On May 17th 2014 a young
man in Ohio died from
consuming a dangerous chemical.
This chemical’s far more
potent than the pesticide
Roundup, which is
perhaps the most widely
used synthetic pesticide today.
That lethal chemical
was caffeine.
Yes caffeine is
a lethal substance.
Researchers often measure the
danger of a chemical by
exposing laboratory animals
to different amounts of the
chemical and calculating the
dose the kills half of the
animal, this is referred to
as LD50 for lethal dose
for 50% of lab animals.
The LD50 for caffeine is 192
milligrams much less than
that for the pesticide Roundup
which is 4,320 milligrams.
Caffeine is over 22 times
more lethal than one of
the world’s most popular
synthetic pesticides.
But of course this young man’s
death was an aberration.
Thus a majority of American’s
drink caffeine everyday
and suffer no problems.
Differences that we consume
caffeine in our coffee and
soda, which contains
very low levels of caffeine.
This unfortunate young man
acquired powered caffeine and as
a FDA spokeswoman remarked
quote “the difference between a
safe amount and a lethal
dose of caffeine in
these powered products
is very small”, unquote.
This is how we should think
about synthetic pesticides
and agriculture production.
It matters little whether we use
pesticides or which pesticides
we use but was does
matter is the manner in
which pesticides are applied.
In the next reading you will
learn about the many
benefits pesticides provide.
The many health harms it could
inflict if used irresponsibly
and the regulations
helping to insure they
are not used irresponsibly.
If you are like me you will come
away believing that if our
research on the effects of
pesticides is solid and if
we do a good job of
enforcing regulations on
pesticide use there’s little
to fear from pesticides.
But if you believe a hole in the
science exists or you believe
regulation enforcement is
lacking then the use of
synthetic pesticides in
agriculture can be
a frightening thought.
Of course if regulations are
not enforced use of natural
pesticides on organic farms
could also be dangerous and yes
organic farms do use pesticides.
Think about it like
this, where’s a safer place
for a six year old child
to play, the swimming
pool or the playground?
Certainly the swimming pool
could be a dangerous place for a
six year old to play without an
attentive lifeguard but public
pools know this and so they do
hire good multiple lifeguards.
Contrast this to the playground
which seems so safe
that parents often spend
their time texting rather
than watch their children.
I have never seen a child in
danger at a public swimming pool
but I have seen a child run
into a dangerous road
because his parent was not
watching him at the playground.
If we’re good stewards of
children both the pool and the
playground should be very
safe places, so safe 
there’s little need to
rank one as more
safe than the other.
Yet if you know the children
will not be watched well you
want them playing at the
playground instead of the pool.
And so it is with pesticides, if
you conclude, like me, that
EPA does regulate
pesticides well then you think
of regular and organic food
as both being very safe.
But if you believe EPA does
not do a good job then you
might be willing to pay
more for organic food.
I do encourage you to disagree
with me if that is how you feel.
And I encourage you to engage in
respectful debates about the
use of pesticides, after
all pesticides are safe
today because people
were willing to argue
about it in the past.
With synthetic pesticides,
meaning pesticides made in
big factories used in
advanced chemistry, were
first invented they were
used as if they posed
no health hazard.
In 1945 they were literally
spraying people directly with
the pesticide DDT at
Jones Beach in New York.
Some scientists were trying to
call attention to the potential
dangers but were ignored.
Then came the 1962 book Silent
Spring by Rachel Carson, a
scientist and writer who set
about demonstrating the
potential harms of pesticides.
Thus began a bitter debate about
pesticides, really bitter.
Carson was attacked personally
by the pesticide companies, she
was even referred to as a
communist which back
then was a bad as being
called a racist today.
However petty and unfair these
attacks were they were symbolic
of just how useful pesticides
were in protecting crops and
keeping food prices low.
Let me give you an idea of just
how personally the attacks on
Carson was and how important
pesticides seem to some people.
Consider this letter
to the editor of the
New Yorker in 1962.
Quote “ Miss Rachel Carson’s
reference to the selfishness of
the insecticide manufacturers
probably reflects her communist
sympathies, like a lot of
writers these days.
We can live without birds and
animals, but, as the current
market slump shows, we
cannot live without business.
As for insects, isn’t it just
like a woman to be
scared to death of
a few little bugs!
As long as we have the
H-bomb everything will
be O.K”, unquote.
So we see here how ignoble the
debate became but at the
same time the letter does
represent just how important
pesticides were seen to the
economy and the food supply.
Well today we have learned how
to host the debate in a more
rational and respectful manner.
Our regulators acknowledge the
important role of pesticides in
agriculture especially its role
in providing affordable fruits
and vegetables and they take
these benefits into account
when forming regulation.
Of course our regulators not
only acknowledge the dangers
that pesticides pose but
conduct experiments on animals
to determine exactly
how dangerous they are.
We have such effective
regulations today because people
on both sides of the issue were
able to engage even argue and so
we must continue to do so today.
Controversy is not always a bad
thing and when it comes to
pesticides I’m glad there’s
controversy about issues because
it forces us to engage and
constantly reevaluate its
proper role in agriculture.
Fortunately today these debates
are frequently facilitated by
science, as those favoring
and opposing their use
seem to bolster their case
through scientific evidence
not personal petty attacks.
Even those whose arguments
are not scientific in nature
strive to make them at
least sound scientific.
We live in a scientific age and
appropriately pesticide
controversies are frequently
239
00:07:23,610 --> 00:00:00,000
held in scientific writings.
