Thank you for your thought provoking letter Mac. I too am tired of
psuedoscience and clearly much more rigor is needed on all sides. For
instance, can anyone really say that a new chemical or technique is safe?
No, that can never really be known: you can only guess, using metaphorical
tests as an aid, whether or not a particular product is carcinogenic over
low level exposure over a wide number of years, or that a certain pesticide
residue will not threaten a wildlife population by minute shifts in its
environs. Also, if someone gets cancer or a wildlife population
diminishes, you cannot say what caused it. We are at the end of human
potential in these regards, and much more honesty is required by the
current power structure and those outside it.
Is there a magic way to avoid all pests and pest problems? If not asked
seriously I would toss it off as naive. This is God's world and things are
not at our command. Since the advent of magic chemicals for pest control,
the level of pest problems has not decreased, and many potential problems
for humanity have arisen. Recent work in New York state indicates that
women with breast cancer have higher body burdens of DDE, a daughter of
DDT, and current theories are that this acts as a estrogen thereby
throwing their systems into chaos. I can hardly see that the torment these
women and their families are facing was worth the extra few dollars which
farmers made while DDT was legal and insects still susceptible to it.
As far as long term methods, look to the Amish. They still use the
organic methods upon which this nation was built. In many places they
still produce as much corn as anyone else, and at a profit. However, any
raising of corn on other than very flat lands is probably too costly in
terms of soil erosion. If farmers had to pay the price of redredging
ditches, rivers, and harbors, if farmers had also to pay for the restocking
of fish populations and habitat reconstruction in streams, and if farmers
had to pay for flood damage due to silt laden streams, then I think no one
would be raising corn now. It would cost $10 a bushel just to raise it!
It seems to me that our civilization is changing all the time any way, with
much of this change being stuffed down our throats (ie BST, Info
Superhighway, etc.). Why would it be so bad to tell the rest of
civilization that an unending, cheap food supply is not going to be
possible in the long run? Other peoples in the world spend half or more of
their incomes on food, why not us? If we did, and if we had to accept
fruit with blemishes, and bread that would mold if left out, and the smell
of farms near our homes, perhaps we could again be blessed with clean
waters, abundant wildlife and wildflowers, less risk from chemical
contamination, and profitable farms with fresh food close at hand. Dear
technophiles, would this be such a bad tradeoff?
Frank J. Kutka, part-time Junior Scientist and farmer
(218) 720-4262 fkutka@sage.nrri.umn.edu
University of Minnesota
Natural Resources Research Institue
5013 Miller Trunk Highway
Duluth MN 55811
USA