By Rick Zimmerman, Executive Director
As a community that works with farmers throughout the Northeast, we should be concerned about legislative attempts to ban pesticides. The political process that drives legislative debates ignores the fundamental principles of scientific analysis and peer review. The anti-pesticide lobby has done a good job demonizing glyphosate, neonicotinoids and others. But this kind of fearmongering is unwarranted and poses a dangerous threat to our society and our world.
Here's why.
Peer reviewed science has been the bedrock upon which we have advanced technology to serve the health and nutritional needs of our society. In agriculture, science-driven technologies allow farmers to produce healthier foods in a safe, environmentally conscious manner, and we must continue to build on that science-driven track record to meet the nutritional needs of a growing population worldwide.
Glyphosate and neonicotinoids are significantly less hazardous to our environment than their predecessors. In fact, these products were approved by the Environmental Protection Agency because their peer reviewed studies demonstrated effective control while reducing human and environmental impacts. Scientific advisory panels, commissioned by the EPA, provide their analysis of peer reviewed studies designed to answer the environmental and human health questions that must be addressed before a pesticide product is approved. Unfortunately, the anti-pesticide lobby has had a field day spreading misleading information which has prompted law makers in many states to introduce legislation to ban their use. Legislative action undermines the thoughtful risk-based analysis employed by the EPA.
Glyphosate and neonicotinoids are only part of a much larger crop management system called Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Farmers and their certified crop consultants make timely decisions for the right pest control options that may include non-chemical choices such as beneficial insects, mechanical control methods and high-tech tools like UV light. But pesticides must remain in the IPM toolbox because sometimes there are no other effective control options.
Science has enabled us to live in the most comfortable, advanced society in the world. In fact, our country has become so affluent that we now have the luxury of debating the banning of science-driven technologies because we don’t have to worry about sufficient food supplies or diseases devasting our crops. However, our policy decisions have life or death impacts to those throughout the world. We may have the luxury to buy organic food or ban pesticides, but other regions of the world face starvation from pests and disease. Our decisions to ban pesticides due to political winds driven by the well fed anti-pesticide lobby will stifle the agribusiness community to serve a less lucrative third world market. All governments should consider sound peer reviewed science before making policy decisions and, when it comes to pesticide risk analysis, the experts should be left in charge.