Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Human-wildlife confl ict primarily stems from an incompatibility between land management
practices and wildlife behaviours, all within a decreasing land and resource base. In addition to the
threats that wildlife pose (both real and imagined) to human sustenance (see especially Chapter 3 and 4),
'leisure-based confl icts' were also highlighted (see Chapters 5 and 6). For example, introduced game
species (e.g., bears, boars and wolves, in Croatia) may damage crops or predate livestock, birds
of prey may reduce game bird numbers on hunting estates (in the UK), or even interfere with egg
collecting activities (in the Netherlands). In some instances (e.g., in Spain) the act of poisoning and
baiting can extend beyond predator control and constitute a sort of 'sport' in itself. Also, on numer-
ous occasions, cultural taboos and misperceptions (some based on religious teachings, as discussed
in Section 3.3) have led to persecution and wildlife poisoning.
Even if such misperceptions were addressed, and incidents of persecution were reduced accord-
ingly, the underlying issue still remains: carbofuran is unacceptably and inherently toxic to nontarget
wildlife. From its release onto the market in the late 1960s up to the publication of this topic, legal and
'careless' use of carbofuran has been implicated in the deaths of many tens of thousands of birds world-
wide, and is suspected to have caused the deaths of millions of others over the 40 to 50-year period.
The risks posed to mammals, aquatic organisms and benefi cial insects have scarcely been investigated.
Of necessity, manufacturers have long sought to cast the product in a positive light. For example, in
its 'Environmental Stewardship Guidelines' (see http://www.furadanfacts.com/Portals/furadanfacts/
Content/Docs/FuradanEnvironmentalStewardshipGuidelines.pdf), FMC (the major global manufac-
turer of carbofuran) offers a number of 'safe' application tips, and states that:
Frequently, farmland borders wildlife habitats which provide shelter and food for a
variety of birds and other wildlife. Special attention is required when applying pesti-
cides to maintain a balance between agricultural productivity and natural resources.
Proper pesticide use allows farmers to continue farming effi ciently and to continue
using the products they need to maintain consistently favorable yields. Understanding
and abiding by the product label is the most important step to product stewardship.
To be accurate, such a statement must rely on several assumptions, namely that a) wildlife do not
actually enter farmland or use it as a 'habitat', and b) nontarget damage to natural resources is an
acceptable bi-product of modern agricultural practice. An exhaustive list of case study from the United
States and Canada (see Chapter 8) documents how wildlife (primarily avian) mortality inevitably fol-
lows the labelled/legal use of carbofuran, which contrasts rather sharply with FMC's stance.
Another fundamental fl aw in the statement is that the onus remains on the grower/farmer to com-
ply with the recommended wildlife protection measures and 'safely' apply a product that is fun-
damentally unsafe to nontarget wildlife. On its website, under the heading of 'Proper Use', FMC
states the following:
'
FMC believes the proper use of Furadan does not create a risk to human
health, wildlife, or the environment, and we will continue to promote its responsible use' (http://
www.furadanfacts.com/).
Taken together, the implication of these stewardship and product use statements is that wildlife
mortality following an application of carbofuran is likely to have occurred because the farmer/grower
did not 'understand and abide by' the product label. But following the label instructions may also
produce unexpected results. In Chapter 8, Mineau and colleagues noted a wide range of recovery
rates for carbofuran in treated fi elds (from 66 to 210%), even when the solutions being applied were
mixed by trained personnel of the manufacturer (in this case FMC). For all these reasons, placing the
responsibility for wildlife mortality solely at the door of the farmer/grower (who also represents
the corporation's client base), even in the absence of negligence or wrongdoing, is disingenuous.
Although manufacturers could be commended for efforts to make certain products less palatable to
wildlife, the reality is that such efforts have not worked. During studies such as the one described in
Chapter 7 (i.e., in Brazil, which investigated the effectiveness of using repellent substances as a seed
Search WWH ::
Custom Search