way Tatiana Giraud presents biodiversity; she replied, and he responded in turn. Our summary of the three texts: arguments, quotations and questions for debate.

Performance or robustness? Olivier Hamant’s thesis challenged

In Le Point, Thomas Lepeltier challenges the opposition between performance and robustness defended by the biologist Olivier Hamant: in his view, the resilience of societies comes from innovation and efficiency. Our summary in three arguments.

Natural or synthetic? What the ban on copper says about organic farming

In Causeur, Thomas Lepeltier draws a lesson from the withdrawal of copper-based fungicides decided by Anses: judge each product by its effects, not by whether it is natural or synthetic. Our summary in three arguments.

AI and extinction: Yudkowsky and Soares’s thesis in question

In Le Point, Thomas Lepeltier examines the thesis of Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares that a superintelligent AI would exterminate humanity. Our summary in three arguments.

Climate: why Bill Gates’s change of tone deserves to be welcomed

In Causeur, Thomas Lepeltier analyses Bill Gates’s change of tone on climate: not a repudiation of science, but a reminder that poverty and disease remain the greatest threats. Our summary in three arguments.

Sufficiency: a critique of Philippe Bihouix’s vision

In Le Point, Thomas Lepeltier responds to Philippe Bihouix: choosing sufficiency from today underestimates our capacity to innovate, and abundance would be the condition for sustainability. Our summary in three arguments.

0 comments

make a donation!

Public-interest association: €10 from you means nearly €30 for us, after tax relief.

Understand how it works