(F.A.C.T.) Fair Agricultural Chemical Taxes
Home | Credits | Table of Contents | Footnotes | State Profiles | Contact
 |
The Industrialization of Agriculture and Agri-chemical Addiction |
|||||
 |
 |
 oday, few consumers have any real connection with the people or farms that sustain them. Most of the food we eat is grown in areas far from our homes. We consume fruit, vegetables, and grains that have been grown and sprayed with toxic chemicals, milk and other animal products that are laced with hormones and antibiotics, and even genetically engineered foodstuffs which go unlabeled. We inadvertently support farming practices that chemically and biologically pollute our air and water, mistreat livestock, endanger wildlife, and put the health and safety of farmworkers, farmers, and their families at risk.
The history of American agriculture is marked by a massive, steady decline in the number of farms with a concurrent increase in farm size and productivity. In the early 1900s through the 1930s, there were roughly 6.5 million farms in this country. Today, there are about two million farms. Farmers are less than 3 % of the population. In 1994, 2.3 % of farms had sales of $500,000 or more, generating 38 % of the cash receipts on 14.8 % of the farmland.67 Today, American agriculture is a $600 billion industry. That's very big business, although the lion's share of the consumer dollar goes to the processing, marketing, and distributing sectors. Small-scale, regional, family farming is losing ground to large-scale, global, industrialized farming that is consolidated in the hands of a few. Industrial farming is characterized by increased dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, mechanization, mono-cropping with a limited number of seed stocks, concentrated livestock management, and now, genetic engineering.68 The increase in farm size and the decrease in the number of farmers are partly built upon the substitution of pesticides and other chemical inputs for the labor of the farmer.69 One of the arguments made in favor of continued agricultural chemical use is saving the staff of life — food — from destruction by the ravages of insects, weeds, ands diseases. Pesticides and now genetic engineering are presented as the cornerstone of efforts to feed the world. Proponents of industrialized agriculture and the chemical industry are mischaracterizing the root causes of world hunger as there is more than enough food being produced. In fact, with an estimated at 4.3 pounds of food produced per day per person on the planet there is a surplus. World hunger is fundamentally a social justice issue of food distribution and production, and of economic accessibility.70 Food security is defined as "increasing the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs".71 The more people are removed from the land, no longer grow their own food, and rely on "cheap" industrialized food for all of their food needs, the greater the global food insecurity becomes. In fact, half a century ago, most regions of the world were self-sufficient in food production and many countries exported grain. Since then, nearly all developing nations have become dependent on grain imports from the U.S., Canada, western Europe, and Australia, thus threatening their own food security.72 These issues cannot be adequately addressed with the application of more agricultural chemicals or the use of genetically-engineered crops and animals. Reducing the amount of advertising, processing, and packaging of food would demonstrate a more genuine effort to reduce our food costs.73 Overall, commercial fertilizer use has doubled since 1960, growing from 25 million to 53 million tons in 1996. Agricultural nitrogen increased four-fold from under 3 million to about 12 million tons during that time. Since 1960, conventional agricultural pesticide use tripled into the early 1980s, declined, and leveled off in 1996 at about 771 million pounds of active ingredient or at about twice the use seen in the early 1960s. Herbicides for weed control represent the largest portion of the overall increase and account for more than half of the pounds of active ingredient used. The five most heavily used herbicides in 1995 in pounds of active ingredient were: atrazine, metalochlor, cyanazine, acetochlor, and trifluralin. The five most heavily used insecticides in 1995 in pounds of active ingredient were: chlorpyrifos, methyl parathion, terbufos, phorate, and profenofos.74 Although nationally pesticide use declined and then leveled off during the early 1990s, actual pesticide use reported to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation paints a different picture in California. Agricultural pesticide use increased 37 % between 1991 and 1995, from 161 to 212 million pounds of active ingredient. The increases in use were not due to increases in planted acreage. During this time period, acreage in agriculture remained constant. Instead, the intensity of pesticide use increased 35 %, from an average of 18 to nearly 25 pounds per harvested acre. In addition, use of the most toxic categories of pesticides increased 34 -52 % and now comprise 72 million pounds, or 34 % of the total reported pesticide use in the state.75 The major agricultural pesticides in use are increasingly associated with groundwater contamination, atmospheric degradation, and a variety of deleterious effects on human and wildlife health.76,77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 These pesticides are being applied year after year. Excessive chemical fertilizer use is associated with blue baby syndrome, groundwater contamination, soil acidification, and global warming.84, 85, 86, 87 We are living in a chemical soup from cradle to grave and no one can escape exposure through our food, water, and air. Streams, groundwater, lakes, soil, air, food, and even our own bodily tissues all show the presence of agricultural chemicals.88 Not all of the cumulative and synergistic effects of agri-chemicals are understood as we continue to thoughtlessly subject ourselves and the planet to a vast experiment.89 Many farmers will agree that agriculture relies too heavily on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Nearly two out of three farmers in Iowa said so in a 1994 survey on rural life.92 Even if farmers reduce the use of more hazardous chemicals, they still have to answer to the banks that give them loans and the corporations for whom they grow crops under contract. Because banks and contract representatives often lack technical agricultural knowledge, farmers have to be able to demonstrate as simplistically as possible that they used all available tools to prevent pest damage and crop losses. Additionally, information and technical support on the availability and effective use of alternatives is not routinely available or widely supported through county agricultural extension offices. Chemical companies provide "free" field consultants to farmers. Chemical companies also currently fund the majority of agricultural research available to farmers through the traditional university extension channels and focus research objectives on the continued use of pesticides.93 Historically, many farmers have mistakenly believed that since some pesticides are good, then more must be better. In the interest of time, some farmers have been known to use pesticides habitually on a set calendar every year before verifying whether the targeted pests were present or not - all in the hopes of squeezing productivity out of land to increase narrow profit margins by decreasing any possible risk of pest damage. Major corporate contracts — as well as the average consumer taught to seek cosmetic perfection — tolerate little or no pest damage. Out of the $175 billion spent by American farmers to grow our food in 1996, nearly $20 billion went to the agricultural chemical industry. Chemical fertilizers accounted for about $11 billion of the total and pesticides $9 billion.
Despite these pressures, national agricultural chemical use appears to be leveling off.95 Marginal land that required much in the way of chemical inputs to be productive has been pulled out of farming under contract with the federal Conservation Reserve Program. Some farmers may also be finding that they are not getting the same economic benefit using ever-increasing amounts of chemicals and are becoming more efficient and judicious in their use.96, 97 For others, the message of sustainability and the need to decrease the dependency on agricultural chemicals is getting through. Farmers are hearing the concerns of consumers and see an opportunity to market environmentally friendly products. Also, some farmers are beginning to recognize the threats to the environment and to their own health. They are shifting their thinking from "pest eradication" to "pest management". Some are devoting portions of their acreage to organic farming and some are experimenting with new strategies and approaches, such as precision farming, integrated pest management, whole farm planning, and ecosystem management. With increasing consumer demand and more available alternatives, growers may be more ready than ever before to make the necessary changes to reduce their agricultural chemical dependence.98
CONTINUE TO:
|
