Investigation: How Pesticide Companies Are Marketing Themselves as a Solution to Climate Change

Lambert here: Sorry for the lack of original posts, but our continuing server-side difficulties have made production really, really difficult. Hopefully, we will be back to normal soon.

By Sharon Kelly and Frances Rankin. Originally published at DeSmog Blog.

This article was published as part of the launch of DeSmog’s Agribusiness Database, where you can find a record of companies and organisations’ current messaging on climate change, lobbying around climate action, and histories of climate science denial.

Like a pandemic, climate change is an inevitable threat that we must address before it is too late,” reads a June 2020 statement. “As the economy and agriculture begin to build back with the gradual easing of the COVID-19 restrictions, we need to support a recovery for farmers that puts the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss at its core.”

The speaker? Not Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Al Gore. Not, in fact, any environmentalist you might care to imagine. Instead, it was Erik Fyrwald, Chief Executive Officer of Syngenta Group — one of the world’s five largest pesticides manufacturers, a major consumer of fossil fuels, and now a company marketing its products as a solution to climate change.

Syngenta’s messaging — alongside similar campaigns from the other “big five” global pesticides producers Bayer, BASF, Corteva and FMC — reflects a sudden transformation within the agricultural world.

After decades of denial and delay by big agribusiness, the pesticides industry now appears to have become a climate champion.

Waking Up on Climate Change’

The pesticides market is dominated by a small handful of companies — Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018), Corteva (formerly Dow and DuPont), Syngenta, BASF and FMC — whose hazardous products a United Nations report said have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health, and society as a whole” amid a global insect die-off and legal battles over carcinogenic effects of products once marketed as harmless.

Together, these firms control the vast majority of the enormous global pesticides market. “As a whole, the market for agrochemical pesticides has grown steadily since 2006,” reported a 2019 study. The most recently available federal data, from 2011 and 2012, shows that nearly 6 billion pounds (2.7 billion kilos) of pesticides were used each year worldwide, including 1.1 billion pounds (0.49 billion kilos) in the US alone.

These chemicals play a key role in the fossil fuel-dependent farming systems that spread worldwide during the 20th century and have created complex ecological problems while boosting yields — including driving climate change.

Pesticides are the lynchpin of an unsustainable industrial agriculture system,” says the Pesticide Action Network campaign group. “The current food system is responsible for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions; it’s also fully dependent on oil both for transport and because pesticides and fertilizers are petrochemically-derived.”

Pesticides manufacturing also has its own significant direct carbon footprint — but a lack of data and independent research has made it difficult to find reliable numbers, researchers say.

With the rapidly growing interest in greenhouse gas emissions (often embodied in Life Cycle Assessment or ‘carbon footprinting’), there are many studies using estimates of the emissions from agricultural pesticide manufacturing,” a 2009 study by Cranfield University reported. “Unfortunately, it seems that almost no two studies use the same number for the same ingredient. This is mainly due to the paucity of original data on pesticides, often because of commercial confidentiality.”

That study was prepared for the Crop Protection Association, a British organisation that’s dubbed itself “the voice of the UK plant science industry” and counts all of the big five pesticides manufacturers among its members.

It’s no secret that pesticides manufacturing is closely wedded to fossil fuels, which are the primary driver of climate change. Some pesticides use oil and gas industry products as key ingredients, while others are synthesized from naturally occurring compounds — and both types often rely on fossil fuels for the heat and energy necessary for chemical reactions.

The industry represents a significant chunk of the world’s fossil fuel demand. “Currently, about 20 percent of oil is used for petrochemicals and 24 percent is used for agriculture, which includes manufacturing, production, processing, transportation, marketing, and consumption,” notes a 2020 paper published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal. “Oil is used to make chlorobenzene, which in turn is used to synthesise [the pesticide] DDT. Similarly, many pesticides such as neonicotinoids, pyrethryoids, and glyphosate formulants are produced from gas and oil.”

Big agribusiness also wields enormous political leverage. From 1998 to 2020, the agricultural industry spent more on lobbying in the US than the defense industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And for decades, agricultural advocacy organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation used this clout to campaign in Washington DC against efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

“Everyone on the Hill knew that there was a division of labor,” Joseph Goffman, Executive Director of Harvard Law School’s environmental and energy program, told InsideClimate News in 2018. “Oil companies argued that consumers would pay a price at the pump for regulation of fossil fuels. And the farmers could argue that they were a far more economically sensitive group of fuel users and would be seen more favourably than oil would be.”

Last year, however, proved to be a brutal year for many US farmers who faced catastrophic Midwest flooding. And advocates for big agribusiness have described increasing concern that their industry might be left out of conversations about climate change. This year seems to be a moment when, as Politico put it in December, “farmers are waking up on climate change.”

Amid this awakening, pesticides manufacturers are now heavily promoting strategies to convince farmers and policymakers that their products still have a large role to play as the world warms.

Companies like Syngenta acknowledge that industrial agriculture has contributed significantly to climate change but say they are now working to find less polluting ways to grow crops. “Unpredictable weather events are becoming more common – from flooding to drought and extreme heat to early frost – and agriculture itself is part of the problem,” Syngenta spokesperson Paul Minehart said in an email to DeSmog, describing the company’s targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both farming and pesticides manufacturing.

“Agriculture can help meet the global Net Zero ambition by reducing emissions, locking more carbon in the soil and providing space to reforest,” he said. “As far as crop protection products are concerned, yes they can play a role in helping reduce [greenhouse gases], reduce erosion and save water.”

Selling the Same Old Stuff’

Less than a decade ago, surveys reported that nearly half of US farmers weren’t convinced climate change was happening. Just eight percent said they thought human activities were responsible for warming.

But earlier this year, a Syngenta-funded poll found that 87 percent of large-scale farmers in the US, France, China, Brazil, India and across Africa said that they’d already experienced climate change firsthand — and a majority rated the effects on their farms “high impacts.”

In response, the pesticides industry is putting huge resources in marketing climate action strategies attached to two labels: precision agriculture, and regenerative agriculture — with both items falling under the even broader umbrella terms “climate smart” or “climate resilient” agriculture.

Genetic modification plays a significant role in most of the strategies backed by pesticides manufacturers. “For example, planting genetically modified seeds enables farmers to use reduced tillage and no till practices, which has resulted in a substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions,” a video by Bayer, the manufacturer of glyphosate-based pesticides like RoundUp, says. “And as these tactics are adopted, farmers can help mitigate climate change and its impacts. That’s not just good for farmers, it’s good for all of us.”

These tactics have some potential to help farms cut their greenhouse gas emissions, but how much is highly debated.

At a policy level, critics fear that terms like “climate smart” and “resilient” farming are so vague that they’re vulnerable to greenwashing. “There is no precise definition for ‘climate smart agriculture’ and deliberately so,” the Down to Earth blog reported in 2016, adding that, for example, the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture “leaves it to its members to determine what ‘climate smart agriculture’ means to them. There are no social or environmental safeguards.”

Critics also argue that the dual “precision” and “regenerative” climate strategies pesticides manufacturers are now pushing could in fact maintain — or even increase — the world’s dependence on fossil-fuel based agricultural products.

“They’re just trying to sell the same old stuff under different labels,” says Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the food industry watchdog group US Right to Know. “The bottom line is they’re chemical companies and they want to sell more chemicals.”

It’s not just campaigners who are concerned. A 2017 report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food found that, “it is commonly argued that intensive industrial agriculture, which is heavily reliant on pesticide inputs, is necessary to increase yields to feed a growing world population, particularly in the light of negative climate change impacts and global scarcity of farmlands”. But noting that 200,000 people die of acute pesticides poisoning each year, it added that “reliance on hazardous pesticides is a short-term solution that undermines the rights to adequate food and health for present and future generations.”

Beyond sustaining the pesticides-heavy status-quo, there are other problems with these approaches: from pricing out farmers in developing countries, to the technology not actually working, and a paucity of data to actually measure success.

Precision Agriculture

One of the oldest truisms about farming is that it’s an uncertain business — so much depends on the weather. So-called “digital” and precision agriculture strategies rely on technology to enable farmers to control the inputs and outputs of their farms down to the most minute details in an attempt to insulate each individual farm against the growing risks of operating in a changing climate.

Sensors collect pinpointed data about soil moisture, nutrient levels, and leaf temperature and wetness. GPS-guided tractors can navigate at night, in fog or rain. Agricultural robots spray, prune and thin crops. Corteva Agriscience says it has trained over a thousand pilots to fly data gathering drones over farms. FMC’s Arc farm intelligence software uses machine learning to forecast exactly where insects, weeds and diseases are likely to arrive.

Precision agriculture “uses technology to sharpen focus, zero in on, and narrow down, for example, land mapping, soil sampling, fertilization, pest and disease control, and weather alerts. It will pick out a puddle in a field or a change in gradient within a tea field for treatment,” The Stir, a coffee and tea trade publication, explains. “IBM estimates that PA [precision agriculture] generates 500,000 data points per farm each day.”

These tactics are marketed by the big five pesticides manufacturers as a central tenet of their responses to climate change. Bayer, for example, advertises a “Smart Fields” strategy for “digitalization in farming,” adding that “development of climate-smart solutions including digital farming and improved plant breeding technologies will help reduce agriculture’s impact on climate change in the future”.

The biggest problem with this precision approach, critics say, is that all of these high tech solutions are extremely expensive.

Not many farmers use precision agriculture technologies, although the percentages vary by region,” Tamme van der Wal, a Wageningen University data scientist, wrote in a 2019 Future Farming opinion column. “The overall complaint is that the technology is too expensive, too complex and farmers don’t have a reasonable outlook on the return on their investment.”

That’s a huge barrier for small-scale farmers, especially in places like South America and Africa, where, for example, a farming revolution promised by organizations like the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa wound up leaving farmers in debt, criticis say, while enriching multinational agribusinesses.

The technologies on which precision agriculture relies may also prove to be ineffective because of climate change – like, for example, one of the world’s most widely-used pesticides. “[O]verreliance on glyphosate for weed control under changing climatic conditions may result in more weed control failures,” reported a 2019 study in Nature.

Regenerative Agriculture

Precision agriculture isn’t the only strategy marketed by the pesticides industry as the answer to climate change.

Last year, US Farmers and Ranchers in Action (USFRA), an organisation whose board members include representatives from Bayer and Corteva, launched its “30 Harvests” campaign, linked to a video production depicting a farmer on the cusp of moving to the city and giving up his family farm.

Oh my gosh, I think that we are the solution to climate change,” an agriculture industry rep says over the radio while the farmer drives his pickup truck past foreclosure signs and farmland. “We have not had the conversation that we actually can offset carbon for the fossil fuel sector.”

The 30 Harvests campaign touts a strategy called “regenerative agriculture”, which involves using farming practices that promote soil health and enable farms to absorb carbon emissions.

That would, proponents say, make farming the first major industry with a large carbon footprint to turn carbon-negative — a vital goal, given that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s pathways to limiting climate change rely heavily on some form of natural capital to sequester carbon, and the energy industry’s attempts at carbon capture have largely flopped.

“The agriculture sector is a critical solution to mitigation and sequestering of greenhouse gas emissions,” Erin Fitzgerald, CEO of U.S. Farmers and Ranchers in Action, told DeSmog. “With enhanced partnership with farmers and ranchers, we believe the sector has the potential to be net negative carbon or ‘carbon positive’.”

There is evidence that regenerative agriculture may offer climate benefits — though it’s not clear how long those benefits last.

Using soil to store carbon “can be seen as a reversal of previous ecosystem degradation,” according to a study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine cited by USFRA, adding that “numerous conservation management practices are available that can increase carbon stocks in soils and are successfully practiced by progressive farmers and ranchers.”

An assessment prepared for US food manufacturing giant General Mills found that regenerative agriculture practices helped one Georgia ranch to not only ditch its reliance on pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics, but also to become a carbon sink, capable of soaking in carbon and storing it in the ground.

But there are serious concerns about the sequestration potential of regenerative agriculture methods.

The claims that you can reverse climate change with regenerative agriculture, that’s a real stretch,” David Montgomery, a University of Washington geologist, told NBC News, questioning how long carbon stored in soils will remain in the ground, and how much carbon agribusiness is actually capable of absorbing.

It’s just more complicated than I think headlines portray,” said Kendra Klein, a staff scientist at Friends of the Earth. “It concerns me that people are getting so excited about our ability to sequester carbon but they’re not talking about the need for reductions in the first place,” she said. “We need to support farmers to transition, along with massively reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

There’s also a major debate underway over what role, if any, pesticides can play in regenerative agriculture. Proponents of the strategy emphasise the health of the soil, no-till practices and other concepts that can be associated with organic farming.

And yet, today, the vast majority of conventional farmers who use regenerative methods continue to use pesticides,” nonprofit news organisation Civil Eats reported in September. In an article about a survey by No-Till Farmer, a magazine for the regenerative agriculture crowd, Civil Eats pointed out that “some 92 percent of respondents planned to use glyphosate for weed control, and the majority said they would plant crops that had been engineered to withstand its use.”

CropLife International, whose members include the five big pesticide companies, also promotes the idea that pesticides can “facilitate” no-till farming. “Plant science technologies and innovations can mitigate the effects of climate change, while also helping famers to adapt to changing weather patterns and increasing insect pressures,” CropLife told DeSmog.

A Bayer spokesperson also told DeSmog: “Herbicide tolerant cropping systems allow farmers to embrace reduced tillage practices that minimize soil erosion and help to sequester soil carbon.” Genetically modified seeds in addition to “crop protection,” should also be used “in order to reduce the need for tillage to a minimum,” BASF told DeSmog.

The association between regenerative and no-till farming and pesticides, however, could be a major problem, as there’s evidence suggesting that pesticides may disrupt the soil health that’s at the heart of regenerative agriculture’s capacity to absorb carbon. A 2019 report by Friends of the Earth’s Klein warns: “Not only do pesticides pose a threat to the core aims of regenerative agriculture by harming the complex living community of the soil, mounting evidence shows that overuse of pesticides is decimating pollinators and other insects that are central to a sustainable food system.”

Entwined Crises’

Scientists are clear that climate change is one of several major threats facing food supplies in coming years.

Take for example, the rate at which the world’s topsoils are being depleted. “Thanks to conventional farming practices, nearly half of the most productive soil has disappeared in the world in the last 150 years, threatening crop yields and contributing to nutrient pollution, dead zones and erosion,” the Guardian reported last year. “In the US alone, soil on cropland is eroding 10 times faster than it can be replenished.”

According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the world could exhaust its supplies of top soil in roughly 60 years (or even 30 years in the UK) — a problem that experts link to overuse of agricultural chemicals like pesticides.

But big agribusiness companies “don’t mention that”, says US Right to Know’s Malkan. “We have these entwined crises and [the industry is] using the same strategies to try to continue these unsustainable systems.”

Campaigners are concerned that the pesticides industry’s latest PR push will prevent the agriculture sector from making much needed systemic changes to address climate change, just as lobbying by Big Oil and Big Tobacco did for those sectors.

And the industry’s past actions don’t give its critics much cause for optimism. “You can say [the pesticides industry] use the tobacco playbook, but I think it’s more accurate to say they helped invent the tobacco playbook,” Malkan said, describing efforts to extend the use of the pesticide DDT in the 1960’s.

They still use the same language to attack environmental groups who point out that the high tech agriculture vision has just always been a promise that it’s never lived up to.”

Edited by Mat Hope.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Environment, Guest Post, Regulations and regulators, Ridiculously obvious scams on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.

20 comments

  1. drumlin woodchuckles

    The article contains the visible footprints of its own author’s having fallen victim to a very clever subterfuge being advanced by Big Chem Big Fossil Ag. And that is the kidnapping of the organic-movement-based halo-word “regenerative” agriculture . . . and carefully welding their own devil horns onto it. And so this article in all innocent sincerity treats ” regenerative agriculture” as a devil-word for a devil-concept.

    Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association would be very hurt and upset to discover this word-jacking of the word “regenerative” because it is HIS word for HIS concept. He inVENTed the word.

    Here is a link to Ronnie Cummins’s group.
    https://www.organicconsumers.org/staff

    And here is a little bit about the book HE wrote about HIS understanding of the “regenerative agriculture” movement as HE helped to FOUND it and deFINE it.
    https://www.organicconsumers.org/grassroots-rising
    The people around THIS vision, the oRIGINal vision, of “regenerative agriculture”, include people like Vandana Shiva, Andre’ Leu, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Courtney White, and etc. They will all be very upset to find THEIR word being HIjacked by Big Chem Farma. Maybe if they find out fast enough, they can sue Big Chem Farma to stop Big Chem Farma from using that word. Somebody should tell all these activists about this sinister word-jacking gambit before it is too late.

    Reply
  2. VietnamVet

    Five is the apparent current magic number of multinational corporations that can form a global cartel. Likely there will be three big pesticide monopolies left; Europe, Asia and the Americas.

    With investors buying farmland, and farmers growing crops on leased land, monopolies are being formed in food production too. The real problem is that it takes real money to plant, tend and harvest crops. If loaned to the farmer by “Too Big to Fail” Banks, there are all sorts of requirements on how and what are applied to assure that there is a profit when the crops are harvested and sold to assure that the bankers get their cut. Family farms have mostly disappeared; replaced by hedge fund financed industrial farming.

    Climate Change and the COVID-19 Pandemic show the laissez-faire, oil based, high population, unequal system is unsustainable. This is very basic. If functional democratic governments are not restored in the West and remediation efforts based on real science are not applied globally and fairly, there will be no coming back from the resulting chaos.

    This article has the smell of trying to keep things the same, as long as possible, when they can’t.

    Reply
    1. drumlin woodchuckles

      Maybe the Inside Topsiders just want to keep the current money-stuff games going just long enough for them to get their own money plus a profitake back out of their system, and buy survival bunker land in Paraguay, along with the Bushes and the Unification Church and others who know that the Hamptons are not a defensible position, but who also know that ” the Hamptons are not a defensible position” is not their problem.

      Meanwhile, non-rich people back here stateside who want a better standard of survival than what Big Chem Farma can offer will spend their food money on toxichem-free or at least toxichem-lo food from non-toxic farmers. Local ones would be better when possible to grow the shadow of a local city-state survival economy. Non-rich suburbanites could turn part of their yards into non-toxic food-growing zones. People in micro-societies with commonable land right around and among them might turn some of it into commonable foodgrowing platforms. While permitting some of it to serve common needs for common beauty and recreation and etc.

      City-states and town-states ( in the old Greek City State sense) could work on creating their own functioning democracy right where they live at . . . . and try to build or grow some Power-Down Transition Town type of social survival readiness right where they are at.

      Reply
    2. drumlin woodchuckles

      Climate change reality-accepters will have to make their best guesses as to the most extreme weather and climate events that could occur within their lifetimes where they are living . . . . and prepare to survive through and beyond them if they can. Mutual co-survival will work better for everyone in each co-survival bubble than heroic lone-wolf prepperism will work for the heroic lone-wolf preppers.

      Coronavid reality-accepters will have to find a way to avoid the Typhoid MAGA corona-spreaders as best they can. Avoid businesses where such people congregate. Avoid states where such people set the social tone. Try to outlast the crashing pandemic waves and remain uninfected.

      Let Darwin slowly sift the infected to see which ones develop long-tail coronavid, which ones develop the kind of organ damage which makes otherwise non-lethal chronic conditions into death sentences, etc.
      I think this new chinaronavid will turn into the “Lyme Disease” of viruses over the next 10 or so years. But I want to let the Typhoid MAGA beta testers be the ones who reveal this to be a true prediction or not.

      Reply
      1. fwe'theewell

        The worst superspreader I know is a Democrat power player who regularly drives up and down the state of California with his dread disease, and has indoor meetings without masks. No, not Gavin lol.

        Reply
        1. drumlin woodchuckles

          Would you get in legal trouble if you named this Democrat power player by name, so that the corona-cautious can avoid his superspreader events? Could he be doxed and subject to constant protest at his home, place of business, etc.? Could all his digital addresses and stuff be subjected to waves of inquiry and admonishment so heavy that they would have the same effect as MDOS attacks? Without actually BEING MDOS attacks. . . . so as to sidestep any legal issues with MDOS attacks?

          If he owns or is connected to any businesses, could they be extermicotted? (Years ago I suggested extermicotting the Pelosi family restaurants in revenge for “Impeachment is off the table” but no one started a movement to extermicott the Pelosi family restaurants.)

          Reply
  3. a different chris

    I don’t like the purveyors of chem-Ag at all, but this sentence shows the problem and it isn’t them, any more than it’s the flies fault that they show up when you leave food on the table:

    it is commonly argued that intensive industrial agriculture, which is heavily reliant on pesticide inputs, is necessary to increase yields to feed a growing world population

    I don’t know if it is necessary to feed a growing world population, but a growing world population needs to be fed somehow and that will end in tears no matter how organic the food is. We won’t stop over-breeding until The Crash and probably not even after that.

    Reply
    1. drumlin woodchuckles

      You raise a real problem — the population versus sustainability problem.

      The question is: will we all go together when we go? Or will some of us stay behind while others go ahead and go? ” Go? Go where?” Well . . . . go to the edge of the cliff. Go to the edge, and go over and down.

      So, the sustainability problem has a two-handed answer.

      On the one hand, at 8 billion people and counting, NOTHING is sustainable.
      On the other hand, I don’t have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you.

      Some methods of this-or-that may be just semi-sustainable enough that they allow their practitioners to outrun the even-less-sustainable-method practitioners whom the bear will catch up to first.

      Reply
  4. jlowe

    “Benefit-risk”, the concept hard-coded into US pesticide regulation in the sounded like a nice idea until you watched up close the transition from chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (DDT, toxaphene) to less persistent organophosphates (parathion, phosdrin) in the 1970s and 1980s. The benefit then was reduced impacts to wildlife and reduced population-wide human exposures to persistent organic pollutants. The tradeoff was risk of acute toxicity on a daily basis and chronic neurological hazards from a lifetime of work for agricultural workers that no amount of closed-systems and PPE for mixer/loaders or re-entry intervals for harvesters could fully mitigate. Insect resistance caused organophosphates to fall out of favor, but rather than seeking pest management practices that reduced insecticide use and preserved these chemicals for agricultural emergencies (oh, and reducing some hazards to agricultural workers), we moved on to creating synthetic analogs of natural insecticides such as pyrethrins and nicotine and kept spraying.

    Sadly, the worker hazards are small issues with agriculture when examined through the lens of planetary boundaries; biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles – nutrient flows into the environment from intensive fertilizer use become primary global impacts. If, as a species, we started taking seriously the Convention on Biodiversity, we’d see pesticide use in a much more frightening way than just another contribution to climate change.

    Reply
  5. Jonny Appleseed

    As a farmer, I am also not too happy with the tarnishing of regenerative ag practices in this article. There is a world of difference between herbicide no-till and other more benign no-till practices. If your no-till practices are organic, they can not include the use of these synthetic herbicides. Despite some shortcomings built in to the certifications, either know your farmer or please buy organic for both ecosystem and farmworker protection! Furthermore, regen practices such as silvopasture and agroforestry have tremendous potential to sequester carbon. The trouble here is that these systemic shifts take time. Trees grow much more slowly than annual row crops. Nevertheless, less cynical types continue to plant trees – witness the upsurge in acreage planted to chestnuts in the Northeast these past few years. Even homeowners and municipalities can get in on the act – plant food forests all over petroleum-guzzling lawns! Treat mown areas like meadows, cut only once or twice a year. Supports the pollinators, too!

    Reply
    1. Clem

      “Certifications” is an important word.
      Highly educational link from Organic Consumers Association:

      https://www.organicconsumers.org/campaigns/save-organic-standards

      Costco is the largest seller of organic food in the world. They should be encouraged to go 100% organic.

      National chains like Safeway sell mediocre organic products and they are hard to influence. At the same time, it is critical to patronize your local independently owned organic markets and to use those “How are we doing” comment cards, personal conversations with management and emails are a potential vote and crowbar to get ALL markets to sell more, and better quality, better certification, organic products.

      Reply
      1. drumlin woodchuckles

        Say a store is selling mediocre organic whatever, which of course gets a mediocre response. How many movement shoptivists would have to credibly pre-commit to buying a particular organic thing they would like to see in that store . . . . in order to assure the manager that it is safe enough to risk getting a batch of that thing just large enough for all the pre-promising customers to buy all of it?

        Could that be a way to get good organic things into stores one step at a t time?

        Reply
        1. Clem

          Ever think of ordering organic items by the case through a store that you are trying to get some or more organics in?

          “I want a case of these organic items. Once you have the ordering particulars in your system, why not put some on the shelf. If it doesn’t sell, I will buy them all.”

          Reply
          1. drumlin woodchuckles

            No, I did not think of that. But now that you have suggested it, I will remember it. That method could also work, and wouldn’t need co-ordinating among several people. It would have to be something that you would really use the whole case of without it going bad or off in the meantime.

            But given that last condition be met, it could work.

            Reply
    2. drumlin woodchuckles

      303-or-whatever error vaporised my reply.

      Try again in briefest. Suburban home-owers could garden some of their land and support chem-free food and bee-food that way. If they grow enough food to save money on food-not-bought because grown instead, they could use the money saved to buy more expensive organic food of kinds they can’t grow.

      Reply
  6. farmboy

    The pesticide industry is a monstrous hangover from WW2 with just enough legitimacy to hang on. “Chemical pest control methods encompass a large range of strategies from companion planting to chemical sterilization agents. The most common forms of chemical pest controls are pesticides, which are chemical or biological agents designed to deter, discourage, incapacitate, or kill a pest. Early pesticides included the use of botanicals and simple elements or compounds. Early Romans, for example, discovered that crushed olive pits could produce an oil called Amurea that was capable of killing pests. Subsequent scientific and cultural development led to the discovery and utilization of additional pesticide agents. “ from https://www.fishersci.com/us/en/scientific-products/publications/lab-reporter/2016/issue-4/the-evolution-chemical-pesticides.html.
    So called bio-pesticides have been around as long as growing crops. The issues are safety, i.e. crop, soil, worker, consumer. The benefits can be huge, as in the case of DDT nearly eradicating malaria. On the farm, in the soil most pesticides degrade in short order. The soil sterilants, on the other hand, can persist and do damage for a long time. Sulfinated ureas can damage subsequent crops if the wrong plant i.e. a broadleaf is grown.
    The good news is the soil is a huge sink with healing properties from the trillions of organisms in a cubic foot. If converting usual agricultural land to certified organic, a three year period is required. Think about that, that is not much time to allow for soil biota to redeem any traces of applied pesticides. Soil is not a benign medium in the first place. Any number of damaging disease will propogate under even the most healthy of crops and rotations so it’s a constant challenge to know what’s going on in an invisible world.
    The most damaging inventions humans have ever used and promoted is the plow, even above the bomb. Humanity would be much better off if we had beat those plowshares into swords and left them that way. Soil erosion cause by tillage has destroyed civilizations for all of history. No-till, with the judicious use of pesticides, will stop erosion immediately, that is the first step. RoundUp or glyphosate is absolutely useful for this and when Monsanto first issued it they felt it would save the world. We now know that is far from the truth.
    Permaculture provides the clues to next steps. Two different genus of mustards can substitute for soil sterilants used in potato production and soil active herbicides to suppress weed seed germination. These glucosinalate compounds are lethal to the target species, but are absorbed into the soil biota easily. Any plant or crop will encourage a soil profile of companion organisms, both beneficial and harmful. Managing these organisms as the herd of animals on the farm is the future, as I wait for the frost to sublime so I can plant today.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *