by: Marcus Eisen
Since the end of World War Two there has been excessive use of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to treat the endless stream of potential threats against our crops, trees, grasses, streams, etc… It has been prescribed for nondescript problems at an exponential rate. In 1947 the production of synthetic pesticides was 124,259,000 pounds; in 1960 that number jumped to 637,666,000 pounds. In 2001 the total number of pesticides used per year was measured at 4,972 million pounds, the majority of which was used by the agricultural sector. While the fact that the total amount of pesticides per year may have increased it’s important to keep in mind that the treatments occur every year and have a tendency to be magnified when passed on through the biological chain. The most intimidating fact about the use of these pesticides is that decades after they have been deemed unusable due to health risks they are still being found in large quantities throughout the Midwest and sections of California. Dieldrin, a chemical that was banned in the 1980s, is still found in Illinois at a concentration that exceeds the wildlife benchmark. While found in other Midwestern states as well, no where is the chemical found in such a high quantity. So, do you think the market for pesticide use is driven purely by economic incentives for invertors and therefore poses a significant risk to unaware consumers? Does it seem necessary for the agricultural sector in the United States to dump almost 3 billion pounds of active pesticide ingredients onto crops each year? What type of policy changes must occur for the public to change its opinion about the widespread use of pesticides? And lastly, does anyone have any personal anecdotes about pesticides?
30 comments:
Very important a issue with a wide-spread area of affection. Bio-magnification, as you stated, is a very important problem that must be addressed. At every level of the food chain, the relative percentage of the toxin increases, so the time we ingest the food, the toxicity levels can be very high and harmful. As the world population increases, especially in developing countries, the need for surplus food crops rises, increasing the need for synthesized fertilizers.
This is an important issue. While the bio-accumulation of pesticides is a worry, would we be able to sustain our population and economy without the insane amount of crops grown with pesticides. An organic world is a wonderful dream, but is it realistic given the growing world population?
Laura Schafenacker
I agree with Laura and believe it is semi-idealistic to want organic food as well as enough of it to feed the world. There has to be a trade off here just like everything else. I think we can all agree that if we go too far in either direction it will negatively effect human health, maybe drastically. No pesticide use could lead to hunger and heavy pesticide use could lead to things like cancer.
This is definitely a tricky issue as there are so many factors to account for when discussing pesticide use. Of course it doesn't seem right for us to being eating food grown by pesticides or herbicides that have been listed as illegal or hazardous to our health. But, what will completely outlawing and not using these pesticides do to us and our nation? These surpluses of food, are essentially the only means of survival for those millions of people living in developing countries. At the moment a world feeding off entirely organic foods, is incredibly unrealistic. So in such regards, the only suggestion, or "hope," I should say of dealing with this very difficult problem is to use or create "less-harmful" pesticides. I know that's not saying much, but it's the only plan of action I can come up with for the time being.
I agree this is a difficult issue. I believe we should develop a policy that only allows farmers to use pesticides when necessary. Farmers should start growing thier crops without any pesticides. Then they can pinpoint sections of their crops that aren't doing as well (due do insects etc.) and just spray a necessary amount to save the portion of the crops that are dying. I think this would dramatically decline the amount of pesticides used and reduce some of the negatives.
This is a very tense issue surrounding our agricultural system. However, this issue dates back much further than just recently because most of our problems started to occur when we started to subsidize corn. Making the farmers want to grow as much corn as fast as possible, so instead of the usual amount of acres farmers increased to thousands of acres for one farm. Yet the work load is smaller today because of the pesticides so I feel that it is going to be hard to stray away from the current use of pesticides.
A rising form of agriculture in this country especially is referred to as "Industrial Organic". With growing awareness and increased demand for organic foods companies are responding with massive "industrial" sized farms that grow food without using (or using minimal ammounts) of pesticides and fertilizers. As this practice increases prices of organically grown crops will hopefully continue to decrease. There is a hope!
I agree and think that it is very market driven. People want good crops and a lot of them. Sadly, the only way to do this is with pesticides. Organic foods are nice, but just so very unrealistic on a large scale.
Anytime you have an incentive to produce as much as you can there is the threat of using something that will help do that - in this case it is pesticides. With cash crops like corn which fuels more than people know, the incentive to cash in on governmental subsidies is huge, and most people are willing to take a physical health risk and an environmental health risk in order to cash in. That is why this issue is such a hot topic when it comes to United States agriculture because people (governmental figures, farmers, etc.) are afraid to see what production will look like without pesticides and herbicides. A switch to organic production brings the industrial organic topic into conversation, which has some major production flaws as well.
I think the pesticide use in the United States is purely economically driven. It is similar to pumping antibiotics into healthy farm animals to ensure they will not be sick. I come from an agricultural town on the Western slope of Colorado and farming can be successfully done without pesticides but the crop yield is not as high, you will make less money. And honestly being a farmer in the current economic state its hard to live and compete if you don't use pesticides when everyone else is.
David McKinley
I first have a question. Are the measured levels of these pesticides from currently applied pesticides or the remains form past use of discontinued products? This is a very large problem, along the lines of tragedy of the commons. I feel that the policy fitting for this would be monetary fees for use, and fines for overuse. This could get even more complicated regarding subsidized corn.
Really, we need more people to work small farms and make it a way of life. If people took it upon themselves to grow their own food simply and without the application of pesticides and bring back community gardens, I think we could decrease the demand for large scale monocultures. The policy would have to take place at a governmental level to reduce subsidies, but I still believe farming organically can feed the world. It is just a factor of equal distribution.
I think policies that subsidize organic farming and encourage smaller scale agricultural production need to be implemented. The current large-scale practices would not be able to function with out the use of pesticides, so we need to change how agriculture is practiced.
Pesticide use in the US is absolutely out of control. The main contributing factor to this explosion of pesticides in the world is greedy companies who are more concerned about getting rich than the health of their customers. One main reason for this may be that the companies never even see their consumers. Produce in the U.S. is almost always shipped cross country before it is sold in grocery stores so the consumers are unable to track where their food comes from and hold the company responsible for their poor food producing methods. In my opinion the first step to reducing pesticide use is bringing back local farming which would enable to consumer to hold producers responsible for their methods of farming and food production.
I am all for all organic farming in the US. The whole issue of not being able to grow enough food for our population without pesticides is silly. If we have the resources to invest in using derivatives of corn to fuel our cars, we should certainly have the resources to invest in more productive organic farming methods of food that feeds humans.
It seems to me that pesticide use in the United states directly relates to corn subsidies and the way the agricultural system is run. The claim that pesticides are necessary in order to support a growing world community are false. There can be sufficient food for the entire world without the use of pesticides if a more efficient and equitable food distribution system is worked out. It is true that pesticides are necessary in order to support our current system, but perhaps this system is not the best way to grow food.
Its also important to remember that various plant strains become resistant to pesticides and herbicides, thus creating an Evolutionary Arms Race- where both the plants evolve and then the industry has to spend even more money on making a new pesticide. These millions of pounds of pesticides being used could be, somewhat, because the industry is not sure the old ones will work- so they use more and more, making sure that the pesticides are efficient. This can create so many health issues!! Something needs to be done in the regulation of the use of pesticides altogether.
Katie Witters
I want everyone to eat organic, it makes for a significantly healthier community. At the same time, i'd so almost anything to keep my fellow citizens from starving. What is seems to come down to is consumer preferences. If people are more educated about nutrition then the organic trend could increase faster.
side note:
Have you ever noticed that the very old (raised pre WWII and pre-pesticides) seem to be pretty healthy, with lots of old folks approaching 100 these days.
In contrast, the baby boomers (raised after WWII and with much pesticides) have a very high incidence of cancer and other illness. (My folks have already lost some friends)
Supposedly this cancer risk is decreasing (but many people purposefully avoid conventional/chemically altered foods now as well).
The book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson is the first to note these effects.
I know it is unscientific, but I tend to relate my parent's (odd) health issues to their ingestion of massive quantities of preservatives, pesticides, and fertilizers.
Another personal observaton; the central valley of California sometimes is so thick with pesticide spray (early mornings) that it is noticeably difficult to breath, and the fumes leave a burning feeling in the lungs. We used to joke about the seemingly semi-retarded kids from the central valley, they all seemed to be a bunch of inbred idiots, but it may have just been the chemicals in their water, their air, and their food!
Policies benefiting smaller farming would be great. What are the chances of this happening though?
This is a touchy issue. Though workers in the agricultural sector rely on these herbicides and pesticides, they are harmful to human health. I think that the use of these things are directly correlated with the economy because agriculture is such a vital part of it. I have to result to say that these pesticides are here to stay.
I feel that this country is addicted to pesticides both physically and mentally. Our current agricultural practices are completely dependent on pesticides. And we are mentally programmed that we need pesticides to produce fruitful crops. What we need is to start informational campaigns to educate producers and everyday consumers on the abilities of organic agriculture.
one thing I do know about pesticides is that they are absolutely necessary for the US to produce enough foodfor the world. Unlike most countries, the US is a net food exporter and many countries around the world rely on food that is grown here. In fact, since the 1940s when pesticides were first implemented, the US and the world has undergone a "green revolution" that has provided us with the ability to feed the amount of people that are on the planet now. Without this, the world's carrying capacity for the human population is below the current number of people live, meaning without pesticides people would starve. it may not be a perfect solution, but until a better one is found it's necessary.
I think as a free, capitalistic country we must allow for these farming practices. I also think the USDA needs to do a better job researching and reporting the negative effects of these pesticides. With more widespread knowledge, less people will buy products with pesticides and the organic farm market will benefit. Poorer families will still be able to purchase foods using pesticides, but people with purchasing power will refuse and the environment, as well as their health, will also benefit
The amount of pesticides used today is a little outrageous. Especially when you look at the overall health of our society. The problem is that most people can't afford organic, or just dont have access to it. Things like this make me realize how fortunate I am to be living in a place like Boulder where you can buy locally grown food all of them time.
To bounce of corey lavato, If it werent for our crops, built off our methods, then many would go without food, inside and outside of our country. Given this known, the convorsation regarding chemicals becomes more muddied. Malthas was right. We are at capacity, the only way out is down (population)
This is definitely a tricky issue as there are so many factors to account for when discussing pesticide use. On one side you have the need to guarantee a successful yield every season to feed an ever growing population, on the other hand you need to consider the environmental repercussions. While some pesticide use is inevitable, I feel that much of it is over-kill.
Is it sad that I almost feel like there is no hope anymore? Even if policies were enacted to get rid of a large majority of the harmful pesticides we use in the United States, would it make a difference? I feel that detectable levels of these harmful pesticides will still be in our environment for hundreds of years. I guess its always best to try and cut back but we will have to come up with a sustainable option that will not hurt our crop yields.
Economics drive everything. Producers of crops want people to buy the most of their product, therefor they do whatever it takes to have the cheapest crop that yields the most food. Pesticides are an example of a tool producers use to yield larger crops at less cost to them.
It's sad really. Perfectly delicious food is tainted with the chemicals of man. Developing countries are also beginning to use these products, and have recorded much higher health problems because of them. So what is there purpose again?
Pesticides are a very scary business. As they are passed through the food chain the amount in each successive animal's body multiplies. Additionally, super weeds are unintentionally created as the weeds adapt to the pesticides, so stronger and stronger pesticides have to be created to combat these stronger weeds.
Post a Comment