Department of Entomology,
University of Manitoba at Winnipeg,
CANADA

The golden age of insecticides: how safe our food is
Md. Jashim Uddin
e-mail jashims@hotmail.com

Respiration Veni, vidi, vici- I came, I saw and I conquered was the immediate and inordinate self-esteem of the synthetic insecticide discovery. Alas! Pests (insects) are still around to snatch their tolls even in higher magnitude, and we are seemingly in a never-ending battle to pester them. Even though the history of agriculture goes far back in the hierarchy of human civilization, our battle against insect pests is a relatively recent phenomenon. The present illustration will address delicate aspects associated with the golden age of insecticides and its bleak-consequences.

Controlling insects is an old practice, which for the most part of domestic agriculture relied on various natural products and relatively simple compounds. During the first half of 19th century a major breakthrough in chemical agriculture initiated a new era: the golden age of insecticides. The golden age of insecticides began in 1939 when the insecticidal property of DDT was discovered. This discovery catapulted the onslaught of indiscriminate use of chemical insecticides. DDT appeared so muscular that it killed every insect (and surreptitiously many other organisms) and hence decapitated many insect-borne diseases like malaria, typhous etc. from the major part of the world. Müller, who discovered the insecticidal property of DDT, was awarded a novel prize in 1948 for his apparent outstanding discovery! Following this discovery, pests of agriculture and insect-borne public diseases in developed countries were sufficiently suppressed, often almost eradicated. All major pests and problems associated with them were seemingly solved or solvable.

But the wheels of human beings’ eternal need did not stop rolling, and their commercial rapacity got never satiated. The spectacular outcome of DDT orchestrated a momentum in human being’s insane race for new, cheap, persistent and more effective insecticides: the ultimate outcome was the appearance of several chlorinated compounds in use. These chlorinated compounds became so popular that people started chlorinating everything: the greatest miseries were switched on. Nature retaliates, and in its course, insect fauna started developing tolerance to insecticides. This dogmatized our search further for more effective and persistent insecticides. As a result, various insecticides including organophosphates, organocarbamates, pyrethroids and some other insecticides appeared into the platform, which apparently did not bring anything new rather than adding some insult to the injury. The natural balance was lost, upset and resurgence of insect pests began to occur frequently. Nonetheless, people didn’t stop rolling their wheels of misfortune. The search for better and efficient insecticides has by far failed to stop the anarchy, rather it has often been increasing the pain. Even though concerns about insecticides are appearing from various nooks and corners in the society, it did not improve the situation that much. Let’s have a glance at what envisaged concerns about putting insecticides in the bio-geographic system.

Insecticides: the Health and Environment Narcotics
Insecticides were believed until late 1950s to pose little if any risks for health and environment. The remarkable contribution to human welfare with regard to the golden age of insecticide was made by Rachel Carson (1962) who in her monumental book “Silent Spring” remarked, “it is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science (referring to Applied Entomology) has armed itself with the most modern and terrible weapons, and that in turning them against the insects it has also turned them against the earth”. Rachel’s argument in “Silent Spring” has sprung a new era in which the word “insecticide”, more generally “pesticide”, got stigmatized. People started realizing the slow poisoning effect of insecticides: concerns about insecticides began to increase. The next section will help generate an idea of how horrible mockery the modern agriculture is staging with cruel negligence in the name of crop protection.

The total amount of insecticide used is very difficult to speculate in the global scale. But nonetheless, the amount is alarmingly voluminous. David Pimentel and his colleagues in 1991 reported that about 62 million Kg of insecticides was used yearly only in the USA in early 1990s. Pimentel and Levitan of Cornell University reported in 1986 that only 0.1% of pesticides applied to crops reaches the target pest. This is a set of alarming information, as it can be realized that the rest, in fact all, of the pesticides applied to kill insects are deposited directly in our mother nature: the source and sink of our existence and livelihood. These pesticide compounds are mostly persistent and are accumulated in this sink: the soil and water bodies, and their constituents. What’s then? Very simple, through the complex system of food-webs these compounds get into our bodies that serve the purpose of the ultimate sinks for these compounds. We succumb to the onslaught of these compounds. Pesticide poisoning is associated with complex of life threatening diseases like cancer, blood dycrasias, allergy, asthma, psychiatric sequalae, electrocephalogram changes, neurological disorders, high blood pressure, cardiovascular diseases, liver diseases and so on. These chemicals also harm our livestock and many natural regulatory agents, affect pollinators and pollination of crops, fish, wildlife and the environment. It is in fact serving as the necrotic force to downgrade the quality of our environment and our lives. Bremner (2003) has pointed out that the commonly used insecticides (phosphorus enriched ones) not only harm us, but also cause a “selective cull” of humanity- altering the gene pool and irreversibly changing the path of evolution: alarming, isn’t it? Pesticides are found to affect the fertility and reduce the productivity of human being. In Netherland, for example, a typical farmer is four times less likely capable of producing children than a usual Dutchman. In the USA, a farmer is eight times less likely to father children. Is it a good news for the overpopulated third world countries? Not really. The diseases associated with pesticides may reduce individual economic capabilities and may also cause other social anomalies. The worst news lies in the fact that those who are not engaged in farming activities are not safe either: “even if farmers are in the front line, we and our families may only be a step behind” (Bremner, 2003). How? Well, many commonly used pesticides bio-accumulate through food-chains. In the following section, I will shed a bit of light on how the compounds are directly getting into us.

How Safe is the Food We Intake?
Our food, water and inhalation are three avenues through which these devils are nesting in us. According to Pimentel and his colleague (1980), everyone in the United States consumes small amounts of pesticides daily in his/her food and water. It was reported that nearly 100% of the U.S. population has some pesticide residue, averaging about 6 ppm in their fat bodies. They also cited that about 50% of U.S. foods contain detectable levels of pesticides. The U.S.A. Consumers Union reported in 1999 that with some fruit and vegetables, kids who take a single serving can exceed the safe daily limit of certain pesticides. Sarcastically, it refers to a limit: the so-called safe limit. A pesticide is simply a biocide: there is no contradiction to this very fundamental and emphatic view. The point is that if it is a biocide, then no matter how infinitesimal the amount is taken, it should always pose the threat as long as the compound is non-biodegradable. In such case, the concept of safe limit seems to be a flawed concept. The Consumers Union also found that the U.S. products had more, or more toxic, pesticides than the imported produces. Then where stands the boast, “our food supply is the safest in the world”. If the safest food in the world is stigmatized with the slow poisons like insecticides at such alarming a level, then what the people in other countries are intaking. How safe is their food?

DDT was banned decades ago in the U.S., still DDT is showing positive in residue tests of soil and milk. The consumer Union’s report states, “the results suggest that what you choose to eat can make a real difference in the amount of toxic residues you consume”. A careful analysis of the above suggestion would mean that we are in fact helpless, as we have to be smart to minimize the intake of slow poisoning through our food: a good suggestion indeed. But nevertheless it indicates that we eventually cannot choose something to devour that doesn’t have insecticides. There may be argument: yes, we can, there are organically grown or genetically protected food products available in the market. That is true, but what the amount of those products is available in the market is something really important. Furthermore, even though the organic products aren’t pesticide treated: that doesn’t necessarily guarantee that organically grown produces do not contain any toxic compounds. As mentioned earlier that almost all the amount of pesticides applied is entering into the environment and are accumulated into soil and water bodies and their constituents; there is a high chance that the plants are automatically getting some irrespective of whether or not pesticides are applied on them. In fact, the Consumers Union’s study found existence of pesticide residues in organically grown produces as well. Then what remains for the plate is the processed food that is usually deemed to be safe. But unfortunately, that is also stigmatized with pesticides, as the same study found that the canned products also had pesticide residues, but at a relatively low level. This is because, peeling can reduce the amount of pesticide presence, but it cannot eliminate them. Therefore, it is obvious that in this golden age of insecticide (more generally pesticide), the food we intake is eventually nothing but a blend of poisons: we, in our home, are not beyond the reach of these noxious devils applied for harnessing our fields.

Conclusion
The golden era of insecticides (pesticides in broader sense) has set us out in a crazy autocidal situation. It is not the pesticide to be blamed. Rather it is us, who use the pesticide indiscriminately with little or no consideration of the future, to be finger pointed. Surely, in the eternal trend of growing population, we cannot give pests much to share from our potential productions. But nonetheless, it is proven in several occasions that we can reduce the use of pesticides at least by 50% without affecting our productivity. The U.S.A. and many other developed countries have set a target of reducing the pesticide use by 50% (though failed to do so in terms of the tentative timeframe), and they are working to reach the target. But to successfully do so, in addition to several plausible measures including research and directives, national and social initiatives have to be orchestrated. Public education could be a handy tool: as public concerns and active participation can be vital in the whole process. We have to change our attitude: a slightly blemished fruit does neither loose any of its nutritional quality, nor the taste. We have to learn that cosmetic (aesthetic) damage is not something that we should be worried about, we have to accept a certain level of blemished produces. It will not be wise that we stop eating fresh produces that provide lots of vital nutrients. Instead, handling the food carefully can help much: we can reduce the amount of pesticide exposure and intake by peeling certain fruits such as apples, pears, peaches etc, by washing fruits and vegetables thoroughly with very dilute detergent, by having a small garden of our own to ensure the supply of fresh and least pesticide contaminated produces. Not only will a self-raised garden help to be certain of the least pesticide-contaminated produces, but it will also keep us in good shapes, both physically and mentally.

References cited:
Bremner, M. 2003. Pesticide. The Ecologist. Vol. Dec 2002-Jan 2003: 15 – 18.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 368 pp.
Consumers Union. 1999. How safe is our produce? Consumers Report. March: 94 – 97.
Pimentel, D., D. Andow, R.D. Hudson, D. Gallahan, S. Jacobson, M. Irish, S. Kroop, A. Moss, I. Schreiner, M. Shepard, T. Thompson and B. Vinzant. 1980. Environmental and socieal costs of pesticides: a preliminary assessment. Oikos. 34: 127 – 140.

Pimentel, D., and L. Levitan. 1986. Pesticides: amounts applied and amounts reaching pests. BioScience. 36: 86 – 91

Pimentel, D., L. McLaughlin, A. Zepp, B. Lakitan, T. Kraus, P. Kleinman, F. Vancini, W.J. Roach, E. Graap, W.S. Keeton, and G. Selig. 1991. Environmental and economic effects of reducing pesticide use. BioScience. 41: 402 – 409.