Digital Overcast

Pesticides and Agriculture | Use of Chemicals In U.S. Agriculture

Kien Lai | AG 101 | 5/30/02 | California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Our food is not 100 percent safe therefore the U.S. government should ban the use of all pesticides in our food production system. Agree / Disagree. Why?

I strongly disagree to the opinion of banning all pesticides in our food production system. The consequences of such actions would have a devastating effect for both home and abroad. The principles of supply and demand would take effect as the cost of food increases while the supply decreases. In addition to the increase to the cost of living, world economies would collapse overnight because there would be no alterative to counteracting the negative effects of banning the use of all chemicals in agriculture.

The concern of food not being 100 percent safe in the United States has been blown out of proportion. Who can say for certain that anything in this world is 100 percent safe? Our lives are riddled with risk everyday no matter how significant. The same can be said of crop fields that have been sprayed with pesticides. Although not 100 percent safe, the practice is one of safest in the world, if not the safest. To ensure the responsible use of these chemicals by the agricultural industry, as discussed in class, the U.S. government has formed the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee the proper use of such chemicals. The EPA's responsibilities include, but not limited to, the registration and approval of these chemicals.

The prohibition of all pesticides for use in agriculture would drastically reduce the yield in crops and may even eliminate some altogether. Crops such as strawberries would parish without the aid of chemical fumigation. One could logically conclude that banning the use of such chemicals in the United States would also outlaw importing food that has been cultivated by the use of these chemicals in other countries. This would greatly offset the balance that we currently have now and would result in two negative consequences. First of all, the cost of food would significantly increase because it takes food to make food. It takes food, some or all of which were chemically sprayed, to feed the livestock. The same can be said with regard to the cultivation of fruits and vegetables because the farmer who harvests the field also needs to eat. Secondly, the variety of food to select from would be reduced considerably in local supermarkets as insect infestation, disease, and food processing would destroy the majority of crops.

Without the use of agricultural pesticides, the capacity in which farmers are able to grow per acreage would decrease extensively. According to article III. D1 in our assigned readings, the fertile soil would lose vital nutrients after harvesting that would ultimately lead to soil erosion and thus render the soil unsuitable for further farming without restoring these nutrients with chemically enhanced fertilizer in addition to other forms of chemical compounds used in increasing yields. Much like the example used in class of filling our vehicles with gasoline, we know it's unsafe for the environment as well as to humans, but the benefits out weight the costs.

In terms of how the economy would react to such a decision, the response would be anything but positive with foreign markets following in the foreseeable downturn if such an event were to occur. It can be said with reasonable certainty that the United States would no longer be exporting forty percent of its food nor would it be considered the leading economic power of the world. If the banning of all pesticides used in agriculture did take effect, it would definitely disrupt the lifestyles of nearly all classes of society due to the inevitable rise in the cost of food, commanding the bulk of the average person's expenses. Moreover, restaurants would close its doors in search of greener pastures. The food industry in general would struggle as raw materials such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, to name a few, would be in short supply. The cost of a variety of snacks foods, cereal, bread, and food in general would all be considered a luxury. In short, the ban of agricultural chemicals would be a benefit to nobody.