Chemicals are an essential part of modern agriculture. Without large volumes of pesticides and manufactured fertilizers, farmers would have a difficult time feeding the world.
But there are some important reasons why producers should be seeking ways to reduce their dependence on chemical inputs.
To start with, there is the problem of cost. Chemical prices have risen rapidly in recent years, wiping out any productivity gains farmers have achieved.
In an effort to keep revenues ahead of costs in a period of declining prices, many farmers invest heavily in chemical inputs, making themselves all the more financially vulnerable in the event of crop failure.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
A second powerful reason for seeking ways to reduce chemical use is public opinion. Influential news media and environmental groups seem to be devoting increasingly suspicious attention to agriculture.
In the U.S., the Washington Post recently focused attention on a “mutant microbe” that left thousands of fish dead in Chesapeake Bay. Scientists say the single-cell parasite flourishes in waters polluted with agricultural chemicals, and officials have launched an investigation into area farm practices.
Incidents like this are the worst sort of public relations for farming.
But there are prospects for a less chemical-dependent agriculture. Researchers have made great strides, for example, in understanding plants’ natural defences against pests. With the new tools of genetic engineering, scientists can do much to increase plant resistance to pests.
Unfortunately, even such an obviously sensible solution is vulnerable to bureaucratic whims.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing expensive regulations and registration requirements for what it calls “plant-pesticides.” Plant geneticists who strengthen natural pest-resistant traits in plants, or copy such traits from one plant to another, would be treated like the manufacturers of toxic synthetic chemicals.
U.S. agriculture department officials say the proposed EPA regulations would lead to registration costs of up to $1 million for each “plant-pesticide” trait, and would seriously discourage use of genetic engineering to produce pest-resistant varieties of wheat.
It is ironic that an environmental protection agency is putting roadblocks in the way of scientists who are developing natural alternatives to pesticides. But when overzealous bureaucrats get involved, common sense often goes out the window.
