Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 6, 1991 TAG: 9103061113
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: FRED JONES
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
How about the "modern farming" methods he touts? Are we supposed to believe that because a California agriculture official voluntarily drank malathion (there was no mention of dilution) that synthetic chemicals are safe?
It is not widely known that millions of people in this country drink malathion and other chemicals involuntarily every day. The Environmental Protection Agency documented contamination of ground water by nitrates, pesticides or both in 1,400 counties in the United States over the past decade. Wells are supplied by ground water. Who is to decide if this is significant?
The complacent attitude regarding the safety of synthetic chemicals is widespread in the farming industry. Agribusiness executive Othal Brand was on a commission to decide whether farmers and exterminators should be allowed to use remaining stocks of chlordane, a chemical banned as a known carcinogen. He commented: "And, I mean, sure it's going to kill a lot of people, but they may be dying of something else anyway."
Undoubtedly some synthetic chemicals might be "safe." The problem is that when it comes to product safety, these agrichemicals are essentially innocent until proven guilty. How long was Nitrofen used before it was banned when a study showed mice fed the chemical gave birth to young with no heads? Sure, the study probably involved high concentrations, but who would advocate that pregnant women eat crops treated with the stuff?
Mr. Hurst ends his article with the statement that man-made chemicals used carefully can be perfectly safe. An exhaustive study in one section of Iowa demonstrated that farmers were applying 40 percent more nitrogen to their crops than necessary. When it was pointed out that they could get the same yields applying 30 to 50 percent less, fewer than half took heed, and those cut back by an average of only 10 to 15 percent.
In parts of Iowa, parents were warned not to give their infants well water because the high concentration of nitrates could result in "blue baby" anemia. The source of these nitrates was runoff from excessive application of agricultural nitrogen.
The general public is being led to believe that through genetic engineering, we will see the day disease-resistant crops can be grown requiring no sprays. To the contrary, the agrichemical industry is spending millions to develop herbicide-resistant crops.
At present, most herbicides are indiscriminate in killing plant life. They are applied only before planting. If scientists are successful, the herbicides could be applied at any time in the plant's growth cycle. Thus they sell more chemical, we have more residue.
What frightens me most about "modern farming" is the scale of operation. When President Reagan took office in 1981, there were 2.43 million farmers in the United States. Most of them lost money. But of those that made money, two-thirds of the $19.6 billion in profits were shared by only 25,000 farms. The trend has continued.
My contention is that when one family farms 3,000 acres, as Mr. Hurst does, stewardship of the land becomes a low priority. It is worse when a company such as Prudential Life Insurance owns 750,000 acres of farm and timberland, as it did in 1986. Do you think its farming practices will reflect a concern for purity of ground water, conservation of topsoil, or residues of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics on the food it produces? As in other business ventures, its underlying motive is profit.
In our country they call it capitalism. In the Soviet Union they call it collectivism. Either way, the result is the same. Control of our food supply is falling into the hands of fewer and fewer, more and more powerful men.
If Mr. Hurst was looking for successful organic farmers, he should have visited an Amish community. For 200 years they have produced safe, healthy food and supported their families on farms rarely larger than 160 acres. Of course, they are not millionaires, so perhaps Mr. Hurst considers them unsuccessful.
I do not advocate a return to the days of horse-drawn machinery, but I believe we could learn from the Amish. Farming should involve cooperation with nature, not an attempt to dominate it. Sustainable agriculture is based on a smaller scale, not corporate ownership; stewardship, not capital; genetic diversity, not genetic engineering; and concern for conservation of natural resources, not petrochemical application.
As consumers, we can ask our grocery-store managers for organic produce and hormone-free meats. We can patronize local farm markets. We can vote for officials with a concern for the environment and the working class, even though without the backing of big business, such candidates won't be as easy to hear.
We must come to realize, as [former Texas Agriculture Commissioner] Jim Hightower said: "The true political spectrum in this country is not left to right, it's top to bottom. And there are more people on the bottom than on top." I understand why the farm establishment spent millions to oust him.
by CNB