OCR Text |
Show UTAH February, 1970 the public were they unprotected by pesticides. Though Indiana's agriculture is quite different in comparison with Utah's, the problems surrounding pesticides are the same. Because of the excellent summary of the problems presented by Dr. John V. Osmun, at the 51st annual convention of the Indiana Farm Bureau in November, we are reprinting highlights of it here. Although much is known about pesticides, it is early in the stage of our knowledge concerning some ramifications of the use and effects of these materials, and it is to be expected that people in association with them in many walks of life may from time to time raise questions as to their validity and use. Research on pesticides has been and will always be a continuing thing; adjustment in use patterns is therefore a prime responsibility. It is extremely important that all responsible and interested people be cognizant of the facts, appreciative of others points of view, and be in a position to help assure continued sensible use of pesticides, considering at all times their potential side effects in human food and environment quality. It is evident that from the standpoints of control of pests, agricultural production, and relative freedom from insect-born- e diseases, we are today doing quite well. What then is the problem? The Problem The Choices We Must itftake The problem is simple. There is public concern for the safety of people and the future quality of our environment. It is time that we separate fact from fiction; logic from emotion. What are hard pesticides? They are those which pesticides persist and breakdown slowly Non-har- d include insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides which are physically or biologically degradeable. Why is DDT a target for protest? It has a glamorous name and its easy to remember. Further, it has been used very extensively and is found all over the world. It is persistent and it has been detected in association with distressing situations in wildlife. DDT has save more lives, helped produce more food, and made life more comfortable than any other single compound yet conceived. How hazardous are pesticides to human health? One cannot generalize because each material is different. Correct uses of pesticides impart no harm to humans. Reliable medical authorities repeatedly state that there is no evidence to indicate that health has been or will be adversely affected, by DDT in the diet at present levels. Is our environment being jeopardized by pesticide usage? This is a grey area that needs rapid clarification. There are bioindicators which suggest that we have trouble spots. Like most people making recommendations for the use of pesticides, I am a biologist and a conserver of wildlife. I stress to you that we must proceed rationally in our control programs. I deplore the trend which permits conjecture and fact to blend into synonomy; where half truths become whole truths; where maximums are treated as averages! The worst of it is that once cause and effect are established in the minds of man, it is very difficult to unprove anything and instead mild concern soon becomes alarm. There is no need here today to do so, but suffice to say, for many examples of alleged troubles with pesticides, there are other examples which could be given that tend to refute the allegations. Again, however, I must call your attention to the bioindicators which are telling us that a great deal of time and money must be spent now to study the relationship of pesticides to the environment and, where needed, that we should adjust our usage accordingly. ' By DR. JOHN V. OSMUN Head, Entomology Dept. Purdue University be praised or pesticides be damned; PESTICIDESthe poles of public opinion. Never such a vital factor in agricultural production and in the maintenance of world health been so challenged as are pesticides today. The value of these materials is widely recognized; their continued availability, however,, is under severe public and scientific scrutiny. We have choices which we must make not five years from now, not next month, but today. New Era At this point in history we are entering an era when for the first time mankind can be provided with adequate food supplies and an environment free of pesttransmitted diseases. In the region of Indiana this is virtually a reality, and food and good health are indeed a bargain which we are privileged to enjoy; Pesticides are absolutely essential to production and to our and without them we never could have achieved such standards of living. The materials in use today have been carefully chosen and discretely recommended and they can not be replaced until more appropriate ones are available; any consideration of discontinuance must be weighed against a loss factor. During this past summer several committees were established by the governors of the five states surrounding Lake Michigan. One group studied the importance of pesticides to agricultural production. The accumulated data show, for example, that were we to be without pesticides in Indiana, we would suffer economic loss in value of production annually as follows: well-bein- g, Use Declines Forage crops Field crops Vegetables Fruit Livestock $ 4,839,000 94.130.000 18.633.000 12.892.000 69.413.000 These are large figures; in several ways they may be misleading on the conservative side because subtle economic implications can be over-ridin-g as in the case of apples which can not be grown at all without pesticides, and the quality of nearly all edible crops which would be unacceptable to Page 5 FARM BUREAU NEWS Why do we continue to aggravate the situation by continued use of certain pesticides? My answer to this point has to be one of the strongest points I will make. Much of our problem with DDT is behind us and many people are chasing shadows. Long ago entomologists recognized the problems associated with persistent pesticides (resistance, residues, secondary effects) and started to phase them out. DDT has been replaced in nearly all recommendations and the decline in purchases attests to this fact. For example, the Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative has decreased its purchases of insecticide formulations containing DDT by 84 over the past three years, and what are left are for specialty use. Dramatic use decline is evident with the other persistent materials also. The fact remains, however, that we must keep some uses where substitutes just are not available and the reason for the recommendations are specific control capabilities or the need for protection over long periods of time. Our situation in Indiana is generally favorable. We have great strength in the success that the specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service have had in reaching the public. Their recommendations are sound and people listen. I would rather have one good program of education than 10 laws. Secondly, a significant step was taken this year when an Indiana Pesticide Council was created by Governor Whitcomb. It has brought responsible agencies together on common ground where sensible programs of action can be developed. Thirdly, changing times are undergirded by sound research which should lead us to new concepts of pest management. Fourth, we bene-fro- m the ever increasing scrutiny given new products before they are permitted a Federal label. The picture is far from rosey, however. Whether those of us in science like it or hot, some technical decisions are from time to time made by the public. The latter is slow to arouse but once stimulated, its impact can be acutely felt. The whole situation is a clouded picture of good and bad. The thing that you and I must realize is that we are part of the problem. We also must immediately be part of the solution. Agriculture by absolute necessity is the principal user of pesticides and the very land utilization requires extensive application of materials. What is important is the choices we make: the correct chemical for each problem; the appropriate formulation; the use of a restrictive application method; the curtailment of pesticide release into the general environment It is evident in world affairs today that a strong agriculture is a resource base essential to the economy of a nation. It is a business made strong by its productive consistency. In meeting regulatory and marketing standards we cannot afford pest losses which would have a devastating effect on producer and consumer alike. Parallel with this is our vital concern for the health of people. This concern includes a safe, low cost food supply, the prevention of pest-bordisease, and an amelioration of our daily existance. Couple these with the management of our national resources in general, and the need for pesticides is dramatically obvious. To what extent these great tools of technology will remain ours to use depends now on the choice we make. We all share the responsibility because the futures of our economy and our environment are at stake. ed, over-restricti- ve ne The author . . . Dr. Osmun is an author tty in the area of pesticides and has been working with other repe resentatives from a area to develop a sound program. -- five-stat- |