Ventura County Star, CA
06-10-07
Ag and emissions: Time growers got on path of sustainability
By Mary Haffner
Last year, a federal judge ruled that five California air basins violated the Clean
Air Act when they failed to reduce smog-forming volatile organic compound
“VOC” emissions from agricultural pesticides. In Ventura County, instead of
attempting to comply with federal air pollution requirements over the last 10
years, more land was dedicated to conventional growing that relies on high
concentrations of VOC-producing fumigants and heavy spraying schedules. The
law was flagrantly disregarded.
This federal court ruling and the recent challenge by a Ventura grandmother and
her neighbors to the use of toxic fumigants in their backyards are just two
symptoms of a vulnerable agricultural system. Regulations and ag/urban conflicts
will continue to plague conventional growers if they do not adopt more
sustainable strategies. Reliance on ozone-producing pesticides violates the
Clean Air Act; agrichemical runoff is now subject to the mandates of the Clean
Water Act. Laws and regulations are not going away.
Communities and environmental groups, strengthened in number and educated
about the trade-offs between high yields and high air and water pollution, will
continue to ensure that these mandates are enforced.
Conventional growers claim they cannot afford to reduce chemical use. Just the
opposite, however, is true. They cannot afford not to.
The toxic inputs they believe keep them profitable, in reality, render them
vulnerable, inefficient and unsustainable. The external costs, regulatory struggles
and ag/urban conflicts all stem from conventional agriculture’s dependence on
polluting chemical inputs.
We need to stop substituting one harmful chemical with another and get on the
path of sustainability.
The “success” of industrialized agriculture is an illusion. Pests develop
immunities and encourage farmers to use larger, more deadly doses of pesticide.
In 1948, U.S. farmers used 50 million pounds of pesticides a year and lost 7
percent of their crop to pests. Today, with a 20-fold increase in chemical use,
total crop losses are 20 percent higher — more pesticides, greater expense,
greater crop loss and increased harm to the environment and human health. The
only real winners in this system of crop production are the agrochemical
industries that sell the toxic chemicals.
Pesticides compromise our health. The scientific community has come together
to declare that chemicals, including those used heavily in conventional
agriculture, can cause cancer, neurological and reproductive problems, learning
disabilities and myriad other adverse health consequences. Agricultural runoff
carries these chemicals into groundwater reservoirs and surface streams and
into birds and fish.
Low prices at the grocery store do not include the external costs forced onto
society by conventional agriculture. Costs associated with water treatment,
healthcare, regulatory compliance and damage to soil, air, wildlife and ecosystem
resources are all borne by society at large.
A recent Iowa State University study quantified these costs and found that
society pays between $10 billion to $16 billion a year for conventional agriculture.
We find ourselves faced with choices related to the undeniable connection
between today’s actions and the future of our world. We are motivated to reverse
global climate change.
We care about clean air and clean water. Consumer preferences for nontoxic
and environmentally friendly practices have created lucrative markets for
companies embracing cleaner technologies, energy and resource conservation
— all components of what we want — a sustainable world.
How much longer will a more enlightened society be willing to put up with
conventional farming when there is another way to grow food that respects
natural resources, works with nature instead of against it, and leaves
communities with cleaner air, cleaner water and healthier ecosystems?
Sustainable farming is far superior to conventional methods when you consider
all of the environmental and public health harms and benefits of each.
Because agriculture has such profound impacts on the environment and human
health, it is a critical part of any movement toward sustainability.
The social, economic, environmental and regulatory realities will eventually
compel agriculture to adopt a more sustainable, whole-systems approach that
embraces ecologically based alternatives. Do we have the wisdom to implement
this sooner rather than later, or do we further compromise environmental and
human health?
Cheaper and safer pest- management methods have already been developed
and adopted by many farmers without compromising food production. A
successful model for transition includes more pressure on Extension services to
promote and support sustainable practices and creating networks of farmers and
scientists, agricultural organizations, public agencies, and communities to learn
together about local conditions. This responsibility does not rest just with the
agricultural community. We must turn to lower-risk methods of pest management
in our gardens, parks, schools, cities and counties as well.
We can do this in Ventura County. We can set the standard for a sustainable
system. Let’s enlist the courage, wisdom and visionary leadership it will take to
make this change.
— Mary Haffner, of Ventura, is a lawyer, board member of Community and
Children’s Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning, and a Ventura Unified School
District trustee. She introduced the idea of integrated pest management to VUSD
and requested it stop the use of hazardous chemicals in the environment. In
2000, she united the community to protect elementary school children from
pesticide drift across the street from Mound Elementary School. Her actions
ultimately led to statewide legislation addressing the need for stricter controls of
hazardous chemicals near schools.