OLCOTT HISTORY 89S
Farmers in Lab Coats
The Consequences of the Rise of Neonicotinoids in
America
Daniel DeVeau
4/27/2015
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 progression over the last half century has
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 digress from a traditional environmental analysis, instead using
historical, economic, and societal standpoints to uniquely measure neonicotinoids, the new and
innovative era of pesticides. For example, the societal standpoint of my research will examine
neonicotinoids through the following guiding question: How have the recent scientific
advancements of pesticides affected the quality of life in America, measured in food availability,
quality and safety? Through a comprehensive examination of these different angles, I expect to
conclude that neonicotinoids pose a threat that definitely outweighs the societal benefit they
provide. However, this project is still important to carry out because it will offer a multi-faceted
cause and effect analysis of the newly synthesized pesticides, which have not yet received many
long term research studies. Only through this analysis is it possible to reasonably suggest courses
of action that will ultimately make the project worthwhile.
Despite the immense changes that pesticides have given the world of agriculture, it has
been less than a century since DDT, the first modern insecticide to achieve widespread use, was
synthesized. 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 However, as evidence suggesting the
1
“DDT – General Fact Sheet.” National Pesticide Information Center.
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 After its ban in 1972, DDT was quickly replaced by new, safer
pesticides that have changed the world in more ways than first seem apparent. 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 insecticides, 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 posing as
high a risk of 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 Therefore, neonicotinoids are widely responsible for the United States’
overall decrease in pesticide use since 1981 (by weight), after extreme growth from 1960-1980.4
Using neonicotinoids as the main focus in my research will lead me closer to a more historically
accurate and updated conclusion about the value of pesticides in America.
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
2
“DDT Ban Takes Effect.” 1972. Environmental Protection Agency.
3
McGrath, Matt. 2014. “Widespread impacts of neonicotinoids 'impossible to deny'”. BBC News.
4 Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge et al. 2014 .“Pesticide Use Peaked in 1981…” United States Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service.
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.”5 The introduction of pesticides has expanded American agriculture into the large
corporate market that exists today, offering citizens an unprecedented ease of access to food.
Though much research already exists examining the crop yield of new pesticides, results are
often conflicting or inconclusive, especially on the topic of neonicotinoid effectiveness on
soybeans. Using the USDA’s Census of Agriculture Historical Archive, I can map the effective
power of neonicotinoids on the agricultural market.6 I will accumulate this data over 1970-1990,
a period of time that covers both before and after neonicotinoids were introduced, in order to
measure their gross economic benefit on a given crop. These findings will serve as quantitative
guidelines for the actual economic impact of neonicotinoids. In addition to this raw data, more
unique research testing pesticides’ effect on American’s access to safe, quality food will offer a
qualitative angle of the same issue. When combined, these two angles of research will be my first
step in judging the true value of neonicotinoids in society.
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
5
“Benefits of Pesticides and Crop Protection Chemicals.” Crop Life America.
6
“Census of Agriculture Historical Archive.” United States Department of Agriculture.
exists. My research in this area will seek to answer the following: how have pesticides changed
the average American’s income and spending habits, and are these changes for the better? To
narrow this research, I will again examine neonicotinoids, partnering the findings with my
aforementioned crop yield research to examine neonicotinoids’ effect on American spending.
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 1930s7. 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). Americans have been
spoiled by the high aesthetic quality of treated crops, and consequentially, without
neonicotinoids much fewer crops would pass screening to be sold. This would raise the price of
food across the board. I would like to research the numbers behind this situation, to essentially
conclude how neonicotinoids have changed the grocery store experience for the average
American. One way to do this would be to compare the waste, crop yield and revenue of various
farms of similar sizes, to see how effective neonicotinoids are at saving crops. This is similar to
measuring crop yield, but instead tests more specifically the value of food waste annually, based
on whether or not a farm uses neonicotinoids. 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 neonicotinoids in today’s America.
Thought raw data and single-step research is essential in computing many important facts
about neonicotinoids, there are many societal consequences that cannot be directly measured and
7 Desilver, Drew. 2014. “Chart of the Week: Is food too cheap for our own good?” Pew Research Center.
therefore 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: how has the increased ease of access to food (due to pesticides) affected
American culture? According to the World Resources Institute, “about 24% of all calories
currently produced for human consumption are lost or wasted.”8 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. As industrial
food production became the norm in America, cows began to be fed corn because 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.9 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. I hypothesize that this
radical shift in the distribution of our food supply carried with it a general disregard for the value
of food that was nonexistent before pesticides. As one unique way to research this, I can 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 incontestable 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.
8
Lipinski, Brian et al. 2013. “Reducing Food Loss and Waste.” World Resources Institute.
9
“Beef Industry Statistics.” National Cattleman’s Beef Association.
Advertising offers another unique angle to which patterns of U.S. consumption over time
can be measured. For example, I could analyze historic farm and produce ads from Duke
University’s archives (Hartman Center for Sales, Advertising & Marketing History) to examine
how the media’s representation of food and food production either reflects or influences U.S.
food consumption. This research could answer more complicated questions such as: how did the
age of pesticides become visible advertising and the media? How and when did expectations of
produce quality change in America? Though my findings could not be conclusive, if nothing else
these unique would suggest that the risks of pesticides are more complicated than meets the eye.
Though risk-benefit analysis of pesticides is extremely common, the indirect effects are
among the most important but widely overlooked dangers of pesticides. Because neonicotinoids
are systemic pesticides, manufacturers claim that they have eradicated laborers’ risk of exposure,
which has already affected thousands of workers in pesticides’ short history. However, other
indirect hazards persist, such as the effect neonicotinoids have on the predators of a soil
invertebrate, though they are often very subtle and therefore difficult to test reliably. When
chemical exposure is so microscopic that it is hardly detectable, it is impossible to trace the cause
of toxicity back to pesticides. However, these low amounts of exposure still pose a threat, and
they must be taken into account in a reliable risk assessment of neonicotinoids. Among the most
pressing present-day debates about neonicotinoids involves Colony Collapse Disorder and the
worldwide decline of bees. Colony Collapse Disorder is the phenomenon in which an entire
colony of worker honey bees all dies or disappears. The decline of bees is a huge national
problem of late, as bees’ “cross-pollination helps at least 30 percent of the world’s crops and 90
percent of our wild plants to thrive.”10 Honey production in America has declined over 33% in
10
“Why We Need Bees: Nature’s Tiny Workers Put Food on Our Tables.” Natural Resources Defense Council.
the last two decades, and many are pointing fingers at the exponentially increasing popularity of
neonicotinoids.11 Though some studies done by pesticide manufacturers and organizations claim
to observe no adverse effects on bee colonies, these studies often fail simply because they
attempt to measure undetectable levels of exposure. I will use a method of geographical
correlation to attempt a 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).12 I will then compare this data with research measuring levels of honey bee mortality
in colonies of varying distances from fields that apply neonicotinoids. Research of honey bee
mortality already exists, so I would simply have to measure the distances from neonicotinoid
farms to bee farms. 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.13
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 note the food chains of the organisms at risk to complete a list of the organisms both directly
and indirectly affected by runoff. 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 nearby corn field to a numerical decrease in said species.
Though this research is far from groundbreaking, it will result in a new set of numbers that
quantify the indirect risks of neonicotinoids in a new and revealing way.
11
12
Kiger, Patrick J. 2015. “Buzz Kill.” Sierra Magazine.
“Neonicotinoid Use in California.” Pesticide Research Institute.
Hallmann, Caspar A. et al. 2014. “Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid
concentrations.” Nature.
13
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
health”.14 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.15 I would
like to hear the center’s input on the studies, how they compare to studies done by Bayer
affiliates. Finally, to complement my own research findings, 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? Perhaps Schürmann’s expertise in the field could offer an educated opinion of my
hypothesis that neonicotinoids, and more generally all pesticides used in the last 50 years, are
extremely responsible for the United States’ shifts in consumption patterns relative to produce.
Schürmann’s voice, which speaks from the forefront of the pro-pesticide outlook, will add a new
perspective to further complement my own research.
This research, in addition to extensive studies already completed about the various
potential risks of neonicotinoids to humans and other organisms, will allow me to reach a fair
conclusion about their overall value 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
14
15
“Bayer Bee Care Program” & “Neonicotinoids.” Bayer Bee Care. Accessed April 27, 2015.
“Insecticides Similar to Nicotine Widespread in Midwest.” 2014. US Geological Survey.
other systemic pesticides largely fix that issue.16 Therefore, my work on the various indirect
effects of neonicotinoids that often go unnoticed 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. Although the scope is too wide for this project
alone, an analysis of the evolution of pesticides and their effects on other countries would be
very revealing of the unique societal shifts that can be attributed to pesticides. It is difficult to
conceive of a world without pesticides today, but it is important to remember that there was a
world before pesticides less than a century in our past. Hopefully my research will add a
refreshing angle to the ongoing debates over the use of pesticides in America. Ultimately,
exposing undiscovered issues with neonicotinoids will help to realize what needs to be done to
continue improving the United States’ agricultural system in the future, even if it means reviving
and revising a system that does not rely so heavily on pesticides to function.
16
Moses, Marion. 1989. "Pesticide-Related Health Problems and Farmworkers." AAOHN Journal 37, 3:115-130.
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.
Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Craig Osteen, Richard Nehring, and Seth James Wechsler, “Pesticide
Use Peaked in 1981, Then Trended Downward, Driven by Technological Innovations and
Other Factors,” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service,
June 2, 2014.
2014 .“Pesticide Use Peaked in 1981…” United States Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service.
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): 115-130.
“Neonicotinoid Use in California,” Pesticide Research Institute.
“Why We Need Bees: Nature’s Tiny Workers Put Food on Our Tables”, Natural Resources
Defense Council, June 2011.