PERSPECTIVES
The Truth About Pesticides
by Thomas C. Mueller
People who produce
food and fiber are suffering from a public relations problem. Since the
end of World War II, more of our population has become urban based and fewer
citizens have direct agricultural experience. Many have only a vague concept
of modern agricultural practices and their vital contributions to society.
Pesticides are a major case in point. Their very mention
conjures up negative images and emotions among the agriculturally uninformed.
As members of the agricultural community, we each must do our best to educate
and inform society of the facts that surround pesticide use. Certain myths
must be dispelled.
Myth #1: Pesticides are poisonous.
While it is absolutely true that pesticides are poisonous
to designated weeds, insects, and fungi, today's pesticides, when properly
applied, are not toxic to you or me or to our pets and livestock. Classified
as "legal poisons," pesticides are extensively examined by the
United States EPA. A battery of toxicological tests (some lasting several
years) is performed on each chemical. Just about everything one can think
of with respect to that chemical is investigated: how it is made; what it
is made of; whether it is toxic, mutagenic, teratogenic, oncogenic, or just
a plain skin or eye irritant; and so forth. If a chemical "fails"
just one major test, it probably will not be labeled for use in the United
States. A company wishing to sell a crop protection chemical invests between
$20 million and $60 million in testing to make sure that it is safe.
Myth #2: Pesticides are pollutants.
As business people and stewards of the land, farmers use
crop protection chemicals only when absolutely necessary. The stuff is expensive!
The only reason a farmer uses an herbicide is to suppress specific weeds,
an insecticide is to suppress specific insects, and a fungicide is to combat
plant diseases.
To be sure, some have used pesticides not in full accordance
with label instructions, and there have been times that the environment
has been polluted. However, crop protection chemicals are spread over a
huge number of acres, so their concentrations are low due to dilution. Further,
pesticides currently in use in the United States do not persist in the environment
like those that originally contributed to pesticides' negative image, such
as the organochlorines DDT or chlordane.
A major problem with DDT and similar products was bioaccumulation
or increased concentration as the chemical moved up the food chain. For
example, a tree could be sprayed with DDT to kill insects infesting it.
When its leaves fell to the ground in autumn, worms would eat them. Then
birds would eat the worms. The concentration of DDT was low in the leaves,
higher in the worms, and higher still in the birds. Eventually the concentration
got high enough to harm a species in some way. For this reason, to the best
of my knowledge no pesticide that bioaccumulates is approved for use in
the United States.
If pesticides are considered as strictly pollutants, then
we should consider why farmers would use them. Who lives closer to the site
of application than the farmers themselves? Do they want to contaminate
the wells from which they drink or the streams and lakes from which they
fish and water their crops and livestock? Surely not, and that is why farmers
are careful how they use pesticides. They have a lot to lose if they misuse
them.
Myth #3: Pesticides are bad.
This is really where the public relations nightmare begins
for farmers and chemical companies that produce and sell pesticides. The
negative aspects of inappropriate pesticide use make big news in the media.
These negative impressions persist among the public. The "ho-hum"
benefits of agrichemical use, even if pointed out by the media, are seldom
the focus of the story.
Just what are the benefits? The two primary outcomes of
prudent pesticide use are lower food costs and better-quality food. In surveys
people say they will buy "organically grown" food; yet, when faced
with the choice of buying organically grown food that is higher in price
and often lower in quality, their actions do not match the survey results.
Approximately one percent of the food consumed in the United States is organically
grown.
Banning pesticides carte blanche would be similar to stopping
all use of synthetic drugs. This would never be considered because the public
is familiar with the benefits of synthetic drugs-better health, longer lives,
curing diseases, etc. The public is not so quick to associate crop protection
chemicals with abundant, inexpensive, high-quality food.
An Informed Perspective
The truth about pesticides is that we need them. Thanks
to pesticides not only can we feed our own people, but the United States
has also exported more than $50 billion of agricultural goods in each of
the past two years. Further, our food supply is absolutely safe (with respect
to pesticides) and inexpensive. Americans spend about nine percent of their
incomes on food-one of the lowest percentages in the world.
Consumers have already voted on pesticide use at the grocery
store, and the vote is that pesticides are good.
Dr. Thomas C. Mueller is associate professor of weed
science in the Department of Plant and Soil Science. This article was reprinted
from Tennessee Agri Science (Spring 1997): pp.4-5, Tennessee Agricultural
Experiment Station, Knoxville. |