Rachel Was Wrong: Agrochemicals' Benefits to Human Health and the Environment

30 Pages·2012·0.53 MB·English

Rachel Was
Wrong
Agrochemicals’ Benefits to Human
Health and the Environment
By Angela Logomasini, Ph.D.
N 2012
ovember
Competitive enterprise institute issue Analysis 2012 no. 8
Rachel Was Wrong
Agrochemicals’ Benefits to Human Health and the Environment
by Angela Logomasini, Ph.D.
Executive Summary among other things. Policies that allow strategic
This year marks the 50th anniversary of biologist development and application of such tools will continue
Rachel Carson’s 1962 book,Silent Spring, which to facilitate the Green Revolution and increase
argued that man-made chemicals represented a grave agriculture’s ability to feed the world’s growing
threat to human health and the environment. Using population. In addition, high-yield agriculture reduces
harsh and unscientific rhetoric—which was the amount of land necessary to meet those needs,
rebuked in the journal Sciencemagazine shortly after thereby providingmore land for conservation and
its publication—Carson postulated that man-made biodiversity. The adverseimpacts of pesticides on
chemicals affect processes of the human body in human health and the environment are often greatly
“sinister and often deadly ways.” exaggerated and history shows that these risks can be
managed to ensure substantial net benefits.
History has proven Carson’s claims wrong. Contrary
to her admonitions, a chemically caused cancer Unfortunately, these benefits are at risk as Carson’s
epidemic never came to pass. Researchers who legacy of misinformation lives on within the politically
identified environmental factors did not simply target organized environmental movement. Green activists
trace chemical exposures as significant, but instead oppose strategic pesticide spraying to control deadly
focused on major cancer causes such as tobacco and diseases like the West Nile virus and advocate “organic
poor diets. In fact, people are living longer and healthier farming”using “natural chemicals,” even though there
lives, cancer rates have declined even as chemical use is little evidence that organic farming makes food any
has increased, and chemicals are not among the key healthier.As a result, regulatory trends around the
causes of cancer. world have supplanted wise management with heavy
regulations and product bans. The cost and risks
As the world reexamines Carson’s anti-pesticide legacy,
associated with bureaucratic regulations alone dampens
this paper focuses on the importance of chemicals
the market for innovative new products, diminishes
designed for crop production. These agrochemicals
the supply of pest control options for farmers, and
represent a subset of the many technologies and
reduces their efficiency. The result is lower food
practices designed to promote high-yield farming—
production, higher food prices, and fewer
making it possible for farmers to increase food
environmental benefits.
production per acre. Other technologies include
biotechnology, better soil and water management,
* This paper was originally produced for the biannual meeting of the International Center for Research on Environmental Issues
(ICREI), Provence France, June 2012.
Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong 1
2 Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong
Introduction In her chapter, “Elixirs of Death,”
In 1996, the Competitive Enterprise Carson postulates that man-made
Institute’s Jonathan Tolman authored chemicals affect processes of the
an article entitled “Rachel Was Wrong,”1 human body in “sinister and often
in which he explained why biologist deadly ways.”6Regarding the pesticide Carson’s crusade
Rachel Carson mistakenly condemned DDT, which was then used to control
called for bans
chemicals—and pesticides in particular. malaria-carrying mosquitoes, she
This year marks the 50th anniversary concluded that, “the threat of chronic and regulations on
of her 1962 book, Silent Spring,2 poisoning and degenerative changes of
more than DDT.
which history shows is, in fact, the liver and organs is very real.” In
still wrong. her book’s chapter on cancer, “One in
Every Four,” she cites one expert who
Carson’s supporters claim that the
“now gives DDT the definite rating of
biologist made a reasonable call for
a chemical carcinogen.”7
prudent pesticide use. She noted in
her book: “All this is not to say that Carson’s crusade called for bans and
there is no insect problem and no need regulations on more than DDT. She
of control. I am saying, rather, that declared, “The most determined effort
control must be geared to realities, not should be made to eliminate those
mythical situations, and that the methods carcinogens that now contaminate our
employed must be such that they do food, our water supplies, and our
not destroy us along with insects.”3 atmosphere, because these provide the
most dangerous type of contact—
Yet her book’s harsh and unscientific
minute exposures, repeated over and
rhetoric about chemicals in general—
over throughout the years.”8Carson
which was rebuked in the journal
closed her chapter, “One in Every Four,”
Sciencemagazine4 shortly after its
by claiming that, “the most eminent
publication—took policy in the
men in cancer research” believe that
opposite direction. And while Carson
“malignant diseases can be reduced
called for policy based on reason over
significantly by determined efforts to
myths, she opened her book up with a
identify the environmental causes
“Fable for Tomorrow,” describing a
and to eliminate them or reduce their
town in which chemicals have destroyed
impact.”9Bans on modern chemicals
wildlife and people die from chemical
must be implemented because “for
exposures. She admitted it doesn’t
those not yet touched by the disease
exist, but somehow we are supposed
[cancer] and certainly for the
act on her myth because, “It might
generations yet unborn, prevention is
easily have a thousand counterparts
the imperative need.”10
in America.”5
Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong 3
But contrary to her admonitions, a food any healthier.18 It is also true that,
chemically caused cancer epidemic despite green contentions, organic
never came to pass. Researchers who farming is not necessarily better for
identified environmental factors did not the environment, which is the subject
Carson’s simply target trace chemical exposures of this paper.
as significant, but instead focused on
anti-DDT rhetoric As the world reexamines Carson’s
major cancer causes such as tobacco
anti-pesticide legacy, this paper
contributed to and poor diets.11 In fact, people are
focuses on the importance of chemicals
living longer and healthier lives,12
malaria outbreaks designed for crop production. These
cancer rates have declined even as
agrochemicals represent a subset of
by encouraging chemical use has increased,13and
the many technologies and practices
chemicals are not among the key
many governments designed to promote high-yield
causes of cancer.14
farming—making it possible for
around the world
Carson was particularly wrong about farmers to increase food production
to stop using it DDT. For decades before it was peracre. Other technologies include
banned, humans were exposed to biotechnology, better soil and water
completely.
massive amounts of DDT without management, among other things.
showing ill effect. Many scholars have Policies that allow strategic development
well documented how Carson’s anti- and application of such tools will
DDT rhetoric contributed to malaria continue to facilitate the Green
outbreaks by encouraging many Revolution and increase agriculture’s
governments around the world to ability to feed the world’s growing
stop using it completely.15Limited and population.
targeted uses of DDT could have
saved millions of lives. Unfortunately,
Benefits of Pesticides
malaria now kills more than 1 million
Agrochemicals, along with other
people and makes hundreds of millions
important technologies such as biotech-
seriously ill annually, mostly children
nology,help produce a growing food
in the developing world.16
supply to feed the world’s expanding
Today, Carson’s legacy of misinforma- population. A 2007 report by Jerry
tion lives on within the politically Cooper and Hans Dobson of the
organized environmental movement. University of Greenwich highlights
Green activists oppose pesticide many of the benefits documented in
spraying to control deadly diseases the literature over the past several
like the West Nile virus, and advocate decades.19The authors explain that
“organic farming”17using “natural their overview is designed to provide
chemicals,” even though there is little a counterbalance to overly negative
evidence that organic farming makes news coverage related to pesticides.
4 Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong
For example, the authors’ survey of yields have grown by more than
the news discovered that negative pes- 230 percent per acre between 1920
ticide stories outnumber positive arti- and 1980.26
cles at a rate of 40 to one.20
Cooper and Dobbs acknowledge
As more food is
The Cooper-Dobson review notes other factors that work in concert with
that pesticide benefits fall within three agrochemicals to increase yield, produced per
categories: social, economic, and including improvements in water and
acre of land, less
environmental. This paper focuses soil management. Dr. Erich-Christian
on public health (a subset of social Oerke of the University of Bonn takes land is needed
benefits) and environmental benefits. a similar view, noting how crop
for agriculture,
It does not focus on economic benefits protection products are among one of
directly, but those are also critically a number of important technologies thereby increasing
important to human health. Data and practices that have contributed to
land available
demonstrates that wealthier populations greater crop productivity. He explains:
are healthier.21 But these indirect for conservation.
Despite a clear increase in pesticide
benefits fall outside the scope of this
use, crop losses have not signifi-
conversation.
cantly decreased during the last
Cooper and Dobbs document a host of 40 years. However, pesticide use
benefits resulting from the increased has enabled farmers to modify
agricultural productivity associated production systems and to
with agrochemicals. The ability of increase crop productivity without
these products to control pests results sustaining the higher losses likely
in “greater availability of food, at a to occur from an increased
reasonable price, all year round.”22 susceptibility to the damaging
It also means that as more food is effect of pests…Because of global
produced per acre of land, less land is population growth in a world of
needed for agriculture, thereby limits, sustainable crop production
increasing land available for at elevated levels is urgently
conservation. needed. The active control of
crops and their genetics, of soil
Consider some examples. The authors
fertility via chemical fertilization
note that India has increased its grain
and irrigation, and of pests via
production four times over since 1951,23
synthetic pesticides are hallmarks
and “now not only feeds itself but
of the Green Revolution. The
exports produce.”24 Farmers in the
combined effect of these factors
United Kingdom have increased the
has allowed world food production
yield of wheat crops by 200 percent
to double in the past 40 years.
between 1948 and 1997.25 U.S. corn
Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong 5
Diverse ecosystems have been viable and farmers would have to
replaced in many regions by sim- use their land for other purposes.”30
ple agro-ecosystems vulnerable to Similarly, Russian farmers increased
pest attack. In order to safeguard apple orchard yields by one and a half
Thanks to modern the high level of productivity to two times and increased marketable
necessary to meet the human produce by 80 to 90 percent after
farming with
demand, these crops require beginning pesticide applications.31 In
chemicals, protection from pests. The yield Zimbabwe, the use of fungicides
of cultivated plants is threatened makes growing tomatoes possible
food production
by competition and destruction during the rainy season. Without these
has outpaced from pests, especially when grown technologies, farmers there would
in large-scale monocultures or likely suffer “total crop failure” during
population
with heavy fertilizer applications.27 that time of year.32
growth—providing
Herbicides have also yielded a number
While it is difficult to separate out the
people in both of clear benefits important to agricul-
benefits of crop protection products
tural productivity. Cooper and Dobson
developed and from those of other technologies such
note the importance of herbicides,
as plant breeding biotechnology, the
developing which “represent around 50 percent of
evidence, explains Washington State
all crop protection chemicals used
countries with University professor Allan S. Felsot in
throughout the world, compared with
a 2011 paper he authored for the
more food insecticides and fungicides that are
American Council on Science and
around 17 percent.”34 Herbicides have
per capita. Health, “shows that both types of
some direct benefits to farm workers
technologies have had major
becausethey replace arduous
contributions.”28For example, he
mechanical harvesting of weeds.
notes that the productivity of potatoes
Mechanical weed removal also raises
exploded after 1950 thanks to the
the costs of farmingand thereby
introduction of fumigants to reduce
increases food prices. Also,it is often
the impacts of nematodes. Yields grew
less effective in controlling these
from 153 100-lb. bags (cwt) per acre
pests, thereby reducing yield.
in the 1950s to 752 cwt per acre—a
nearly 400 percent increase.29
Health Benefits
Cooper and Dobson maintain that
Thanks to modern farming with chem-
the application of “pesticides has
icals, food production has outpaced
undoubtedly played a very significant
population growth—providing people
role.” According to one study they
in both developed and developing
reviewed, “without pesticides, apple
countries with more food per capita
production would not be commercially
and helping in the battle against star-
6 Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong
vation and malnutrition. Per capita Dobson note that “cereal diseases”
grain supplies have grown by 27 can result when farmers do not use
percent since 1950, and food prices fungicides, which can create toxins
have declined in real terms by 57 that make humans sick and can even
percent since 1980.34At the turn of the prove “lethal” in extreme cases. Agrochemicals
20th century, before the use of modern
Interestingly, agrochemicals are not are also used
agricultural practices, Americans spent
only applied to the land, they are also
20 percent of their income on food. to defend farm
used to defend farm animals from
Today the average American family
disease. For example, applications of animals from
spends less than 9 percent of its
pesticides to livestock in Burkina Faso,
disposable income on food.35 disease.
in Africa, helps prevent transmission
In addition to combating hunger and of trypanosomiasis—a potentially fatal
starvation, more affordable fruits and disease transmitted to animals and
vegetables is the best defense against humans from tsetse flies. These appli-
many illnesses, including cancer. The cations reduced livestock mortality by
quarter of the U.S. population consum- 63 percent, increased offspring survival
ingthe least amount of fruits and by more than 50 percent, and increased
vegetables has a cancer rate twice as milk yield. As a result, herd sizes grew
high as the quarter of the population by 25 percent, making it possible for
consuming the most fruits and vegeta- more households to own oxen, which
bles.36Accordingly, the World Health were also each more productive.38
Organization advocates increased
Pesticides also reduce risks related to
intake of fruits and vegetables, to
a host of vector-borne diseases by
reduce the cancer incidence rate by 30
controlling populations of mosquitoes,
percent across the board.37 By making
ticks, cockroaches, rodents and
fruits and vegetables more affordable,
other pests.39
high-yield agriculture facilitates
greater consumption of these cancer-
fighting foods. Environmental Conservation
Benefits
Less obvious health benefits associated
While many environmental advocacy
with pesticides include their ability to
groups suggest that chemicals have
restrain the natural development of
tremendously adverse impacts on the
toxic substances in food products. When
environment and wildlife, the fact is
plants are exposed to pests without the
that these products have substantial
use of pesticides, they will develop
environmental benefits. We consider a
their own defense mechanisms that
few here, such as the impacts on habi-
include highly toxic naturally occurring
tats and water quality.
chemicals. For example, Cooper and
Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong 7
Researcher Roger Sedjo of Resources experience the highest rates of
for the Future notes: “Almost certainly deforestation.
the primary cause of contemporary Brazil, which along with Indonesia
biodiversity decline is habitat destruc- had the highest net loss of forests
High-yield tion and the degradation that results in the 1990s, has significantly
from the expansion of human popula- reduced its rate of loss. Recent
farming helps
tions and activities.”40Clearing land data suggest that Indonesia’s rate
reduce for agriculture is surely one of those of deforestation is also slowing.41
human activities, as is clearing land
encroachment
for living space. Such reforestation would not be
into wildlife possible without high-yield agriculture
Many people assume that any
and the chemicals that are part of
habitat. deforestation is bad. They forget that
that process.
deforestation has made it possible for
developed nations to provide an From a conservationist perspective,
abundant food supply for domestic and the problem is not deforestation and
international markets. As populations habitat destruction, per se, but mis-
grow and people switch from gathering management of resources. This is true
food to farming, some deforestation for both the developed and developing
becomes necessary. History shows world. A large part of the problem stems
that once enough agricultural land is from the tragedy of the commons—the
set aside and farming practices become fact that much of the world’s forests are
sustainable, forests stabilize. owned by central governmentsthat do
not exercise any management or
Steven Hayward of the Ashbrook
control over the lands. As a result, much
Center at Ashland University documents
of the forests are an open resource
such trends in his Environmental
lacking a steward, which leads to
Almanac 2011, showing how deforesta-
serious abuse as everyone takes from
tionhas declined in recent years in
the forest, yet no one has an interest in
many parts of the world and in some
maintaining the resource. In addition
cases reforestation has begun. He notes:
poverty contributes as clearing more
Although data on the global scale and more land for agriculture becomes
are inconsistent and incomplete, necessary to produce food.
the rate of deforestation appears
There is much debate as to the extent
to be steadily declining. Between
of rainforest deforestation. It is clear
1995 and 2005, Asia dramatically
that high-yield farming helps reduce
reversed its deforestation trends;
encroachment into wildlife habitat,
it is now reforesting rapidly.
and the measured impact is substantial.
Africa and South America still
8 Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong
If farmers continued to use 1950s tilling the soil to control weeds, a
technology—when most of the world practice that led to sediment runoff
did not use pesticides and fertilizers— into nearby waters. Such sediment
they would have to plant 10 million blocked sunlight out of streams and
square miles of additional land to waterways, killed vegetation and If farmers
generate the food that is produced harmed wildlife. “Many environmental
continued to use
today, notes researcher Dennis Avery scientists agree” Felsot explains, “that
of the Hudson Institute.42That is more eutrophication and sedimentation of 1950s technology,
land than all of North America (about aquatic resources due to runoff and
they would have
9.4 million square miles) and almost as erosion from agricultural land is the
much as all the land in Africa (about most important cause of water quality to plant 10 million
11.7 million square miles). Researcher impairment, not to mention being
square miles of
Indur Goklany has also quantified responsible for transportation problems
these conservation gains. He explains: as rivers backfill with sediment.”44 additional land
If U.S. agricultural technology The answer to this problem came from to generate the
had been frozen at 1910 levels— no-till and conservation tillage (reduced
food that is
i.e. if cropland per capita had tilling) for farming, a practice made
stayed at 1910 levels—then to possible by chemical herbicides. Using produced today.
produce the same output as herbicides to control weeds decreases
achieved in 2004, U.S. farmers the need for tilling soil, which, in turn,
would have had to utilize 1,007 reduces soil erosion by 50 to 98 percent,
million acres rather than the 305 notes Avery.45 Felsot notes that soil
million acres that were actually erosion resulting from tilling in Illinois,
harvested that year. That’s more Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska amounted
than four times the total amount to 14.9 tons/acre/year, whereas
of land and habitat under special no-till farms there released only
protection in the U.S. in 1999— 0.8 tons/acre/year.46
including National Parks, National
One of the key herbicides used that
Wildlife Refuges, and National
make no-till farming possible is
Wilderness Areas. Quite possibly,
atrazine. A target of environmentalists
the increase in land productivity
who say it pollutes waterways,
averted a potential catastrophe
atrazine is one of the most studied
for U.S. wildlife and perhaps even
chemicals in the world and is widely
biodiversity more generally.43
recognized as posing negligible health
and environmental impacts.47
The use of chemical herbicides produces
another set of environmental benefits. At a November 2011webcast confer-
Before the 1960s, farmers relied on ence, a number of U.S. researchers
Logomasini: Rachel Was Wrong 9