Considering Past Pesticide Use for a Sustainable Future

The biotech industry wants us to believe that their products maintain "sustainable and environmentally-conscious agricultural practices." They claim that the use of herbicides and pesticides in genetically modified crops is significantly reduced. And maybe it is, depending on what kind of crop the farmer is growing.

The spraying of pesticides or herbicides on any crop should be the absolute last measure in order to be considered environmentally conscientious, period. Even organic farms must occasionally use pesticide; the difference is that organic farmers are restricted from using synthetic pesticides while under the organic label. What that means is before a person sprays their crops, they should first attempt to control the situation by hand, by companion plant, by permaculture or by beneficial insect.

Last year, at the organic community garden that I manage, we had a very serious infestation of squash borers which almost destroyed any potential summer or winter squash, a major part of a local New England diet. We are a strictly organic environment, so sprays of almost any commercial sort are typically out of the question. One of our gardeners single-handedly went through all of our squash plants and manually removed the borers by slicing the base of the stem, physically removing the grubs with her fingers and then rebuilding a hill of dirt around the wound. We had a light squash harvest, but we were grateful to get any at all. This is life.

Now, commercial growers may not be able to give that kind of care and turn a record profit, true. But maybe they could make a fair living if we supported them by paying an extra 25-50¢ per pound in return for their patient and tender care for the soil, water and air that feeds not only the plants, but us too. We pay less for food now, than ever in all of recorded history, a whopping 1/3 of what we paid only 100 years ago. Not coincidentally, today we pay that remaining 2/3 of our dedicated food income in medical insurance premiums and doctors' bills.

And if we want to talk about a poor economy, let's consider the extra jobs that would be available by having people, not machines, work the fields under fair conditions.  Here in the United States, many have a skewed perception of value. Most people have absolutely no problem spending twice their monthly food budget on a car payment. Or even in some cases, cable television. Add in a cell phone bill, the data package, internet service, entertainment, clothing, etcetera, etcetera.  Once you start adding it all up, it's hard for a person to make a genuine argument toward spending any money on cheap, non-nutritious, herbicide and pesticide-laden, mass-produced, industrialized food.

One would be correct to surmise that this would, indeed, raise the price of food. This is a good time to visit ethical food production: If every farm, regardless of its size dedicated just one percent of either its profit or its harvest, we could offset the price of food for the poorest poor. If each community around the world did this, there would be no hunger.

We can do this without genetically modified food, but what it means is that those of us who can do more, need to. The United States should lead the movement of giving to the world, instead of constantly taking from it.

Photo credit: William M. Brown Jr., Bugwood.org