Crop protection practices and risks associated with infectious tropical parasitic diseases

Two recent literature reviews have shown that: i) agroecological crop protection (ACP) practices generally reduce risks of viral zoonoses, unlike conventional (agrochemical-based) practices which tend to increase them; ii) substitution-based crop protection (CP) practices (mainly biocontrol-based) could result in fewer health risks from bacterial infectious diseases. Here, we present an analysis of the scientific literature to determine to what extent the conclusions regarding viruses or bacteria can be extended to infectious diseases caused by protozoan or helminthic parasites. This analysis of cases of both vector-transmitted and water- or food-borne parasitic diseases, shows, in terms of reduction of health risks: i) an overall negative effect arising from the use of synthetic plant protection products; ii) the relevance of substitution CP practices not strictly under the ACP banner. On the other hand, the public and veterinary health issue of antiparasitic resistance is not affected by CP practices. The positive effects at the large spatio-temporal scales of ACP approaches remain valid, although to a slightly lesser extent than for bacterial diseases and viral zoonoses, in particular through biodiversity conservation which fosters natural regulations and control, preventing the undesirable effects of synthetic pesticides. [Display omitted] •Literature on effects of crop protection practices on parasitic diseases is reviewed•Conventional crop protection practices often increase parasitic disease (PD) risk•Biocontrol, more than agroecological crop protection practices, reduces PD risk•Outcomes are therefore similar to those of a recent review on bacterial diseases•They are less in agreement with another review on viral zoonoses