In one very specific region with a very specific ecoculture.  It's not guranteed, and in fact highly unlikely that such methods would be successful everywehre.

There is only one real way to gurantee pesticides not being needed to be used on a world level....

and you've already discounted it.

GMOs.

The Momsanto Corn you hate so much that has had numerous scientific studies done on it that show it does no harm to humans has lowered pesitcide use by 45%.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2013GMC0002R.pdf

Your anti-sceince, anti-logic agenda is basiclly handicapping what you want to happen.

The above article puts it best...

“I find it so tragic that, by and large, crop biotechnologists and farmers want to reduce their pesticide use, and yet the method we think is most sustainable and environmentally friendly has been dismissed out of hand.” He pauses as he recalls the event and says, “There is no scientific justification for it—it is just as if there is a high priest who decided, ‘Thou shalt not be GMO.’ ”

No, it isn't.  Every country has food standards, the US is not alone.

Imported food is already require to meet certain standards.  How food is fertilized, the levels of certain chemicals or the presence of them, and the way food packaging is labeled.  There are as well certain foods that are outright banned in the US.  Looking at you Haggis!  Ok, not literally Haggis but sheep stomach is not permitted for consumption in the US. 

What would be nice.  If the world applied all the same standards across the board.  That is in terms of pesticides, fertilizers, chemical levels, and food labeling.  Our food labeling, for instance, is much more informative about the nutrition than it is in other countries.  Well, informative if you know what the heck you're reading.

For instance, we break down fats into different types of fats.  If you have a food item (a sandwich) that has a baguette, ham, cheese, lettuce, and tomato, the ingredients for the baguette, ham, and cheese all must be listed as well e.g. ham(ingredients), baguette(ingredients).  The challenge is, especially between the US and Europe, instances where we allow certain levels of chemicals and the EU doesn't or vice versa.  The whole Mad Cow Disease thing, for instance, became an issue in the UK because they allowed cow feed to include cow brain matter.  In the US that isn't allowed. 

I'm not anti-science, i'm just cautious about newer technologies like GM abit like the Amish are. Not every new technology is beneficiary to us. And i'm sorry if i don't like massive corporations but there's no reason to trust them especially with food and i don't like how they have a monopoly either, while at the same time bribe their way into congress. It ain't right. Let ordinary farmers do it on their own scale. 

And if you watched the video, they didn't stop using pesticides. They just used natural pesticides instead of chemical ones and unsuprisingly it worked. In part because the ground water was not being polluted anymore. And there's no reason not to try farming sustainably like those Indians did on a small scale in other countries at first. If it didn't work elsewhere, then stick to the way we are accustomed. Just a bit of trial and error. 

It's not what people WANT to happen, it IS happening:

http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/gm-corn-linked-to-cancer-tumors

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15889/french-gmo-research-finds-monsanto-corn-causes-cancer-america-should-pay-attention_

Well first off.  This wasn't the first or most comprehensive study on GMOs....  They did 10 year studies on farm animals that showed... zero effect.

Or... how about the fact that  you know... tons of animals have been fed this stuff for a long ass time now... and nobodies noticed anything?

Outside which... labrat studies are pretty much the epitome of bunk research.

Lab rat studies also showed Aspartaine causes cancer too....

Which... it doesn't. Shoddy Lab rat cancer studies are why seemingly EVERYTHING causes cancer... and everything fights cancer.  Sometimes the same things that fight it, cause it if you've got two intersted groups.

Then you look at the statistical methods....

http://understandinguncertainty.org/rats-and-gm

and the rest of the problems...

More or less explains it though.  In a way that's snarkier then i'd like but... it gets the point across.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/20/monsantos-gm-corn-and-cancer-in-rats-real-scientists-deeply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/

This one perhaps does it a little better and less snarky.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/gm-corn-tumor-study-120920.htm

Edit:  Or this... it's rare to see such a scientific beatdown of faulty science.  All of the releated French Academia decided to band together.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science-academies-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/?_r=0

Six French academic societes are condeming the study as inaccurate.

“This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn,” they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped “spread fear among the public.” The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumors….

Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday.

The academies’ statement said: “Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans.” In withering terms, it dismissed the study as “a scientific non-event.” “Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies said.

 

 

I guess the point is... when looking at research... actually look at the research.

There is nothing more important in a research paper then the research methods section.

Edit:  Oh and one other fun telling thing about this study?

"Journalists often receive embargoed journal articles, and standard practice is to solicit independent assessments before the paper is published. The agreement for this paper, however, did not allow any disclosure and threatened a severe penalty for non-compliance: “A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study.”