Pesticide Industry and Censorship
The pesticide industry plays a significant role in modern agriculture, as pesticides are commonly used to protect crops from pests and diseases. However, concerns about pesticide safety have led to calls for greater transparency regarding their effects on human health and the environment. Pesticides can enter the food supply through various means, including direct application on crops, contamination of groundwater, and erosion of treated soil into waterways.
Despite the potential risks, there is a noted trend of censorship surrounding negative information related to pesticide use. Chemical companies often exert substantial influence over regulatory agencies and the media, which can lead to the suppression of critical findings about pesticides' harmful impacts. Historical instances, such as the infamous case of the pesticide azinphos-methyl causing significant fish kills, exemplify the challenges investigators face in obtaining information. Prominent figures like Rachel Carson have raised awareness about the dangers of pesticides, yet the chemical industry has frequently attempted to discredit such voices.
Debates continue over the ethics of transparency in the pesticide industry, with arguments highlighting the public's right to know versus the potential for unnecessary panic over food safety. As discussions evolve, the balance between agricultural practices, regulatory oversight, and consumer rights remains a crucial topic of interest.
Subject Terms
Pesticide Industry and Censorship
Definition: Manufacturers of petrochemicals designed to kill insects and other pests that threaten food crops and other plants
Significance: By withholding information concerning dangerous products and actively campaigning against those who attempt to obtain such information, the industry has made it difficult for consumers to determine what is safe to eat
Pesticides find their way into human food in three ways. Fruits and vegetables that are sprayed during growth contain small amounts of pesticides. Also, rinsing rainwater leaches pesticides through the soil and into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. Finally, erosion of contaminated soil into lakes and rivers pollutes fish, many of which are consumed by humans.
News coverage of pesticide misuse is rare, and where investigators have pursued the matter, chemical companies have actively engaged in suppressing pertinent information. Much of the problem of censorship of the negative aspects of pesticides lies in the fact that chemical companies realize huge profits in their manufacture, and in conjunction with the agra-business consortium, exert a great deal of pressure on state, local, and federal control agencies.
One case in point is the pesticide azinphos-methyl (AZM), which has poisoned fish in Louisiana. In 1991 that pesticide was responsible for one of the largest fish kills in U.S. history. Not only did the national news media bury the story, the federal Department of Agriculture and Forestry (DAF) withheld documents on pesticide spraying. When investigators attempted to secure those documents, the DAF withheld them. Another case concerns Rachel Carson’s landmark book, Silent Spring (1962), which explained the bad effects of pesticides in detail. In response to Carson’s book, the chemical industry developed a campaign to discredit both her and her findings.
In a tacit admission of dishonest and underhanded activities by the chemical industry in 1994, the president of Sandoz Agro, Inc., called for the industry to take “an honest and open approach to the solution of its problems.” One can only infer that those “problems” are the negative impacts on the environment that pesticides have, and the loss of profits that the banishment of those pesticides would represent.
The argument in favor of the suppression of the negative aspects of pesticide use is predicated on the assumption that the public’s general diet is essentially safe and healthy. All that would be accomplished by full disclosure of all of the less desirable factors in the use of pesticides would be needless fear and a general panic over what food was safe, and what food was not. The argument in favor of the full disclosure of all of the ramifications of pesticide use is that consumers have the right to know what they are ingesting. Also, this argument claims, the argument for censorship is based only on the assumption that the diet is an overall safe one, and that assumption might be incorrect.