Curbing Pesticide Use Through Green Label Reform

In an increasingly competitive agricultural market, green labeling practices need to be administered by federal government institutions in order to recognize the environmentally responsible actions being taken by farmers who do not use pesticides. In a constant search for the bottom line, large industrial farms have lowered the cost of their food through large-scale production and pesticide use, making them more desirable on the market. Our water systems, health, and land are bearing the consequences of the irresponsible chemical cocktails that corporate farms dump into the soil to grow their crops on the large scale that makes them cheaper and more successful on the market. In high enough concentrations many commonly used pesticides can be lethal, and can accumulate in the blood and body. Should the American public be kept in the dark about the health effects of these pesticides while large agricultural companies can gain a competitive edge in the market?
While the amount of pesticides used in the US has remained relatively stable since 1970, “the actual toxicity of the pesticides has increased 10 to 20 times”(Pimentel et al., 1993). The environmental impacts of pesticide use are well documented in their severity and diversity, “The conservative estimate is that about 72 million birds are killed each year because of direct exposure to pesticides” (Pimentel, 2002). What’s more, we are actively consuming these harmful toxins almost every day, “about 35% of the food that is purchased by consumers has measurable levels of pesticide residues”(Pimentel, 2002). Seeing how processed foods, especially those containing corn, are especially dependent on pesticides this 35% is likely made up of the most commonly consumed products on the market. A 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey released the following findings, “At least one pesticide was detected in water from all streams studied and pesticide compounds were detected throughout most of the year in water from streams with agricultural (97 percent of the time), urban (97 percent), or mixed-land-use watersheds (94 percent).” these are watersheds from which many Americans draw their water without any tests for pesticide presence done by the US Government to ensure the safety and health of its citizens.
In addition to all this pesticides are a clumsy and inefficient solution to pest control. By their very nature pesticides produce resistant pests, which are subsequently harder to control, and due to their indiscriminate application, kill off the organisms that would otherwise act as natural controls on these pests. Estimates are that natural controls provide twice as much as the 10% of pest control that pesticides account for. Evidence already exists that significant cutbacks on pesticide use can be made effectively, “Confirmation that pesticide use in the United States could be reduced by 50% comes from the fact that Sweden reduced pesticide use by 50% from 1992 to 1997 and is now on a program to reduce pesticide use by another 50% (Pimentel, 1997).” The EU as a whole recently followed suit by banning 22 pesticide treatments. It’s time the US took part in weaning modern agriculture off of this brute force approach to farming and shifted towards more elegant and efficient farming practices.
Most Americans would agree that government is run inefficiently, this is an opportunity for government to improve upon a system that has the potential to be to the benefit of all involved and restore some measure of faith in government regulation. Laura Raynolds looks to Europe to demonstrate how private certification standards have filled the vacuum of weakened faith in government regulation.
The rise of buyer-driven chains in the agro- food sector is well demonstrated in Europe, where large food scares have shattered public confidence in government regulations and a few supermarkets dominate the market. Supermarkets increasingly govern conditions within their supply chains, creating a system of ‘‘private- interest regulation,’’ which consumers rely on to ensure food quality and safety in the face of weakened and unreliable state regulations (Marsden et al., 2000)
This kind of regulation is however flawed, especially in larger American markets, as private regulation leads to an overload of certifications each with its own specific meaning.
What we are calling for is a federally instituted process through which companies can get their products certified as “Pesticide free”. While such a process already exists for “organic” products it is a label proving increasingly ineffective. Few people even know what the certified organic label actually means, leading to perceptions of pretension and wide spread “greenwashing”. It is our belief that the organic label is inadequate at resolving the multiplicity of standards that create consumer confusion and undermine certification integrity while preserving the ability for labeling methods to target a wide range of environmental and ...