Danny DeVeau
March 22, 2015
Olcott History 89s
Farmers in Lab Coats: The Consequences of the Rise of Pesticides in America
The introduction of pesticides into society in the mid-20th century transformed the world
of agriculture entirely. As American crop yields have grown, so too has dependence on chemical
measures for pest management. Though scientific innovations over the last half century have
continued to improve the quality of these chemicals, the question of whether or not the societal
benefits of pesticides outweigh their ecological harm endures. Using that question as a
foundation, this project will explore the history of pesticides from many different standpoints,
including scientific, economic, environmental, and societal. For example, the societal standpoint
of pesticide usage will be examined through the following guiding question: How has the
increasing use of pesticides affected the quality of life in America, both locally and nationally?
Through a comprehensive examination of these different angles, in addition to a reasonable
consideration of what feasible action can be taken towards pesticides, I expect to arrive at the
conclusion that the ecological risks of pesticides pose a threat that far outweighs the societal
benefit they provide. However, this project is still important to carry out because it will shed
light on the historical context of what factors caused pesticides to become such a standard in
agriculture. Only through this discovery is it possible to reasonably suggest courses of action that
will ultimately make the project worthwhile.
It has been less than a century since DDT, the first modern insecticide to achieve
widespread use, was synthesized. After its ban in 1972, DDT has been replaced by new,
innovative insecticides that have changed the world in more ways than seem readily apparent.
But why did DDT become so popular in the first place, before necessary health considerations
were assessed? DDT was originally used by the military in World War II to fight malaria,
typhus, and many other insect-borne diseases. Despite its ecological toxicity, the strength and
life-saving potential of the insecticide is undeniable – recorded cases of malaria dropped from
over 400,000 to almost none in the first 5 years of DDT application.1 DDT was extremely
effective and popular because in addition to its low manufacturing costs, it is extremely versatile
and persistent. However, as evidence suggesting the dangers of DDT piled up in the 1950s and
60s, it became increasingly apparent that regulatory action against the insecticide would be
necessary. A dramatic shift in public opinion came in 1962 when Rachel Carson published Silent
Spring, a book which powerfully describes the adverse effects of pesticides. Carson is often cited
as the driving force in the environmental movement, and in 1972 the Environmental Protection
Agency banned the insecticide for all American usage except for exports, due to its
“unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health.”2 By that point the
power of pesticides had already been realized, and as a result new, safer options were quickly
synthesized and became prevalent in agriculture. For example, the 1980s saw the first production
of neonicotinoids, a new class of insecticide that is now used on 90% of all American corn,
making them one of the most popular pesticides in use today. Neonicotinoids are systemic
pesticides, meaning they are applied to the seeds of plants (mostly corn and soybeans in
America), causing the whole plant to be toxic to pests without risking runoff and undesired
exposure. They attack a wide range of pests and are about 6000 times as toxic as DDT, and can
therefore be used in much smaller doses than most other classes of insecticide.3 Using these two
1
“DDT – General Fact Sheet,” National Pesticide Information Center.
2
“DDT Ban Takes Effect,” Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1972
3
McGrath, Matt “Widespread impacts of neonicotinoids 'impossible to deny'”, BBC News, June 23, 2014.
classes of pesticides as the main focus in my research, my project aims to use the historical
context of this era to scrutinize preconceptions about agriculture, in order to fairly weigh both
sides of the ongoing pesticide debate.
Though it is easy to point out the many arguments against pesticide usage, they offer
many benefits to society that are too often ignored. From an agricultural standpoint, pesticides
have been used to control pests which pose a threat to huge amounts of the world’s food supply
since their insecticidal properties were first recognized by Paul Hermann Müller in the 1930s.
Crop Life America, a pro-pesticide crop protection organization, states that “Up to 40 percent of
the world's potential crop production is already lost annually because of the effects of weeds,
pests and diseases. These crop losses would be doubled if existing pesticide uses were
abandoned.”4 The introduction of pesticides into the world of agriculture allowed it to expand
into the large corporate market that exists today, offering Americans an unprecedented ease of
access to food. To measure the importance of these crop losses, I will research data on farm
outputs before and after pesticides were introduced. Using the United States Department of
Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture Historical Archive, I can map the effective power of
insecticides on the agricultural market.5 Though data on the increased crop yield due to
insecticides already exists, I will accumulate this data over the period of time that a certain
insecticide was used in order to measure its gross agricultural benefit. For example, by
measuring the total crop yield in an area both when DDT was and wasn’t used, I will be able to
calculate the total economic difference it earned for a given crop. This data will be useful when
4
“Benefits of Pesticides and Crop Protection Chemicals”, Crop Life America.
5
“Census of Agriculture Historical Archive,” United States Department of Agriculture.
weighing both pros and cons of pesticides, as the raw numbers will serve as guidelines for the
actual economic impact of any pesticide. This research, complemented by sociological research
measuring how the introduction of pesticides has affected the quality of life in America, will give
my project a fair perspective on why pesticides have been, and continue to be, used in America
and across the world.
The need for food is universal among animals, and it is often taken for granted in
America. Before what is known as the “Green Revolution”, however, the world of agriculture
was painted by years of plenty and years of starvation. Often, when a crop had a bad year, it
simply wouldn’t be available. Pesticides are largely accountable for why that problem no longer
exists. My research in this area will seek to answer the following: how has the era of pesticides
changed the American experience, and is the change for the better? Though the numbers vary by
income, the percent of average disposable income spent on food in America is at an all-time low:
under 10 percent in contrast to around 25 percent in the 1930s6. Partering my research on
pesticides’ effect on crop yield with known research on American spending, I can measure
pesticides’ effect on the average American’s disposable income. In addition to generally lower
food prices, pesticides and crop protection chemicals are what keep produce pest free and
blemish free. In turn, this has allowed food to keep its perfect appearance after travelling across
America or even from another country (the common statistic claims the average American meal
to have travelled 1500 miles, but this is debated). I would like to research how these chemicals
have changed the grocery store experience for the average American. By researching grocery
store stock in various stores that are varying distances from farms and other food production, I
will be able to qualitatively judge the role of pesticides in the American diet. This will
6 Desilver, Drew, “Chart of the Week: Is food too cheap for our own good?”, Pew Research Center, May 23, 2014.
complement my previous research to give both a quantitative and qualitative judgment on
pesticides’ positive impact on the American condition. This research, paired with an analysis of
various negative consequences of pesticide use, will give my project a fair and comprehensive
analysis of the value of pesticides in today’s society.
Aside from the direct health risks associated with pesticides in agriculture, there are many
societal consequences of pesticides that often go unnoticed. Facts such as increased crop yield
and decreased cost of food are often labeled as positives without hesitation, but my research will
scrutinize these facts through the following question: in a larger scale than simply price of
produce, how have pesticides changed today’s America, and are those changes really for the
better? According to the World Resources Institute, “about 24% of all calories currently
produced for human consumption are lost or wasted.”7 Though pesticides can’t be blamed for
this statistic, they certainly can be held accountable for the radical shift in consumption habits
associated with the boom of corn and the lowered cost of food. I hypothesize that this radical
shift carried with it a general disregard for the value of food that was nonexistent before
pesticides. To research this I will pair data of food waste by year with research on the average
American’s charity towards hunger initiatives. Statistics on food aid are readily available, so I
can adjust the annual statistics for inflation and for average American income to loosely estimate
the average American’s interest in world hunger. Though this data would have no direct
correlation to a disregard for food, it would be telling if Americans’ spending on hunger fell with
the cost of food in America and rose with the average waste. The increased crop yield of
American corn changed the American food supply in other drastic and dangerous ways as well.
As industrial food production became the norm in America, cows began to be fed corn because
7
Lipinski, Brian et al., “Reducing Food Loss and Waste”, World Resources Institute, June 2013.
of the extreme savings corn brought in comparison to grass. In effect, this change led to the
expansion of the beef industry that now runs 729,000 beef cow operations in America.8 This has
caused the fast food market to become extremely powerful in America, which is hugely
accountable for the steadily increasing accounts of diabetes and heart disease in America.
Though these statistics are not directly related to pesticides, they, among many other indirect
consequences of spraying, are impossible to deny.
Though risk-benefit analysis of pesticides is extremely common, the indirect effects are
among the most important but widely overlooked dangers of pesticides. Indirect hazards, such as
the effect pesticides have on the predators of a targeted pest, are often very subtle and therefore
extremely difficult to test reliably. When chemical exposure is so low that it is hardly detectable,
it is nearly impossible to trace the cause of toxicity back to pesticides. However, these dangers
most certainly exist, and they must be taken into account in a reliable risk assessment of
pesticides. Among the most pressing present-day debates about pesticides involves
neonicotinoids and the worldwide decline of bees. The decline of bees is a huge national
problem, as bees’ “cross-pollination helps at least 30 percent of the world’s crops and 90 percent
of our wild plants to thrive.”9 Honey production in America has declined over 33% in the last
two decades, and many are pointing fingers at the exponentially increasing popularity of
neonicotinoids.10 Though some studies done by pesticide organizations claim to observe no
adverse effects on bee colonies, these studies often fail because they attempt to measure
undetectable levels of exposure. I will use the method of geographical correlation to attempt a
8
“Beef Industry Statistics”, National Cattleman’s Beef Association.
9
“Why We Need Bees: Nature’s Tiny Workers Put Food on Our Tables”, Natural Resources Defense Council.
10
Kiger, Patrick J., “Buzz Kill”, Sierra Magazine, March/April 2015.
more accurate conclusion. First, I will research levels of neonicotinoid application across various
cornfields in America (Similar research done by the Pesticide Research Institute has mapped out
Neonicotinoid levels in California to keep beekeepers informed).11 This research will work in
correlation with research measuring levels of honey bee mortality in colonies of varying
distances from known fields of neonicotinoid application. The comparison will result in a
geographical argument for one of the most important debated risks of neonicotinoids.
Additionally, recent research done on neonicotinoid runoff has suggested the chemicals to pose a
large risk to invertebrates, birds and fish.12 Following the theme of my previous research, I will
connect previously collected data on the dangers posed to these animals in order to quantify their
real economic risk. Following that, I will research the food chains of the various organisms at
risk to complete a list of the organisms both directly and indirectly affected by runoff. An
economic analysis of each of these organisms’ value in American food production will serve as a
quantitative complement to my list. For example, by measuring the link between the insecticide
fipronil and the decrease of a certain species of fish in an area of the Missouri river, I will be able
to connect the growth of a given corn field to a numerical decrease in the species. Though this
research is far from groundbreaking, it will result in a new set of numbers that quantify the
indirect risks of systemic pesticides in a new and interesting way.
In addition to my own research on the indirect consequences of neonicotinoids, I would
like to interview Annette Schürmann, a member of Bayer, a multinational chemical and
pharmaceutical company that manufactures them. Schürmann is the head of Bayer’s Bee Care
Center, a program launched by Bayer to “promote and develop solutions to improve bee
11
“Neonicotinoid Use in California,” Pesticide Research Institute.
Hallmann, Caspar A. et al. , “Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid
concentrations”, Nature, July 9, 2014.
12
health”.13 The Bee Care Center’s website defends many of the allegations against neonicotinoids,
and claims the health of bees to be in the organization’s best interest. I would put pressure on the
center’s denial of the indirect hazards of neonicotinoids by pointing to studies that reinforce the
fact of stream runoff. Studies done by the U.S. Geological Survey found neonicotinoid related
chemicals in 100% of the rivers and streams tested, at levels which increased after rain.14 I would
like to hear the center’s input on the studies, how they compare to studies done by Bayer
affiliates. Finally, similarly to the quantitative judgments on pesticides attempted in my own
research, I want to hear Schürmann’s opinion on the weighted value of neonicotinoids; in other
words, is the perk of increased crop yield worth the risk? Schürmann’s voice, which speaks from
the heart of the pro-pesticide outlook, will add a new perspective to further complement my own
research.
This research, in addition to extensive research already completed about the various
potential risks of pesticide exposure to humans and other organisms, will allow me to reach a fair
conclusion about the overall value of pesticides in today’s society. Direct human exposure to
pesticides has been a major issue historically, which I have not covered because the rise of
neonicotinoids and other systemic pesticides largely fix that issue.15 Therefore, my research on
the various indirect effects of systemic pesticides will be crucial in my ultimate judgment of their
safety. Pesticides have been come an integral part of American agriculture over the past century,
and therefore of the American way of life as well. Though it is difficult to conceive of a world
without pesticides today, there was a world before pesticides and there could be another in the
13
“Bayer Bee Care Program” & “Neonicotinoids”, Bayer Bee Care.
“Insecticides Similar to Nicotine Widespread in Midwest”, US Geological Survey, July 24, 2014.
Moses, Marion, "Pesticide-Related Health Problems and Farmworkers." AAOHN Journal 37, no. 3 (03, 1989):
115-130.
14
15
future. Hopefully my research will add a refreshing angle to the ongoing debates over the use of
pesticides in America. Ultimately this will inform Americans of why the American food system
is the way it is, and will help them make their own decisions on what needs to be done to
continue improving it in the future.
Works Cited
“Bayer Bee Care Program” & “Neonicotinoids”, Bayer Bee Care.
“Beef Industry Statistics”, National Cattleman’s Beef Association.
“Benefits of Pesticides and Crop Protection Chemicals”, Crop Life America.
“Census of Agriculture Historical Archive,” United States Department of Agriculture.
“DDT Ban Takes Effect,” Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1972
“DDT – General Fact Sheet,” National Pesticide Information Center.
Desilver, Drew, “Chart of the Week: Is food too cheap for our own good?”, Pew Research Center, May 23, 2014.
Hallmann, Caspar A. et al., “Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations”,
Nature, July 9, 2014.
“Insecticides Similar to Nicotine Widespread in Midwest,” US Geological Survey, July 24, 2014.
Kiger, Patrick J, “Buzz Kill”, Sierra Magazine, March/April 2015.
Lipinski, Brian et al., “Reducing Food Loss and Waste”, World Resources Institute, June 2013.
McGrath, Matt “Widespread impacts of neonicotinoids 'impossible to deny'”, BBC News, June 23, 2014.
Moses, Marion, "Pesticide-Related Health Problems and Farmworkers." AAOHN Journal 37, no. 3 (03, 1989): 115130.
“Neonicotinoid Use in California,” Pesticide Research Institute.
“Why We Need Bees: Nature’s Tiny Workers Put Food on Our Tables”, Natural Resources Defense Council.