Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
ing water standard has been set. One pilot research project was conducted
jointly by the USGS and EPA using various laboratory methods to test water
samples from twelve public water supplies for 178 different parent pesticide
and breakdown products (Blomquist et al. 2001). They found 108 of these
pesticide compounds in the sampled drinking water supplies.
Several issues of concern come to mind regarding our drinking water.
First, there are no standards for mixtures of various pesticides (and the USGS
water study shows that pesticides most often occur in groups). Second, there
are many “variances” granted to water systems if they cannot afford to treat
their water to reach lower contaminant levels (this is particularly relevant to
pesticides, as it is very expensive to conduct the types of treatment necessary
to remove them from the drinking water). Third, as noted in the USGS study,
not all relevant pesticides are listed with standards (more pesticides must
be under the EPA guidelines and “inert” ingredients should have standards).
Fourth, the seasonal spikes in agrichemical use and pollution can overwhelm
a water system (will they test for and catch the contaminant in time to
issue a health advisory?). Finally, state collection of data is not centralized
and does not necessarily follow through to USEPA guidelines (five states
did not even file a report in 2000), so we must question the link between
federal guidelines and state or local enforcement, particularly if “technology
and cost” influence the regulation on whether treatment is mandatory for
contaminant removal.
[28],
(28)
Lines: 283 to 293
———
0.0pt PgVar
———
Normal Page
PgEnds: T
E
X
[28],
(28)
In
different or Misinformed?
All of this information on pesticides and agrichemicals is frightening, almost
unreal. So why aren't Americans outraged by the dangers of pesticides and
demanding clean, healthy organic farms and food? The best response I have
is that we, as a society, do not support the “precautionary principle.” The
Europeans have a firm grasp on the precautionary principle, which is the
basis of their opposition to genetically engineered food (Myhre and Traavik
2003). They feel that it is best to be cautious, that the safety of technology
must be proven before they will accept its use. We Americans, on the other
hand, have faith in science and technology. We trust that it will help us
and be used wisely. We think, hey, it hasn't been proven to be bad, so let's
just try it for a while, and it will probably work out just fine. In addition,
media coverage on agrichemicals is nonexistent or slanted by corporate
funding, so part of the problem is that we are not properly informed. We
are not concerned because we don't have accurate information. Trusting
technology is not necessarily bad, but the problem is that agricultural science
