Chemical Pesticides
* Your editorial “New Echoes of That Silent Spring” (July 5) was well-timed--we should have declared our independence from chemical pesticides a long time ago. Pesticides are indeed silent and insidious killers--killers we take home for dinner.
Fortunately, as you have noted, there are safe alternatives to toxic chemical for protecting our food supply. In 1990 I wrote legislation creating the Center for Pest Management Research within the University of California. The best scientific minds in the field of integrated pest management come together at the center to discover, research and make available safe methods to deal with agricultural pests. Unfortunately, every year we fight to retain its funding as an investment in our future.
California leads the nation in agricultural productivity and scientific research on the biological control of pests. Yet too many still resort to the chemical quick fix instead of investing in a healthy future. Every time the malathion spray planes go up, we surrender our health to expediency. Every time someone spreads chemical pesticides in crops instead of introducing beneficial insects, they risk the health of our children.
The federal government’s new commitment to reduce the use of chemicals in food production is overdue, but welcome. In California, where agriculture supports both our economy and our stomachs, we have an added obligation to protect and promote the Center for Pest Management Research. Shortchanging these scientists is the kind of false economy that we will pay dearly for with our health. The center’s work will help ensure that a well-balanced meal in the future won’t include a side dish of chemicals.
RICHARD KATZ
Assembly, D-Sylmar
* We found it unfortunate that you chose to highlight the European nations’ “strides in cutting pesticide use,” and not the technology which has been generated and employed for years in your own home state of California. A coalition of environmental organizations highlighted reduction of one pesticide in Holland in a report this past year. When California agriculture examined what was being done in Holland, it was discovered that the usage of the chemical had been three-and-a-half times that of the usage which was being criticized in U.S. agriculture. The 50% reduction which was praised still only brought the use of this chemical to the high end of what was being used on crops in California agriculture.
In some circumstances, the reduction of pesticides in other countries, according to one of the leading environmental organizations, was due to switching to more toxic pesticides than those previously used.
The majority of reductions being done in Europe are in the northern portion where there are colder climates and few insects or fungi. The southern portion, which is more hot and humid, faces similar obstacles in reducing many pesticides as have been faced in parts of the U.S.
The charge of the National Research Council Committee (National Academy of Sciences) was to evaluate how the government regulatory system and risk modeling could be improved and updated to ensure that children’s health is in no way compromised. Their recommendations are valuable in helping advance our excellent food supply in the United States. Unfortunately, your editorial failed to mention the committee members’ praise of the food supply in the United States, or the comments of the chairman at the committee’s press conference that “The goal of the report was to make the very good food supply of the United States even better.”
DEBBIE CALVO
Executive Director
Alliance for Food and Fiber
Los Angeles
