 |
|
|
|
Commercial
Agriculture:
Facts & Figures
by J. Robert Hatherill, Ph.D, Environmental Studies Program
University of California at Santa Barbara.
As people settled
into established societies many centuries ago, they began looking for
ways to protect their crops. Sulfur was used as an insecticide long before
500 BC. Toxic formulations of lead, arsenic and mercury were applied to
crops in the 1400s. In the 1600s nicotine compounds were extracted from
tobacco leaves and used as insecticides. By the mid 1800s, the heads of
chrysanthemum flowers were used to obtain pyrethrum, and rotenone was
extracted from the derris plant.
While these so-called
first-generation pesticides were derived from plants, the second-generation
pesticides such as DDT were formulated in chemistry laboratories. A major
chemical industry sprang up after the discovery of the potent insecticidal
properties of DDT by entomologist Paul Mueller. The second-generation
DDT soon became the planet’s most popular pesticide and Mueller received
the Nobel prize in 1948.
In the 1930s the crop
yields in the United States were comparable to those of India, England,
and Argentina. Since the 1950s the use of petroleum-derived pesticides
and fertilizers, coupled with a host of governmental policies have vaulted
the U.S. into the biggest farming economy in the world. Today, fewer farmers
feed more people than ever before in the history of food production.
This farming success,
however, has not happened without enormous costs and environmental tradeoffs.
Pesticide proponents argue that the benefi ts far outweigh the harm. After
all, pesticides do save lives. Since the late 1940s DDT has prevented
millions from contracting malaria, bubonic plague and typhus. Proponents
also contend that pesticides work faster and are more effective than the
alternatives. Pesticide advocates also point out that the new-generation
pesticides are used at very low application rates compared to the older,
outdated products.
One of the problems,
however, is that insects breed rapidly and quickly develop resistance
to insecticides. In addition, broad-spectrum pesticides kill natural predators
that keep pests in check. Use of synthetic pesticides — which include
insecticides, rodentacides, fungicides, herbicides, and others — has increased
more than 33 fold in the last half century. Ironically, it is estimated
that more of the U.S. food supply is lost to pests today (37%) than in
the 1940s (31%)i . Total crop losses from insect damage alone
have nearly doubled from 7% percent to 13% during that period. Cultivation
of four crops — soybeans, wheat, cotton and corn — consumes around 75%
of the pesticides in the U.S. Today about 2.5 million tons of pesticides
are used worldwide.
In addition, for more
than 40 years, ranchers and growers have been feeding low levels of penicillin,
tetracycline, and other antibiotics to poultry, cattle, and pigs to speed
growth and cut costs. That use accounts for about one third to one half
of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. Scientists worldwide have decried
the use of antibiotics to promote animal growth because it increases the
prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics’ effects and
jeopardizes human health.
Every day the environmental
and health consequences of commercial farming become more apparent. The
EPA has identified agriculture as the greatest nonpoint source of water
pollution.ii Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizers and manure
have been detected in the groundwater of most states. In fact pollutants
from agriculture can be detected in both the north and south poles and
in the deepest reaches of the oceans. Commercially grown food we eat contains
detectable levels of pesticides and antibiotics. And recent studies have
implicated pesticides as the possible culprits in causing Parkinson’s
Disease, as well as increased aggression in children.iii
For reasons such as
these and others, sustainable alternatives to intensive, high-chemical
input agriculture are gaining in popularity.
Dr. Hatherill is
a research toxicologist at UCSB, the author of the national bestseller
“Eat to Beat Cancer” (Renaissance Books; September 1999), and chief scientific
advisor to EarthSave International.
End Notes i Pimental,
David, et al. 1992. Environmental and Economic Cost of Pesticide Use, BioScience,
Vol. 42,No.10, 750-60
Pimental, David and Hugh Lehman, eds. 1993. The Pesticide Question: Environmental,
Economics and Ethics. New York: Chapman & Hall.
ii US Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint
Source Pollution in the US Offi ce of Water Program Operations, Water Planning
Division. Washington, D.C.
iii C. Hertzman and others, “Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study of
occupational and environmental risk factors,” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL
MEDICINE Vol. 17, No. 3 (1990), pgs. 349-355. G.P. Sechi, “Acute and persistent
parkinsonism afteruse of diquat,” NEUROLOGY Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan. 1992),
pgs. 261-263.
K.M. Semchuk and others, “Parkinson’s disease and exposure to agricultural
work and pesticide chemicals,” NEUROLOGY Vol. 42, No. 7 (July 1992), pgs.
1328-1335.
|