harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) (08/10/87)
Silent Spring Still Flows ....
Springtime is spraying time. The peak season for
dispensing an annual 2.5 billion pounds of pesticides means
that the United States, the earth's most chemicalized
landscape, is again to have its farms, homes, lawns, ground
water and food supply awash in poisons.
This year is different because it marks the 25th
anniversary of "Silent Spring," the Rachel Carson book that
told of the chemical plague under way in 1962 and warned
that it was likely to worsen.
It has. If a successor to Rachel Carson, who died in
1964, were to write "Silent Spring II," the sequel could
have as its subtitle: "We Aimed at the Bugs but Sprayed
Ourselves."
One problem with chemicals is that once they are
applied to the land, air or water, it is scientifically
difficult to prove a causal relationship between the poisons
and diseases suffered by humans. The chemical industry
takes refuge in this handy uncertainty. It argues that
pesticides are potentially dangerous but, if used properly,
heighten the quality of life.
Rachel Carson rejected that bromide 25 years ago, and
it's not worth an empty can of roach spray now. How can
pesticides be properly used if the effects of what's being
used are a mystery? Jay Feldman, the director of the
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, reports
that as recently as five years ago, "79 to 84 percent lacked
adequate carcinogenicity testing, and 60 to 70 percent
lacked adequate mutagenicity testing, 90 to 93 percent
lacked adequate testing for their tendency to cause birth
defects." More recently, in 1984, the National Academy of
Sciences found that "complete health-hazard assessments for
pesticides and inert ingredients of pesticides formulations
are possible for only 10 percent of the pesticides in use."
Those facts should have been calls to action by
governmental enforcers of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act. Instead, the legislation -- passed in
1972 and known as the weakest of the major environmental
laws enacted in the last 15 years -- was applied with all
the force of trying to stop a swarm of locusts with a spray
of milk. Two reports last year from the General Accounting
Office documented that the Environmental Protection Agency
was a regulatory wasteland regarding pesticides: The agency
knows little about "the nature, frequency, amount or extent
of" exposure to the 1.5 billion pounds of nonagricultural
poisons used annually.
A more recent GAO report found that the Food and Drug
Administration's pesticide-monitoring program "provides
limited protection against public exposure to illegal
residues in food." Fewer than 1 percent of 1 million
imported food shipments are sampled. This means that
Americans eating fruit, vegetables or meat from, say,
Central or South America, may well be dining on pesticide-
laden food. In "Altered Harvest," Jack Doyle writes about
the ethics of American corporations: Eighteen of them now
"produce or sell in Third World countries pesticides that
are either banned, heavily restricted, or under review in
the United States."
A poisonous equation is created. We make a buck off
the poor and they get the last laugh -- a deadly one -- on
us. It's the new Montezuma's revenge.
Rachel Carson could not have possibly imagined that
pesticide production would increase 400 percent by 1987.
Nor could she have predicted the government's indifference
to the dangers. She wrote in "Silent Spring" about the
health and safety hazards of chlordane, an insecticide made
by Velsicol Chemical Corp., a Chicago firm that sought in
1962 to block publication of Carson's book. In it she
quoted the FDA'a chief pharmacologist as saying that he
considered "the hazard of living in a house sprayed with
chlordane to be `very great.'"
Last month, citing scientific evidence against the same
pesticide -- still sold for use in millions of American
homes -- the National Coalition Against the Misuse of
Pesticides petitioned EPA to ban the product. It is already
outlawed in New York, Massachusetts and Japan. Velsicol
denied the charges that its product is a danger, and its
judgment seems suitable to EPA, which is permitting its
continued use.
In the 25 years since "Silent Spring" first warned
about chlordane, and a warehouseful of other poisons, not
much has changed politically. The industry is still
winning, the public still losing, and the government not
caring much either way.
Colman Mccarthy
Washington Post
April 19, 1987jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) (08/11/87)
In article <4960@ihlpa.ATT.COM> harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) writes: >Silent Spring Still Flows .... > (many words) ... > In the 25 years since "Silent Spring" first warned > about chlordane, and a warehouseful of other poisons, not > much has changed politically. The industry is still > winning, the public still losing, and the government not > caring much either way. > Unfortunately the alternative to the use of pesticides is world famine. One thing that would help the cause of environmentalists gain credibility and even respect in the public view would be a constructive alternative that would still allow us to feed our growing population. Schemes which involve teaching a populace with a welfare-class mentality how to raise soy beans in window boxes full of human feces are the realm of science fiction. Realistic alternatives to pesticide use can't involve a radical restructuring of our society or economy if they are to have any hope of being accepted. As Woody Allen once said- "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." ------------------------------------------------------------------- ihnp4!wlbr!etn-rad!jru
hammond@faline.bellcore.com (Rich A. Hammond) (08/12/87)
In article <> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes: >In article <4960@ihlpa.ATT.COM> harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) writes: >>Silent Spring Still Flows .... >> (many words) ... >> In the 25 years since "Silent Spring" first warned >> about chlordane, and a warehouseful of other poisons, not >> much has changed politically. The industry is still >> winning, the public still losing, and the government not >> caring much either way. >> > Unfortunately the alternative to the use of pesticides is > world famine. One thing that would help the cause of > environmentalists gain credibility and even respect in the > public view would be a constructive alternative that would still > allow us to feed our growing population. Schemes which involve There was a show on our Educational Channel this spring produced by the Smithsonian about farming. One of the farm's they singled out to talk about was a farmer who DIDN'T use pesticides or fertilizer. Turns out that he came back from WW 2 and bought/leased a farm next to his father's farm. He was going to show the old man how to farm using all the modern stuff (fertilizers, pesticides). Well, he didn't get any better yield than his father and was out the cost of the chemicals. So now (after his father retired) he's back on the family farm without chemicals, still producing as much per acre as his neighbors, but making more money. This is an anecdote that suggests (at least in the US) that dropping some use of pesticides/weed killers might not be as bad as one would think. Rich Hammond, Bell Communications Research, bellcore!hammond hammond@bellcore.com
dave@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Dave Chevrette) (08/12/87)
> In article <4960@ihlpa.ATT.COM> harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) writes: > Unfortunately the alternative to the use of pesticides is > world famine. One thing that would help the cause of > environmentalists gain credibility and even respect in the > public view would be a constructive alternative that would still > allow us to feed our growing population. Schemes which involve > teaching a populace with a welfare-class mentality how to What may I ask 'Mr. God's gift to the World', is a welfare-class mantality? Please explain. > raise soy beans in window boxes full of human feces are the > realm of science fiction. Realistic alternatives to pesticide > use can't involve a radical restructuring of our society or > economy if they are to have any hope of being accepted.
rab@mimsy.UUCP (Bob Bruce) (08/12/87)
In article <246@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes: > Unfortunately the alternative to the use of pesticides is > world famine. One thing that would help the cause of > environmentalists gain credibility and even respect in the > public view would be a constructive alternative that would still > allow us to feed our growing population. ... > I disagree. If you have been paying attention to current events you know that the problem in the world today is not a shortage of food. Just the opposite, the problem is crushing surpluses of almost every imaginable agricultural commodity. Surpluses depress prices. Lower prices reduces production in third world countries that cannot afford to subsidize their farmers with billions of dollars. So when droughts or crop failures occur third world farmers, having planted only subsistance crops, have nothing to fall back on. I am not claiming that this is the major cause of famine, but in Ethiopia in particular, long term depressed crop prices were a major contributing factor. I spent much of my life working in agriculture. I think there is a place for intelligently applied narrow spectrum pesticides. But most pesticides are applied haphazardly and inappropriately by people who are ignorant as to the consequences of what they are doing.
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (08/12/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) From: jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) > Unfortunately the alternative to the use of pesticides is > world famine. One thing that would help the cause of > environmentalists gain credibility and even respect in the > public view would be a constructive alternative that would still > allow us to feed our growing population. Schemes which involve > teaching a populace with a welfare-class mentality how to > raise soy beans in window boxes full of human feces are the > realm of science fiction. Realistic alternatives to pesticide > use can't involve a radical restructuring of our society or > economy if they are to have any hope of being accepted. About 10 years ago I spent a summer working at Culver Farms, a large seed producing company in NY state, I believe anyone in the agriculture biz recognizes that name, it's a big, well established and old supplier (also quite wealthy as far as I could tell.) They refused to use pesticides and relied on other methods (I don't know exactly what, I am sure they would be happy to relate these to anyone they saw as needing the information.) When I asked them about their aversion to pesticides (they seemed so conservative in their attitudes and methods it was rather surprising when they revealed this to me) the story went like this (paraphrased): "In the '50's we were sold on the whole DDT thing, we sprayed [they have been an innovator in the use of airplanes in agriculture this century] the whole farm. It was like a miracle, no bug problems, no crop loss. Then the second year we noticed that there weren't any birds either, no mosquitos, no houseflies and other animals we were used to started to disappear. We got together and decided that it must be because we poisoned our own farm, the results are scary, so we stopped and never used pesticides again. I guess now we're philosophical about it and figure the bugs gotta eat too, but we do what we can to minimize losses, natural methods, no poisons." I'd be surprised if these farmers' relationship to their own farm and it's health was terribly atypical. Obviously their "unscientific" observations were right on the mark, DDT was a problem and they were poisoning their farm as they suspected. I don't think your "intuitions" gibe with reality, it probably wouldn't take much at all to convince farmers to stop using pesticides. My impression from talking to these guys and their friends who dropped by was that (including the ones who still used them) the farmers are scared by them, know damn well what a poison is and what spraying it all over the place might mean, and aren't proud of what they're doing to make a buck. Obviously the large agricultural combines might be an exception as decision making probably occurs in sequestered offices far from the disappearing flora and fauna. Similarly, I would be surprised if even the most uneducated third-world dirt farmer would have any trouble coming to the same conclusions. -Barry Shein, Boston University
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (08/13/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) From: rab@mimsy.UUCP (Bob Bruce) >I disagree. If you have been paying attention to current events >you know that the problem in the world today is not a shortage of >food. Just the opposite, the problem is crushing surpluses of almost >every imaginable agricultural commodity. Good point. I remember a few years ago I was watching a show where Helmut Schmidt was being interviewed. The interviewer (I forget who, but it was one of those Meet the Press kind of shows) asked whether he thought the current efforts to eradicate world hunger would be successful in the near future. "What efforts?" he asked amusedly, "if there were any serious efforts there would be no world hunger, no one that can do anything about world hunger is interested in ending it." He went on to speak about essentially what you outlined in your note, that it's not caused by any lack of food but lack of distribution, no profit in feeding the hungry. -Barry Shein, Boston University
nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Prime Minister) (08/13/87)
This discussion about world hunger reminds me of the most disgusting facts about our world. While people are starving to death in their billions (Remember that *ten times* the population of the Unites States goes to bed hungry!), the EEC is worrying what to do about it's mountains of butter and lamb, and its lakes of wine. Here, our agriculture is running such a surplus that we've destroyed food. Is it any wonder that the third world hates us?
jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) (08/13/87)
In article <10850@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > >Good point. I remember a few years ago I was watching a show where >Helmut Schmidt was being interviewed. The interviewer (I forget who, ... Right. I remember when I heard someone who knew someone who said that they knew that we could get along just fine without pesticides. Big deal. Yes we have a surplus of food right now, which is mostly due to the widespread use of powerful fertilizers and pesticides. If you don't like it, and by the way I don't either, then don't just sit there getting all huffy-puffy and indignant. Stop bitching and moaning and go out and do some research and find out how to stop insects like the boll weevil, or the potato bug, or the locust. A little hint - the Amish use almost no chemicals, and they get very high crop yields- find out what they do.
walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton) (08/13/87)
One point about the original poster's comments about carcinogen
testing of pesticides: it has been pointed out recently that most of
the vegetables we eat produce natural insecticides, often very potent
carcinogens, which are present in far greater quantities than the
artificial ones. Best short reference for this is an issue of Science
about 3 years ago; sorry, don't have the exact issue, but it had a
lurid cover with multicolored circles on it, half of which said "Eat"
inside and the other half "Die." [The editors took some flak for
this.] There is a recent book on the "Cancer Industry" as well (those
who make their living raising alarums about environmental carcinogens,
usually human-produced), but it is somewhat strident.
Steve Walton, guest as walton@tybalt.caltech.edu
AMETEK Computer Research Division, ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
"Long signatures are definitely frowned upon"--USENET posting rulestower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (08/13/87)
In article <10810@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > From: jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) > > Unfortunately the alternative to the use of pesticides is > > world famine. > > About 10 years ago I spent a summer working at Culver Farms, a large > seed producing company in NY state, ... > > They refused to use pesticides and relied on other methods ... There are many examples of farmers being successful without the use of pesticides and {expanding the discussion} capital-intensive machinery. One is the Amish farmers in Pennsylvania, who are self-sufficient, not in debt, and very successful. They choose methods that look to the long term health of their land and it's income producing potential. Another is a gentleman farmer from Kentucky. He's now retired on a farm that when he brought it years ago has no income, was heavily eroded, and considered "worthless". The farm now supports him and his wife in "retirement". enjoy -len -- Len Tower, Distributed Systems Group, Boston University, 111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA +1 (617) 353-2780 Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739 UUCP: {}!harvard!bu-cs!tower INTERNET: tower@bu-cs.bu.edu
walton@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (08/14/87)
In article <1452@terminus.UUCP> nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Railyard) writes: >While people are starving to death in their >billions (Remember that *ten times* the population of the Unites States >goes to bed hungry!), I'd like to see a reference proving this statement. >the EEC is worrying what to do about it's >mountains of butter and lamb, and its lakes of wine. Here, our >agriculture is running such a surplus that we've destroyed food. > >Is it any wonder that the third world hates us? It isn't that simple. We have food surpluses in the EEC and the US precisely because we've shown the rest of the world how to grow more food, and they can do it more cheaply now than we can, yet we continue to subsidize our farmers. Irrational, yes, but not the cause of hunger. By and large, hunger in the world today is caused by (1) governments using famine as a weapon of war [Ethiopia], and (2) failed socialist agricultural policies in the Third World [much of black Africa and pre-Deng China, for example]. Steve Walton, guest as walton@tybalt.caltech.edu AMETEK Computer Research Division, ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu "Long signatures are definitely frowned upon"--USENET posting rules
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/14/87)
> This discussion about world hunger reminds me of the most disgusting > facts about our world. While people are starving to death in their > billions (Remember that *ten times* the population of the Unites States Billions? Maybe in the millions, from time to time, but not billions. > goes to bed hungry!), the EEC is worrying what to do about it's > mountains of butter and lamb, and its lakes of wine. Here, our > agriculture is running such a surplus that we've destroyed food. > > Is it any wonder that the third world hates us? Part of why they hate us is the awful realization that the preferred method of organizing food production in the Third World -- price controls on food, and collectivized farming -- are extremely ineffective ways to produce food. If the Third World were a little less enamored of collectivization and price controls, they wouldn't have the problems they are having. Clayton E. Cramer
dant@tekla.UUCP (08/15/87)
Steve Walton writes: >One point about the original poster's comments about carcinogen >testing of pesticides: it has been pointed out recently that most of >the vegetables we eat produce natural insecticides, often very potent >carcinogens, which are present in far greater quantities than the >artificial ones. Two points about natural insecticides (carcinogens) need to be made. 1. Because humans have selected and bred for more insect resistant plants, the amount of natural insecticides in plants has actually increased over the years. 2. The natural insecticides are concentrated just in the plants, not spread indiscriminately about the countryside. --- Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (08/15/87)
In article <1452@terminus.UUCP> nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Railyard) writes:
<This discussion about world hunger reminds me of the most disgusting
<facts about our world. While people are starving to death in their
<billions (Remember that *ten times* the population of the Unites States
<goes to bed hungry!), the EEC is worrying what to do about it's
<mountains of butter and lamb, and its lakes of wine. Here, our
<agriculture is running such a surplus that we've destroyed food.
<
<Is it any wonder that the third world hates us?
Why, we didn't steal the food from them. Are they jealous because
we're smart enough to grow lots of food and they're not? Suppose we
feed them and they all live and double their population, do we have to
feed those new mouths too?
--
I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comandrew@lemming.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) (08/16/87)
"So now he's back on the family farm without chemicals, still
producing as much per acre as his neighbors, but making more
money. This suggests that dropping some use of pesticides/weed
killers might not be as bad as one would think."
An analogous situation from epidemiology suggests itself. With regard
to vaccinations, most of which have a small but non-zero chance of
doing you harm, the ideal for you is for everyone else in the world
except you to be vaccinated.
Weeds come from weed seeds; insects come from other insects. Perhaps
this farmer's chemically soaked neighbors formed a weed-free,
insect-free buffer around his farm which kept the invaders at bay.
-=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA]bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (08/16/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) >This discussion about world hunger reminds me of the most disgusting >facts about our world. While people are starving to death in their >billions (Remember that *ten times* the population of the Unites States >goes to bed hungry!), the EEC is worrying what to do about it's >mountains of butter and lamb, and its lakes of wine. Here, our >agriculture is running such a surplus that we've destroyed food. > >Is it any wonder that the third world hates us? The problem unfortunately is the cost of distribution. It's expensive to gather up that surplus food, pack it properly, ship it thousands of miles to a needy nation and then provide overland transportation to get it to where it's needed. Dealing with the local governments is also a problem in many cases, sometimes for good reasons (eg. worries about the general import problems of agricultural products such as new diseases or bugs) and oftentimes not so good ("what's in it for me?") I suspect that this is where (distribution) most of the famine relief organizations spend a large part of their income rather than the purchase price of the food itself. -Barry Shein, Boston University
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (08/17/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) >An analogous situation from epidemiology suggests itself. With regard >to vaccinations, most of which have a small but non-zero chance of >doing you harm, the ideal for you is for everyone else in the world >except you to be vaccinated. Assuming the disease is only transmitted between humans, not all are. >Weeds come from weed seeds; insects come from other insects. Perhaps >this farmer's chemically soaked neighbors formed a weed-free, >insect-free buffer around his farm which kept the invaders at bay. > > -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP] This presumes essentially extinction of the species and such thorough eradication that they cannot repopulate in this neighbors farm, and what happened to whatever was already living in this neighbor's farm? Did they just drop dead of grief for their insect-friends? Highly unlikely. More likely is his neighbors might have driven the entire population of insects to this poison-free neighbor. Or, put another way, it's astounding how easy it is to sit and make up stupid arguments to back one's point of view. -Barry Shein, Boston University
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (08/17/87)
In article <1039@faline.bellcore.com>, hammond@faline.bellcore.com (Rich A. Hammond) writes: [edited talk on pesticides] > This is an anecdote that suggests (at least in the US) that > dropping some use of pesticides/weed killers might not be as bad as > one would think. > Rich Hammond, Bell Communications Research, bellcore!hammond hammond@bellcore.com Sure, a couple farmers can forgoe use of pesticides without problems, just as a couple children can forgo polio and other vacinations without problems. But for the general population to not use pesticides and/or vacininations would be suicidial. Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp !ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken *** NOT ken@bellcore.uucp *** bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet
heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) (08/17/87)
In article <2207@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) writes: > > Two points about natural insecticides (carcinogens) need to be made. > > 1. Because humans have selected and bred for more insect resistant plants, > the amount of natural insecticides in plants has actually increased over > the years. > > 2. The natural insecticides are concentrated just in the plants, not > spread indiscriminately about the countryside. > > Dan Tilque and 3. We evolved with the natural insecticides in plants in the levels they are found in plants. Most experiments on carcinogens show how the chemicals work in isolation. Sure, chemical X may cause all sorts of problems when administered all by itself, but what happens when you add Y and Z? Heather Mackinnon Just an interested amatuer
hammond@faline.bellcore.com (Rich A. Hammond) (08/17/87)
In article <> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >Sure, a couple farmers can forgoe use of pesticides without problems, just >as a couple children can forgo polio and other vacinations without problems. >But for the general population to not use pesticides and/or vacininations >would be suicidial. The alternative to killing everything is to keep the pest population in check. The farmer in question did this by crop rotation, e.g. corn one year, wheat the next, soybeans the year after. So, corn eating pests only eat well once every three years, not enough for their population to get out of hand. Same for the other pests. Also mentioned that birds and other good insects helped. I suspect he did benefit from his neighbors spraying pesticides, probably had a much larger bird population on his farm than he would have otherwise.
walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton) (08/18/87)
In article <2207@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: > 1. Because humans have selected and bred for more insect resistant plants, > the amount of natural insecticides in plants has actually increased over > the years. Reference? It seems that we've actually succeeded in making plants more attractive to pests (bigger and easier to harvest fruit, for example), rather than less. > 2. The natural insecticides are concentrated just in the plants, not > spread indiscriminately about the countryside. An excellent point; I don't disagree that there are other good reasons than human cancer risk (such as near-extinct bald eagles) to ban certain insecticides. I was responding, you'll remember, to a posting criticizing the EPA for not making adequate cancer tests on insecticides. In article <3102@blia.BLI.COM> heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes: >3. We evolved with the natural insecticides in plants in the levels they > are found in plants. But they are still carcinogens, according to laboratory tests. If the fact that we evolved with them was relevant, we should show some resistance to their carcinogenic effects; we don't. > Most experiments on carcinogens show how the chemicals work in isolation. Which brings up another interesting point: it seems according to recent work that actual cancers are not caused by one agent, but by several working in sequence. See Science '8n's cover story on cancer about a year ago. Work is proceeding on defining exactly the sequence of cell damage which causes cancer, and finding the causative agents of each step. Long and hard work, as you can imagine. Steve Walton, guest as walton@tybalt.caltech.edu AMETEK Computer Research Division, ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu "Long signatures are definitely frowned upon"--USENET posting rules
dgreen@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/18/87)
In article <3635@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton) writes: >It isn't that simple. We have food surpluses in the EEC and the US >precisely because we've shown the rest of the world how to grow more >food, and they can do it more cheaply now than we can, yet we continue >to subsidize our farmers. Irrational, yes, but not the cause of >hunger. Like everything, farmer subsidization isn't that simple either. Like domestic oil production, domestic farming has some national defense value. Independence from foreign oil and foreign food means we aren't as interested in mucking with other countries' affairs, and likewise, they don't have as much control over us. Dan Greening Internet dgreen@CS.UCLA.EDU UUCP ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgreen
dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) (08/18/87)
[I'm dropping the cross-post to the consumers newsgroup] > = Steve Walton >> = Dan Tilque >> 1. Because humans have selected and bred for more insect resistant plants, >> the amount of natural insecticides in plants has actually increased over >> the years. > >Reference? It seems that we've actually succeeded in making plants more >attractive to pests (bigger and easier to harvest fruit, for example), >rather than less. True, the fruit is more attractive to pests which is why they also breed plants for resistance to insects. The resistance is often in the form of increased amounts of natural insecticides. As far as references, there was a brief splash in the news not too long ago (last year, I think) about some research on this. McNeil/Lehrer even interviewed one of the researchers. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. --- Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP
rab@mimsy.UUCP (Bob Bruce) (08/19/87)
In article <1003@argus.UUCP> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >Sure, a couple farmers can forgoe use of pesticides without problems, just >as a couple children can forgo polio and other vacinations without problems. >But for the general population to not use pesticides and/or vacininations >would be suicidial. > I think this is a very poor analogy. Insects are indigenous to our environment. They are not something that a crop `catches' from a neighboring field. I have never noticed any difference in insect populations between unsprayed field that were adjacent to sprayed fields, and unsprayed fields that were not.* A vaccination works by permanently strengthening a persons natural immunity to a disease. If you want to compare insects to disease then our current pesticide policy is analogous to treating polio by giving everybody a shot of penicillin once a week.** ___________________ *This is from my personal experience raising alfalfa and winter wheat in eastern Colorado. I have no quantitative data to support this claim. **Polio is caused by a virus. Antibiotics in general, and penicillin in particular do not work on viral infections. So maybe this isn't a very good analogy either.
harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) (08/19/87)
> > In the 25 years since "Silent Spring" first warned > > about chlordane, and a warehouseful of other poisons, not > > much has changed politically. The industry is still > > winning, the public still losing, and the government not > > caring much either way. > > > Unfortunately the alternative to the use of pesticides is > world famine. One thing that would help the cause of > environmentalists gain credibility and even respect in the > public view would be a constructive alternative that would still > allow us to feed our growing population. Schemes which involve > teaching a populace with a welfare-class mentality how to > raise soy beans in window boxes full of human feces are the > realm of science fiction. Realistic alternatives to pesticide > use can't involve a radical restructuring of our society or > economy if they are to have any hope of being accepted. I wonder where you get such ideas that chemical Ag. saves the world from hunger!! That is chemical company propaganda! However I'll grant you there is a difference between "ignorant" farming and REGENERATIVE farming. Ever heard of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)? Current mainstream practices use the strongest chemicals whether needed or not. I object to the hostility in your words towards "environmentalists"! I thank God for these people and groups. No one else cares whether or not you and your children, .... and the rest of nature will be healthy and alive!! Harold Schessler
heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) (08/19/87)
In article <3667@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton) writes: > In article <3102@blia.BLI.COM> heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes: > > >3. We evolved with the natural insecticides in plants in the levels they > > are found in plants. > > But they are still carcinogens, according to laboratory tests. If the > fact that we evolved with them was relevant, we should show some > resistance to their carcinogenic effects; we don't. > > > Most experiments on carcinogens show how the chemicals work in isolation. > > Which brings up another interesting point: it seems according to > recent work that actual cancers are not caused by one agent, but by > several working in sequence. A few years ago (I would have to dig up the reference), nitrates in conjunction with proteins were found to form nitrosamines, which were suspected of being carcinogenic. Caffeine was found to intensify the reaction. This caused quite a stir not only among bacon lovers but also among natural food advocates who combined fruits (source of nitrates) with dairy products or grains (source of protein). Further studies revealed that a small amount of Vitamin C prevented the nitrosamines from forming. My point was this: our bodies are complex systems and the foods we eat are complex aggregations of chemicals. Pesticides are one, or at most, a few chemicals, and they are chemicals we either know or suspect of being toxic as well as carcinogenic. We have evolved with the foods we eat; our ancestors must have been able to survive on them or we wouldn't be here. Extreme reactions to staple foodstuffs would be counter-adaptive. Agricultural pesticides have not been around in their present concentrations during the evolution of the human species. There's also a lot of evidence suggesting that we wouldn't need pesticides if we didn't practice monoculture. Humans have pruned the gene pools of many of our staple crops through inbreeding and cloning. There were once thousands of strains of corn in North America. Now most corn is genetically identical. All Bartlett pears and Bing cherries are clones of one another. This tendency towards identical genes in crop plants makes the crops more susceptible to widespread insect plagues and diseases. We plant thousands of identical individuals of the same age in the same place and wonder why we require so much chemical pest control. The classical mode of agriculture was to plant diverse crops (both diverse species and diverse genomes within a species) in a family garden or small farm. Sure, you had insects and rodents and plant diseases. But you also had spiders and cats and preying mantii. If you lost your cherries one year, it didn't affect your beans, and the Smiths at the next farm might well have cherries. Heather Mackinnon Just a Self-taught Amateur Any mistakes I make are the fault of my teacher. chemical combinations we have evolved with than we are with single
spf@clyde.UUCP (08/20/87)
In article <3124@blia.BLI.COM> heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes: >In article <3667@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton) writes: >My point was this: our bodies are complex systems and the foods we eat >are complex aggregations of chemicals. Pesticides are one, or at most, >a few chemicals, and they are chemicals we either know or suspect of being >toxic as well as carcinogenic. We have evolved with the foods we eat; >our ancestors must have been able to survive on them or we wouldn't be >here. Extreme reactions to staple foodstuffs would be counter-adaptive. >Agricultural pesticides have not been around in their present concentrations >during the evolution of the human species. This is an extremely important point. Many years ago I was an Environmental Science student (which was actually quite depressing). I basically learned two things: 1) We know very little about how nature works 2) You cannot do merely one thing (Pogo, I believe) The reason I personally feel safer eating barnyard chickens and vegetables fertilized with manure is that humans have survived for millenia this way. Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are new inventions. Rule #1 above says that we don't really know how they work. Rule #2 says they certainly do more to nature (including us!) than we intended. >There's also a lot of evidence suggesting that we wouldn't need pesticides >if we didn't practice monoculture. True. But it's very difficult now to get seeds that didn't come from this interventionist establishment. It isn't possible to make cider the way it was made in the 18th century because some of the varieties of apples are extinct. (See Vrest Orton's Cider Making book; he was a "good old days" person if I ever read one!) In Wales recently I visited an Iron Age archeological dig where they are trying to grow crops from some of the seeds they have discovered (or like strains, I suppose). They apologized for the presence of wire fencing around the crops, but explained that those crops had originally been grown without the harassment of rabbits. Rabbits were introduced to the British Isles by the Normans! I digress... >The classical mode of agriculture was to plant diverse crops (both >diverse species and diverse genomes within a species) in a family >garden or small farm. Sure, you had insects and rodents and plant >diseases. But you also had spiders and cats and preying mantii. >If you lost your cherries one year, it didn't affect your beans, >and the Smiths at the next farm might well have cherries. Right on! Something about "all your eggs in one basket". I am reminded of an article I read in a "Back to Basics" book recently. The subject was a fellow who had worked as Foreman for a modern Factory-Farm for 10 years, then managed to buy some land of his own. Since he didn't have enough cash to get set up with expensive machinery, he decided to farm with draft animals at first, even though his experience was all motorized. In order to keep up, he planted diverse crops, so that he didn't have, for example, a one week period in which ALL of his crops needed harvesting. Well, it turns out that he's one of the more profitable farmers in the area. His "tractors" reproduce themselves, and he's hedged his bet against failure of any particular crop. He claims now that he'll keep farming with horses/mules - because there's more profit in it! Steve Frysinger *** We are made of dreams and bones... -- Dave Mallet in "The Garden Song"
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (08/20/87)
In article <8026@mimsy.UUCP>, rab@mimsy.UUCP (Bob Bruce) writes: > In article <1003@argus.UUCP> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: > >Sure, a couple farmers can forgoe use of pesticides without problems, just > >as a couple children can forgo polio and other vacinations without problems. > >But for the general population to not use pesticides and/or vacininations > >would be suicidial. > I think this is a very poor analogy. Insects are indigenous to our > environment. They are not something that a crop `catches' from a > neighboring field. I have never noticed any difference in insect > populations between unsprayed field that were adjacent to sprayed > fields, and unsprayed fields that were not.* First, if spraying does not produce a difference in the number of pests, I'd strongly recommend changing your pesticide. (;-> Technically speaking, the virus is also found in our environment. The analogy is a bit weak since every year only part of the human 'crop' is new. But if you restrict the segment to the newborn children, the analogy works rather well. In those environments where there is little resistance and close proximity, both a virsus and pests proliferate very rapidly. Where there is little resistance and distant proximity, pests proliferate slowly. Where there is a lot of resistance and close proximity, pests proliferate slowly. Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp !ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken *** NOT ken@bellcore.uucp *** bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet