This writer of this article examines the global trend of pesticide usage and its heightening threat to biodiversity. And it ends with the proposition of a more pragmatic approach to quicken the drive to conserve the world's environment. The writer assumes that the reader understands the various forms of pesticide; the insecticide we use at home to those used in our gardens make part of pesticide.
December 2, 1984, is one of those dark days remembered in India, all because of pesticide. Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), American owned chemical manufacturer based in India threw into irreversible despair, the locals in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The incident where supposed negligence from a Corporation employee led to the explosion of highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) -a gas used in the manufacture of carbamate pesticide.
At least 40 tons of MIC gas was released into the atmosphere, a venomous gas that settled above as thick cloud covering over 78 square kilometers of India's Bhopal. Tragically, while in the atmosphere, the MIC gas would eventually turn into a severely lethal hydrogen cyanide gas. At least 5,100 people perished by the gas and over 50,000 more locals got permanently injured with blindness and lung damage.
The compensation for victims has not only been too low but not fully met either. Dow Chemical Company would later buy off UCC in 2001. The psychological and economic impacts of
Bhopal disaster are still felt to date in India.
The global trend of pesticide
Pesticides revolution started way back in 1939 when the German entomologist, Paul Muller discovered that DDT could actually be used as an insecticide. Muller's revelation would see DDT used in the second portion of World War II to control malaria and typhus among civilians and troops. And by the end of World War, DDT was available in several countries for sale as agricultural and household pesticide.
Since Muller's discovery, over 1,055 other pesticide ingredients have since been introduced by scientists into the world commerce.
The world is experiencing an unrelenting rise in the volume of pesticide manufactured and used. Agricultural production has been the major inducer and sustainer of this, besides the public health sector.
FAO has some amazing visuals to illustrate the trend. The global pesticide market stood at $58.46 billion in 2015 and in 2017,
BBC Research, estimated it at $61.2 billion projecting a terrifying rise to $79.3 billion by 2022. Several million tons of pesticide are thus expected to be thrown into the world's already hurting and helpless ecosystem. This pains the environmental activists but somehow they keep the fight on!
Aside from the lamentation, let's examine why pesticide has enjoyed this jolly ride amidst decades of outcry from naturalists and environmental activists for its terrible damages to the precious ecosystem.
Whether a product or service gains or loses dominance in any market system is always attributable to the extent by which its users feel the sense of satisfaction. Though possessing multiple flaws, the pesticide has built a powerful name for itself by consistently satisfying its users. Whether in killing fruit flies on watermelon crops in the garden or riding off the bedbugs in a home, the pesticide has always been handy with multiple varieties to choose from.
This brings us to the fundamental question, are the alternatives being offered in a logical confrontation of pesticides economically more viable and capable of out-competing its rival? The answers will always waver. Organic repellants, pest vacuuming technology and other biological solution propositions by naturalists and environmental activists have arguably not made it to market dominance because of their low economic viability to attract large investments.
Let's briefly explore what the proponents of pesticide usage (PPU) have always believed.
"Pesticides are faster acting compared to most of the alternatives presented by pro-environment campaigners," argue the PPU as their primary stand. Perhaps you can weigh it, but I think it has some substance.
Secondly, the PPU says the synthetic pesticides have demonstrated unmatched value by preventing insect-transmitted diseases like malaria and sleeping sickness. Several million premature deaths from malaria have been prevented through indoor residual sprays. I leave this to your verification.
Thirdly, these proponents postulate that these pesticides have also increased food supplies and lowered food costs globally through stopping the crop-damaging pests. Crop pests destroy up to 55% of the world's potential human food. A lot to argue about here!
And finally, they back up their product saying, "Synthetic pesticides have also increased profits of the farmer," adding, "a $1 investment in pesticide results in $4 yield in terms of harvest." There is a lot to argue about here.
From an unbiased point of view, a number of these claims from the PPU have logical and statistical evidence to back up. Pragmatically commenting, pulling down volumes of pesticide usage with scientific arguments will be slow. I mean by showcasing dangers it has and is causing to our environment will achieve very slowly, the greatly yearned mass action to save the global environment. This is partly because, for decades, the world has used these "toxic" pesticides and somehow with the usual belief of "better with the devil you know than an angel you don't know," the global community is a bit so reluctant to learn newer and "safer" methods even as environmental activists pitch alarms.
We all appreciate the flip side of these pesticides. They do not only kill the target pests, but several millions of beneficial non-target organisms like bees and soil microbes are also destroyed annually from the pesticide sprays and fumigations. The pesticide residues directly consumed by a man from pesticide-treated or exposed fruits, vegetables, and grains account for multiple other cases of cancer, reproductive and neurological disorders entangling the current human population.
Scientists have been at the forefront talking about biodiversity and the matchless need to conserve nature, but with very limited success to showcase as the bulging pesticide market confirms. Yet, the much-desired global revolution or major reforms to protect the living environment of humanity should be handled as an emergency.
A more realistic proposition
I uphold the fight to conserve the environment, banning or posing a stronger restriction on pesticide usage should be conceived with centrality. But somehow, I still find myself restrained because the many alternatives to pesticides have a number of unanswered questions to address before one can confidently bank on. Questions about their boundless and mass applicability, and the economic viability can never be underrated. A class of people fears that banning or raising stronger restrictions on pesticide may worsen global food insecurity, public health problems and above all rural poverty.
Now, this is the point I'm driving home:
better environmental safeguard will be faster and better achieved with a stronger moral/ethical proposition, but with a mild back up of scientific evidence. By moral proposition, I mean bringing humans to grasp
ecocentrism where they appreciate that the environment is not only made for them to sap and devour but that they make part of it. In that those wild trees, birds, animals, rivers and oceans are equally so important to sustain each other as non-conflicting members of a divine system called an ecosystem. Use of dangerous pesticide, though cheap will thus mean they're destabilizing the rewarding system. Though it will take a little more cost, investing in environmentally friendly pest control approaches thus means securing the peace of the living environment we form part.
The moral or ethical proposition tables a win-win situation for both humans and the environment. For instance, linked to heightened pesticide use, the population of bees and other beneficial insects have
drastically reduced and this is posing great
threat to global crop yield and overall food security as the pollinators for our crops vanish.
With a moral proposition, programs and projects advocating for environmental protection will require religious, cultural and political leaders be brought to the center stage, in a multi-stakeholder approach along with scientists. A moral or ethical approach to environmental conservation is solely a trade-off between science and humanity. Scientists are excellent in their 'science' and these religious, cultural and religious leaders have carved unmatched history moving humanity to action. Perfectly good actions and extremely bad ones like genocide have always been made possible by and through these class of people.
There is also much that the developing world has been able to change or achieve through involving this class of people more closely. Fighting HIV in Africa had to employ much of their input for better statistical outcomes.
Communicating to cause 'change' is just as important as having the knowledge of why that 'change' is needed. Environmental scientists have much of the knowledge bit. The religious, cultural and political leaders have both the people (audience) and prowess in change communication.
Essay by
Abet Tonny, a Ugandan science writer.
