|
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rates compared to the older, outdated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.
|