Farmers Could Cut Chemical Use by 80%, Environmentalists Say

American farmers could cut their chemical use by up to 80% in some cases without losing crops or money and at the same time improve the quality of water supplies in rural areas, environmental activists said Tuesday.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave agriculture the alar scare of 1989, took another look at farming Tuesday with a report called “Harvest of Hope” and press conferences in three cities to encourage farmers to cut chemical use and rely on alternative farming practices.

But unlike the NRDC’s earlier foray into farming, which caused apples to be taken out of school cafeterias and neighborhood grocery stores, the report released Tuesday was more Valentine than vitriol, more instruction than invective.

Harvest of Hope called for farmers to switch from widespread chemical use to various alternative farming measures, such as rotating crops, monitoring crops for pests before spraying with chemicals and a process called integrated pest management. The report did not call for farmers to abandon chemicals entirely.

“It’s a risky endeavor to do this (alternative agriculture) now. The majority of farmers are being impeded by federal farm policies and they need to be helped,” said Jennifer Curtis, an NRDC research specialist and the study’s principal author. “But there are a number of leaders within the agricultural community. They’re leading the way, experimenting and taking those risks.”

The reason that reducing chemical use is important, organization officials said Tuesday, is that government studies show half of the wells in the United States are contaminated with nitrate, a fertilizer compound that could cause a potentially fatal illness in babies. In addition, “potentially disturbing levels” of pesticides have been found in surface water, rain and fog.

The NRDC report was the result of a two-year study of agricultural practices surrounding seven crops in California and two in Iowa; it is a document that farmers and farm groups alike said promoted efforts already at least partially in place in agriculture. In fact, the greatest concern voiced about the report Tuesday came from chemical companies, not farm groups.

The study “significantly overstates the potential adverse impacts of pesticide use on water quality and human health, and proposes a return to old-fashioned, unscientific agricultural techniques,” said Jay J. Vroom, president of the National Agricultural Chemicals Assn.

Said Kim Crum, spokeswoman for the Western Agricultural Chemicals Assn.: “To maintain the current levels of production using the farming techniques of 50 years ago, we’d have to convert 60% of American forests to farmland.”

But growers and researchers--in and out of the NRDC--said Tuesday that such fears are just not grounded.

“I think the alternatives they (the NRDC) mention are for the most part really feasible,” said Frank Zalom, director of the University of California’s Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project and an entomologist at UC Davis. “As long as pesticides are available, it’s probably cheaper to use them. In the absence of pesticides, most of those things are feasible alternatives.”

Gary Caviglia, who farms 120 acres of oranges, avocados and plums in Visalia, switched to integrated pest management two years ago. The process includes rotating crops to break up the reproductive cycles of insects, scouting for pests before spraying with chemicals, using pest-resistant varieties of plants and biological controls.

For Caviglia, the switch is difficult and expensive but worthwhile. It may not be saving him money now, he said, but it should in the future. In addition, many of the pesticides he traditionally relied on are not working any more, as insects build up tolerances to them. To stay in business, he must find ways to conquer his pest problems without chemicals.

“I’m concerned about the buildup of resistance to our current materials,” Caviglia said. “I believe in a few years most pesticides we have won’t be effective. I’m less concerned about producing an organic piece of fruit. I’m concerned about producing the commodity at a reasonable cost. I think (integrated pest management) has the potential to let Mother Nature do some of the nasty work out there.”

While Caviglia doubts the NRDC’s optimistic claims for pesticide reduction, he agrees that alternative agriculture will allow him to cut his chemical use dramatically.

And that’s basically what Harvest of Hope tells American agriculture. If growers use integrated pest management and other alternative agriculture practices, pesticide use could be cut by 50% in the California citrus industry, 35% in the state’s grape industry and 30% in alfalfa.

In Iowa, where the NRDC looked at the corn and soybean industries, the study concluded that pesticide use could be cut by 80% for corn, and herbicide use could be cut 50% in both corn and soybeans. Considering how extensive chemical use is in California and Iowa, such reductions would be dramatic.

“California uses 10% of the pesticides used worldwide,” Curtis said. “And close to half of the pesticides used in the U.S. are used in California. . . . Corn is the largest single user of insecticides; 48% are applied to corn to control corn root worm.”

Potential Cuts in Pesticide Use CALIFORNIA

Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Alfalfa 30% 40% a Citrus 50 40 a Cotton 25 b a Grapes 35 50 30 Lettuce 25 50 20 Rice 25 50 a Tomatoes 25 50 b

IOWA

Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Corn 80% 50% a Soybeans b 50 a

a: Potential reductions were not estimated because chemical applications were minimal.

b: Insufficient information available to estimate potential reductions.

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council