"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death."
- Rachel Carson opening of Chapter 3, Elixirs of Death
Maria Rodale, CEO of Rodale, “the world’s leading health-and-wellness publisher,” and “the granddaughter of the founder of the organic movement in America" wrote an article on Huffington Post last week, suggesting common ground Assad's chemical gassing of the Syrian people (his own people, in his own country) with the continued use of Carson's "elixirs of death" to produce the crops that feed our own children.
It was pretty heady stuff. Here's the passage that really set Buzzfeed a buzzing:
“Yes, Syria has undoubtedly used chemical weapons on its own people. Maybe it was the government; maybe it was the opposition; maybe you [President Obama] know for sure. But here’s what I know for sure: We are no better. We have been using chemical weapons on our own children – and ourselves – for decades, the chemical weapons we use in agriculture to win the war on pests, weeds, and the false need for ever greater yields. While the effects of these “legal” chemical weapons might not be immediate and direct, they are no less deadly. … We’ve been trying to tell you for years that chemical companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer Crops Sciences, and others are poisoning our children and our environment with your support and even, it seems, your encouragement. Just because their bodies aren’t lined up wrapped in sheets on the front pages of the newspapers around the world doesn’t mean it’s not true”
Wow.
So what do you think? Are the pesticides that we use weapons of mass destruction? Biocide against the world? Carcinogens that we're feeding our children? Or is her argument over-the-top; a bit of internet hyperbole designed to get people fightin' mad? Argue you position one way or the other, but (and this is an important but), use some of the information that you've gleaned from Chap 3 of Silent Spring to argue you point. You can supplement that with anything else you want - other research, personal beliefs/values, etc., but bring Silent Spring into your argument for or against the continued use of pesticides/herbicides in agriculture.
Should chemical weapons be of equal concern - whether we use them on insects, plants, or people?
Of course the pesticides are weapons of mass destruction! Biocide against the world! Carcinogens we are feeding the next generations! As Rachel Carson states, they shouldn't be called pesticides, more like biocides because of the affect they have on our human race as well as the insect population. Just because the poisons do not induce acute symptoms doesn't make them any less lethal. I believe that the long term effects definitely provide enough proof that we are using carcinogens on our food. What about the thyroid tumors we are most likely going to end up with in 40 years? The scary part is that we can't even control the amounts of DDT and other poisons in our bodies. Our government has allowed the poisons to get from out agriculture, to our livestock, to our food sources, to our homes. If anyone doesn't think that to be unbelievably frightening, they are in denial. Not only are we willingly eating poisons, but even if it's the tiniest amount, there is a good chance that it will become more toxic when it stays in our fat content. This isn't some propaganda to get people mad, this is the truth that people should be mad about.
ReplyDeleteShould we use DDT and other carcinogens in the future? Hell no. America get it together. Insects have been here since practically the beginning of Earth, they serve a purpose, why not stop killing all the bugs so we can focus on overcropping as well? Wasting food is almost as bad as not having enough. Besides the DDT problem most definitely has a connection with the bees, so maybe if we stop using DDT completely, the bees could come back a bit more, and the whole human race wouldn't die off. Just a thought. Maybe a bit extreme but in this world, you have to be a bit extreme to draw attention to your points. Hence, Rachel Carson.
Yes, as biocides they certainly do cause mass destruction to "the little things that can be picked between thumb and forefinger" as E.O. Wilson said. But, I've been eating food with pesticides on/in it for decades and I'm,.....O.K.......uh, yeah.....
DeleteSorry I didn't address the last question: DDT ISN'T ANY LESS LETHAL IF YOU USE IT ON INSECTS OR PLANTS!!! DDT EFFECTS US AND WE'RE NOT EVEN USING IT ON US! THESE CHEMICAL WEAPONS SHOULD BE OUR TOP PRIORITY! The human race will literally not have a bright future, much less a future at all if we do not accept these mistakes, and fix them.
ReplyDeleteAll this yelling....
Deletehttp://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=309&Itemid=263
DeleteThese "pesticides" are most definitely weapons of mass destruction! They are massively destructive to humans, plants, animals, and the environment. There is no escape from them. They are on our food in our water and in the earth. She needs to be extreme because it seems that being extreme is the only way to get people to even notice anything much less DO anything. People need to be passionate about things in order to do something otherwise they feel like they need not do the right thing because it takes time. This goes back to peoples selfishness and laziness. It is, in my opinion, selfish that people today do not strive for a better world for the next generation.
ReplyDeleteTo me it is kind of hypocritical of the nations to say that they won't use the biocides but still make them! Whaaaaat is that all about?! It is like nuclear weapons! We say we wont use them but we have about 10,500 warheads. THAT IS ENOUGH TO BLOW UP THE EARTH A FEW TIMES! WHY!? Anyway, what is the use of making the biocides if we aren't going to be using them? So other people can use them? To make a profit? So the blame doesn't directly fall on us? I think so!
Wow - I've never heard Sadie yell before....it's....upsetting... ( ;) )
DeleteI completely agree with you
DeleteI think that it's totally unfair to compare what is happening in Syria to Rachel Carson's Elixirs of Death. I think her argument that all these chemicals are awful is valid but her comparison to Syria is frankly disrespectful to the victims there. I bet if you asked them if they could choose to be gassed or have their plants be sprayed with pesticides they would choose the latter. Also the Syrian government much like Hitler used these gasses for the sole purpose of the extermination of humans. The creation of pesticides isn't to harm humans, rather, to help them. After all, it's us who are eating these crops isn't it? The pesticides aren't weapons of mass destruction or at least we didn't want them to be. The fact of the matter is, the removal of these chemicals from the earth is like all of us giving up cars and going back to horses, buggies, or walking because the car emissions are too damaging to the atmosphere. It's ridiculous. Who wants to backtrack like that?
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong here, I'm a supporter of organic, sustainable farming. But I also am familiar with both sides of that coin. Many farmers use pesticides because (at the moment) it is more affordable than hiring people to weed 100 acres of organic corn. The only reason why we use so many pesticides is because of the large demand for crops. The reason for this demand? Too many people. As soon as scientists figure out how to sterilize the human population then the sooner we can ditch all these harmful chemicals. And when will that happen? Not in the foreseeable future. If anything good could come out of this, it would be the ban of all these "elixirs of death" and somehow create a chemical that works like others without as much detrimental affects. And it isnt like humans are dropping dead all over the world by the thousands because of these chemicals. Organic farming might have worked for thousands of years before, but the earth also didnt have to support 7 billion + humans. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone else's arguments (cause I'm totally with you, I just want to be thought provoking) but think of it this way: do you want to eat or go hungry?
Do you want to eat and die of Addisons disease or thyroid cancer? Personally I'd rather backtrack a bit and be less off.
DeleteLike Nolan, I believe that while these chemicals and pesticides that Carson talked of in the chapter are very dangerous and can cause disastrous side effects, it is not right to compare them to what is happening to Syria. While I state again that these chemicals are dangerous, the gasses that the Syrian government are using are lethal and meant to kill, and are used in such a manner. The chemicals used for crop dusting and for the extermination of pests are not put there to kill us. Saying the two are basically equals is a ridiculous accusation. These pesticides were designed to help us, and because of the chemicals in them that initial goal was meddled. The gasses used in Syria were never meant to help humanity. They were meant to kill and bend people to follow corrupt leaders. And so it is thoughtless to compare these two things.
ReplyDeleteGood distinction on "the intent" (goal) of the chemicals -
DeleteNolan is partly (ON an indefinite scale) wrong What Hitler did and what Assad is doing are different Hitler was creating a prefect race. Where as Assad is try to hold on to his power. And The pesticides may not instantaneously kill (US). However the kill hundreds of animals create new compounds and are used repeatedly even when the side-affects and consequences are known. And the thought is sickening to believe people think making "an abundance of cheap food is okay" if X*100 birds and other animals die as a result.
ReplyDeleteIt Is ABOUT MOONEY SADIE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MONEY AT OUR LOSS>
ReplyDeleteI think that the use of harmful pesticides and herbicides on our food should be stopped. I have always believed this, and I have a real-life story that strikes a little “close-to-home”. It is going to be hard to explain this without a picture. Our neighbors live right on the edge of a field, a field they do not own. About 2 years ago, the people who did own the field started planting corn there, surrounding my neighbors house. This was genetically modified corn, which, I do not have a huge deal with. I mean, it feeds the people in Africa. But, what I do have an issue with is spraying harmful chemicals onto the corn right next to our neighbors house (It is an old house, so the well is not ‘up-to-code’ and is right beside the field, in the splash zone of the chemicals). The thing about GMO corn, (from what I remember from watching a documentary about 2 years ago) is that it is designed to absorb pesticides that no other plants would absorb. This means that the pesticides that are not absorbed just rest on the ground and seep into the ground water and, eventually, into our neighbors well.
ReplyDeleteMy neighbors have only lived there for about a year, so they have not felt any effects yet, but something tells me that they will one day. I hope that the farmers who do spray the pesticides realize that someone actually lives in that house now, and that they should not be spraying pesticides right beside their well. I mean, that seems like common sense.
I think that Rachel Carson brought up a good point, that the chemicals that are spread over a farm do not just stay in the farm, they stay in the soil, on the tractor/vehicle that spread it, and on the food that is harvested. This caused the chemical to be spread much farther than what was its original purpose. I do not like the idea of eating chemical pesticides on my food, but when I get home late at night, I am usually too lazy to wash an apple before I eat it. My mom always tells me to wash my veggies and fruit, but my stomach says “EAT IT. NOW” and I feel like a must obey. There are probably lots of other icky things on the food, but the natural things I don’t really worry about. We have an immune system for a reason. It’s the chemicals that bother me.
Good point about GMO corn - another complicating factor is that if any pollen blows over from your neighbor's field to a new neighbor's field, the high court has ruled that the NEW neighbor will now have to pay Monsanto for use of their patented genetic info., even though they may not have purchased - or even WANTED the GMO corn in their crops!
DeleteAs for the last point, Nic, true, your immune system will not protect you against chemicals - that's the job of your Liver - to do detox. Immune system fights bacteria/germs/virus invaders.
I HATE Monsanto. I HATE Monsanto. HATE. I believe that no company has done worse and worked as tirelessly on destroying the planet as they have. They have also helped the collapse of the economy by monopolizing on land and shutting down hundreds of local farmers. Their unadulterated use of endless amounts of horrible pesticides have permantly marred and stained almost all the beautiful cornfields of middle America. I like how this article compares the Syrian gassing to America's poisoning of its own citizens by letting Monsanto and its partners slip poison into the meals on the dinner plate of a majority of Americans. At least the Syrians are fighting back against their poisoners. I believe the book said something not wanting to live in a world that won't quite kill you? Here's the passage: "why should we tolerate a diet of cheap poisons, a home in insipid surroundings, a circle of acquaintances who are not quite our enemies, the noise of motors with just enough relief to prevent insanity? Who would want to live in a world which is just not quite fatal?" (12) Who would? One of many invaluable points brought up throughout elixirs of death.
ReplyDeleteHate is a strong word.
DeleteAll right - I'll leave it there...
I think it's definitely disrespectful to compare Rachel Carson's "Elixirs of Death to the events that have been occurring in Syria. Those events were far different from what Rachel Carson was trying to show the world. However, she did say that the use of these pesticides could very well be dangerous and lethal at that, there is still quite a difference. The pesticides that Carson had talked about were being used for products relating to agriculture and in the farming industries, but the chemicals used by the government in Syria are used for one intention, and one intention only, to take the lives of others.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about the issue of pesticide usage in the United States (and on a global level for that matter). I think that the concern over pesticide use is justified and legitimate but I also believe that the argument that Maria Rodale attempts to make in her article is extremely inappropriate. If I buy foods that have pesticide residues on them and then ingest those foods I do it willingly and, most of the time, knowingly. But if I am an innocent Syrian citizen and I am killed with gas by my own government I have little choice in the matter nor am I warned of what is going to happen to me. So, clearly, the two things are not the same. Also, I believe it is wrong to use the suffering of a people overseas to try to further some different reform (even if that reform may be very noble). For these reasons, as well as the fact that Rodale supplies little to no scientific evidence in her article (which is especially frustrating considering the fact that there are heaps of scientific evidence to use), I am inclined to believe that her article strays a bit too much toward the internet hyperbole side.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the use of pesticides I have, as I said before, mixed feelings on the matter. I looked up how many pounds of pesticides are used in the United States each year and found that the EPA reported that 5.1 billion pounds were used in 2011. That is alarming when one considers that, in Silent Spring, it is said that about six hundred thousand pounds were used in 1960. That is an immense increase in usage and I do wonder about what effects will be felt twenty or thirty years down the road as those billions of pounds of chemicals disperse further into the environment. While I am alarmed, I am also a bit curious about what dangerous chemicals are used today because I know that many of the pesticides that were used in the 60’s were banned, at least in the United States, after Silent Spring came out. Furthermore the EPA said that “EPA has registered new, safer products to replace older, more traditional pesticides on the farm, as well as in the backyard.” Overall, I am still decidedly against the use of pesticides and I think that Silent Spring was a great starting point, but there are many things to be done. However, articles like Maria Rodale’s are simply not the way to accomplish those things. I have included a link (if it works) to the EPA article below. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/securty.htm
- Ian Mundy
I think that we are always going to use chemicals for pesticides and still end up hurting people. I think the difference between the United States and Syria is that Syria is doing it on purpose. They get the chemicals that are meant for plants or weeds or pests, and they use it with a negative intention. More Americans than not understand that chemicals to help plants, don't necessarily help the environment nor the people, but it's something that is so small, Americans over look it as though it's nothing, which, in some cases, is nothing at all. That article quote annoys me because Syria isn't being accountable and is just manipulating the situation. Although Syria has openly admitted to poisioning their own people, they pin the core of the problem on the United States.
ReplyDelete