I just finished scanning a new book on berry
growing (Berry Grower's Companion, Barbara Bowling)
and got lost in the section on pesticides. The
author presented her bias along with the supportive
arguments. She thought her views were moderate and
reasonable. To me they looked unsupportable (i'm against
all use of pesticides). Here are the arguments:
Pesticides have provided us
with an abundance of food. We
could not feed ourselves without
pesticides.
The assumptions here is that we can not produce
food without pesticides and more food is good.
The truth for me is elsewhere. At some point we
have to accept limits to food production and methods
that are compatible with these limits. Also, the idea
that we can not feed ourselves without pesticides
seems strange. Just a few years ago we didn't have
pesticides and now we can't survive without them?
I can produce food without pesticides and so can
many farmers world wide. The big issue might be
between large scale agriculture and small local
producers. It is much easier for a small grower to
produce pesticide free food.
Careful use of pesticides is safe and the claim
that organic food is safe isn't supported by
facts. Organic compounds can be as dangerous
as pesticides.
This view seems to assume that pesticides will be
used responsibly and the dangers of irresponsible
use are equal between organic and conventional growers.
Unfortunately, we have a history of pesticide abuse and
no way to insure pesticide responsibility. With organics
we have reduced the opportunity for abuse and opened up
a philosophy that moves toward sustainability. It is simply
a responsible step but not perfect.
"My greatest fear is that well intentioned by uninformed policy
makers will set agricultural policy, particularly as it relates
to pesticides, that serves to drive domestic producers our of
business, making us increasingly dependent on other countries
for our food."
This assumes restrictions on pesticides will hurt all
farmers equally. Another view is that reduced pesticides
will be a windfall for the small farmer. At worst it
might raise the costs for big farmers.. The idea that farmers
will disappear is unsupportable. The demand for food is too
large. Many countries have made restrictions on agriculture
which helped small farmers. These countries have more farmers
not fewer.
Another assumption is that countries that have pesticides
will take over food production and hurt local agriculture.
Humm, now the argument switched from having enough food
to who gets to export excess food. I find this nationalistic
and economic style of thinking very short sighted. Are we
concerned about ecology and heath first or who controls food
exports?
This is all related to NAFTA and WTO. The assumption that we
can't control our food supply and its quality. This may be
true if the WTO sets local policy. It that what we want?
----
jeff owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
homepage - www.bctonline.com/users/jko
archives - [EMAIL PROTECTED]/
