OCR Text |
Show February, 1970 UTAH FARM BUREAU NEWS Page 3 Dim IPdStfnddl odd THE LATEST FADS Following announcement of a proposed ban on many uses of DDT, the American Farm Bureau Federation voiced "strong opposition" to a complete ban on the use of any agricultural chemical and urged that restrictions be only on the basis of scientific research findings. position was stated in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture, Clifford M. Hardin, from the Federation president, Charles B. Shuman on January 22nd. The Farm Bureau letter was based on the Federation's agricultural chemical policy adopted by voting delegates of member state Farm Bureaus at the The organization's December, 1969, annual meeting in Washington, D.C. The delegates represent more than 1,800,000 Farm Bureau member families in 49 states and Puerto Rico. Other points stressed in the message to Secretary Hardin included: continued use of agricultural chemicals is important to both farmers and consumers. "The "Agricultural chemicals are used by farmers as a means of producing food and fiber at the lowest possible cost. "We are convinced that any curtailment in the proper use of these products beyond that necessary to protect public health and safety would result in higher food prices to consumers. "We believe this is an important fact that should be taken into account by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other agencies of government as they consider further restrictions on the use of agricultural chemicals. "Farm Bureau does not object to the present stringent federal and state regulations governing the usage of agricultural chemicals by farmers. "We are convinced that farmers are using these chemicals in cordance with federal and state laws. ac- "We believe it is important that this point be made clear to the general public in order to correct the impression some people have that agricultural chemicals are being used by farmers without adequate federal or state regulation. "Farm Bureau recognizes that there may be problems in the use of agricultural chemicals as they relate to the environment. "We are concerned, however, that the important contribution that these products make to food production and human nutrition be given proper recognition and consideration. "Farm Bureau strongly recommends that the total responsibility for registration of agricultural chemicals be retained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture," the letter concluded. It seems safe to say that the position is not simply a defensive reaction to a potential loss of profit. First, the evidence doesn't seem to be conclusive that wildlife is irrevocably damaged by persistent pesticides. The evidence is fragmentary and contradictory. Some types of animal life appear to be able to store large amounts of pesticides in their fatty tissues with no ill effects. And the dying species of wildlife could this be simply coincidental? Pesticides may be solely to blame, but let's have the conclusive scientific evidence to be sure. It also seems unfortunate to ask agriculture to discontinue use of a vital agricultural chemical without an adequate alternative. The result could be the deterioration of America's food supply. The AFBF request is without doubt, a reasonable and justified one. AFBF by Ken Rice It seems as though the country spends time going through fads of concern. Though the nation is beset with many, many problems certain problems crop up from time to time as the most interesting, or at least those that have the most dramatic appeal for the vocal minority who Influence the body of American thought. These are the verbal shuttlecocks that are batted back and forth at cocktail parties and other institutions of the same noble ilk, wherein the world's vexing problems are solved. There was the racial crisis, and for awhile, it captured the nations attention almost to the exclusion of everything else. Then the Viet Nam war pushed that issue aside and the military Involvement of the United States seemed to penetrate every conversation. Poverty too, had its reign in the sun as people discussed the plight of the Appalachians and the big city poor. The cities themselves became a topic of concern. Malnutrition and imporper nutrition had their hour and. then pollution. Pollution is the new glossy subject and it promises to have a New words and phrases are now long run in the cocktail circuit. vogue. You can hear the knowledgeable speak of ecology, biosphere, ecosphere, environmental control, and environmental balance. The strange thing is that none of the preceding problems were The nation became concerned, federal laws were passed, solved. and then attention was focused on some other dark corner in our closet of national imperfections. Perhaps Americans simply cannot permit themselves to behold all of our problems at once. Perhaps they prefer to grapple with one problem at a time, hoping that, meanwhile, the others will quietly go away. At any rate the storm that has broken over the problems of pollution, is a violent and furious one. And perhaps, because the industrial polluters of streams, lakes, and rivers are so big and so important to our economy, the whip has reached the pesticides used in agricultural production. It may le grossly unfair to pick on the that have provided our nation with clean, wholesome pesticides and the reduced transmission of many diseases; but no one produce can deny that it Is certainly popular. No ecologist will give a speech these days without at least one or two raps at pesticides. It just isnt done. self-respecti- ng But the fact that it may be unfair wont make the attackers go away. It seems to me that two things need to be done. The first thing is to Insist that a completely thorough investigation be made of the pesticide problem to be absolutely certain of the extent and nature of damage to wildlife done by pesticides. Secondly, we must press for development by chemical companies, nt of effective pesticides. pesticides and We must do this with the expectation that pesticides made with chlorinated hydrocarbons are going to be banned. I think its safe to say that we can expect to see the ban on DDT broadened and other chlorinated hydrocarbons come under tightened restrictions until an investigation is completed, if one is even made. non-persist- semi-persiste- ent The thought of producing Agriculture must have pesticides. esacceptable crops without pesticides is thoroughly repugnant, with houseas and such The fruit pecially crops leafy vegetables. wife will not accept lettuce riddled with holes, or wormy fruit. Ban the chlorinated hydrocarbons and that leaves us with pesticides that must be applied so frequently that the costs become prohibitive. The problem of pollution is real. Certainly some of that damage is caused by persistent pesticides. Yet to suddenly drag our most effective pesticides out from under us without an acceptable alternative seems or not, it seems almost But certain that it will happen. ill-advis- ed. ill-advi- sed In my judgement, that leaves us with the courses of action that I mentioned earlier. It also leaves us with too little time to work on them. UTAH FARM BUREAU IHl NEWS Published each month by the Utah Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Business Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake cents per year to memCity, Utah, 84102. Subscription price of twenty-fiv- e bers is included in membership fee. Entered as second class matter March 24, 1948 at the Post Office at Salt Lake City, Utah under the act of March 3, 1879. UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton President S. Jay Child, Cleafield Vice President Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion Chairman, Farm Bureau Women V.' Allen Olsen Executive Secretary Kenneth J. Rice Editor DIRECTORS District One, A. Alton Hoffman; District Two, William Holmes; District Three, Jack Brown; District Four, Don Allen; District Five, Ken Brasher; District Six, Lee Barton; District Seven, Richard Nelson. |