Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: pesticides
Message-ID: <10810@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 12-Aug-87 11:52:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.10810
Posted: Wed Aug 12 11:52:46 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Aug-87 05:41:45 EDT
References: <4960@ihlpa.ATT.COM> <246@etn-rad.UUCP>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 54
Xref: mnetor misc.consumers:2445 sci.bio:561 sci.misc:426
In-reply-to: jru@etn-rad.UUCP's message of 11 Aug 87 16:38:05 GMT

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