OCR Text |
Show a UTAH FARM BUREAU Poge4 EDITORS NOTE: a remarkable The following exerpts from address by Robert White --Stevens, Bureau of Convservatlon and Environmental Science, Rutgers University, was delivered in Houston at the 52nd AFBF Convention. Every reader will want to study it thoroughly. INTRODUCTION: There is a gathering reaction to the progress of science in our time, particularly among the young, who though happily secure in the munificence with which modern technology has garnished their brave new world, nevertheless wring their hands over the miscarriages of technology, while they take its benefactions for granted, - - and appear to be oppressed with a sense of decay and regression - - by a fear of the deterioration of the world through technological innovation. Artificial chemical fertilizers and pesti- cldes are said to be undermining their health, they contend, the soil and the sea are being poisoned by chemical and radioactive wastes, they are told. While drugs merely substitute one form of disease for another, and modern man oscillates continually under the influence of stimulants and sedatives. This feeling of despondency, of helpless incompetence, a sense of doubt, seems to prevail everywhere. Even knowlegeable, intelligent and learned people are abandoning the standard rigors and objectivity of their training and are seeking refuge in an elevated form ; ; of mystical nuttiness. This general council of despair so prevalent in our political arena, in our colleges, and in our literature today provokes an overwhelming pessimism concerning the strides of science, and, while refusing to recognize the real contributions of science, loudly bewails the ancillary and usually quite lnsignifcant side effects of technology. Thus we condemn the antiobiotlcs because the elicit allergic reaction among the very few, while they restore the health of the very man; we decry the use ' of medicaments in livestock feeds because miniscule and quite innocuous residues may occur in our food supply, the quality and quantity of which is vastly enhanced by their use; we accept as our rightful heritage the total elimination of vast areas of hunger, disease and want, yet we clamor furiously over the exaggerated and Imagined dangers of pesticides. As Sir Peter Medawar comments, Why do people com- plain about air pollution without being at least as proportionately cheered up by, say, the virtual abolition of poliomyelitis and malaria? I Certainly a vigorously critical and rigorous attitude towards innovation and Important change is desirable if but to ensure that movement is one of progression rather than regression and all attempts and proposals to improve the lot of man should rightfully be dispassionately scrutinized to ensure the benefits do indeed far exceed the probable if not the possible harm; but we need also to distinguish between an objective, energetic critique and a fearful despond- ency which offers no reprieve from the very abuse it bewails. ; It is utterly futile to complain about the despoil- atlon of our environment by technology when the need is actually to seek and apply adequate regulation of the unwanted side effects. It is ridiculous to summon and collate inaccurate, exaggerated emotional and essentially irrelevant evidence to ban the correct safe and scientifically established uses of certain pesticides when the overwhelming facts dictate that our food supply, our health and the entire measure of our living standards would clearly be threatened and ultimately impaired by such rash and will considered legislation. DEMAND FOR FOOD AND FIBER: In spite of the vast advances in agricultural technology in the western world and the massive efforts of the U.S. Government through AID, P. L. 480, etc. and the various private foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford and others, to spread this technology into emerging countries the hunger gap has continued steadily to widen between the "have and the have not nations since World War II. F ood and fiber production will have to double in the western world, Increase threefold overall to maintain subsistence level in the populous emerging nations and protein production will have to Increase nearly sixfold to meet the needs of a world population of 7 billion by year 2000. As it is quite impossible for the westernworld to continue to make up the deficits in the emerging countries by supplying surplus foods, chiefly grains and pulses, it is absolutely imperative that these deficit nations develop their own food production re- sources. In 1964 the total consumption of world grains surpassed the total production and there has been a steady and continous draw down of reserves since. It is true we in the western world can cease or, at least, reduce the feeding of grains to livestock, particularly ruminants, at a 7:1 loss of protein, we can also reduce the use of grain for fermentation into beer, spirits, etc. and this would release considerable grains for human consumption abroad. It would, however, be quite unacceptable to our people and furthermore there are other ways in which we can provide sources of protein and energy for our livestock Including momogastrlc animals such as swine and poultry. MEETING WORLD FOOD NEEDS: There are two approaches to meeting the stupendous demand for food over the next thirty years. The first is the more obvious and is perhaps the more readily achieved, although it will unquestionably constitute the more serious insult tothe environment and will press wildlife into extinction more This is by horizontal expansion into new rapidly. and, as yet, untapped potentially arable lands. The second approach, that of vertical expansion, or increased productivity per acre will therefore become mandatory even if the present arable area is increased by 33. The possibilities for such a vertical Increase are, of course, exceedingly promising. In the U.S. for example, within the past 30 years grain yields have more than doubled and grain production per farm worker has advanced sixfold. Forage, bean, potato, cotton, vegetable, fruit and virtually all forms of livestock production rates have increased at least twofold and In some cases as much as fourfold -potatoes - over the past quarter century. e.g. This is reflected by the lowest cost in food supply to the consumer for the most abundant, varied, and high quality food supply at all seasons of the year that any nation has ever achieved in history. It also allows 5 of the population to provide all the food for all the people for less than 18 cents of their take home dollar, so that 95 of our population and 80 of our national income can be applied to other needs and pursuits beyond provision of the bare necessities of life. This, or course, is what has made this nation the wealthiest, the most affluent and the most powerful on earth. It is an accomplishment recognized today by too few and appreciated by less. Our munificent food supply is our basic and most powerful resource in a very hungry and envious world, and on which, for some completely unexplained and totally illogical reason, appears to be under an unremitting and utterly irresponsible attack. There is no wound to American Industry that could inflict more harm to the nation than to impair its food supply; there is no Injury to the American people that would give more comfort and rejoicing to our enemies than a serious decline in our food production. Our farms essentially won two world wars in this century and our scientific agriculture is, in the final analysis, the only factor that can win the peace. For if the farms of America should fail, our people would have no where to turn for their food and our industry, our economy, our society, our defense and our national integrity would shrink and collapse. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: It is a basic law of nature, that when any food supply is produced or accumulated in any one place, its pests, parasites and predators will also congregate. Modern technical agriculture requires, for reasons of efficiency, that crops and livestock be raised anc concentrated in areas which are optimal to their production - or, in a word, by monoculture. This Inevitably encourages pests, and no amount of productive efficiency or reliance upon natural controls can ever be expected to attain a productive margin ahead of the ravages of such pests, and no amount of productive efficiency or reliance upon natural controls can ever be expected to attain a productive margin ahead of the ravages of such pests. Their rate of reproduction is far too rapid to hope to be able to raise food in sufficient amount to sustain both the pests and humans. The pests will win it all virtually every time. Neither is there any reasonable probability that total pest suppression on all crops and livestock can be achieved by biological control measures. Of the 10,000 pests that attack mans crops and animals and himself there are not, now, more than 100 known significant biological controls and of these probably not more than 30 of reliable economic Importance. There is not one crop plant or livestock species which can be produced to meet the quality standards demanded by the consumer and generally required by law, and be totally protected by known biological pest control measures. Important advances in biological control research are being developed, but the most we can anticipate is an enlargement of integrated programs where both chemical, and biological controls are combined. The estimated annual total losses of crop plants and livestock In the U.S. currently aggregate approximately $20 billion even with our intensive pest control measures and efficient pesticides. This is an impost of 25$ on every $1 spent for food. It is anyones guess what the loss would be if we December 1970 used no pesticides at all. Conservatively yields would cost of food would drop to less than 504- and the -5 for produce the qualifold, undoubtedly Increase ty of which would be totally unacceptable tothe modern American housewife. This would immediately incur a sharp food shortage and exceedingly serious economic reverberations as the 18$ per take home dollar would rise to perhaps 75 to 80$. In India, for example, where pest control is minimal or absent entirely over 50 of the food from the very low yields harvested never reaches the consumers mouth due to the ravage of insects, decays pnd vermin. Thus the application of simple protective pesticide measures between harvest and consumer could virtually double the effective food production in a land where upwards of 300 million people are continually on the verge of starvation. Among these emerging nations therefore, there can be no point in promoting increased crop and livestock production through introduction of improved plant and animal stocks, application of fertilizers or provision of irrigation facilities if the Increment yields are to be devoured by pests. Thus the inclusion of pesticides necessarily becomes an integral part of the agricultural Improvement program among all the emerging nations. PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS: It is in the field of the control of insect borne human disease where pesticides, particularly the persistent organo chlorine compounds effect their most significant Impact. DDT alone has been responsible for saving more human lives than all the wonder drugs comblnd. Malaria, as far back as history records, has been the greatest disease killer of mankind. More human beings have perished from malaria than all other Infectious diseases combined. It can only flourish in a human population when the vector, the Anophelene mosquito, is present in sufficient numbers to serve as a bridge from one human to the next. When DDT was first Introduced into India on the Health Organization (W.H.O.) program to fight malaria, there were over 75 million cases a year with upwards of 5 million deaths. Within 10 years the Intensive spraying of domiciles and their environs and of neighboring swamps, catchment basins and other breeding sites had so reduced the vector that the total incidence was down to less than 5 million cases per year and deaths dropped to below 100,000 per year. This resulted in an increase of the life span of the average Indian from 32 to 47 years , or 15 years in a decade, probably the most fantastic achievement in the history of public health medicine. UN-Wo- rld On the Island of Ceylon, where malaria had raged for mlllenla, the disease was virtually eradicated by 1950. Except for a few Imported cases malaria remained absent from Ceylon until the DDT spray control program was abandoned for political and obviously unsound reasons. Gradually, but with accelerating momentum the Anophelene returned and with it the blood parasite. By 1968 nearly 500,000 people came down with malaria and its incidence in 1969 will approach 1 million in a population of 8 million and an area about that of West Virginia, the Singhalese Government has wisely decided to return to the use of DDT and has placed orders in the U.S. for nearly 10 million pounds for rush delivery. It is interesting and not a little alarming to note that the Communicable Disease Center of the U.S. Public Health Service reports to date in 1969 that incidence of malaria in the U.S. has climbed to over 2000 cases. Undoubtedly the parasite is being brought back by G. Is returning from Viet Nam, where the recalcitrant form Plasmodium falciparum is rife, and in spite of the routine medical exam and therapeutic treatment where, necessary, some of them can serve as sources of contagion. The important point, however, is that without the presence of the Anophelene mosquito they would be harmless. Reduced use of DDT and related persistent pesticides for mosquito abatement, however has now resulted in a significant climb in the numbers of Anophelen mosquitoes along the Gulf and the Atlantic Coasts as far north as New Jersey. Curiously North Carolina shows the highest incidence of malaria this year in relation to its population density. The W.H. O. states that DDT remains the most effective pesticide to control Anopheles and to ban it and remove it from the antlmalarla program is tantamount to genocide of millions of humans. As whole generations have now grown up in the virtual absence of malaria, they have not evolved immunity to the disease and will therefore be peculiarly susceptible. There are at least fifteen other Insect vectored human diseases which are readily controlled by persistent pesticides. These include plague, carried by the rat flea; encephalitis, mosquito borne and now endemic throughout the Atlantic and Southeastern states where it is thoroughly sequestered among wild and domestic mammals; epidemic typhus, vectored by the louse; murine typhus by the flea; dysentary, the fly; trachoma, the human dung fly; poliomyelitis, the fly; sleeping sickness, The Tsetze fly; Ocho- - |