IRINA BURDEYNIK
Pesticide chemicals, particularly insecticides, are favorable to farmers because they effectively keep crops safe from pests, thereby increasing crop yields and enabling farmers to sell larger quantities at a discount. In the United States, the problems caused by various insects translate to over $1 billion in annual losses for the agriculture industry.1 However, pesticides are not cheap. In 2005, the cost of pesticides for common crops averaged about $27.50 per acre.2 On a fairly large farm of about 2,000 acres, the cost of pesticides would total $55,000. Aside from this financial cost, there are also far greater social costs that producers do not account for as they become increasingly reliant on pesticides. Since 1971, environmentalists and the EPA, inspired by Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, took action to ban the dangerous hydrocarbon, DDT, after Carson highlighted its destructive forces on the wilderness and its undeniable link to human cancer.3 The horrors brought about by the popular insecticide opened many eyes to the consequences of pesticides and started a new era of pesticide control that continues to flourish today. Health risks and ecological poisoning have become a major concern for both the manufacturers and applicators of insecticides. In 2010, 56,285 pesticide applicators in fields throughout Iowa and North Carolina were analyzed for their effects on local cancer rates.4 The studies showed that workers who were exposed to chemicals, such as “maneb, mancozeb, methyl-parathion, and carbaryl,” had a higher risk of developing melanoma skin cancer.5 The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service sampled produce sold in different regions of the United States, and found that, out of 745 samples of grape juice, 392 were found to have residues of this very same carcinogenic substance, carbaryl.6 A study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that, between 2001 and 2006, New York City experienced 58 cases of injuries related to “bug bomb” pesticides that are used for
domestic pest control.7 The New York Times reported that these injuries have included “respiratory problems and gastrointestinal reactions,” and had often resulted from “serious explosions” that hospitalized several people.8 In addition to health risks, unabsorbed pesticides can contaminate streams, groundwater, and drinking water. Many pesticides harm the bees and birds that help (not harm) crops and are crucial in balancing our ecosystems. In 2009, the EPA banned the insecticide carbofuran, because it not only killed millions of birds, but was also found in our food and water.9 As Rachel Carson predicted, pesticides have become an extremely dangerous threat to natural processes and the future of our environment. The notion of corporate social responsibility, the popularity of the green movement, and increased pressure from government regulators have pushed large-scale crop producers to innovate and seek new methods for reducing and containing pesticide application. One popular method, encouraged by the United States Department of Agriculture, is the use of “guided measure technology.” This technology includes Global Positioning Systems, Real Time Kinetics, and lasers to reduce the amount of pesticides sprayed on farmland.10 USDA studies claim that these technologies can save farmers approximately $400 million annually and can lower pesticide use by 25 million pounds nationwide.11 There have also been proposals to use petroleum products on a larger scale because evidence points to petroleum’s positive effect on plant life, as well as its stellar performance in killing mosquitoes and their larvae.12 Furthermore, in India, household remedies of lime, eggs, and brown sugar have been glorified as the new all-natural, cost-saving alternative to pesticides.13 However, none of these solutions have shown optimal success in winning the battle over pesticides thus far. These alternatives may work to reduce or eliminate pesticide use in the short-term, but they fail to eliminate
the pesticide problem in the long-run. For instance, the initial investment into the GPS and laser technologies ranges from $10, 000 to $60,000. This is not a small cost for farmers to internalize into their costs of production as they are already paying about $27.50 per acre for the chemicals they are spraying.14 Petroleum use is not practical because it is excessively flammable and messy to handle; the rising costs of oil and gas have to be considered as well. The “lime and egg solution,” with a shelf life of only six months, may be “ideal for small-scale farmers,” but it is simply a laughing matter for farmers on the corporate level.15 These solutions are not ideal for commercial-size farms because they cannot efficiently replace pesticides in everyday scenarios. There is, however, another approach to the pesticide problem—an approach where corporations could take advantage of their vast marketing power, their resources, and their own reputational interests. The ideal pesticide-alternative technology already exists in the small-scale consumer products that keep suburban homeowners’ backyards bug-free using sound waves. One model, manufactured and distributed by Black & Decker, is the EP110, a household pest repellent that is available for roughly $30. To ward away insects, it emits ultrasonic signals with high frequencies that humans are incapable of hearing. If large-scale, agriculture-specific versions of this technology were created, the ultrasonic sirens could effectively eradicate bugs on vast farmlands. This would simultaneously reduce both the farmers’ costs of purchasing pesticides and the social costs of disease and ailments to which consumers and farm workers are susceptible. The Black & Decker Manufacturing Company has the drive, opportunity, and the engineering resources necessary to implement this solution at its European R&D Center in Spennymoor, England.16 The center’s industrial design manager, Mark Stratford, explains that “’if you have a unique product you can command
53