(apologies toPete Seegerfor the song title reference)
The graph above shows how over the last 15 years, the use of 23 old pesticides has declined more than 97% in California. These are all pesticides that have the specific, neurotoxic mode of action called “Choline Esterase Inhibition.” They are “organophosphate” or “carbamate” insecticides – the archetypal “pesticides” that people worry about.
These were actually state-of-the-art chemicals forty years ago when the goal was to get away from the environmental persistence problems with the Organochlorine pesticides like DDT. DDT was essentially non-toxic to us, but it didn’t break down and “bio-accumulated” in the food chain. The Organophosphate and Carbamate insecticides break down fairly quickly, but many are initially quite toxic to mammals and birds and they show up as low level residues in foods.
There are major differences in toxicity even between organophosphate and carbamate insecticides and there are ways to use them with minimum risk. The graph above shows how twelve other choline esterase inhibitors are still being used, but at an average of only 25% of their past volume. In previous posts I’ve discussed some of the reasons why these materials are still needed incertain circumstances.
As someone who has worked in agricultural technology for over 30 years, I have seen this and many other ways in which the safety and sustainability of farming has been advancing, but that perspective is not widespread. I’m glad that the mandatory pesticide reporting in California allows these trends to be documented.
Who Should Get the Credit?
There are actually many contributors to the continuous improvement of farming practices. There are the environmental scientists who have defined risks and issues. There are activist groups who have pressed for change. There are the regulators (EPA, California EPA) who have done and re-done the risk/benefit analysis and adjusted pesticide label requirements accordingly. Unlike financial regulation, US pesticide regulation is a relatively robust and trustworthy process.
There are researchers who have developed IPM (Integrated Pest Management) techniques which help farmers control important pests with fewer and safer options. There are the major pesticide manufacturers who have spent billions of dollars over the years to discover and commercialize newer, safer and even more effective tools. Finally there are the farmers who have adapted their practices as new options become available while still producing high quality produce at a reasonable cost.
A System That Is Working
我并不是说农业现在对我们或环境“没有风险”,但迄今为止的进展令人印象深刻,这一趋势表明,我们当前的创新和监管环境运行得非常好。能够证明这一点是件好事,因为有一些既得利益方希望让消费者不这么认为。一些环保组织依靠对杀虫剂的担忧来筹集资金。一些有机食品的营销人员很乐意给消费者灌输这样的印象:今天的农药和第一个“地球日”时一样危险。在公众如此远离农业的情况下,很容易只注意到这些消极的声音。
There are groups currently trying to define a “metric” of sustainable pesticide use, an enormously ambitious prospect because of the complexity of risk/reward across the great diversity of crops and environments involved in our food production system. The goal is to allow companies like grocery retailers to use their leverage to drive positive change. That is an appealing idea in theory, but one fraught with issues in practice. What data in this example shows is that we already have a system that is moving in the direction everyone would like to see. Maybe we should talk about that more.
Graphs created from data available on theCal-PIP database.
You are welcome to comment on this post or to email me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com
Richard Cornettsays
Hi Steve:
Happy Earth Day! Once again I commend you on pointing out that pesticides are vital to crop production (i.e. food eating) and that the risk in using these chemicals has greatly declined since the days of OPs. One question. You refer to cholinesterase (ChE) as Choline Esterase (two words spelled differently). One of my scientists pointed out that the former is the correct spelling, according to the fifth edition of “Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology, The Basis Science of Poisons,” the bible for our agronomists. Two questions: Why the different spelling? What is the source of the information contained on these charts. DPR?
Richard Cornettsays
他应该写《毒药基础科学》的。”哦。
Steve Savagesays
Richard,
I’m probably wrong on my spelling. It should be one word. The data is from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). The link is at the bottom of the post. Its a fantastic source of data and the site is quite user friendly.
Steve
Patricksays
Hi Steve:
Happy Earth Day! Once again I commend you on pointing out that pesticides are vital to crop production (i.e. food eating) and that the risk in using these chemicals has greatly declined since the days of OPs. One question. You refer to cholinesterase (ChE) as Choline Esterase (two words spelled differently). One of my scientists pointed out that the former is the correct spelling, according to the fifth edition of "Casarett & Doull's Toxicology, The Basis Science of Poisons," the bible for our agronomists. Two questions: Why the different spelling? What is the source of the information contained on these charts. DPR?
Karensays
Hi Steve:
Happy Earth Day! Once again I commend you on pointing out that pesticides are vital to crop production (i.e. food eating) and that the risk in using these chemicals has greatly declined since the days of OPs. One question. You refer to cholinesterase (ChE) as Choline Esterase (two words spelled differently). One of my scientists pointed out that the former is the correct spelling, according to the fifth edition of “Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology, The Basis Science of Poisons,” the bible for our agronomists. Two questions: Why the different spelling? What is the source of the information contained on these charts. DPR?
Leesays
他应该写《毒药基础科学》的。”哦。